Sitting of 11 December 1969

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

    Sex Education
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research was conducted into the effects of sex education on children under 10 years of age before his Department gave advice regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation's television programmes.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the advice his Department gave to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding its sex education programmes for children.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon)): There were no such consultations.
    Mr. Hamilton: While I do not disagree with the principle of engaging in this sort of education, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the B.B.C. did not see fit either to consult with or to take the advice of the Department before deciding to put on these programmes?
    Miss Bacon: It is not usual for the B.B.C. to seek our advice in this sort of matter, although, as my hon. Friend may know, representatives of the Department sit on the Schools Broadcasting Council. I believe that the B.B.C. has been very good about this and has at all stages consulted parents in the pilot areas where the films have been shown.
    Mr. Price: Would the right hon. Lady disregard a lot of the ill-informed criticism that has been made both of these broadcasts and of some of the other excellent sex education that is being given to primary school children in our schools and try to work more closely with the B.B.C. in future to coordinate the work?
    Miss Bacon: Accompanied by other Ministers, my right hon. Friend and I saw these films a short time ago and we felt that they did a very good job indeed. I believe that this view was shared by hon. Members who also saw the films. There is a good working arrangement with the B.B.C., but, strictly speaking, neither were we consulted nor are we ever called on to approve films made by the B.B.C.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Lady realise that some people, including myself, do not approve of the idea of the B.B.C. showing films of this type? Should not the Government take an attitude on this issue and express their feelings, as I did, about whether this is the correct kind of film to be shown on television to children aged under 10?
    Miss Bacon: The B.B.C. has undertaken to seek parents' consent in every case before the films are shown, and this occurred in the pilot areas. Thus, no child is forced to see these films, which are available for children whose parents wish them to see them.
    Mr. J. Idwal Jones: Is my right hon Friend aware that there is great opposition from many parents to the idea of putting on television something which the individual teacher would be reluctant to teach?
    Miss Bacon: I appreciate that there are differences of opinion, but I believe it is right that where schools wish to show these films to children as part of their general education, they should first ask parents to see the films and then obtain their consent.

    Adult Residential Colleges (Student Grants)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities are using consistent

    611
    criteria for the award of grants to mature students at the adult residential colleges.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I hope that all local education authorities will be prepared, in accordance with the advice given in a circular dated April, 1966, to make awards, at uniform rates, to suitable students undertaking courses of a year or more at adult residential colleges. My right hon. Friend, however, has no power to override the exercise of their discretion.
    Mr. Boyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present situation is chaotic, with one local authority giving awards only to those over 30 while a neighbouring authority is giving awards only to those under 25? Is he further aware that some local authorities are demanding G.C.Es., a policy which is entirely opposite to that declared when the residential colleges were established?
    Would my hon. Friend consider sending out a revised circular, and, if that does not work, consider increasing the number of mature State scholarships for adult students to ensure that places are not left empty in the residential colleges which the Government have established?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree that there are variations in policy, and this situation is to be deplored. This matter has been drawn to the attention of local authorities. I will certainly consider whether it would be helpful to issue a revised circular.

    Workers' Educational Association
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now increase the grant to the districts of the Workers' Educational Association, in view of the increasing burden of the association's costs caused by the growth of its programme of classes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Grants to W.E.A. districts increased from £111,000 in 1959–60 to £252,000 in 1967–68. Figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70, when available, are likely to show further increases.
    Mr. Boyden: Most of this increase is for teaching costs, but my point is that of the funds available the proportions
    612
    for administrative and organising costs have decreased severely with the increased teaching burden? Would my hon. Friend look at that aspect?
    Miss Lestor: We will certainly look at that aspect, but my right hon. Friend would want to await the outcome of the Russell Committee inquiry before deciding whether any major alteration is required in the scale of support made to responsible bodies.
    Mr. Cant: As one who has been associated with the W.E.A. for 35 years, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would not agree that this organisation has made a profound contribution to democratic development? It has been the inspiration of extramural departments and the Open University. Is it not time that this perpetual fight for financial survival ceased?
    Miss Lestor: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. We are all particularly aware of the contribution that has been made to adult education by the W.E.A. I do not want to repeat what I have already said about the Russell Committee's inquiry, except to say that until its results are known any application for grant will be considered sympathetically by the Department.

    Intensive Poultry Units (Waste Products Disposal)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is currently being spent by the Agricultural Research Council on research into chemical additives which will minimise the stench arising from the disposal of waste products from intensive poultry units; and what success has so far been obtained with this research.
    Mr. Fowler: The council is at present considering the possible extension of the research it is supporting on various aspects of the disposal of farm wastes, and I have no doubt that the possibilities of mitigating odours by additives will not be overlooked.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister of State aware that the problem referred in the Question is of acute, even if localised, consideration in rural communities, particularly in Shropshire? Why is he unable to indicate the amount of money

    613
    currently being spent? Are we to understand from that lack of indication that no money is currently being spent on this important problem? As the budget now runs at upwards of £15 million, does not the Minister think that it would be a sensible reallocation of priorities if the Agricultural Research Council did spend some money on these projects?
    Mr. Fowler: The council is supporting research into various aspects of waste disposal at many of its own institutes. I am sure that it is well aware of the importance, not least in Shropshire, of research into the precise problem which the hon. Gentleman describes, but the principal objective must be to dispose of waste in a manner that renders it innocuous rather than concentrating on simply making it inoffensive.
    Mr. Rankin: Should not the responsibility of keeping their own factory farms clean and wholesome lie with the farmers themselves?
    Mr. Fowler: Responsibility does rest, of course, on the individual farmer; nevertheless it is the duty of the Government and the research councils, as well as of other bodies, to give what help can be given in terms of finding more effective ways of dealing with the problem.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have now submitted schemes for the reorganisation of comprehensive education; and how many have declined to do so.
    Miss Bacon: A total of 152 local education authorities have submitted schemes, of which 129 have so far been approved. The plans of 11 authorities have been referred back; three of these have declined to submit revised proposals. A further five have declined to submit any scheme.
    Mr. Molloy: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate her Department on the contribution which it has made to eliminating the barbarities of the 11-plus examination. Can my right hon. Friend say what plans are in hand to try to overcome the myopia of those backward authorities which cannot see the light of day and sense?
    Miss Bacon: As has already been announced in the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend is to introduce this Session a Bill to ensure that all local authorities submit plans for comprehensive reorganisation to get rid of the 11-plus examination.
    Mrs. Thatcher: If that Bill comes forward, can the right hon. Lady say how much her right hon. Friend is prepared to make available in money terms to enable the necessary changes in buildings to be made?
    Miss Bacon: The present school building programme is exactly twice what it was in 1963–64. In addition to that, £105 million have been allocated over the next two or three years for the raising of the school-leaving age. Those local authorities which already have a scheme of reorganisation approved are spending most of this money to help secondary reorganisation.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many existing comprehensive schools, and in how many that are approved or planned for the future, pupils are situated in buildings over a quarter of a mile apart; and in how many of these comprehensive schools at present or in the midst of being approved will there be two, three or four locations, respectively, more than a quarter of a mile apart.
    Miss Bacon: This information is not available.
    Mr. Emery: Does the Minister agree that there are many comprehensive schools situated in buildings not only a quarter of a mile apart but sometimes two or three miles apart? Is it not important that she should have this information, because when school buildings are so far apart it is quite impossible for the teaching staff to get round them? Sometimes they use taxis. This matter must be corrected.
    Miss Bacon: When I consider schemes of secondary reorganisation I also consider very carefully schools where the buildings are separated. I am certain that none has been approved where the distance between the buildings would make it difficult to run the school. The hon. Member's original Question not only refers to those which have been set up

    615
    and approved but includes comprehensive schools set up some years ago under the previous Administration. It would be very difficult, without circularising all the local authorities, to get this precise information.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our most famous public schools exist in buildings which are very widely scattered over an area? I used to teach in a school which functioned happily in buildings which were a mile apart. Is it not a fact that those who object are not objecting because of the separation of buildings but are objecting to the principle?
    Miss Bacon: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many, and in what proportion, of the total of comprehensive schools there are facilities for holding morning assembly for the whole school in one hall, in two halls, and in three or more halls, respectively; and in how many assembly has to be duplicated in the same hall because of inadequate accommodation.
    Miss Bacon: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is rather unlucky. This information is not available.
    Mr. Emery: Does this not underline the inability of the Ministry to come to any judgment, because where the school is unable to be gathered in one place—and I can give the right hon. Lady information if she does not know it—it is impossible to have a comprehensive school and an assembly without duplicating in more than one building? This is where there are one, two or three halls.
    Miss Bacon: In the Standards of School Premises Regulations, 1959, a separate assembly hall is not a requirement. The hon. Member is quite wrong in thinking that it is a requirement laid down in the regulations which were approved in 1959, but it is open to the local education authority to make such arrangements for the morning assembly as it wishes.
    Mr. Marks: If my right hon. Friend continues her investigations into accommodation, will she inquire how many
    616
    private schools in the country are not purpose-built and how many of them fail to come up to required standards?
    Miss Bacon: I agree that of course it is not necessary always to have a new purpose-built building to have a very good school. If the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) loked at some of the schools approved at the time when his party was in power, he would find that this was so. I agree with my hon. Friends when they suggest that this is not so much an attack on schools whose buildings are separated as an attack on the whole comprehensive system.

    School Meals
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the actual and percentage increase in the cost of the school meal, excluding capital expenditure, over the last five years; and how this compares with the actual and percentage increase in the index of retail prices over the same period.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): Over the last five complete financial years the actual increase in the cost of the school meal has been 6·4d., or 25·7 per cent. These figures are not strictly comparable with the index of retail prices—which does not include wages—over the same period, and other factors, such as the improved nutritional value of the meal, have to be taken into account. When weight is given to the wages movement affecting school meals employees over the period, and also to Retail Price Index movements appropriate both to the Index and to school dinners, the increase is of the order of 27 per cent.
    Mr. Hill: Will not the Secretary of State agree that he was somewhat in error when he told the House on 17th November that the cost of school meals had increased much less than had retail prices generally?
    Mr. Short: I do not think that I was in error at all. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in the summer term of 1966 we considerably increased the nutritional standards of school meals and abandoned the 1955 standards. If that fact, as well as wage increases, is taken

    617
    into account, what I said is strictly correct.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made by the working party set up in 1967 to review the arrangements for free school meals to ensure that children could receive them without embarrassment either to themselves or to their parents.
    Miss Bacon: Local education authorities carried out a review of their procedures. The results of this review were considered by a working party which included representatives of local education authorities and of the Department. It was evident that great pains were being taken to protect children and their parents from embarrassment, and the working party considered that it was not necessary to add to the guidance already given in the Department's Circular 12/67. My right hon. Friend is, however, reviewing this matter again.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the recent increases, which are since the recommendations of that working party, and as it is clear that there may well be further increases in the price of school meals under the present Government, would it not be appropriate to try to find a method by which the charge is made, not obviously against the child, but quietly against the parent?
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that all local authorities are doing this. Since this review the number of children taking free school meals has risen from 404,000 in the autumn of 1967, to 594,000 in the autumn of 1969.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I had an Adjournment debate on this important subject about 21 months ago. Has she seen the rather disturbing reports from Manchester about the segregation of children receiving free school meals? Will the Department look into this matter urgently?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, I have seen these reports. I have taken steps to inquire into the matter. I am told that this was done, without the headmaster's knowledge, by a school meals supervisory assistant, and as soon as it was known what was hap-
    618
    pening the system was changed. The local authority's attention has been drawn to this. I have been on the telephone only this morning to ascertain the details.
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the progress made in devising arrangements to ensure that children from low-income families have free school meals and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children, under the new regulations, now qualify for free school dinners but do not claim them.
    Miss Bacon: This term, on a census date, 594,000 children in England and Wales were taking free school meals, compared with 404,000 in the autumn of 1967 and 330,000 in the autumn of 1966. No records are available of children whose parents do not claim free meals.
    Mr. Marks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those figures, but will she consider sending another circular to parents, as the previous Secretary of State did in 1967, and will she direct it particularly to the parents of infant children? Also, will she consider raising the income level at which entitlement to free school meals begins?
    Miss Bacon: I shall consider issuing another circular. The income level was raised on 3rd November this year and the new level is now in operation. A man with four children who has a net income of £16 2s.—there are certain disregards which may amount to £2 or £3 a week—receives free school meals for all four children now.
    Mr. Allaun: Following the recent increases, I support my hon. Friend's plea that the Minister should send a letter to all parents through the schools telling them of the availability of free meals and how to obtain them without embarrassment.
    Miss Bacon: I shall consider that.

    Secondary Education (Re-organisation)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science

    619
    if he will issue advice to local education authorities to ensure that proper consultation with parents is carried out by them when secondary reorganisation is proposed.
    Mr. Edward Short: Circular 10/65 asked local education authorities to keep parents fully and authoritatively informed from an early stage, and I attach great importance to their doing so.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas, particularly those areas in which the local authorities are not prepared to carry out comprehensive reorganisation, these consultations with parents are not taking place? Does he not think that he ought to get in touch with those authorities again, and request them—indeed, instruct them—to carry out parent meetings so that those parents who are overwhelmingly in favour of comprehensive education can express their point of view?
    Mr. Short: The Question is about consultation where the local authority is carrying out reorganisation. I do not hesitate to take it up with a local authority if I find that the consultation is not adequate. But in the Bill to which my right hon. Friend has just referred there will be a Clause dealing with this point.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is not the most important point that there should be consultation with parents before a scheme takes place? I am told that in many cases this consultation is not taking place. Many people who are opposed to comprehensive education are not getting the opportunity to putting forward their views to the local authority.
    Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any authority where adequate consultation is not taking place before plans are finalised, I hope that he will let me know.

    Comprehensive Schools (Wolverhampton)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take following the representations made by parents in the Wolverhampton Local Education Authority's area about the changes being made in the Smestow and Regis comprehensive schools.
    Mr. Edward Short: If my hon. Friend will supply me with details, I will look into the matter.
    Mrs. Short: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many meetings of parents have been held in the area of these two comprehensive schools to protest at the decomprehensivisation, if I may use such a word, of those schools? Does he not think it high time that comprehensive schools which are now established and extremely successful should be protected by his Department?
    Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. But, as my hon. Friend knows, this matter is within the discretion of the local authority. However, if she will send particulars, I will certainly look into the matter again.

    Taching Profession (Career Structure)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will commission an inquiry into the career structure of the teaching profession.
    Mr. Edward Short: As I told the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 2nd December, I am prepared to consider an examination of the structure of teachers' salary scales.
    Mr. Onslow: Does not the Secretary of State agree that unless such action is taken and unless the root causes of the present regrettable situation are removed, teaching may cease to be a profession worthy of the name?
    Mr. Short: I certainly hope that agreement can be reached between the local authorities and the teachers' organisations on a radical review of the structure of teachers' salaries.
    Mr. Newens: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that more emphasis should be placed in future on making the basic scale sufficiently attractive to good teachers who want to do a good job in the class-room, rather than on making the rewards at the top more attractive in the hope of keeping more teachers in the profession to scramble after these places?
    Mr. Short: These differences of opinion illustrate the need for a review of the whole structure. I am quite sure that

    621
    the structure of salary scales has become distorted because there have been too many across-the-board increases.
    Mrs. Thatcher: What kind of review has the right hon. Gentleman in mind—an internal departmental review, or a more public review?
    Mr. Short: I have nothing in mind at all about this yet. All I am trying to do is to interest both parties—and I do not employ the teachers; the local authorities employ them—to interest local authorities and teachers' organisations in some sort of radical review of the salary scales.

    Departmental Stationery
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he takes to secure the maximum economy in his Department's use of official stationery.
    Mr. Edward Short: My procedures for controlling the issue and use of official stationery ensure that the Department is able to function efficiently but as economically as possible. My officials are alive to the need for sensible economies. All demands are subject to stock control and to a counter-signature procedure, and it is standard practice for all demands to be scrutinised before stock is issued to ensure that no avoidable waste occurs. All forms used in the Department are devised or approved by the Organisation and Methods Unit.
    Mr. Onslow: That is all very encouraging, but will the Secretary of State make sure that pieces of paper 8¼ ins. by 6 ins. are not sent out in envelopes 12¾ ins. by 9 ins.?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Member asked precisely the same question in May and he was told that the piece of paper was sent in that sized envelope because another document was sent with it and that was a bigger document. I should point out that it has cost about £25 to answer this Question

    Scientific Research
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take following the Science Policy study, which he
    622
    authorised, in attempting to quantify the benefits of scientific research.
    Mr. Fowler: Further studies are being commissioned at the University of Manchester to test the method of attempting to quantify benefits which was suggested in the published study.
    Mr. Osborn: While I recognise that it is a very valuable document which was published in April, would it not be wise to do more work in this field? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to observe recommendations made by some of the studies which have already been carried out?
    Mr. Fowler: A great deal of work is going on in this field, not only in my Department or through the Council for Scientific Policy, but also in the Ministry of Technology. It is very important, and I am keen that we should find reliable methods of quantifying the benefits of scientific research. I do not think it would be easy or necessary to check these policies in the very near future.

    University Teachers (Salary Negotiations)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in devising better machinery for the negotiation of university teachers' salaries.
    Mr. Fowler: A number of suggestions have been examined, and I am today having another meeting with the parties most concerned.
    Mr. Lane: Now that the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy is about to be published, as it has been delaying this matter hitherto and in view of the great dependence on university teachers for the development of higher education is the 'seventies, can the hon. Gentleman undertake that higher priority will be given by the Department to seeking a solution to this problem than has been given in the last few months?
    Mr. Fowler: I think the hon. Member is misinformed. The Department has always given priority to this. I certainly give it very high prority. On the other hand, I also recognise that it is a very difficult problem. It will be difficult

    623
    to find a solution which will be acceptable to all parties, but we shall certainly try.

    Married Women Students
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will amend the University and Other Awards Regulations in respect of married women students under 21 years of age to take account of the lowering of the age of majority to 18 years from January, 1970.
    Mr. Fowler: Under these regulations, women who are over 21 and married before the beginning of their course are deemed to be independent of their parents. The corresponding age for men and single women is 25. It would be inequitable to make changes in favour of married women students without revising the entire system of parental contributions.
    Mr. Wright: Does the Minister not appreciate the anomaly of this position? A married woman student under 21 with a parent who has considerable wealth is deemed to be dependent on that parent and may get no grant from the State, but, because she is married, she may get no grant from the parent. There is an anomaly here; will the hon. Gentleman not look at it again?
    Mr. Fowler: Not now. The present system of student grants is largely based on the Report of the Anderson Committee, which was issued in 1960. If it were possible to abolish parental contributions there would be stronger claims than that of a married woman under 21, such as a married man student over 21 with children.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend look at the question of married men students under 21 in colleges of education who receive a single man's grant which is subject to parental contribution?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, but my hon. Friend is attacking the whole principle of parental contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid he is. There is no easy way out of this. The cost of abolishing parental contributions in the present academic year would be between £35million and £40 million.

    Graduate Teachers (Maintained Secondary Schools)
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of graduate teachers in mathematics, physics and chemistry entered maintained secondary schools in each of the last five years.
    Miss Bacon: The numbers of graduate teachers in mathematics and science who entered maintained secondary schools in England and Wales in the years 1963–64 to 1967–68 respectively were:

    1,626

    1,648

    1,907

    1,947

    2,109

    Of the 2,109, 566 were graduates in mathematics and 1,543 in science.
    Mr. Wright: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on having some statistics available in reply to this Question. Does she not share the concern of the House at this very small increase over this quinquennial period? What is she doing to increase the supply of these teachers at a time when the schools are beginning to bulge and the pressure on sixth forms is increasing?
    Miss Bacon: We cannot win with hon. Members opposite. If we have not got figures, they grumble. If we have figures and they look rather good, hon. Members opposite say that they are not good enough. The figures I have given show that the annual intake increased by over 8 per cent. in the last year I quoted. With growing numbers in the schools we need even more of these teachers, and we are trying, by advertisement and other means, to improve recruitment. I do not accept that the increase has not been a good one.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend give us the figures for honours graduates in those subjects?
    Miss Bacon: I could not do that without notice.
    Mrs. Thatcher: To enable us to judge how good the figures are, can the right hon. Lady also tell us the number of pupils and the number of science graduates leaving in the same year, because what is important is the teacher-pupil ratio?
    Miss Bacon: That is another question. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question seeking that information, I shall be happy to answer it.

    Primary School Classes
    Mr. Rossiasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for getting rid of every primary school class of over 40 by 1971.
    Mr. Edward Short: The improved supply of teachers and large school building programmes give us the opportunity virtually to solve this problem by the end of the present school year. In a recent circular—16/69—I asked local education authorities to make a special effort during this school year to eliminate oversize primary classes, by adopting the most appropriate measures in each case.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the expected growth in the rate support grant sufficient to justify the right hon. Gentleman's optimism? Is it not a question of adequate buildings? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient in the improvement part of the building programme to bring all the existing primary schools up to the required standard to enable the classes to be reduced to this size?
    Mr. Short: As was pointed out earlier, we have doubled the building programme during the five years this Government have been in office. In the negotiations for the present two-year period for the rate support grant we did not reduce by one teacher the number of teachers the local authorities said they wished to employ. As a result, virtually every teacher who came out of college this year has obtained employment.
    Mr. Tinn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's original answer, but does he agree that it is time he reconsidered the figure of 40, which is too high a maximum?
    Mr. Short: Perhaps it has escaped my hon. Friend's notice that I have abolished the regulation which laid down 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools.
    Mr. Chrisopher Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of primary school classes over 30, and the percentage
    626
    of primary school pupils in classes over 30, respectively, at the latest available date.
    Miss Bacon: In January, 1969, 99,943, and 76·6 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Ward: Does the right hon. Lady regard those figures as satisfactory? What plans has she to reduce the size of classes further, and by when?
    Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman's Question refers to classes of 30. My right hon. Friend has been doing everything possible to get rid of classes of over 40. At the time when the hon. Gentleman asked for the information, 9·5 per cent. of primary classes were of over 40, as compared with 10·8 per cent. a year before, which is a more rapid fall than in any other recent year.
    Dame Irene Ward: As additional teachers are required, and these would probably follow a betterment of the salary structure for teachers, would it not be a good idea if the Secretary of State resigned, so that he could then demonstrate that he was as in favour of helping teachers as I am, thus showing that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the nigger in the woodpile? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman have his own strike?
    Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend will not resign, and none of us would wish his to resign because he is doing such a good job.

    Primary and Secondary Schools (Teachers' Wastage)
    Mr. Rossiasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average length of service in primary and secondary schools of young men and women teachers after completing their initial training.
    Miss Bacon: This precise information is not available, but figures of wastage are printed in Volume 4 of Statistics of Education 1967. I am sending the hon. Member extracts from the relevant tables.
    Mr. Rossi: Do not the figures reveal a very alarming situation and indicate that there must urgently be a betterment in the salary structure after the first three to five years, particularly for male teachers?
    Miss Bacon: It must not be assumed that those who leave employment in schools are lost to the education service, because many of them transfer to special schools, to institutes of further education, and to administration. This must æ borne in mind when studying the figures.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of the long salary scale? Does this mirror the advantages of teaching for those who have this length of service? It is not found in a number of other countries.
    Miss Bacon: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said this afternoon, he would like there to be an investigation into this whole matter. I cannot go further than that in answering this question.

    Careers Services (Colleges of Further Education)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance and information services about careers are available in colleges of further education.
    Mr. Fowler: Although arrangements vary, students at further education establishments normally look to college teaching staff for careers guidance and advice. The Youth Employment Service, in cooperation with the teaching staff, is available to students up to the age of 18. For older students, the Occupational Guidance Service and the employment, information and placement facilities of the Department of Employment and Productivity are available.
    Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to one estimate, up to 20,000 students leave these colleges without advice on their careers? Should not the Department urgently give some instruction and guidance to these colleges to encourage the development of information services about careers?
    Mr. Fowler: This is a matter in which my Department, the D.E.P., and the L.E.A.s are taking a positive and continued interest. In July of this year my Department sent a circular letter to L.E.A.s and colleges drawing attention to the service offered by the occupational guidance units of the D.E.P.

    School Building
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of school building in 1963–64; and what is the estimated total for 1971–72.
    Mr. Edward Short: £89·5 million and £175·5 million, at current prices.
    Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend as a former headmaster help me with my mental arithmetic? Is not that almost double? Does not this news, coming on top of today's magnificent trading returns, provide convincing evidence that Labour government works? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of that most satisfactory Answer, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give his Department a half holiday?
    Mr. Short: Following a recent precedent in the education world, I should be entitled to take 14 days off.
    Mrs. Thatcher: What proportion of the increase has gone to providing roofs over heads for more pupils and what proportion for the replacement of old buildings?
    Mr. Short: I cannot answer that offhand. If the hon. Lady cares to table a Question I will give her the information. If the Conservative Government had had a bigger education building programme, we should certainly have been able to do more replacement. She will have noticed that I have recently asked the local authorities for bids for a £15 million replacement programme, which is three times as great as any previous programme.

    School Leavers (A Levels)
    Mr. Christopher Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the numbers of school-leavers with two or more General Certificate of Education A levels in 1970, 1975 and 1980; what is his estimate of the proportion of the age group obtaining these qualifications; and how these estimates compare with those made in the Robbins Report on Higher Education.
    Mr. Edward Short: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ward: Do not the figures show that many more young people will be qualifying for university education than was previously supposed? Does the Secretary of State plan to increase the n umber of places at universities and other institutions of higher education accordingly?
    Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is right in his reference to an increase. This is one of the results of reorganising our secondary schools. For example, for 1980 the Robbins estimate was 12·1 per cent. of the age group attaining two or more A levels, and it now looks as though the proportion will be 20·2 per cent. This is a direct result of reorganising our schools. The Labour Government in the middle of the 1970s will provide places for all of them.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend expect the G.C.E. A level to be in existence in 1975, in the light of recent reports?
    Mr. Short: The report to which my hon. Friend refers, which was published yesterday, is a report not to me but to the Schools Council. We shall all have to study it during the next few months.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Before the Secretary of State waxes too glibe in taking the credit, would it not be as well to recall that this is the result of the work of the teaching profession? When does he expect to receive replies to his circular to the universities designed to deal with the situation raised in my hon. Friend's Question?
    Mr. Short: The party opposite has had a lot of bad news, what with the trade figures and the announcements which I have made. Of course, it is the result of the work of the teachers in the reorganised secondary schools. On the second point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give the facts correctly. He knows that the circular was not a Government circular; it was drawn up and sent out by the vice-chancellors themselves, not by me.
    Following is the information:

    ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF SCHOOL LEAVERS OBTAINING TWO OR MORE GCE "A" LEVEL PASSES

    Thousands

    Percentage of age group

    Boys

    Girls

    Total

    Boys

    Girls

    Total

    Latest Estimates

    Percent.

    Percent.

    Percent.

    1970

    …

    50·4

    35·8

    86·2

    14·8

    11·0

    12·9

    1975

    …

    66·6

    50·1

    116·7

    18·6

    14·7

    16·7

    1980

    …

    91·7

    70·5

    162·2

    22·3

    18·0

    20·2

    Source: Statistics of Education, 1968, Volume 2 to be published.

    Rabbins Report Estimates

    1970

    …

    38·4

    21·0

    59·4

    11·6

    6·6

    9·2

    1975

    …

    48·0

    25·9

    73·9

    13·5

    7·6

    10·6

    1980

    …

    64·5

    34·5

    99·0

    13·5

    8·6

    12·1

    Source: Robbins Report, Appendix One, Part IV; Tables 5 and 6.

    Arts (Expenditure)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the amount being spent on the arts in 1963–64; and what is the figure for 1969–70.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Government spending on the arts has risen from £9½43 million in 1963–64 to £21½3 million in 1969–70. These figures include £3½79 million capital expenditure on the national museums and galleries, which is borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a question of precept and practice, and that, whereas the Opposition always talked about these things, the Labour Government have practised them.
    Miss Lee: We must take it for granted that a Labour Government will he concerned with the quality of life to an exceptional extent.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had

    631
    with the representatives of the National Economic Development Council on prospects for exports, industry by industry, in 1970 to 1972; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of the Council on 16th December. On the discussions on export prospects for various industries, I would refer to my reply last Tuesday to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory), for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy).—[Vol. 793, c. 104–5.]
    Mr. Marten: As the Department of Economic Affairs has now been abandoned, has the National Plan also been abandoned, or, if not, is it the Prime Minister who is responsible for it as chairman of the N.E.D.C., and also for the check lists in it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what the meeting is about, despite my answer last week. It is to look at the forward figures in "The Task Ahead" in respect of exports and imports, industry by industry, following the survey by the little "Neddies". As regards Ministerial responsibility, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember what I told the House on 13th October.
    Mr. Fraser: Do not today's magnificent trade figures, while not giving room for complacency, vindicate the Government's economic planning strategy? If the present favourable trend continues, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of increasing the rate of economic growth somewhat?
    The Prime Minister: We never base our views on a single month's trade figures, but we have now had a surplus in four successive months. Taking the last three months ending at November, we have had a visible trade balance of an average of plus £15 million per month, as against minus £7 million in the previous three months. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He is not listening."]—he is now—who so sourly greeted the second quarter's balance of payments figures and said that we must wait for the third quarter, will wish to express his unfeigned delight at
    632
    the fact that the figures published this week, which will be before the N.E.D.C.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "TOO long."]—not too long, too high for the right hon. Gentleman—showed a surplus of £214 million seasonally adjusted, in the third quarter as against £72 million in the second quarter—those are plus figures—compared with a minus figure of £147 million when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Trade, a turn-round of £361 million in a single quarter.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we thoroughly welcome any improvement in the export figures, we believe that these results are achieved by our businessmen and not by Cabinet Ministers? They are achieved not because of this Government but in spite of them?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard that argument before. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said for the last four years that it could not be achieved with this Government. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such strictures about the miserable performance of Britain's businessmen when he was the Chancellor and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was President of the Board of Trade.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must not get too happy.
    Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to catch your eye?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not observe that.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking the Leader of the Opposition with him to the N.E.D.C.—
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Morris:—even as a humble observer so that he will better understand the significance of these trade figures? Is my right hon. Friend aware that four months ago, when the first of these remarkable sets of figures was available, the Leader of the Opposition said, "I will wait until I see next month's figures" and that on the second occasion he said "I will wait until I see the third

    633
    month's figures"? Is it not time that he considered the current month's figures and the remarkable success they show?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider by hon. Friend's interesting suggestion when the right hon. Gentleman has had time to do his homework. My hon. Friend misrepresents the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman made that sour comment on the publication of die second quarter balance of payments figures, not I think as any reaction to individual monthly trade figures.
    I am aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was not Chancellor in that year. He was a member of the Cabinet but I think that we were then seeing the pay-off in that year—even though it was a new Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—in the very bad balance of payments figures.

    UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (VISIT)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to Questions by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) on Tuesday.—[Vol. 793, c. 239.]
    Mr. Molloy: In his replies the Prime Minister said that he would always be prepared to consider any invitation to the Soviet Union. In view of the remarkable increase in prestige and the almost solidarity of this nation, as has been shown in the last set of Questions, would my right hon. Friend now consider initiating a proposal for him to visit the Soviet Union to discuss such serious subjects as Vietnam, the Middle East, disarmament and the possibility of a European Security Council?
    The Prime Minister: On the question of trade figures, I have no doubt they will hake been studied by all the countries with which we have dealings, and, of course, the increase in trade with the Soviet Union has been particularly marked in these last five years. With regard to the other matters, I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever decision
    634
    is taken at any time about a personal meeting with Mr. Kosygin, we are in very close touch with him on these subjects.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another thing which has been particularly marked about our trade with the Soviet Union has been the remarkable increase in the adverse balance which we have with that country? If he goes to Moscow will he raise this matter?
    The Prime Minister: This has been a continuing problem, to my knowledge for over 20 years, and was a problem for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was President of the Board of Trade. We have had to deal with it, too, and the gap has been narrowing somewhat. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries do not accept our insistence on an absolutely bilateral balance, because they want to earn sterling in their trade with us because of their adverse balance with other sterling area countries.

    SPANISH HEAD OF STATE (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Prime Minister if he will seek a meeting with the Spanish Head of State.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: Would the Prime Minister try to find an opportunity of conveying to General Franco the deep repugnance felt by many people in these countries of Britain at the continuing denial by his régime of all legislative autonomy in the nations of Catalonia and the Basque? Will he express to General Franco our sense of horror at the appalling treatment meted out to Basque nationalists in Spanish gaols?
    The Prime Minister: The views of the House are very well known on some of these questions of the treatment of minorities within European Spain and in other parts of the Spanish empire. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the question of the right to vote, while it is true that those living in Spanish territories overseas do not have much of a right to vote, nor have the occupants of Spain in the sense that we understand it in England, Wales and Scotland.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a Green Paper the Treasury report on the economic and financial effects of Great Britain joining the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the White Paper foreshadowed in the Answer I gave on 18th November. I have nothing to add to what I then stated.—[Vol. 791, c. 1106–11.]
    Mr. Mitchell: I was not really referring to that one at all. Is it not essential that before this House is asked to vote once again on the question of entering the Common Market the fullest possible information which is available to Government should be made available to Members of the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not referring to that one, because there is not another one to refer to. I have said that the estimates we are making, and I mentioned some of the difficulties about this on 18th November, will be made available to the House either as a White Paper or as more than one White Paper. My hon. Friend says a Green Paper; but that would not be appropriate. White Papers are usual either when there is some statement of policy or when they set out to give the background and factual information. The policy has been debated a number of times, and what will be done here will not be a matter, as it were, for arguing as to what sort of policy it should be; it will be as clear a statement of the facts as we can make it about the economic implications of joining the Common Market.
    Mr. Turton: Whether it is published as a Green or a White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Paper is available to hon. Members as soon as possible after the House reassembles in January, and will he then intervene with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to secure an early debate in the House.
    The Prime Minister: The question of a debate is not for me but for discussions with the usual channels. I will certainly
    636
    do my best to get this information published as quickly as possible after it is in. I have said, I think to the right hon. Gentleman, certainly to the House a week or two ago, that we have to make assumptions which can only be assumptions, and it may well be that between now and then we shall have somewhat greater clarity taking place within the Common Market agricultural policy. It may not be very much information, but it might bear on the assumptions in the White Paper.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
Mr. LaneQ5. Mr. Lane asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the responsibilities for the environment placed on the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning are sufficiently matched by his powers; and if he will make a statement.
The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

RETIREMENT PENSIONS
Mr. William PriceQ6. Mr. William Price asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from retirement pensioners to the effect that their recent increase was less than expected because they were drawing social supplementary benefits.
The Prime Minister: No separate figures are available, Sir.
Mr. Price: While I support the principle of giving the poorest pensioners an interim increase in social security benefits, is my right hon. Friend aware that in practice it causes great bitterness and dispute when they find that they have less of the pension increase than they expected? Could we work slowly towards a system whereby pensions and social security benefits are increased together?
The Prime Minister: This problem has been with us for many years. I remember speaking about it from the benches opposite just before Christmas many years ago. I think that it has happened on six occasions, and I know the arguments and concern. People think that they

637
are being robbed. In fact, there was a 5s. increase last year and 5s. increase this year in supplementary benefit, which means that over the two years no one has lost anything, compared with the rise in the basic rate. While we could have said that we would give 10s. this year, it would have meant that they would have been robbed of the 5s. for a whole year, which I do not think anyone wants.
Mr. Forteseue: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consternation of retirement pensioners about the present situation will be as nothing compared with their consternation when they wake up to the fact that they are almost completely excluded from the new scheme of the Secretary of State of Social Services?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should give deep study to the White Paper and to what has been said by the Government, particularly the pledge, which has never been given by the party opposite in the past—certainly not when they were in power—about the treatment of existing pensioners. There was great fuss from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about having a debate on this so that my right hon. Friend could explain the position, but there were precious few of them there.
Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are other inequalities in connection with supplementary benefit? I had a letter this week from an old-age pensioner who, because he was on supplementary benefit, had a 10s. addition to his National Coal Board pension taken off his supplementary pension. This means that the National Coal Board is supplementing the Social Security Commission.
The Prime Minister: One can understand the feeling when that happens. The same is true in connection with the national basic pension. If my hon. Friend thinks about the alternative, he will realise the great inequity of it because supplementary benefit is supposed to be provided on a basis of people having enough to live on. If we had any other policy, there would be a great deal of unfair discrimination between supplementary benefits received.
Mr. Lawler: Is the Prime Minister aware that supplementary pensioners who
638
are already receiving top-scale supplementary benefits are particularly hard hit by, for instance, the current increases in the price of coal and Coalite, for which they have no money? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that he will help them from the newfound wealth of the country?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the successive increases which have been made in the basic rate and in supplementary benefit. He will know that on the basic rate they have gone at a very much more rapid rate than in the 13 years before 1964. He will know, if he keeps a close watch on these things, that there has been an increase when necessary and that the real value of the basic pension today is 20 per cent. more than what it was in 1964.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q5.
With regard to the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, I gave full information to the House on 13th October. The House will also recall that I asked my right hon. Friend to go urgently into the question of environmental pollution in all its forms and to make proposals to me on how the problem should be dealt with.
My right hon. Friend has now reported. He is setting up a permanent central unit, composed mainly of scientists on his own staff, to assist him in his coordinating rôle on environmental pollution. Through his staff he will maintain close relationships with the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and with the research councils and other institutions concerned with the problem.
Following my right hon. Friend's report to me, I have recommended, and Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve, that a standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution should be set up with the following terms of reference:
"To advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the

639
environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment."
It is intended that this shall be a standing Commission able to take up any problem relating to pollution so that the benefit of the best possible advice will be available to Government Departments responsible for executive action.
One aspect of this matter which has caused particular concern is the problem of noise. My right hon. Friend proposes to establish an Advisory Council to deal with this, on the lines of the Clean Air Council.
Concern has also been expressed in the House and outside about the use of pesticides. I should, therefore, inform the House that the agriculture Ministers are already engaged in consultations about the preparation of legislation to replace the existing voluntary system of control on the use of pesticides. Proposals will be brought before the House.
On the general question of environmental pollution, the Government intend to present to the House a White Paper next year. This will show how much has so far been achieved under the existing arrangements which our new proposals will greatly reinforce.
Mr. Lane: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the principle of better late than never, there will be great relief that the Government have at last been stirred to do something about environmental pollution? In view of the public concern especially about pollution in the Irish Sea, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State keep in mind that what the public want is not advice, consultation, or co-ordination, but action?
The Prime Minister: I will take from hon. Members on my own side, but not from hon. Members opposite, any suggestions that we have been dilatory in dealing with this matter. A great deal has been done and there have been reports to the House on the executive action taken by individual Departments in various fields of pollution.
What we are now to have is, first, a Minister charged with this responsibility and with the necessary scientific staff to carry it out, and, secondly, a standing Royal Commission to act as a watchdog
640
on this problem and to ensure that the executive Departments—and, inevitably, different Departments are concerned—are brought into play as rapidly as possible to deal with any question which arises.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problems in the Irish Sea. We have already had a number of reports on these questions. Some of them are very inconclusive about the cause, for example, of the recent deaths of a lot of baby seals.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country is regarded throughout the world as the leader in taking action on environmental questions? This is further proof of our leadership and of our concern about pollution. However, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his proposal will avoid the danger of the overlap of responsibilities, which has been one of our anxieties in the past?
The Prime Minister: It is meant to cut through the overlapping of responsibilities. This country has been a leader in these matters. Within the last two or three years we have set up the Natural Environment Research Council which, as my hon. Friend knows, because he studies its work, has a great deal to do with providing finance for investigating the scientific causes, for example, of the mysterious deaths of sea birds and seals and the problem of diseased fish and things of that kind, about which there is great anxiety. We want a central body, a standing Commission, which has power to ensure that action is taken quickly and to draw these matters to the attention of all executive Departments, including local authorities.
Mr. Chataway: Are not these different, perhaps better, arrangements for tendering advice and financing research? Is it still the case that responsibility for action is left divided between at least half a dozen Departments and that the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning has no powers himself to deal with environmental pollution?
The Prime Minister: My right. hon. Friend will be in general charge of all Departments, which have their own duties. It is true that a number of Departments must be involved. It would

641
not be right for my right hon. Friend, for example, to have his own staff to deal with pesticides, agricultural feed and fertilisers. That must be the job of the Ministry of Agriculture.
It will be my right hon. Friend's job, within the unit established and with the watchdog activities of the new standing Royal Commission, to ensure that any problem is rapidly dealt with and that there is machinery through my right hon. Friend to clear up obstruction or overlapping of functions.
Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed in many parts of the country? Will it be within the competence of the Royal Commission to examine the very serious problem which confronts the farming community in dealing with pollution due to sudden flooding which is experienced in the farming communities in the Trent Valley area, which is fed by tributaries to the Trent River and the highly developed area surrounding Birmingham, in view of the huge increase in impervious surfaces?
The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been considering whether additional powers are needed to control the disposal of waste in order to give additional defence at times of flooding and other times against the pollution of what I understand is known in the trade as aquifers. This will come directly under my right hon. Friend, who is in charge of the supervision of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Transport.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed not only on these benches, but throughout the country, where there has been great anxiety about the problem of pollution? Would he make clear what the relationship will be between the Royal Commission and the Natural Environment Research Council? In view of the rôle being given to the Commission to examine the adequacy of research, will it be able to override the decisions of the Natural Environment Research Council, and what is to be its relationship with the Council for Scientific Policy?
The Prime Minister: The Natural Environment Research Council, as the
642
hon. Member knows, is, of course, a grant-awarding body but also does research into particular forms of pollution, and, indeed, many non-pollution questions, affecting environment. It will be the Commission's responsibility to draw together and co-ordinate the general research effort, going far beyond the research councils in this matter and, as I say, particularly to alert any research council or other bodies particularly when a new problem arises. One of the problems now about pollution, as we have seen more and more, and even during the past year, is that a sudden problem, be it effluent or anything else, causes sudden and great concern, with a lot of death around our coasts or elsewhere. Quick action is needed and the Royal Commission will be the means of providing that, with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Driberg: Since this is largely an international problem, can my right hon. Friend say what machinery there will be for consultation with U.N.E.S.C.O. and other bodies concerned? Has he seen the somewhat disturbing report of the conference of American ecological scientists a fortnight ago, whose conclusions seemed to be that the prospects for the survival of the human race till the end of this century are rather slender?
The Prime Minister: Yes. We have, of course, had many exchanges with the United States on these questions. It is not only U.N.E.S.C.O. but a number of United Nations specialist agencies, particularly, of course, the World Health Organisation and the F.A.O., which are concerned with this. My hon. Friend, with his concern about international coordination, will, I know, be following with great care the work next week of the European conservation meeting which is to be held here in London and at which my right hon. Friend will be making a speech.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: With regard to noise, the right hon. Gentleman has announced the setting up of a council analogous with the Clean Air Council. Would he not agree that what is required is not so much research as action, since there are already a substantial number of recommendations in the Wilson Report not implemented? Can he and his right hon. Friend expedite action in this important field?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we did take action, within a few weeks of coming into office, on some of the most important recommendations of the Wilson Report, though, of course, right hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to do so when in power. It has made a difference, at rather high cost, to a large number of people. There are still, of course, these problems.
I think that the analogy with the Clean Air Council is right. It is not only a question of research, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Before the Clean Air Council, which helped to get action, was set up, many of the facts were already known from the research which had been done. I hope that it will be the same with the council on noise.
Mr. Dalyell: On the question of noise, is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee who heard the Vice-Chancellor of Loughborough arguing in favour of an advisory council on this important subject welcome his announcement? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the American Government have made a grant of 50 million dollars to firms such as Pratt and Whitney for research to reduce noise, and that it will be difficult for this country to sell aero engines if our competitors sell comparatively noiseless engines? Will he consider the proposal which has been put to the Ministry of Technology by Rolls-Royce?
The Prime Minister: There is a considerable amount of work going on by both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology about aircraft noise. On the general question—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it—he will be aware that what I have announced goes beyond an advisory council. In addition to the Royal Commission, which is a standing Commission, we have the executive, co-ordinating function of my right hon. Friend and his scientific research unit.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he has announced is a somewhat elaborate advisory system in connection with the Secretary of State's co-ordinating function, and that what he has not announced is a clear definition
644
of Ministerial responsibility and method of taking action, particularly in urgent matters of crisis? This was recommended after the "Torrey Canyon" affair; it was demanded after the death of the sea birds; it was required after the dead seals episode. It is still lacking.
Will the Prime Minister, therefore, give attention to the need for a small action group, of scientists and others, which could be set up at comparatively small expense in order to deal quickly with these affairs? The reason he has not been able to gain information, for instance, about marine life, is that action is not taken soon enough after evidence becomes available.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. What he is suggesting is exactly what I have announced, a small group, an effective group, of scientists reporting directly to my right hon. Friend, and which can go straight into action when it finds a case such as, for example, diseased fish off Deal—go straight into action, and, through the responsible research committee or responsible Government Department, get cracking on it. It would be very silly to separate responsibility in this from, for instance, those responsible for fish at the Ministry of Agriculture, and their fishery research centres. But I agree that we need somebody to spark them off in some of these cases. There is now one Minister unequivocally responsible in this field, both in emergency and in long-term problems. We did not have that, I think, under the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister, in his own statement, said that the staff of the Secretary of State is to assist him in the co-ordinating rôle. He did not say that they themselves are to take the action required. May we now be assured by the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State's own staff will, in fact, take action themselves—go to the scene, make the necessary inquiries—with great urgency?
The Prime Minister: I cannot think of anything more bureaucratic, more expensive, or more ineffective. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that my right hon. Friend should have a staff capable of going straight to Deal to look at diseased cod, or to deal with every

645
single problem there, he is suggesting what would be a very great waste of Government resources. We have got the scientists. We want to make sure that they are deployed quickly on new problems. This is the job of the Minister in charge. I am not suggesting that he should take over from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture responsibility in fishery matters—
The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I would make a very good job of it.
The Prime Minister:—nor, I am sure, is the right hon. Gentleman—if we could get rid of this unholy alliance of representatives of fishing ports!
The right hon. Gentleman refers to lack of co-ordination in the "Torrey Canyon" affair. Of course, there were different problems. One was dealing with the oil slick itself. Another was mobilising the local authorities to deal with it. There was, third, the question of the oyster fisheries in Cornwall. These are things which must be done by Departments. All this was co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary as the Chairman of the Emergencies Committee.
Under this new arrangement my right hon. Friend has the duty, both of dealing with the emergency and of getting the research started quickly, and he has also the responsibility for seeing that adequate co-ordination on long-term research into these problems is done.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business; of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Opposition Motion of censure on Capital Punishment.
646
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order, the Cumberland County Council Order, and on the West Riding County Council Order.
TUESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—Debate on a Motion relating to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965.
Motions on the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations and on the Sunday Entertainments Order relating to Burnham-on-Crouch.
WEDNESDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Motions on the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, (Commencement of Part II) Order and on the Restrictive Trade Practices (Information Agreements) Order.
THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—SeCOnd Reading of the Ports Bill.
Motions relating to Members Expenses, etc., and the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order.
FRIDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Monday, 19th January, 1970.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House say what proposal he has for the debate on public expenditure? As it is not to be taken next week, and will be taken presumably some time after the Recess, will it be possible to have a two-day debate?
Mr. Peart: I shall be making an announcement next week, and will consider this very sympathetically. There is force in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Dickens: Am I to understand that the debate on Thursday on the Motion on Members' expenses will last for only 1½ hours, or will it last longer than that?
Mr. Peart: Yes.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order. Would my right hon. Friend be a little more explicit?
Mr. Peart: May I say now, "No, Sir."
Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that before Christmas there should be a two-day debate on public expenditure, on which there was general agreement on an all-party basis? Is not he disregarding that recommendation because of the pressure

647
on the Home Secretary to clear up the question of his resignation before Christmas?
Mr. Peart: The House will appreciate that I gave a sympathetic answer to the Leader of the Opposition. I will make a statement next week.
Mr. Sheldon: May I press my right hon. Friend to look at this sympathetically? It is absurd that we should spend 15 to 20 days discussing how to raise £20,000 million and only one day on how we spend it.
Mr. Peart: I have expressed sympathy for this view, and I cannot go beyond that.
Sir Ian On-Ewing: Will the right hon Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the appalling travelling conditions on the Northern Line, caused by the strike of maintenance men? Almost a million people try to travel to and from cur constituencies on the line, and they have endured for 12 weeks insufferable conditions. Could the House debate this before we go away for Christmas?
Mr. Peart: No, Sir.
Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety arising from the pricing policies now being discussed by manufacturers on the changeover to decimal currency, which are bound to increase the cost of living? Is he further aware that manufacturers and distributors are completely ignoring the advice given to them by the Government? Will he therefore consider letting us have an early debate on this subject?
Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a debate, but I will have the matter looked into.
Mr. Rossi: The Leader of the House last week was kind enough to say that he would refer to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity a request to discuss the inter-union dispute which is causing the difficulty on the London Underground. Did he convey that request? Is he aware that conditions are getting very much worse? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement during the coming week?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I always convey the views
648
of hon. Members on both sides of the House. When I give an assurance I stand by it. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend, and will consult her.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The House understands that the matter of Ten-Minute Rule Bills is being referred to the Select Committee on Procedure, but what has my right hon. Friend to say about the position during the present Session? Will this matter be clarified either next week or the week after, as difficulties are arising due to the present procedure?
Mr. Peart: Hon. Members have Bills down for next week. I think that we must await the report of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Thorpe: Since next Tuesday is the date by which any person over the age of 16 years and nine months must register for a vote, and since there is general support for the efforts which the Home Secretary has been making to give widespread publicity to the necessity for registration, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary on whether he might make a further announcement between now and Tuesday and so take an opportunity to give further publicity to this important issue?
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that advertisements on this matter appear daily in the Press. My right hon. Friend, who is here with me today, will note what has been said.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to a suggestion which I made last week that, so as to find time for vital subjects such as the Middle East and public expenditure to be discussed by the House, we should sit for two more days before Christmas and resume three days earlier?
Mr. Peart: Hon. Members have not made that representation to me.
Mr. Berry: Is the Leader of the House aware of the grave danger of a major disruption in travelling arrangements in London on 1st January? Londoners have had a great deal of trouble during the past few months. While I appreciate that talks are being held, if it appears likely that a strike will occur, will he give an assurance that the Minister will make a statement?
Mr. Peart: I will take this up with the Minister concerned.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is now 18 months since the Ronan Point disaster, and there has been no settlement of this issue. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Minister will make a statement on this next week?
Mr. Peart: I will make representations to my right hon. Friend on the matter.
Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentle-many say why the Government think it necessary to try to rush Parliament into taking a decision on capital punishment with barely one week's notice?
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should await the debate.
Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House on the scope of the debate on Monday? Will hon. Members be able to make the speeches they might have wished to make on Tuesday? Is not it strange that we should discuss a Motion of censure on a matter which will be decided by a free vote of the House?
Mr. Peart: No, I do not think it is. After all, the Opposition have chosen this subject, as is their right and prerogative. How the debate is conducted is a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Sir F. Bennett: Is the Leader of the House aware that I twice telephoned to the Foreign Office this morning to draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the fact that he had given misleading and wholly inaccurate answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself on Monday and Wednesday about diplomatic missions in Rhodesia? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement?
Mr. Peart: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had telephoned twice to the Foreign Secretary. I will have a word with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend find out if we are likely to get a further document on the restructuring of the National Health Service next week?
Mr. Peart: I will, but I cannot promise it next week.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is considerable concern on both sides of the House about the treatment of the debate on public expenditure? The report, which was unanimous, recommended that there should be a two-day debate before Christmas because that is the proper time to have it. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is not good enough.
Mr. Peart: I have explained that the arrangement for the debate was altered because of pressure of business. As replied to the Leader of the Opposition, I will make an announcement next week during Business Question time. I have said that I will consider sympathetically a two-day debate.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give an intelligible reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), using more than monosyllables?
Mr. Peart: I do not know what my hon. Friend is trying to prove, but his sense of humour does not appeal to me.
Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity makes a statement next week before I raise the subject of the inter-union dispute at Acton in the Adjournment on Friday?
Mr. Peart: I will make representations, as I said earlier.
Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be much better to have a two-day debate on public expenditure after the Recess than a one-day debate before? Will he give an assurance that the two-day debate will come very soon after the Recess?
Mr. Peart: I accept the pressure that has been put on me for a two-day debate when we return after the Recess and I said that I would make a statement.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion standing in my name dealing with the problem of transferring the teaching of the mentally handicapped from the Ministry of Health and Social Security to the Ministry of Education and Science?
[That, in the opinion of this House, a decision on the future education of mentally-handicapped children and the status

651
and function of future staff now in training is urgent.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young teachers who are being trained to teach the mentally handicapped feel that, because they have not been given an answer by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman has let them down very badly? Indeed, I am still waiting for an answer from the Prime Minister to the representations that I have made. What is the position, and how will it be dealt with? The present state of affairs is not fair to young teachers, who should not be left without a response from the Government.
Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Lady that I am taking careful note of her views. There is agreement with her general point of view, but the answer to her question is, "Not next week".
Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that there will be a debate on the question of hon. Member's expenses for only 1½ hours next week?
Mr. Peart: I said that that was so.
Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the First Secretary has apparently declined to make a statement today about the presentation of her prices and incomes policy, which was published earlier, her hon. Friend the Minister of State is apparently holding a briefing conference later this afternoon for foreign Press correspondents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—at which questions will be asked? Is not this another example of the contempt with which the Government hold the House of Commons?
Mr. Peart: On the contrary. I am often accused of allowing too many statements to be made in the House. There is a White Paper and the subject will be debated next week.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While my right hon. Friend does not approve of shortening the Christmas Recess, may I ask him to recognise that the situation in the Middle East should be debated very soon after Christmas?
Mr. Peart: I have taken note of the views of hon. Members on this subject.
652
We had a foreign affairs debate very recently.
Mr. Maker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister said, when answering a question from me some minutes ago, that the adverse trade balance with the Soviet Union was narrowing rather than widening? I believe that the Prime Minister was misinformed. Would the right hon. Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend and ask him to look into the matter and, if he was wrong, to correct the record next week?
Mr. Peart: I do not think that that arises on business, but I will have the matter looked into.
Mr. Biffen: So that we may know the true strength of the number of paper tigers below the Gangway opposite, would the right hon. Gentleman make an early statement indicating whether or not the debate on Wednesday about activating Part II of the 1966 Act will be treated as a matter of confidence by the Government?
Mr. Peart: That is not a matter for me to answer now.
Captain W. Elliot: is there any constitutional or procedural reason why the issue of capital punishment should be settled next week?
Mr. Peart: I suggest that hon. Members should await the debate and hear the arguments that the Minister will deploy.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that the last occasion on which we debated any aspect of Welsh affairs in Parliament was on 14th May, in the Welsh Grand Committee, seven months ago, and that if there is not a debate before next year at least nine months, or three quarters of a year, will have passed without these affairs having been discussed? Why are the Government so anxious to hide their Welsh record? Cannot we debate this subject next week?
Mr. Peart: There is no attempt to dodge Welsh Affairs. There will be opportunities in Committee after the Recess.
Mr. Waddington: Would the right hon. Gentleman have another shot at answering a question that has been put twice in

653
previous weeks? Will there be a general debate on the proposals made by the Beeching Commission in regard to the assizes and quarter sessions system before legislation is introduced in the House?
Mr. Peart: I appreciate that views have been expressed on this subject, but I cannot promise what the hon. Gentleman asks.
Mr. Speed: Will a statement be made next week by either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) about helicopter flights in Biafra?
Mr. Peart: I accept that this is an important matter. I have noted the views of hon. Members on it and there is also a Motion on the subject. I will make representations about this.
Mr. David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who serve on the Select Committee on Services are responsible to the House as a whole? Since we made a unanimous report last summer about hon. Members' services, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a 1½hour debate next week on a Government Motion will be no substitute for a full debate by the House on one of its Committee's reports?
Mr. Peart: I have answered that question.
Mr. Snow: Whatever may be the attitude to the suggestion of having helicopter flights in Biafra, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we hope that there will be some quick action on this matter which, if it is not initiated by hon. Gentleman opposite—according to The Times this suggestion originally came from.American sources—we would still consider to be a matter of importance.
Mr. Peart: I said that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and that I will do.

MEMBERS' FACILITIES
4.5 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Mr. Speaker, with your per-
654
mission and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on facilities for Members.
On 24th July, I announced to the House the Government's acceptance on several of the recommendations made in the Sixth Report of the Services Committee. I also announced the Government's acceptance in principle of the Committee's recommendation that provision should be made at public expense for secretarial assistance to Members.
Since then, I have consulted many Members about the arrangements for secretarial assistance which they would find most convenient and efficient. The great majority of Members wish to continue to make their own personal arrangements. Many Members stressed the confidential nature of the work, and the obvious advantages of having secretarial assistance familiar with their personal and constituency arrangements.
In the light of these replies, the Government have concluded that Members should continue to be able to make their own arrangements for secretarial assistance. The Government have, however, given careful and detailed consideration to what assistance from public funds should be provided towards Members' costs for this aspect of their parliamentary expenses.
The House will recall that in my statement of 24th July, I drew attention to the relation between the improvement of facilities and the level of Members' salaries, and I announced then that the Government considered that the whole question of Members' remuneration should be referred to the N.B.P.I., or its successor, during the next Parliament. Any further contribution to parliamentary expenses proposed now, therefore, would be of an interim nature, until the whole question of remuneration of Members is reviewed.
Against this background, and recognising that the present basis of Members' remuneration already takes some account of secretarial expenses, the Government propose that Members should be able to claim an allowance for secretarial assistance of up to £500 per annum.
The allowance will be payable on a quarterly basis, beginning with the quarter ending on 31st December, 1969. It will be payable only in respect of secretarial expenses actually incurred during

655
the period for which a claim is made; and in making expenses claims to the Inland Revenue, Members will, of course, need to continue to substantiate expenditure of at least the amount claimed in the same way as they do for other expenses.
In the Government's view, this proposed new allowance marks a significant further step forward in the improvements of Members' facilities. I recognise that this sum will by no means meet the costs of those Members who employ a secretary full-time in their parliamentary duties. But it will be a considerable contribution to the secretarial expenses incurred by a substantial majority of Members.
I should also like to make an announcement on Members' car allowances. The Government propose that the present car allowance of 4½d. a mile should be increased to 6d. a mile. This follows the basis for calculating the car allowance adopted in the Lawrence Report, and broadly reflects the average cost of first-class rail travel. As at present, it is not directly related to the cost of actual car expenses. Such a change of basis will also have to await the overall review of remuneration.
In addition, the Government propose a number of changes to improve and rationalise our present travel arrangements. For example, it is proposed that payment of the car allowance should in future be made, in certain circumstances, when a car is used on a Member's behalf rather than by the Member himself, such as when it is driven back home from a Member's local railway station after the Member has himself continued his journey by train.
The Motion required to give effect to the proposals which I have just announced will be brought before the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House make clear that these matters have been considered from time to time by the Services Committee and that, on the whole, it has been unanimous that this kind of step should be taken towards improving facilities for Members?
Concerning what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested today, is he aware that the method of approach will, on the whole, be welcome?
656
As to the amounts, on the one hand there are some Members, though not many, who think that nothing should be done and, on the other, there are others who think that much more should be done, particularly regarding the mileage allowance? But as this is an interim measure, perhaps the House would be wise to accept it, on the whole, as a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Peart: I am grateful for the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the Services Committee. I recognise that many hon. Members wish that it was a higher amount. However, this is a beginning—an interim measure.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the efficiency of a Member of Parliament depends largely on the secretarial assistance which he has and that he cannot obtain the secretarial assistance he requires, if he is to do his work as he should, if the allowance is only £500 a year?
Mr. Peart: I accept this; but my right hon. Friend will appreciate that this is the first time that we have made this breakthrough.
Sir R. Cary: Concerning the £500 a year allowance for secretaries, surely many of us are already making that sort of claim for ordinary expenses to the taxation authorities.
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. The Fees Office will be sending out a circular about this matter.
Mr. C. Pannell: Whatever may be said about the secretarial allowance, is my right hon. Friend aware that nobody who knows anything about these matters will accuse the House of being generous to itself?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the car allowance is absolutely derisory? Neither the smallest local authority in the country, nor the most parsimonious firm would pay executives in the £3,000 a year class an allowance on this minimum scale.
Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend knows the problem and the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee. As I have said, there should be a major review. This is an interim award.
Dr. Winstanley: How can the Leader of the House reconcile his statement that Members' remuneration already takes account of their expenses when he knows that in many cases their expenses totally consume their remuneration? Is it maintained that a Member needs only half a secretary and that a Member's motoring costs precisely half that of a civil servant's?
Mr. Peart: I would remind the House that this is the recommended basis in the Lawrence Report. The hon. Gentleman has had conversations with me, quite rightly, and I appreciate that from his paint of view he would wish for a higher sum. But in the circumstances, when he examines this more fully, I think that he will agree that it is a good beginning.
Mr. Dickens: While any improvements to the pathetically low level of services available to Members is welcome, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that many of us will feel that he and the Cabinet have failed to fully implement the recommendations of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons Services?
As the Treasury is paying secretaries between £950 and £1,250 per annum, does my right hon. Friend recognise that to offer Members of Parliament £500 is a gross insult to this House and its Members?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. Indeed, if many of my colleagues, including myself, had not pushed this matter forward, we would not have had the statement that I have made today.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: As the mileage allowance figure was fixed by Lawrence long time ago and as the cost of petrol has gone up considerably since, is it not childish that Members of Parliament should get less than civil servants or any businessmen?
Mr. Peart: I have explained this matter in detail and referred to the Lawrence Report. Hon. Members know all about the details.
Mr. Tomney: In view of the complexities of the car allowance, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can recommend to me a good accountant?
Mr. Peart: I am sure that my hon. Friend, whom I know very well, can make that decision himself.
Mr. Crouch: As one who gave evidence before the Services Committee some time ago, and now enjoys free postage and the advantage of a telephone, I should like to say "Thank you" to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst this goes some way towards solving the problem, some hon. Members have been forced to ask their secretaries to be self-employed because they were not able to pay S.E.T. and the insurance?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that many secretaries have not been guaranteed full payment for holidays or sickness? Will he, therefore, look into the whole question again for the future? Does he also agree that the time has come when secretaries who work for hon. Members should be placed in the position of secretaries outside in industry and elsewhere?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, many hon. Members have written to me about it. But, as I have said, there will be a major review at another period.
Mr. Woodburn: Is not this an increase to those who exhaust the whole of their £3,000 salary on expenses, but practically no increase to those who charge their secretaries' expenses on their income tax in the normal way as part of their salary? Is not this giving to those who have and taking away from those who have not?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will wait until the circular comes out from the Fees Office.
Mr. Hawkins: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the fight which he has obviously put on behalf of Members. I have no doubt that it was a hard fight. However, he must recognise that a large number of people who know the cost of motoring will realise that it is derisory to put up the allowance from 4½d. to 6d. a mile.
Mr. Peart: As I have said, this was really the basis which Lawrence recommended, but it will be reviewed later.
Mr. Conlan: Whilst paying tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, will he understand that to replace one inadequate sum with another is not justified?

659
The increase from 4½d. to 6d. a mile will not be of great help to Members in doing their work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has already compared this with the sums paid to local and national government officers.
Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that Members have clawed back by the Treasury up to one-third of the allowance in income tax?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. However, this is an advance. I would never regard that as defeat.
Mr. Fortescue: Has the Leader of the House taken into account the effect of today's announcement on the attitude of mind of teachers and nurses in their present pay claims?
Mr. Heffer: What has that to do with it?
Mr. Peart: We must look at the increase that I have announced in terms of improved efficiency of services to Members.
Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the difficulties that he has clearly had, many Members will think that he has done a very good job, will be grateful for all the improvements that have taken place over the last few months, and that many of us say Thank you".
Mr. Peart: I thank my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the Leader of the House aware that the difference between cost and allowance will bear particularly hardly on Members with large and scattered constituencies which are now to be perpetuated?
Mr. Peart: I accept this. I have a large constituency, like many other hon. Members. But this interim award will, in the circumstances, be helpful.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his partial success in battling with the Treasury, may I ask whether any secretaries employed by the Treasury receive £500 a year or less and whether any of them receive 6d. a mile car allowance? Did my right hon. Friend take into account the House of Commons Motoring Club's
660
facts and figures before he came to this decision?
Lastly, why is my right hon. Friend wedded to Lawrence? That was years ago. He does not have to stick to it. The Government can decide what they want. They can ignore the Treasury and make the decision.
Mr. Peart: That would be a nice easy solution, but I have had wide consultation, including consultation with the Motoring Club.
Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that many people feel that there should be an end to the principle adopted by the Lawrence Committee of paying hon. Members on the basis that the less they do the more they get, and that Members who work in this place should be remunerated accordingly? In that respect this proposal does not meet the recommendations of the Select Committee. Could he say what will happen about the £500? Will there be yearly adjustment of the figure, otherwise in 12 or 18 months' time hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position.
Mr. Peart: On the wider issue, I know that many hon. Members feel that Lawrence was not the right standard on which to judge the matter. As I have said, the whole question of remuneration expenses, etc. should be considered at a later period. This is an interim award and my statement is in that sense an interim statement. I believe that my hon. Friend need not worry about the other matter. I feel that it will be satisfactory.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in view of the incidence of income tax, a sum paid to a secretary of more than £340 a year will still have to be paid out of the hon. Member's salary? Could my right hon. Friend say what percentage of the increase he expects the Inland Revenue to claw back? Will it not be a substantial percentage?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the first point. The second point depends on the circumstances.
Mr. Gardner: Although we appreciate the fight put up by my right hon. Friend, did he take into account in coming to the decision the kinds of services available to members of other legislatures, particularly those in smaller countries? Is

661
he also aware that a great deal of unfairness will still exist since wealthy hon. Members will be able to get back four or five times the amount in income tax?
Mr. Peart: All the facts mentioned by my hon. Friend were taken into account.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman said that the amount clawed back by the Inland Revenue will depend on circumstances. Does that mean that the £500 is liable to tax?
Mr. Peart: Yes, the allowance is a deduction from expenses incurred. The balance will be allowable for tax purposes subject to the normal rules.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I thank the Leader of the House for the fight which he has put up? Would he suggest to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury that a solution might be found to the problem of car allowances by allowing Members of Parliament to buy their fuel tax-free, as English diplomats are allowed to do in foreign countries?
Mr. Peart: That is another matter.
Mr. Thorpe: Has it occurred to the Leader of the House that, in view of all the exchanges which have taken place today, 1½ hours might be a little short for the debate next week?
Mr. Peart: I think that hon. Members have effectively put their points of view today.
Mr. Walden: While sincerely thanking my right hon. Friend for his efforts, would he bear in mind the context in which he has had to make his statement when thinking of future consultations? Can nothing be done to get rid of the iniquitous system whereby Parliament itself has to determine the level of its own salaries and allowances?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the point, but it embraces a wider issue.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: My right hon. Friend will recollect stating that the £500 would meet the secretarial expenses of a substantial number of hon. Members. On what evidence does he base that statement? Has he undertaken a survey to determine the secretarial expenses of hon. Members?
Mr. Peart: It has been done by contact with hon. Members and points made in correspondence with them.
Mr. John Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a number of hon. Members proposed that Members of Parliament should be treated in the same way as civil servants or members of Her Majesty's Government? In this way no money would pass through our hands, but a secretary would be appointed for us, hon. Members would then give their secretaries a form at the end of the month, and the Treasury would pay their salary.
This surely should be done, rather than to put hon. Members in a position in which nominally there is provision for £500 to pay a salary which, on the most favourable terms, will mean a sum of only £340. The public will get the wrong impression since they will think that the whole £500 is to be provided for secretarial purposes when, in fact, after payments to the Inland Revenue, the amount will be only £340.
Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add. Indeed, the original proposal in my hon. Friend's question would not be acceptable to many of my colleagues.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.
I informed the House on 19th June of the arrangements the Shipbuilding Industry Board was making to provide assistance under the Shipbuilding Industry Act to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.—[Vol. 785, c. 721–6.]
This action has not yet restored the confidence of suppliers and customers to the extent necessary to enable the company to carry on its business on a satisfactory long-term basis. The Shipbuilding Industry Board does not consider that it would be justified in present circumstances in providing further help to the company out of the funds available to it under the Shipbuilding Industry Act.
However, the company has been seeking ways of improving its position in recent months, and to allow it a further

663
period in which to show results the Government have decided to introduce fresh legislation to provide assistance to this company by way of loans not exceeding £7 million and, if necessary, guarantees of completion in the case of new orders of particular and immediate value to the company because they are for early completion.
Any funds required immediately for such loans will be provided in the first instance from the Civil Contingencies Fund; a Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House at the appropriate stage.
While we are seeking to provide financial help to the company outside the Shipbuilding Industry Act, this will be related to the continuing process of reorganising and strengthening the shipbuilding industry, particularly on the Clyde, with a view to improving its productivity and future prospects. I am in close touch with the Shipbuilding Industry Board which is actively considering what further measures may prove desirable to that end.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I see a number of hon. Members rising, and would remind the House that there is a good deal of business to be dealt with.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: Is the Minister aware that his statement is very disquieting, since it appears to be contrary to the arrangements and the forecast in his statement on 19th June? As the subject cannot be dealt with adequately by questions and answers now, and since legislation is to be introduced, will the Minister confirm that there will be an early opportunity for a debate, when we can consider, for example, what commitments guarantees of completion could entail and the implications of the Shipbuilding Industry Board's decision to do no more?
Does the Minister recognise that the picture of the whole of the Clyde must be considered, especially the Lower Clyde group, which is successfully building and selling ships without needing Government help? Have the earlier plans of the Government for a rationalisation and reorganisation of the labour force in the
664
area been altered, or is this still considered essential, as I believe it to be, for orderly progress towards a satisfactory solution?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised many questions. When the legislation comes forward, there will be an opportunity to debate this matter. As for possible conflict with the statement which I made in June, we said then, with the assent of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, that it would look at the situation in the light of progress made early next year, which is a few weeks away.
It is true that the Shipbuilding Industry Board, having considered this matter, does not feel it to be right within the remit of the Shipbuilding Industry Act to give further help. However, I am bound to take into account the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate yesterday, namely, the wider social and economic considerations, which the House will want to debate when the Bill comes forward.
As for the future development of shipbuilding on the Clyde as a whole, I have made reference in the last paragraph of my statement to this matter. The House knows that I have always taken the view that the sooner one gets to the point of considering the river as a whole in shipbuilding terms the beter it will be.
Mr. Small: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support that he is giving to the region. Can he say whether he has taken regional employment prospects fully into account in making his statement?
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a chance to underline this because, apart from the points which I made in my earlier answers, under the reorganisation of government since the summer I have acquired fresh responsibilities in the regional industrial field, and this reinforces me in my judgment that it was right to provide this further help.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a substantial increase in productivity in U.C.S. since June, when the first loan was given? Can he confirm that the board will continue to guarantee shipbuilding credits for new orders in the future? Finally, does the right hon.

665
Gentleman agree that this loan of £7 million makes the total amount loaned to the U.C.S. £12 million, which the company says was the minimum that it requires to put the yards in order?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman leaves out of account the necessity that fell to me earlier in the year to bring home to the company and the unions the need to take measures which have been taken since the summer. Indeed, had they not been taken I should not have felt able to come forward with this proposal.
The S.I.B. remains entirely concerned with this company and with shipbuilding on the Clyde, and will be keeping in touch with it in the normal way. In addition, I shall obviously require progress reports in view of the sums of money involved.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we appreciate this continuing interest by the Government in the difficulties of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he also agree that it seems to many of us that the Opposition cannot make up their mind whether they want a successful U.C.S.? The impression being created in my mind is that there is a strong Conservative lobby from the Lower Clyde shipbuilders. Will he confirm that private enterprise failed to find the capital that was required for U.C.S. during the recent trouble?
Mr. Senn: The problems of this industry and this company are so formidable that I do not think I should like to add to my tasks the responsibility of reading the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom, during difficult periods, have been helpful to me in dealing with the problems involved.
I think that everybody who knows about the background of Upper Clyde and the difficulties that it experienced will recognise that it was to some extent a special case. There are 13,000 people working in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, in an area where there is more than 6 per cent. male unemployment. However, one wants to give the best chance of survival to those from other shipbuilding areas and to see that they are not damaged. I readily assure the House that I shall be watching this with that consideration very much in mind.
Sir Keith Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that U.C.S. was the result of a merger—which was bitterly opposed by some of its members, but forced through by the Government—of some successful and some not so successful shipbuilding companies? Secondly, will he tell the House why the S.I.B. has evidently washed its hands of any further money for the Upper Clyde? Thirdly, will he say whether it is true that £20 million of taxpayers' money has already been made available to U.C.S.? Fourthly, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of what the completion guarantee which he has provided this afternoon might cost the taxpayers in due course?
Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman's first question about a merger being forced through against the will of those involved is another way of saying that if the Government had done nothing there would have been a major tragedy of the Clyde. There would have been a very serious tragedy there, and in other areas in the country where Government assistance has been provided with rather less publicity because it has contributed towards earlier profitability. The rôle of Government in this has been successful in the sense that British shipbuilding has the biggest order book for 10 years. There is a shipbuilding boom in the world, with the British share of that boom being very high—higher than it was at any time under the policy of the previous Conservative Government.
On the second point, about the Shipbuilding Industry Board having washed its hands of the matter, I do not think that that is the right presentation of what has happened. It has said that on strict shipbuilding industry grounds, taking into account the total sum given to it by Parliament, it would not have been right itself to have put more into this group. In view of the wider economic, regional, and Scottish considerations, to which the party opposite devoted a whole debate yesterday, we thought it necessary to go in and contribute towards giving this company the opportunity of proving its capability in the future. I am sure that when the House debates the matter it will decide that that was the right decision.
On the totality of the sums involved, I have referred to the £7 million today,

667
the sums already received amount to £5½ million in grant, and £7·7 million in loans or equity. The future completion guarantee relates to completion against the risk of insolvency and is limited to that. It is not a general guarantee which goes wider than is strictly necessary to deal with the problem of confidence, which has been one of the major difficulties faced by the U.C.S.
Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Linthouse Shipyard ceased building ships 1,600 men who would normally automatically have become unemployed were absorbed by the Govan division of U.C.S., giving it an uneconomic labour force? Despite that, it has carried on successfully but is finding it difficult to make ends meet because of the lack of money and the heavy load that it is carrying. Therefore, the step which my right hon. Friend has taken now will be widely welcomed and is one of the wisest things that he has done during this difficult period on Clyde-side.
Mr. Benn: I think that it would have been wrong to have allowed confidence issues to kill U.C.S. before it had the opportunity to prove the value of the changes that it has carried through. I know that my hon. Friend has been saying this in his constituency, but I remind him, nevertheless, that this does not mean that the company has any less responsibility to raise its productivity. Indeed, to avoid the dangers about which hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, it is essential that productivity continues to rise in U.C.S.
Mr. Russell Johnston: While welcoming the safeguarding of employment in U.C.S., because the right hon. Gentleman must be concerned about the position, may I ask him whether he has confidence in the management? In particular, can he say whether the order book is estimated to make a profit, and whether that profit will cover loan interest charges and capital repayments? If it does not, it will create yet another difficult situation in a short time.
Mr. Benn: I think that the House knows that there were management changes in the summer. I am happy to express our confidence in the new arrangements that have been made.
668
One of the difficulties which the company has had this year, and it is a difficulty which has made things extremely hard for it, is that during the long months of public discussion about the finances of the company the problem of getting orders or supplies on credit during the normal course of business made worse a situation which was in any case difficult for the new group.
Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who represent suppliers such as the foundry industry throughout Scotland and the North of England are deeply grateful for his dialogue and the trouble that he has taken, and are appalled at the double thinking of the Opposition today and yesterday? Can my right hon. Friend say something about the terms of the request that he has had on the issue of the Civil Contingencies Fund?
Mr. Benn: It is not a request. All that I was announcing was that pending the legislation, payments would be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund. I do not think that there is any special novelty in that. That is the procedure normally adopted by Governments. When they come forward and announce prospective legislation, they have to announce their interim arrangements. This is exactly the same as was done by the party opposite.
Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now try to persuade his right hon. Friends to back those parts of the Upper Clyde yard which wish to tender but cannot do so because there is insufficient underwriting of whatever offers they have to make to foreign countries? This is obviously a great impediment in filling order books. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to put pressure on other Government Departments to show confidence in this matter?
Mr. Benn: That was exactly the object of my statement, to make it clear that those who were holding back from placing orders solely on the grounds of anxiety about the existence of the company could set their fears at rest. As for the guarantees, these are designed solely to meet that point.
Dame Irene Ward: I come from another shipbuilding area which has had a lot of assistance from both sides of the House. Is this not a purely political

669
decision? How has the statement been received by other shipbuilding rivers? In the total context of organising our shipbuilding, which is essential, it is important that we should know what the whole of the industry in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland think about this decision. It is very important if we take what has happened on Tyneside, where there is continual unemployment in shipbuilding, or on the Wear—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the issue. The hon. Lady must make her question brief.
Dame Irene Ward: I support that view, but Scotland always has a special privileged position compared with other parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must support my view in practice.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady kindly recognises the fact that her part of the country has received help from the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and I can think of some special cases where very special measures were taken. For example, there was the Furness Shipyard, which was brought into a group when it would otherwise have been lost to the industry.
Having said what she has, the hon. Lady will know the value of Government help provided for structural change of this kind; she will know that to lose from the United Kingdom a part of our shipbuilding capability at a time when the world boom in orders is growing and continuing to offer us good prospects would not be good for the British shipbuilding industry. These factors should reassure her, particularly since she knows as well as I do that it would be folly on the part of the Government—and they do not intend to do this—to use one part of their policy to undermine new-found strength in other areas.
The hon. Lady asks: was this a political decision? It was a decision taken by the Government arising out of social and economic needs, and to that extent exactly compatible with the purpose of Parliament, which is to reach decisions based on assessments of the realities of the situation.
Dame Irene Ward: Answer the other questions.
Mr. Tilney: Since this is likely to prove unfair to Merseyside, particularly to Cammell Laird, who have lost the nuclear contract, could the Minister say that, if need be, a similar loan will be made available to Cammell Laird?
Mr. Dalyell: What about directing nuclear orders to Cammell Laird?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) knows the basis upon which the policy was presented to Parliament and went through with general assent. When the new Bill conies forward, it will be open to the hon. Gentleman and others to argue whether it was right to have decided upon these special measures. I regard this as being in the context of regional policy, with a very strong shipbuilding interest.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the day.

DIVISION LIST (CORRECTION)
Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order. I would like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 9th December, c. 371. While the printing of the OFFICIAL REPORT is normally beyond question, I would like to assure you and the House that I did not vote with the Government on Tuesday evening, as printed.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have already made arrangements for a corrigendum. I am sure that it embarrasses hon. Gentlemen on either side to be recorded as voting in the other Lobby.

BILL PRESENTED
  AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, supported by Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, Mr. Stanley McMaster, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Rees-Davies, and Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, presented a Bill to enable the House of Commons to amend certain Statutory Instruments, and to alter the definition of the period during which either House may entertain prayers that Statutory Instruments be annulled: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising on Friday, 19th December, do adjourn till Monday, 19th January.—[Mr. Shore.]
4.45 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I would like to give one or two reasons why I believe that the House, although it may adjourn for the Christmass Recess on 19th December, should come back long before 19th January. Although I had several reasons for this before I rose, I have been given a further important reason by the statement made a few moments ago by the Minister of Technology about this further loan of many millions of pounds to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
Near my constituency, in Leicestershire, there is a firm of aircraft manufacturers, who make an excellent light aircraft called the Beagle aircraft. As the Minister will know, it has recently gone into liquidation. The Government have declined to give any financial support, and before this House adjourns, or at any rate as soon as it comes back after Christmas, an opportunity should be given for hon. Members who represent hundreds of workers of this company to debate this matter in the House and to see whether some action can be taken at the eleventh hour to save this excellent light aircraft.
The liberality of the Government towards Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—and they have been very liberal indeed with the taxpayers' money, handing out almost £20 million so far—compares poorly with their niggly attitude towards the Beagle Aircraft Company. One of my hon. Friends has suggested that the reason why the Government have been so liberal towards Upper Clyde Shipbuilders might be a political one. I have not suggested that. But I do say that it is a possibility, and no more, that one of the reasons why the Government have been so niggardly and uncooperative and uninterested in the Beagle Company is political. They believe that people in the area could get work elsewhere and, since we are buying most of our aircraft, certainly military aircraft, from America, we might as well com-
672
plete the job and buy the lot there, including light aircraft.
The Beagle is an absolutely first-class machine. It has been exported to many countries and it compares favourably in performance and price with many overseas competitors making sophisticated machines. I would like to see an opportunity given for the House to return a few days earlier, for this and other reasons, so that we could have at least a day's debate, not only on the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders decision, not only on the Government's open-handed treatment of that company in handing out £20 million of taxpayers money, but also on the niggardly, cheeseparing and penny-pinching attitude of the Government towards the Beagle Aircraft Company.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not drift too much into the merits of the case he is advancing. He must relate his remarks to the Motion before the House and say why we should or should not adjourn until 19th January.
Mr. Farr: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like a debate soon after Christmas, early in the New Year, so that the Government's attitude towards the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders can be compared with their niggardly attitude towards the Beagle Aircraft Company in Leicestershire.
I want us to come back not a day or two early, but ten days early, because there is so much to do. So much lies before the House that it is choked with prospective legislation. There is so much disruption in industry and in the country generally that I would like us to return a week or ten days early to discuss some of the loose ends which the House will leave untied when we adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
Another reason for an early return is the situation in Rhodesia. We have had a most extraordinary example this week, mentioned a moment or two ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir F. Bennett). On Monday of this week, my hon. Friend and I asked the Foreign Secretary how many countries still retained official diplomatic representation in Rhodesia, and the Foreign Secretary replied that 13 were represented. On Wednesday, my hon. Friend put a

673
Written Question to the Foreign Secretary asking how many countries had withdrawn their representatives. He was told that four countries had done so, and each was named.
It gives some idea of the confusion which must be cleared up in an early debate, that the Foreign Secretary included Belgium on Monday as one of the countries which had diplomatic representation in Rhodesia and yet, magically, on Wednesday Belgium was included in his Written Reply as one of the countries which had withdrawn representatives. There is obviously confusion which must be cleared up.
During the week in which I hope we shall return early after Christmas, a debate on Rhodesia would be very welcome. There is a tremendous expansion of foreign activity in Rhodesia. The South Africans are moving in apace, they are buying up land and engaging in launching new business enterprises. Many other countries, not only the 13 listed as having diplomatic representatives in Rhodesia on Monday, are engaging in trade in Rhodesia which was formerly the prerogative of this country.
In addition to the trade which we are losing in Rhodesia, it is costing us a great deal to continue our abortive sanctions policy. We should have an early full day's debate, preferably in the first ten days of January, on Rhodesia and all the implications—the cost of sanctions, the cost of flying Shackletons daily across the Indian Ocean to try to spy the sanctions busters, the undercover work by other countries in promoting their exports and yet officially denying that they are doing anything of the sort. The debate would also allow the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to clear up the utter confusion which has resulted from his Oral reply on Monday and his Written reply on Wednesday.
There are many other reasons why I should like us to come back earlier. I have listed the Beagle Aircraft Company and Rhodesia, and I should like to add the Common Market and the prospects which now face the country in this connection. Very shortly, in the early months or perhaps towards the middle of 1970, the country will enter into negotiations, we understand, with the Common Market. But where is the necessary detailed and skilled information which hon. Members
674
on both sides of the House must have before they can apply themselves to this problem?
I should like at least one of the seven or eight days which I hope we shall have tacked on to the beginning of the Session after Christmas alloted to what I would call an interim debate on the Common Market, and I should like hon. Members on both sides of the House before that debate takes place to have in their hands the Green Paper of which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon. There is some confusion about whether it is a White Paper or a Green Paper, but, whatever it is, we understand that we are at last to have authoritative figures on the implications for this country of the cost of entry.
My belief is that if we could have this early debate and be supplied beforehand with this document by the Treasury, so alarming and illuminating would the cost of entry be seen to be, that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be appalled by the consequences of our burying ourselves within the Community. But what we all beg for is an early opportunity to debate this vital issue and the early provision of the necessary statistics to which we may refer.
Yesterday my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) introduced a Bill relating to the desirability of a referendum before the country took this mammoth step of going into Europe—
Mr. Eric Lubbock Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington) rose—
Mr. Farr: I have not given way to the hon. Member.
Mr. Lubbock: He was refused leave to introduce it.
Mr. Farr: My hon. and learned Friend sought to introduce a Bill relating to the desirability of a referendum about whether this country should go into the Common Market. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) had waited a moment or two, he would have seen how I was to complete the sentence which would have made what I intended to say exactly correct. It is an extraordinary fact that that was the only debate, and it was not really a debate, on the Common Market which the House has had for the past 12 months.

675
I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckingham—
Mr. Ronald Bell: Buckinghamshire, South, please!
Mr. Farr: I apologise for being rude to my hon. and learned Friend. I know that he and one or two hon. Members opposite were present, but it is extraordinary that when we have an issue of this magnitude, when the country is poised at a historic crossroads, there should be no early opportunity for a discussion on the valuable information which we hope to get from the document which the Prime Minister said this afternoon we are to have around Christmas, or early in the New Year.
It cannot be said that the little debate which we had yesterday, which was introduced on the initiative of my hon. and learned Friend under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, was in any way a substitute for the full and proper debate which the House must have. It was merely an address by my hon. Friend with a response, some say in opposition and some say in support, by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The remainder of us were onlookers, spectators. None of us has the right and none of us can afford to be a spectator on this issue. What we must have at an early date is an authoritative debate backed up by the statistics which we required from the Treasury and which the Prime Minister said we would have around Christmas or early in the new year.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that another reason why we ought to have a debate in January on the whole question of the Common Market and the possibility of a referendum is that the decision and the vote yesterday may have been influenced by considerations of the manoeuvring for private Members' Ten Minute Rule Bills and that it would be a pity if that stood in isolation and went out to the world as an indication of the balance of opinion in the House on the subject of a referendum?
Mr. Farr: I am grateful. As is usual with any intervention which my hon. and learned Friend makes, he has hit the
676
nail bang on the head. He brings me to another point which I want to make in support of my argument that the House should return ten days earlier. To do so would provide an opportunity for two or three more Ten Minute Rule Bills. It would give hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity of filling the three or four vacant slots for Ten Minute Rule Bills which would become apparent. I agree that the figures yesterday were misleading, because hon. Members opposite, with some justification—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member would not be in order in going into too much detail about what happened yesterday.
Mr. Farr: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall endeavour to come back directly to the point.
Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Ifeel that I am slightly responsible for that. Would you not agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if one were arguing that we should come back early in January for a debate in order to correct a misimpression which was created yesterday, that would be within the debating range of the Motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the manner in which the hon. and learned Member suggests it, it would be.
Mr. Farr: That brings me back more or less to where I was. I was suggesting that if the House came back ten days or so earlier there would be an opportunity for several more Ten Minute Rule Bills and there would also be an opportunity for a full day's debate on the Common Market. Yesterday's debate was not good enough, and never would be good enough for an issue of this magnitude. It is surprising that the Government themselves do not seize this opportunity of giving backbenchers, and, for that matter, Front Benchers, the chance to express their views on the White Paper which we hope we are to get.
There are a couple of other reasons why we should come back early and which would make for a full Parliamentary week, in other words to return on the 10th January if not a day or two before that. If I can suggest five subjects for the five Parliamentary days, that would bring us back on 12th January.

677
The fourth subject which we ought to discuss at a very early date concerns motoring. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who do a lot of motoring will agree with me about the importance of the series of multiple crashes on the motorways in the last few days. I do not bring this reason forward in an idle moment. The M1 runs slap bang through my constituency. From junction 20 to about junction 25 on the M1 one has the pleasure of travelling through Harborough. There have been some terrible pile-ups in the fog and other bad weather conditions which we have had in the past week, not only on the M1 but on the M6.
It is becoming more and more apparent as we get further into the depths of winter and have to suffer more and more from this ghastly experiment with British Standard Time, which I hope will be abandoned at a very early date, that a motorway crash in poor visibility invariably leads to a series of crashes on the concertina pattern and that special legislation is needed to deal with this new problem.
Many suggestions have been made recently to make the motorways safer, particularly in fog. For example, it has been suggested that vehicles should carry rear lights of double intensity and that maxim um speeds on motorways should be more strictly limited in fog and poor visibility. I travel on the M1 twice a week. If fog is about I try to get off the motonvay because, however carefully one drives, one cannot cater for the madmen who charge along at 60 to 70 m.p.h., and this is done by both car and lorry drivers. When we debate the regulations applying to motorway speed limits, we must see how they can best be amended.
I do not mind in what order the subjects I have mentioned are discussed if we return a few days earlier. I suggest, however, that the position of the Beagle Aircraft Company should come first, with Rhodesia next. My next subject for debate would be agriculture, for it is a long time since we debate this subject generally. While we recently had the Second. Reading of a specific Measure affecting agriculture, which was attended by a few specialists and which is being mulled over at length in Committee upstairs, a general debate on agriculture is vital.
678
Many serious problems—some new, others familiar—have faced agriculturists in the last year. The codes of practice have received attention, but when we debated that issue we were confined to the codes; and when I tried to raise a somewhat different subject I was rightly called to order by Mr. Speaker. We need a full day's debate on agriculture to raise the thousand and one matters that need our attention. The conditions of farmers in some parts of the country in the last year have been appalling. In other parts the year began badly, but things have improved in recent months.
The Conservative Party's new policy for agriculture should be put before, and debated by, the House so that the country may know how effective our new policy will be in practice.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: That is a back somersault.
Mr. Farr: The nation should be aware not only of our target price system but of the guarantees to back that up. We also have important proposals to ensure that farmers have stability and security.
If we had the opportunity to debate agriculture generally, we could give many examples of the way in which cheap products are being dumped in this country, so endangering—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not, in anticipating the debate, debate the merits.
Mr. Farr: I hope that if a general agriculture debate takes place we shall discuss the dumping of cheap products and how the Conservative Party's new policy for agriculture would deal with the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Not only in that debate but in a debate on the Common Market we could discuss the E.E.C.'s agriculture policy, the ruinous condition in which it stands and the tremendous surplus of butter that has been built up under its misleading and unhappy system of agricultural support. The C.A.P., as it is known—the Common Agricultural Policy—has caused vast surpluses of butter to be established. No wonder they want us to join. They want us in regardless of terms—they would like to compel us to join the club—so that they might shovel this vast surplus on to us—and for it the British housewife

679
would have to pay treble the cost of production.
In addition to the five subjects which could be debated on the five days which would be available to us if we returned earlier, an additional half-day might be provided to debate the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the way in which that would be affected should we join the Common Market. This is a valuable little Agreement which we have not debated for a considerable time. It has worked well both for Commonwealth sugar producers and for the British housewife, who has been assured of ready supplies of best sugar. If we enter the Common Market, our cheap Commonwealth sugar will be banned because it will have to climb a high tariff wall. Sugar will treble in price—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the case.
Mr. Farr: If we returned five-and-a-half days earlier, a half-day could be devoted to the implications of our joining the E.E.C. from the point of view of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and what the repercussions would be for Commonwealth sugar producers and the British housewife.
I would not object if we returned nine or 10 days earlier so that we might tie up some of the loose ends that a Socialist Government traditionally leave at Christmas time.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I have already had two goes today at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on a subject about which I might be in a minority of one, but a further go will not go amiss.
I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and say that we should return 10 days earlier. However, a number of vital subjects need urgent discussion. One is the Middle East. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) said earlier, another major war may break out in this area. The Middle Eastern crisis is real and must be debated.
Secondly, we must debate the Common Market, either for one or two days;
680
thirdly, we must discuss Rhodesia; fourthly, two days should be allotted for a debate on public expenditure; and, fifthly, we must discuss the trouble at Tilbury Docks.
I am in favour of a long holiday at Christmas time, but with these vital subjects requiring our attention, I see no reason why we should not adjourn on, say, the 24th, rather than the 19th, and return a few days earlier. That would still provide us with a reasonable Christmas Recess. While I do not wish to embarrass the Government by pressing this matter, I trust that my suggestion will be considered.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Although it is traditional for hon. Members to call for Parliamentary Recesses to be shortened, an extraordinarily strong case has been made out by hon. Members on both sides to show why this Christmas Recess should be shortened to provide time for vitally important matters to be debated.
I see the Minister smiling. I know as well as he knows that the Government will get their way and that we will recess for the time proposed. However, this will be an exceptionally long Christmas holiday—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—long in terms of these days of crisis under the present Government. We appreciate that the Government are anxious to keep my hon. Friends away from Westminster. The Prime Minister is particularly anxious to do that, and I do not blame him. It is here that we can try to get the truth from the Government.
While I am not anxious for the Recess to start earlier, I would not object to returning earlier so that perhaps four days would be available to discuss the topic to which hon. Member have referred, and perhaps a few more. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to Europe and the Common Market, and I will not cover that ground again.
A Department, probably the Treasury, is to publish figures in the form of a Green Paper on this whole subject. Decisions will be taken in Europe, particularly about the C.A.P., in the early weeks of January. While the Six are making up their minds on this issue, the British Parliament should be declaring its attitude toward C.A.P.

681
We hope that at some time, when we have the ability and if the conditions are right, this country will join the Common Market.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I invariably speak for myself and stand by what I say. It is important that Europe should know our feelings on the evolution of the C.A.P.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful case why we should return earlier to debate agriculture generally. A debate is needed quickly because the teams—Government and N.F.U.s—negotiating the Annual Price Review get together about the end of November and take decisions affecting the shape and pattern of the Review in the early weeks of January. Later, refinements are made, during the negotiations in February, but it is in the middle stage, in the first two or three weeks of January, that the Review takes its shape; and it is at that time that hon. Members need to put their views to the Government. When it is done later, it is frequently found to be too late.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is much unrest and anger throughout the agricultural community because of the lack of expansion and return on both landlord's capital and tenant's capital. Part of the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works is agricultural, and he must know full well that many of his smaller farmers are getting a poor return on capital. I am sure that he would be delighted to have a debate. I hear a mumur from the other side of "Tory policy". I would like to talk about Tory policy, but that is not an urgent matter now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because after the General Election that policy will be Government policy. Return on capital and expansion should be urgently discussed before the Minister of Agriculture gets to a position in which it is very difficult for him to change the shape of the Annual Price Review.
Like the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) I have been getting increasingly worried about the position in the Middle East. It has been building up in the last few weeks, with raids and counter-raids, and propaganda from both
682
sides. I do not mind the propaganda, but I do mind shooting wars, commando raids and air raids, and that is what is happening now. I know that we have just spent two days debating foreign affairs, but our preoccupation then was Vietnam and Nigeria. There was no time for either the Government nor the Opposition to put forward their views on the Middle East situation.
It is a matter of war and peace, and not only for the Middle East, because it could involve us as well. In the autumn, on my way to the East, I touched on the fringes of that area and found in the Gulf States anxiety about what could happen if the dispute between the Arab States and Israel were to blow up. I have no faith in the negotiations going on between the great powers. The Government should provide time for debate, so that we can seek to suggest a new method for taking some of the heat from the present position. If something is not done, we and our friends in the Middle East and elsewhere could suffer very grievously.
Time is needed to debate certain aspects of education. I want to see certain things put right in schools in my Derbyshire constituency before the children go back for the Easter term. In one part of my constituency there is a good deal of primary school and secondary school overcrowding. With classes of over 40 children. I know of 80 children being taught by two teachers in one room. As a result of bad dining facilities, 80 children have to eat their meals at their desks.
The Derbyshire County Council application for minor works programme has been cut from £500,000 to £325,000 and I understand that for 1971 it will be further cut to £275,000. Such a sum is not sufficient to carry out minor works that are so urgently needed. The House should return earlier than is proposed so that we may ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to authorise the Derbyshire County Council to spend more on its minor works programme before 19th January, otherwise these primary school children will go back for the 1970 school year to exactly the same bad conditions as they now suffer. That will be quite intolerable.
Another aspect of education is the teachers' strike. If that dispute is not

683
settled at the Burnham Committee meeting next Monday, the House should resume earlier to discuss the reason for there being no settlement, the cause of the present position, and what needs urgently to be done to put the matter right. Let us hope that next week's meeting will be successful that the Government's good offices will be used behind the scenes—as the Secretary of State has already hinted may be the case—so that a settlement can be reached before Christmas and we do not face the prospect of a strike of two or three weeks duration in January. If a settlement is not reached hon. Members should be here to discuss it, and not dispersed throughout the country.
Derbyshire is in the North Midlands, where we can have severe winter weather. All the weather forecasters seem to think that we are in for a fairly severe winter. From what one reads and hears, it seems that the Central Electricity Generating Board is quite incapable of meeting the demand which would result from severe weather. We have already had load-shedding of between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent., and I am told that in severe weather we are likely to have even more. The constituents of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) would then be particularly affected, so I am sure that he will want to come back here earlier in January so that discussions can take place and decisions be made to try to meet what might happen.
There is no time for that to be done this week or next because the Government have made such an infernal mess-up of their programme—[Interruption.] We are not to have before Christmas a debate on public expenditure as was promised and undertaken, because the Government have, as I say, made such an infernal mess of their programme. Yet the question of electricity supply is urgent. I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems that faults have cropped up in some of the plant being purchased by the Board. Whether they are faults of design or of manufacture, or where the blame lies, I do not know, but we should discuss the subject and allot the blame. Because plant is out of action, generating capacity has had to be reduced. If this goes on people and industry will face
684
grave difficulties should there be bad weather.
Can we be assured that there will be sufficient supplies of different types of domestic fuel should the weather turn very severe. Are the stocks sufficient? Are they having to be diverted because of the necessity to use old-fashioned and out-of-date plant, thereby causing a shortage of domestic fuels? If so, we must talk about this before it happens. Under this Government we so frequently have to do the talking after the event. We need to anticipate events and to help the Government to take decisions before events take place.
These are some of the reasons why we should come back earlier than 19th January. I support wholeheartedly my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Watford. We should come back a week earlier for we could fill in the time profitably for the nation.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: I am beginning to suspect that, even if we came back on Boxing Day, there would not be enough time for the long-windedness of some hon. Members opposite. I want to touch on two points which I consider of great importance and a very good reason why, if we adjourn on the day which is suggested, we should come back somewhat earlier.
I regard the situation in the Middle East as very grave and one which would justify a special debate, even though it was mentioned in the general debate on foreign affairs. There is great justification for the House to come back perhaps a week, or two or three days, earlier to consider the very serious and rapidly deteriorating situation in the Arab-Israeli war. There is a certain grisly irony in the fact that while we celebrate Christmas the land of Palestine should be still torn by a savage racial war involving killing and murder on both sides. While this goes on our country and other countries which have special responsibility in the Security Council for this matter go on interminably, with apparent leisureliness, discussing without producing effective action to bring this state of affairs to an end.
The House could demonstrate its acute concern about the Middle East by

685
returning somewhat earlier than 19th January, or continuing for a day or two after 19th December, so that we might apply our minds to the urgency and grimness of this problem. There is good justification for shortening the 31 days proposed for the Recess. I take exception to the use of the word "holiday". It is not a holiday but a period when the formal business of the House does not continue and when hon. Members have a great many things to do which they do conscientiously. There is a case for this. House to reassembly before 19th January and to apply its mind corporately to a part of the world in which a savage racial war continues.
I urge on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to his colleagues in the Government the very serious concern which hon. Members on both sides feel about the continually worsening situation and the continued failure by the Permanent Members of the Security Council to come forward with effective action to bring the two sides to their senses. I hope that this message of urgency will penetrate and that we will come back somewhat before 19th January to debate this problem. It lies heavy on my conscience, and I suspect on the consciences of many hon. Members, whether they are present in the House now or not.
Another matter on which there might be justification for reassembly somewhat earlier is the promise of a debate on public expenditure. I take it amiss that the Government should give a firm undertaking to the House that the extremely important White Paper on Public Expenditure should be debated before Christmas and then to find, for some reason I cannot accept as urgent in the context of the present situation, that the debate has to be put off so that we can discuss an entirely different matter. The Government could make good this omission by agreeing that the House should return on 12th January. I am not much in favour of the suggestion by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that we should come back on the Saturday, but we could come back on the 12th, 13th or 14th January to repair a very serious omission on the part of the Government in defaulting on a promise that this very important public document should be debated for two days.
686
The main reason for suggesting that we should come back earlier is not merely the intrinsic importance of the subject, but also because the Government represented that they were instituting an important new technique of debate on the whole business of public expenditure. I entirely accepted the Government's reasons and proposition on the matter. We have not traditionally spent enough time in constructive and informed discussion of the very important consequences which must flow from decisions made 18 months or two years before about capital and current expenditure. I welcomed the statements and promise by the Government that this traditional omission would be repaired this year and in good time by having the debate before the House rose for the Christmas Recess.
I am therefore all the more depressed that the dates of the Recess have been fixed in such a way and the business of the House for next week arranged in such a way that this promise cannot be kept. The Deputy Leader and his colleagues in the Government could repair the omission by summoning the House back a day or two before the proposed date of 19th January. That would give us more time to study and consider the rather complicated figures in the White Paper. It would make quite sure that the other urgent legislation which I gather is to come after 19th January does not have to be postponed because of the necessity to consider this extremely important document.
I took very seriously, as I believe other hon. Members did, the assurance given about this new technique concerning the study of our national financial arrangements. I therefore press on the Deputy Leader that I am not now concerned in this debate with a purely formal representation about the dates of the Recess, although they are important, but I am very much concerned that by some unhappy accident of Parliamentary busines what was promised has not been fulfilled and an important innovation in the procedures of the House may be in danger of escaping our grasp. We might he faced with a situation that another emergency occurs after 19th January which would again deprive us of debating something we urgently desire to debate.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will elaborate this point, which is crucial to the argument as to why it is important that the public accounts should be debated now before we move into the period of the Estimates.
Mr. Hooley: I am not sure that I need to elaborate my cogent, brief and forceful remarks. If I were to elaborate them and lengthen my speech to the extent of the speeches of some hon. Members opposide, we would have to return on Boxing Day; and I do not propose that we should do that.
However, I think that there is a case for recalling the House on 13th or 14th January so that the Government can make it crystal clear that they intend to implement the new procedural arrangement, to which I attach great importance, of enabling the House to debate, in an informed, coherent and sensible manner, the financial provisions which lie at the base of virtually all our social and economic policy, even though they may not have direct repercussions on some of our foreign policy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey to his Cabinet colleagues my wish, and that of others, that the Recess should be shortened by two, three, four or five days so that this can be done.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not join the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) in suggesting that we should sit until 24th December. Nor do I think that in general a Recess of one month is at all excessive. My recollection is that the normal length of the Christmas Recess has been five weeks. I have never objected to that and have always been a little suspicious of those who have objected to it.
However, on this occasion I think that there are matters which warrant the House resuming earlier than 19th January. I cannot remember a time when there have been so many subjects of importance and interest to a considerable range of Members but for which there has been no time for debate. Things are moving rather fast in the world in general and in Britain in particular. The Leader of the House says repeatedly
688
that there is no time to discuss this, that and the other subject.
I greatly fear that when we return on 19th January, if we return then, we shall be up against the same kind of stone-wall batting. I do not blame the Leader of the House: he has his priorities and his difficulties, about which the Deputy Leader of the House will no doubt tell us.
If we were to return two or three days earlier than 19th January, my wish would be that those days thereby gained should be allocated, not to the general business of the Government, which rides like a juggernaut over all other considerations, but to other matters which are at present scheduled to be neglected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made some attractive suggestions with which I agree. For example, he mentioned Rhodesia. Opinions vary on this subject, but it is a long time since we debated it; and there is no intention that we should debate it.
My hon. Friend suggested that the House should use a day in January to debate the Rhodesia question. The only particular in which I would differ from my hon. Friend is that I should like that day to be used for a Second Reading debate on the Rhodesia Independence Bill, which I presented earlier this week. This is a matter of urgency. The Government's Rhodesia policy is one of great folly. I would be out of order if I were to go into the merits of the policy or seek to discuss the folly of it, its absurdity in the context of the world today and the nature of modern governments, which are all illegal régimes, and the international considerations. There is no need for me to do that, however, because the folly and the consequences are self-evident.
Questions such as the damage to our economy, the detriment to British interests of the sanctions policy, and the injury to our sentimental ties and to the bond of loyalty between us and the Rhodesians, are relevant to the Question before the House, because time is of their essense: the damage, the injury and the detriment are all cumulative and they should be stopped at the earliest possible moment. This is why I should like a day in January to be devoted to debating the

689
Bill which I presented to repeal the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, abandon the policy of sanctions, and recognise the independence of Rhodesia.
I intervene principally to suggest three other questions which are urgent. The first is the repeal of the British Standard Time Act. Here I shall have widespread support on both sides—or I would have widespread support opposite if there were any hon. Members sufficiently interested in our proceedings to be present on the benches opposite to agree with me. I note that there are two nonofficial Members present on the opposite benches.
This is the subject which is most in order on the Question before the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is hopeful that his Private Member's Bill will be accorded a Second Reading on 22nd January, but it is the second Order on that day and, therefore, unlikely to be reached.
This subject greatly concerns the public during the dark months. January is the month above all in which the impact of British Standard Time is greatest, when we most feel its inconvenience, its absurdity, its tiresomeness and its dangers. If the subject is not debated during the winter, and if we are not able to debate it until the spring or the summer, the other follies of the Government begin to fill the foreground and, because the days are lighter and warmer, preoccupation with British Standad Time begins to fade. It is not that pepole agree with it in the summer. It is that the subject is no longer at the top of their attention. In January it is. So it is in January that we should have a debate on the subject.
Furthermore—I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make a note of this and put it in his portfolio, although, technically, I am not sure that he has one—we want a free vote on the matter. That is the point. If we can come back a few days early in January, those days will not be ordinary Government days; there is no reason why they should not be given for consideration of Private Members' Motions or Bills on important matters which would not otherwise be discussed. If we could discuss the repeal of British Standard Time without a Gov-
690
ernment Whip on, I have no doubt what the result would be.
The second matter which I should like to be taken in January because it is urgent is a Measure—I hope to present a Bill to deal with this matter next week—to empower the courts to impose upon those—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to anticipate legislation which he intends to bring in? He has mentioned a Bill which he proposes to bring in next week. Surely, he cannot, on the Motion for the Adjournment, start to give details.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would be in order to make an incidental reference to the Bill but not to discuss its merits.
Mr. Bell: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you appreciate that I should not dream of saying anything out of order on an occasion like this, or any other. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), but I am sure that they will bear in mind that a declaration of legislative intention is not out of order in the House, and the Queen's Speech is almost nothing else. But I shall not give a list of my legislative intentions for the Session. That would take too long.
I was saying that one should empower the courts to charge the cost of the necessary extra police protection to those convicted before them of disorder with the intention of interfering with a lawful activity such as a football match. The cost of such extra protection should fall upon them, not upon the ratepayers or those going about their lawful occasions. This matter should be discussed in January, because disturbance of that kind is going on all the time and, apparently, there is a risk that it may grow in magnitude. The House should consider the problem and debate some of the statements which the Home Secretary has made about it in which he seemed to imply that he would not agree to the cost of policemen inside sports grounds being met out of public funds.
The House should consider also the right hon. Gentleman's statement, made in the House a few weeks ago, that the

691
use of stewards inside sports grounds is objectionable. If self-help is not to be allowed, and if the State will not make its officers available for the preservation of the Queen's peace, the Home Secretary should tell us how he envisages that the Queen's peace is to be preserved. The public would like to know at the first opportunity.
I should like the Home Secretary, on about 14th or 15th January, to explain why he thinks that people should be charged £10 a day for a policeman inside a football ground, a cricket ground or whatever it may be, to maintain public order. That happens to be almost exactly the same charge as is made for a private bed in a hospital. It seems rather odd if the Government, who say that an individual must not make private provision for treatment in sickness, say at the same time that they must make private provision for the maintenance of the Queen's peace. I should like to hear something about this in January.
The third matter which I should like dealt with in January is urgent and important, too. We should use, perhaps, the last Parliamentary day before 19th January to discuss proposals for dealing with the monstrous abuse of trade union organisation which we have been seeing in the last few weeks, this monstrous abuse of combination to coerce and hold the community up to blackmail, which seems to be growing every week, imperilling the national economy, and beginning to cause a disintegration of national sense of cohesion and unity.
The Government have no intention of allowing us to debate that subject in the immediate future. They propose to introduce an Industrial Relations Bill after Christmas, but that Bill is apparently, to be a kind of trade union benefit bill, whereas we want something which will protect the community from the kind of gangster activity which we are seeing every day. Everyone is now asking for a "dustman's settlement", and we know what that means. It means a settlement based on the price which the community is willing to pay to be relieved of the results of blackmail. This is an urgent matter, and it is not proposed, as far as I know, by Her Majesty's Government that we should discuss it at any time before or after Christmas. The
692
only way we can discuss it is by coming back early and having a debate on it in private Members' time, specially so arranged, and a free vote on it. Then we shall see, surprisingly enough, that there is a general consensus on both sides of the House, as there is in the country, that this is an enduring scandal about which Parliament must do something, and do it quickly.
In one sense I do not wish to come back early in January at all. But it is our duty to do so. If we could have one Parliamentary week in which we granted independence to Rhodesia, arranged for a referendum before going into the Common Market, abolished British Standard Time, dealt with the problem of demonstrations, and reformed trade union law, it would be a week well spent.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to deal with the last few remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). Personally, I should not wish to come back early to deal with the need to stop the restrictive practices of the legal profession in its blackmailing efforts through its trade union, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, in making all the legal charges which lawyers insist that their clients must pay.
I agree that it is an important issue. I agree that the legal profession is a closed shop, and that it ought to have its toenails clipped. But I think that that can probably be done without our coming back a week earlier. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the trade unions in the legal profession are, in effect, a blackmailing organisation, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member should be a member of that profession.
Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
Mr. Lewis: I cannot give way, because my Chief Whip has told me that he wants to get on with the Gas Bill, and I would not want to upset the Chief Whip.
I am not sure whether to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment or support it. At this stage, I am in a quandary. I want time to discuss a subject which, apparently, I cannot discuss next week, and I may have to oppose the length of the Recess so that we could, perhaps,

693
come back earlier and debate it. I refer to Ronan Point. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House knows quite a lot about it.
About 18 months ago, there was a great disaster, and even now nothing tangible has been done about it. I have tried, by Questions and other means, to get the Government to act, and they have done nothing.
This is important to my constituents and to those of the Deputy Leader of the House. If we do not come back early, I shall not be able to debate the Government's miserly and niggardly proposals which, if implemented during the Recess, would land my constituents with 60 per cent. of the cost of a disaster which was no fault of theirs—either on the rates or on their rents or by a combination of both. This is grossly unfair.
My constituency is one of the finest in the country. I know that every hon. Member must think this of his own constituency. It is highly industrialised. It has always suffered. It is part of the London docks, and it was the worst-bombed borough during the whole war. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is in a similar position, because he represents Tower Hamlets, which is a similar constituency. Our people were bombed out and lost their homes not once, but dozens of times. They had just got over the suffering and started to rebuild, and this disaster happened. One would have thought that the Goy ernment would meet the cost—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate now the question which he would debate if we came back earlier.
Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I am not going into details. I was saying that, if we came back earlier, I might be able to have a debate on this subject and save my constituents the additional cost of 60 per cent.
Unless we have a debate in the next two or three weeks, this might not be possible. I would not want to have such a debate on Christmas Eve or New Year's Day, since very few hon. Members would be here. But this is a very serious matter. I am in a quandary about whether to support hon. Members opposite who think that we should come back earlier to
694
enable us to debate various subjects, because then I might be able to raise this matter in detail.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me a definite assurance that the Government will take some positive action here before the Recess, because this has been outstanding for 18 months. I have been tipped off privately that it could be two years before action is taken. If that is true, I warn the Government that I shall be very annoyed and will take the most serious action open to me. Every opportunity I get, I shall try to hold up Government business, and, if the Whips try to interfere, I shall resign the Whip, because I do not want to be a supporter of this Government if they do not do the right thing by these people. This is not a threat, but a request to the Government to do the right thing.
There are other subjects which I could also raise if we came back early. For instance, almost 12 months ago, the Attorney-General promised me an investigation and the publication of a report into cube-cutting. Again, my right hon. Friend is affected—
Sir Frederick Bennett: Tell us more.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member would like me to go into details of cube-cutting, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow that. It is a racket worked by the shipping and forwarding agents, whereby they have their cake and eat it. An investigation has been going on for about 12 months.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South has left. He was saying how terrible the trade union movement is, and I wanted to point out how terrible it is that the legal profession takes so long to deal with simple matters. This investigation into cube-cutting has been going on for 12 months and we still have not had a report. What has happened about the report and the Attorney-General's promise of a statement? Will we get it before the House rises? This might be another reason for me to oppose the Adjournment.
Another matter which arose only today was the strange statement of the Leader of the House, which he said we would have only an hour and a

695
half to debate. That is not very long, considering that almost every hon. Member will want to take part in such a debate—on the Services Committee's Report on Members' salaries and secretarial assistance.
To help me decide how to vote on the Motion, perhaps my right hon. Friend could tell me how many stenographers in his office earn £500 a year or less? He might also find out how many officials of the House are in this situation, since I can find none. He might also find out how many civil servants get 6d. a mile or less for their travelling. This would be useful, since I have found no one, in local or national government, or working for any of the boards, who is in this situation.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, has now returned, since I wanted to refer to the legal profession and a matter on which I am sure that I will have his support. Only last week, the Attorney-General was asked some serious questions about pornographic literature being sent through the post, quite unsolicited, to juveniles and old people. He said that he and the Director of Public Prosecutions had considered this and that nothing could be done.
Since then, one of my constituents, a nurse, has had some really filthy pornographic literature sent to her. I have referred this to the Attorney-General, but have told my constituent that, in view of his reply on similar matters, I was not sanguine that anything would be done.
If we came back a week earlier the Attorney-General could, through what we euphemistically refer to as "the usual channels", get a Bill agreed to, which could go through almost on the nod, giving him the legislative powers to deal with these purveyors of filth. Thus the week could be used not just by back benchers, but by the Government.
Mr. Farr: The hon. Member is on a good point. Is he aware that the other day a constituent of mine, a young girl aged 12, received one of these pieces of trash through the post, addressed to her personally? Is he further aware that when I called the attention of the Attorney-General to the matter, he said that I could take some very strong and
696
definite action against this firm, that I could really upset it, by instructing my constituent to send the letters back to the firm? If that is how the right hon. and learned Gentleman views the problem—in such a light-hearted way—I do not think that we have much hope
Mr. Lewis: I accept the hon. Member's words, although this is an ex parte reference. I have not asked the Attorney-General whether he said that, and I do not know the facts. But I do know that in the House the Attorney-General said that he would not take any action and went on to say that he could not, because he did not have the legislative powers. He can get legislative power whenever he wants it. If the Government supported us and came back a week earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend and his legal luminaries could introduce a Bill on this matter that could go through within 24 hours.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is now on a point concerning a number of us. I had a leaflet sent to me, received by a constituent—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is stretching the Motion a bit too far. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude in dealing with the subject, but we must move on now.
Mr. Lewis: I have made my point and will leave it there.
Hon. Members have rightly referred to the tragic situation affecting what I call two of the best types of employees, namely, the teachers and the nurses. I do not know how long ago it was since we had a debate on teachers' or nurses' salaries. If we came back early we could debate these subjects and perhaps prevent further strikes. I am not like hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not condemn these strikes although I regret them. I am sorry that they have to take place and for the pupils and the parents who have to suffer.
Only this week in the House, the Minister of Agriculture had to admit that, unfortunately, price rises were taking place. I drew his attention to the fact that 250 food prices will rise in the new year. This is another reason for returning early, because these increases will not help the prices and incomes policy.

697
Then there was the Prime Minister's promise of a White Paper on all the aspects of entering the Common Market. This was promised by the end of the year and he now tells us that it will be in January. If we came back early we might be able to get the White Paper earlier. I am surprised that it has taken so long. The Daily Telegraph has published its report, as has the C.B.I.
I went more democracy for Members of Parliament. Before every Recess we have this kind of Adjournment debate and not one hon. Member on either side is consulted about what they want. The "usual channels" get together and decide how long we shall be in recess and then the Government table a Motion, and we are told that we can reject or accept it. I am not sure that this is the best way of doing it. The Government should practise in the House what they preach in the country, namely, good industrial relations. There should be consultations. I would like to see them negotiating with Members and asking them what are their views, whether they feel that a Select Committee should deal with this or that, whether we should have a Recess until 19th January. If they did that they could find a consensus and reach a decision which was agreed by most hon. Members.
The former Leader of the House told me that he could not do this because if Members were consulted in advance it would leek into the Press. Every day of the week we have everything leaking into the Press. I knew next week's business before it was announced here, I knew about the length of the Recess long before this Motion was tabled. I do not see why we should debate a subject like this. It is known weeks beforehand to the Press, to everyone except hon. Members. We are never asked or consulted.
I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that he might consider meeting various Members and asking them what they feel about this. It might save a lot of time and help the Government to get their business more speedily.
6.18 p.m.
Sir Frederic Bennett: I was in considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said earlier, that if one cannot debate one's chosen subjects it becomes all the more important that one
698
should have at least accurate and full information in response to Questions. The hon. Member and I know some of the difficulties that have arisen over a period of time. Earlier today, I referred to my strong feelings about this. Before the House rises the Foreign Secretary or another Minister should come to the House to explain and apologise for inaccurate Answers given to Questions put by me this week.
I have been in the House for 18 years, with only a brief break of some months half-way through, and I cannot remember an occasion when a request of this sort would have had to be made. Normally, if an hon. Member has the courtesy to point out to a Minister that an inaccurate statement has been made, the Minister takes the earliest opportunity to come to the House to deny the accusation, if that be the case—it cannot be denied in this case—or else to give an explanation and an apology.
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this seriously, because it reflects on more than just a party point and I am sure he will agree that normally if a Minister, from either party in power, gives inaccurate information in Parliamentary Answers he takes the earliest opportunity to come to the House to correct it. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he were sitting on this side in Opposition he would be among the first to press for exactly this to happen.
I know that I may not go into the merits of this matter, so I shall curtail my remarks to the bare facts of what took place, but it is only fair to the Minister that I should give the facts for, otherwise, he cannot ask his right hon. Friend to come to deal with them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not go into the details of the matter that he wishes to debate. We are debating the length of the Recess which we shall take. The hon. Member may argue that we should not take the Recess till he is satisfied on the matter with which he is concerned, but he may not go into the details of that matter.
Sir F. Bennett: I appreciate the difficulty in which I am, and in which I may put you, Mr. Speaker, if I stray outside the rules of order, but I do ask you to indulge me as far as is fitting, for it is

699
difficult for a Minister to know how to give answers if one does not state some facts, and without going into detail. I shall strive to avoid that—
Mr. Speaker: It is a difficulty which every hon. Member has to avoid when he debates whether we should adjourn for a Recess or not, or for how long.
Sir F. Bennett: Very briefly, without going into details, a number of hon. Members here, certainly two of my hon. Friends, have already said how very worried we are about the progress of events in Rhodesia, and, with particular reference to the imposition of sanctions, to the question whether they are being effective or not effective, and whether other countries which are involved are playing the game or doing no more than paying lip service to the United Nations resolution.
In this context it is very important that, before we rise, the Minister should come to the House and make a statement, as I hope he will, and give us more light than I have been able to extract so far by way of Question and Answer. These are two all-important issues. The first is: are sanctions really working? Secondly whether they are working or not, is Britain's trade suffering while that of other countries is gaining at our expense by their increasing their trade? These are very important issues and I want the Minister to make a statement about them before we rise for the Recess.
It is obviously very important that the Minister should give us accurate information on what representation these other countries still maintain in Rhodesia when we have withdrawn our own representative there. It is obviously very pertinent to the main issue that I want debated before the House rises, or about which I would like a statement made before the House rises, that on Monday of this week, when I pressed for an Answer on this matter, I was told that there were 13 countries—no fewer than that—which have diplomatic representation there. I shall not name them, but they were listed by name. The Foreign Secretary, in defending his point, went on to say that there was a large number of other countries which had had representatives there before U.D.I. but had since withdrawn them.
700
I then proceeded to ask which they were. It is a strange fact—and this is where I have to refer to a detail—that one and the same name appears on the list of those which have diplomatic representation there but, two days later, was also given as one country which had withdrawn.
I asked the Foreign Office to explain. I was given an astonishing answer, that in the second case the name was wrongly given, because the diplomatic representation concerned had moved from Salisbury to Bulawayo. It seems hardly relevant to the question of diplomatic representation in Rhodesia whether the representation is in one town or another. I was also told that a large number of other countries had withdrawn their diplomatic representation, but in his own Answer the Foreign Secretary, after admitting earlier that there were 13 still there and there were only three which had withdrawn. Is that a very large number—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may ask for more light, but may not himself in this debate give us light.
Sir F. Bennett: May I, then, just ask for more light—how that number is a large number? I have been given another answer, which was put into my hands less than half an hour ago, and it says that there were five which had taken their diplomatic representation away. So I have had three contradictory answers in three days.
I would like my question to be answered before we rise for the Recess, or else, perhaps, we could come back earlier, but it seems to me absolutely essential as a matter of principle that we should debate the whole question of the imposition and the effectiveness of sanctions, and whether this country is being discriminated against, or not, because of their ineffectiveness. What I am asking the Minister or his right hon. Friend to do is to throw more light on this matter, because I have recently had a succession of the most contradictory answers that I can remember in 18 years as a Member of the House.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Ought we not to come back a little earlier in January to have a debate on what is apparently the very interesting subject of what constitutes a large number?
Sir F. Bennett: I should like to do that, but I think that that would be asking more than Mr. Speaker would be prepared to tolerate. We might also have a debate on the conduct of a Minister who makes a false statement and does not correct it, which would be more relevant to the point, but I must not trespass upon the indulgence which Mr. Speaker has given me.
I hope that the Minister realises that this is about the only opportunity one can get to obtain rectification of a most serious Ministerial error. I hope that we shall get a statement before the end of next week.
6.26 p m.
The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): I feel that I should reply to some of the points which have been made so far in this brief debate. There have been seven speeches and I have heard them all. Inevitably, there tends, in a debate of this kind, to be a certain amount of repetition as hon. Members put forward those points of great concern to them and give reasons for thinking that the House should continue to sit or to come back at an earlier date, but I think the general temper of the debate has been an agreeable one; indeed, some rather good speeches, I thought, were made.
Frankly, however, I thought that the tone was generally marred somewhat, to put it mildly, by two remarks. One was a remark made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) not in his main speech but in his intervention later, when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and imputed to the Attorney-General words, which he quoted, which he said the Attorney-General had spoken, in what context I do not know. The general effect of his intervention was to suggest that the Attorney-General's attitude to questions of pornographic literature was flippant. I think that that impression which the hon. Gentleman gave is an impression which he did not mean to give, and if that is so I hope that he will make the point clear now.
Mr. Farr: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. No. What I actually said, and I repeat it, was that I
702
received a letter—I said, from the Attorney-General. It was either from the Attorney-General, or from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am speaking from memory. This letter quite clearly said that the only course my constituents could take was to send the letters back to the firm from which they originated. Quite frankly, I do not consider that good enough. I repeat what I said earlier.
Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Member has made himself rather clearer and that with the general tone he has used now he has helped to clear the matter up.
The second remark which I thought was a little unfortunate was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), when he used extravagant language to describe what I think he described—what was the word he used about my right hon. Friend?—
Sir F. Bennett: Inaccurate, false, misleading.
Mr. Shore: Inaccurate, false, misleading. Yes, well, I think from the material I have seen—and I have been studying this rather hard during the last half hour or so—the strongest phrase that could possibly be used on this is "slight confusion". If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I hope to explain why I believe he is confused—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Minister cannot debate now what he could debate if the Adjournment Motion were defeated and we had no Christmas holiday.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman say that we should come back a day early—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made his plea in a speech, and I am sure that the House has listened to it with gravity.
Mr. Shore: You are absolutely right to draw my attention to this, Mr. Speaker. The point I was seeking to make in my opening remarks was that I did not think there was any need for the House to remain in session or to curtail the Recess to clear up what I believe to be a slight confusion in the words used in answer to a Question put down by the hon. Member for Torquay.

703
Although, with regret, I have to admit that it would be out of order for me to put this matter right now, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will receive a reasonably satisfactory explanation within a short time.
Sir F. Bennett: How?
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman himself will have to see whether or not that explanation is satisfactory.
Sir F. Bennett. The Minister said that I would get an explanation. Will it be by a statement made publicly?
Mr. Shore: Unless I am misinformed, I think that the hon. Gentleman has put down a Written Question.
Sir F. Bennett: No.
Mr. Shore: Then I shall have to consider how best the hon. Gentleman's problem can be met at the earliest moment.
I turn to the main issues which have been raised. Virtually all hon. Members who spoke expressed anxiety about the situation in the Middle East, and I well understand why. It is an unhappy situation, but, as hon. Members know, the four-Power talks are at present active in New York. I can add nothing further except that Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned are together discussing the situation, and I am sure that the anxiety of hon. Members and the urgency with which they regard this matter are fully understood by the Government. On the other issues of foreign policy which were raised, I have already made a brief comment on Rhodesia and I do not think that I can add to that.
Several hon. Members expresed interest in the forthcoming information about the Common Market. We must see that document and have time to study it before we can have a useful debate. There are difficulties here which I think the House will appreciate. The situation in the Common Market is not static, but very active, and the shape of policy is constantly changing as important matters are renegotiated among the Six, especially the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There has been confusion about when the document will
704
be published. Will the Minister give an approximate date? May we hope that it will be during the first week in January?
Mr. Shore: I cannot go beyond what has already been said, which is that it will be as early as possible in the New Year.
On the domestic issues that have been raised, the hon. Member for Harborough thought that five and a half days could be usefully filled by debating the matters which he suggested. I believe that there is a good prospect of some of these subjects being discussed when we reassemble in January. That is not a specific promise, but hon. Members may have a chance to debate the Common Market and Rhodesia and there will be opportunities to debate the strategy of Government aid to industry. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not wish to take the point which he was making about the Beagle Aircraft Company in isolation, but in the broad context of Government assistance to industry to be judged against the background of aid for other industries, such as shipbuilding. I am sure that opportunities for such a debate will arise in the ordinary course of events.
I noted with great interest what the hon. Gentleman said about Conservative agricultural policy. The House will be most interested to know of this and to have an opportunity to debate it, but I do not think that we need to come back early to do so. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to see whether a Supply day, or part of a Supply day, could usefully be occupied in telling the House and the nation precisely what the Conservative policy is.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) expressed anxiety about electricity power supplies. It is natural that this subject should be raised at a time like this, particularly in view of the recent interference with supplies. We entered the winter in a strong position in terms of capacity—better than for some years. It has been our misfortune that problems have been discovered with the new, large sets which are being introduced which are having teething problems and need to be worked in. This is a perfectly legitimate problem, and I am

705
advised that, given a reasonable winter—although our winter is sometimes unreasonable—we need not anticipate the breakdowns which the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
The problem that was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North was near to my heart. My hon. Friend speaks on many subjects which, geographically, are very close to my constituency, and I am conscious of and involved in several of the matters which he raised. On Ronan Point, discussions with local authorities are still proceeding which it is hoped to bring to a conclusion in the near future.
There are many different layers of the problem. One matter with which my hon. Friend is concerned involves the kinds of regulations which should be laid down, the specifications for new buildings and the repair of existing ones. Secondly, there are the problems which he faces in his constituency of the decanting of certain people while repair work is being undertaken. Thirdly, there is the matter of compensation for the tenants who were disturbed, and, lastly, is the question of the financial arrangements to be made by the Government and the councils involved.
These are complex matters. I understand my hon. Friend's impatience. I will do my best to hurry on any conclusion of these discussions. I am as interested in this matter as he is.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Can it be taken that this hurrying up will mean that we shall have some action quite soon, because the matter has now been outstanding for 18 months, getting on for two years?
Mr. Shore: We will do so as far as we possibly can. As I have said, I understand my hon. Friend's impatience, but in the nature of the problem it is not easy to accelerate matters.
I conclude by dealing with two further matters. It was alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Christmas Recess was excessively long. The House will know that this is not the case. We are to adjourn for 30 days. My information
706
is that on only one occasion during the 13 years of Tory rule did they have a Christmas Recess lasting for less than 30 days. Interestingly enough; it was the last year of their rule when, no doubt, they felt that there was a great deal of business left undone with which they had need to catch up. I recall one occasion when they had no fewer than 52 days of Christmas Recess. Let us be clear that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary in the present length of Recess. This is, as it were, the Labour average and tends to be considerably below the period previously established.
Finally, I give the usual assurance that if events move in a serious way and representations are made to the Government for a recall of Parliament then, obviously, we will consider the matter most carefully. Such a power exists and we shall approach the authorities in the proper way.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 19th December, do adjourn till Monday 19th January.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Transport (London) Amendment Act, 1969.

2. Expiring Laws Act, 1969.

3. Rent (Control of Increases) Act, 1969.

4. Police Act, 1969.

5. Customs (Import Deposits) Act, 1969.

6. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1969.

7. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1969.

GAS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
6.45 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill arises directly from the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea. The discovery has a profound effect on the industry, and its further development will have an even greater effect.
The gas industry will be undergoing its second major revolution within a decade. It moved from coal carbonisation to oil reforming. It is now rapidly moving to displacing conventional forms of gas more or less exclusively by natural gas mainly from the North Sea.
The effect of this development is that instead of being an industry of fragmented manufacture and distribution the gas industry will become an industry of distribution only. Furthermore, during the next few years we expect to see the size of the industry doubled or trebled. As this great conversion takes place and natural gas takes over entirely from town gas, re-equipping and conversion of appliances and apparatus will involve about 13 million customers. It is vital that, if this great discovery and its many advantages are to be fully exploited, we should organise a speedy and smooth changeover from the old forms of gas-making to the new distribution system and the appliances which will go with it.
It is fairly obvious that the structure of the gas industry which was related to its origins in terms of local gas-making, and which, in turn, was later centralised to some extent in policy making, will change as natural gas from the central source of supply takes over. Therefore, it is inevitable that there must be a change in the structure of the industry giving to the centre which controls these vast supplies of gas appropriate planning powers to undertake the vast operation that lies ahead.
This central control, related to the central source of supply which will almost exclusively exist as natural gas takes over, must be able to plan nationally in matters like capital expenditure, pipeline grids, storage facilities, and the fixing of tariffs. There will no longer be local
708
firms with local apparatus churning out gas, but one great central source from which the tariff must be fixed centrally. It follows that the overall financial responsibility for the industry must be taken by those in control of the sources of supply, the Gas Council.
My predecessor, though he bore a more muscular and less generous title than I myself, gave a general indication of the changes which will be required. These were given a general welcome by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and by the N.B.P.I. I do not pray them in aid as specifically approving the proposals in the Bill, but the general need for a reconstruction of the industry along the lines I now propose in the Bill was recognised and welcomed by the Select Committee.
In making this change, which involves some strengthening of the power at the centre of the industry, I have been anxious to provide that we do not either turn the local area boards into mere automata, obeying rigorously some all knowing, all-seeing central authority. I say this for two reasons. First, we want to allow the benefits of the past to accrue in the industrial adventures of the future. The past history of the gas industry was such that we had great pools of talent in the area boards which in many cases had the responsible job, not merely of ensuring the distribution of gas, but of making all sorts of arrangements for its manufacture.
I wish to see that pool of talent, decision-making and experience drawn into the new body, the Gas Council, which will take control centrally as is inevitable because of the developments in natural gas which lie ahead. I not only seek to utilise the talent in this way, but to preserve it for use in the industry and to draw it into the central authority by retaining on the Gas Council the area board chairmen who will form two-thirds of the Gas Council itself. Thus, although it is an exercise in centralisation, it is a rather novel exercise, because we draw into the central authority the people who are exercising authority in the area, getting the benefit of their experience, and ensuring at the same time that we do not have a remote central body unaware of the problems and difficulties of the areas by providing that the Gas Council itself, which has

709
the central authority, is constituted as to two-thirds of its membership by the area board chairmen.
Powers must be available generally to the central authority over the area boards in the nature of the new structure that will arise as natural gas takes over more and more. The central authority will be given power to give directions to the area boards to enable it to discharge the responsibility for the industry, financial and industrial, which is placed firmly on it in the Bill.
Tariffs will be fixed by the central authority, or, if they are fixed by the local authority, they will be subject to amendment by the central authority, so it means, in effect, that tariffs will be tinder the final decision of the Gas Council itself, but that will be subject to two things—
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does that mean that tariffs will be the same throughout the country? Is it the intention to fix identical levels of prices throughout the country for identical consumers?
Mr. Lever: No, not necessarily. What will be identical will be the price at which the Gas Council will supply the natural gas to the area boards. Although I am talking of a few years hence, when natural gas will have displaced entirely town gas, there is the interim period in which a certain amount of gas-making will be going on locally, on a diminishing scale, as the natural gas takes over.
The tariff-fixing power of the Gas Council will be subject to two general provisions. First, I need hardly say that any contract entered into already by area 'boards will be honoured. There will be no power in the Gas Council to override existing contracts. Secondly, there is no reason why local costs and local successes in economy and efficiency should not be reflected in local prices to the extent that this will be possible under the new regime. Clearly, as long as the area boards are making their own gas, this might be a relevant and significant factor, but, as this local gas-making is wound up, it follows that there will not be the wide variations in price which might have occurred under the old system, because all the area boards will be gel ting their bulk supplies of natural
710
gas at the same price from the Gas Council. But that is not to say that there will not be complete possibilities for area boards to ensure that any benefits of local efficiency are passed on to the consumer in some variation in price.
The general capital development programme of the industry will be settled by the central Gas Council. That follows logically from what I have said. In the past, it was understandable that there were these area boards each formulating an appropriate capital programme, because they had major tasks, not only of distribution, but of gas-making, to undertake. But, as the natural gas comes through a system of pipes to the area boards, the capital programme which makes this possible ought to be planned and controlled by the Gas Council, and the financial responsibility for that should be upon it, subject always to the approval of the Minister.
Overall financial responsibility will be passed to the Gas Council. The obligation to pay its way, instead of being thrown on the area boards, will be thrown on to the council, so that the industry as a whole, operating as it will be from a central point of supply, will have to pay its way, and the statutory responsibility to ensure that that is done will lie upon the Gas Council.
I hope that no one will make heavy weather of this. I am anxious not to encourage any excessive centralisation which is not industrially necessary. The only centralisation that is taking place is the centralisation dictated by the industrial and economic facts of the new development, and that is mitigated in the way that I have shown, by ensuring that the area board chairmen constitute a majority on the central authority and are able to bring their influence to bear in that way.
Nobody ought to be excited by the fact that because this is a nationalised industry it is inevitable that any powers that it has have to be expressed in statutory form, and so there is talk of "power to give directions" to the area boards by the Gas Council. It is inevitable that those words should be used, but I do not want anyone to imagine that that is the way the industry will operate, with showers of directions corning from some rigid central authority to

711
the area boards. Business will go on in the ordinary way, with the ordinary, reasonable, flexible informality that one would expect in a prosperous and successful industry of this kind, but it is inevitable that I have to use language like "power to give directions" if I am to comply with the need to have an ultimate reserve of power which defines where responsibility lies.
The point of the Bill is not to anticipate clashes between the Gas Council and area boards, but to define in statutory form, as I must with a nationalised industry, where responsibility lies. But I emphasise again that the good spirit and good relations of the industry will, I have no doubt, continue as before.
I propose, now, to say a word about the oil powers in the Bill. I have no doubt that this will be the subject of excited, if not to me exciting, debate today and in Committee. Here again, I hope that the House will try to keep a sense of proportion about this. It has been recognised from the outset of the discovery of North Sea gas that the Gas Council, which will be the great consumer of this gas, ought to be given the opportunity to participate in the exploration processes on what is known as the Continental Shelf. I think that this was accepted by the previous Conservative Government, and I think that it will be generally accepted that the Gas Council, being in the position of the great consumer of this gas, should, if possible, participate in the exploration process, share the risks, and share the gains.
There are other ancillary advantages which will accrue, because, if it is in partnership with private oil companies in making these discoveries, it illumines the situation for later negotiations on prices in many ways, and makes it helpful, because it will be the partnership of the Gas Council and the oil company, or companies, in the exploration which will finally be doing the deal with the Gas Council to sell it the natural gas.
It is one of nature's quirks, rather than a doctrinaire passion of the Labour Party, which has produced a situation in which gas and oil can be discovered; when one is looking for the one, one is liable to discover the other. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this has nothing to do with
712
the constitution of the Labour Party. This is more to do with divine dispensation, or the distribution of geological relationships a great many years ago. If one concedes that the Gas Council ought to be given the right to search for gas in partnership with experienced prospectors, one has to accept, too, that if oil is discovered it should not turn shuddering away from the rich gushes of oil that it finds when looking for gas, but that it should continue to participate with its partners in the exploitation of that oil.
Although the general purpose of these powers is to set the Gas Council into the natural gas discovery picture, for the many reasons which I have given, it may discover oil. If it gets oil, I want the council to be in the same posiiton as any ordinary citizen would be, with the same powers in utilising and exploiting the discovery as any ordinary citizen would have.
Therefore, there are powers in the Bill to get, refine and market oil. I am not suggesting that that will be one of the great purposes of this industry. The primary purpose of this industry is to supply gas to the domestic, commercial and industrial users of this country. But, for the reasons which I have given, we may find ourselves possessors of oil, and, if we are, it should be the sensible view of the House—all political theology apart—that the Gas Council should not be hampered in the exploitation of any such asset, any more than any private citizen would be hampered. No limited company, no private individual who was engaged in exploitation for gas would reject the gush of oil if it came his way. Having got it, no individual or private company would want to be hampered or restricted artificially in the exploitation of the benefits which resulted therefrom.
But I want to assure the House that the general purposes of the Bill are as I have outlined them. There are no secret, mysterious desires to rival the oil companies or to people the country with new petrol stations served by nationalised, mini-skirted girls handing out State stamps, treble, quadruple or quintuple, or anything of that kind. I ask the House to assent to the reasonableness of giving to the Gas Council, which is, after all, representing the public, the country, the same facilities for exploiting any advantages

713
which accrue as would be available to the private citizen.
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. David Lane Mr. David Lane (Cambridge) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must decide to whom he is giving way.
Mr. Lever: I give way to the hon. Member on the Front Bench, but I will gladly give way to the other hon. Member later.
Mr. Ridley: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what he said would apply to a private company which discovered gas in the North Sea, and whether he would not, therefore, think that it should be given facilities to market and distribute that gas within the United Kingdom. This, after all, is the corollary of his argument.
Mr. Lever: The difference between gas and petrol is this, that the nation has decided—not without protracted debate and detailed discussion, as I recall it—that the gas industry should be a State monopoly and should be owned by the State. If the State had decided, or if Parliament had decided—which they have not—that oil should be a national monopoly, then, of course, I should have had to stipulate that any discoveries of oil piped to this country should be sold exclusively by the State monopoly. But there is no such State monopoly and there is no intention to bring one into being.
We are dealing with two totally different subjects. The gas industry has, by decree of Parliament, been given the monopoly, on behalf of the public, in the supply of gas. The hon. Member is a little out of date if he thinks that we should abandon that notion. His own Government did not take the opportunity of fragmenting this industry, whatever they did elsewhere. I thought that we could say that, in 1969, we were all agreed that the gas industry should be publicly owned and operated.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument closely. Would he extend an equal right to the electricity supply industry, which could make very good use of natural gas and of oil?
Mr. Lever: If I thought that it was reasonable, logical and necessary to extend the right of exploration, refining and marketing of oil to the electricity industry, I should do so, but I know of no disability which has been suffered by that industry in not having these powers—
Mr. Palmer: It burns it in its power stations.
Mr. Lever: It does not follow that, because a nationalised industry burns oil, I must turn it into the oil exploration business. It does not follow that, because it uses sugar in the tea served to its employees, I should put it into sugar refining. One must strike a balance which relates to industrial logic—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a conversation.
Mr. Lever: I am driven by industrial logic and commercial common sense and not by emotional reflexes. Hon. Members on both sides must decide what propulsion they will use for their arguments.
Mr. Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is always so logical, and is now pursuing his industrial logic, so could he tell us why it is logical to give powers to explore in the North Sea and the Irish Sea to the Coal Board, the nationalised coal industry, and not, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, to the electricity industry?
Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman will ask me that question when it would be in order for me to give him a proper and comprehensive answer, I should be happy to oblige him; otherwise, we could correspond happily and successfully on the subject without your intervention, Mr. Speaker, which might happen on this occasion.
Mr. Lane: This is a slightly separate point. Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this theology of his, would he explain something? He said that he was only trying to put the Gas Council on all fours with any other citizen. Why is it necessary to put the council not on all fours, but in a preferential position as regards gas exploration?
Mr. Lever: When I disclaim theology, he must not attribute this to me. I am

715
not saying that I have no theology, but that it is inappropriate in the getting, refining and marketing of oil. I am not denying that I have sometimes some concepts of a theological character, but not in this connection. As for the priority in getting into the search for natural gas, this follows again from industrial logic, because we, the gas industry here, are virtually the sole consumer of this gas—certainly the biggest consumer.
Again, it seems to me industrial logic, which would be followed by any private firm in the same position, that, when its raw material was being searched for in this way, it would want to be in on it. Its leverage as a customer, had it been a private citizen, would have been well recognised by the oil companies. This is an arrangement which not only I but the oil companies find logical. No difficulty would arise from this.
It would be surprising to me if we were the great off-take of natural gas and it the gas industry did not have some interest in the exploration process too. After all, we do not want a situation in which our bargaining power would be of a simply destructive character, consisting of saying, "No, we will not take the natural gas, even when it is discovered". Surely we must try to bring the gas industry into contact with its source of raw material in this way if we possibly can. I do not think that it has the expertise, the resources and equipment which on its own would enable it to carry out this exploration on the largest scale. In many cases, it will be in partnership with private oil companies.
However, as I have said, I keep my theology in a totally different area. This does not cause me any affront or anxiety, and I think that it will provide satisfactory results for everybody.
I have said that I am putting it on equal terms. When the Gas Council operates, and to the extent that it operates, should it find oil, which is not what it is primarily looking for—that is gas—it will operate through sub-companies and not directly as the Gas Council. In other words, before it can operate, it must divest itself of any privileges or advantages of being the Gas Council which arise from various statutory considerations—and of any disad-
716
vantages, for that matter—and operate simply as ordinary companies.
First, I will have appropriate control over their finances, because they can be financed only by the Gas Council, with my consent, and, second, the results of these separate enterprises will be separate financially and will be there for all to see, including the House, of course, which will, no doubt, take into account, should these companies come into being and should they operate, all the circumstances in deciding what money should be provided to enable the Gas Council to carry on.
It will be noted that we have virtually confined the area of operations in the search for oil and gas to territory within our own jurisdiction. We think that this is right. It is always a balance to know how far it is logical for a nationalised industry to spread its wings in related spheres. I do not think that it would be right, certainly not at this point of time, to ask the Gas Council to engage in general exploration for gas or oil outside the area of our own jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) must remember that preferences are not given to the Gas Council in the sense of its being better treated than other companies who participate in this work, but only that we are liable to give preference to syndicates which include the Gas Council. He will remember that the areas in which licences have been given are areas within our own territorial jurisdiction. It is not unreasonable that the Government should feel that their Gas Council, the great customer, in areas of the Government's own jurisdiction should, if possible, participate in these explorations.
Mr. Robert Maxwell: Why has my right hon. Friend decided not to allow the Gas Council the right to go in for exploration overseas? Is he not aware that the battle for energy on national scales with nationalised companies is going on and that our competitors have nationalised companies? Will he not reconsider giving the Gas Council the same rights outside our territorial waters that he is now proposing to give them inside?
Mr. Lever: I know of no present need to exercise my mind in the exciting areas that my hon. Friend requests. The Gas

717
Council has every reason to suppose that vast supplies of gas will come from our own territorial areas. I do not know of any qualifications in the existing Gas Council which, much as I respect them, would encourage me to think that they are specially adapted to engage in the world-wide exploration of oil and gas as a commercial venture. If for any reason I come to a surprising and different conclusion, I will acquaint the House and, by a separate Bill, try to give effect to it.
At the moment, I do not expect that the Gas Council would attribute to itself any such urge or talent and, therefore, although I understand my hon. Friend's desires, I do not think that it would be proper to urge the council to go into the wider areas of exploration at this stage of its history. It may be that in the course of the development of natural gas all sorts of things will happen, and the House may think it sensible that other developments should follow. I am not ruling that out, but there is nothing at present to justify an extension to the point which my hon. Friend suggests.
I want, finally, to deal with safety. I should like to make it clear that the gas industry has had the highest standards of safety and a great record of care and skill in this respect. In the past, most of the installing of gas systems and appliances was undertaken by the industry itself. Now, partly because of the great success which the gas industry has hid in recent years, there has been an increasing proportion of these appliances, especially domestic central heating systems, which have been installed by private contractors and even individuals acting under "do-it-yourself" urges, not always matched by appropriate skills.
In fact, up to 500,000 items each year are installed by private contractors and individuals. Many of them are approved and qualified and do first-class work. Others, alas, are not and they are operating in an area where, although there is perfect safety when skill and care are used there may be danger when they are absent. This work is not carried out by approved or qualified people in many cases and nor is it subject to any kind of legal supervision. We have to do something about this.
718
The Ronan Point tribunal suggested a solution in the statutory notification of new installations followed by a statutory obligation on the Gas Council to inspect and check these installations. I have come to the conclusion that this is not the right approach, partly because it involves an army of inspectors, partly because it would be difficult to rely purely on notification as such and partly because it is the wrong concept that safety lies in the initial installation and nothing further. I regard the safety of gas appliances as a sort of continuing requirement which requires continuing attention to maintenance and workmanship.
I commend to the House the approach in the Bill, which is that standards of installation and maintenance covering workmanship and materials will be established by regulations. The standards must be applied and if they are not, there will be an offence subject to penalty. Hon. Members will be gratified to note that the Gas Council and the area boards are not exempt from the statutory penalties. They are under the same obligation as any other citizen to maintain these standards on pain of penalty.
Secondly, I am encouraging the formation of a self-governing voluntary association of people in the industry so as to try to bring into being a register of qualified gas installers whose standards of work and knowledge warrant their being on a register which can be trusted by the public. This will be entirely voluntary, but I hope that the public will think it in its own interests and safety increasingly to select the people from this register.
There is another aspect of safety. At present, we have a power to enter premises and inspect equipment. The power is inadequate in the interests of safety. Even the powers to cut off gas in the interests of safety are somewhat vague and inadequate. We therefore propose to take power in the Bill, by regulation, to enter premises and cut off gas when a gas leak is suspected, or when there is reason to believe that equipment is in a dangerous state.
I ought to say that this is a reserve power. Most sensible people are only too delighted when danger is suspected to allow skilled people to come in and

719
eliminate its source, but there may be the odd obstinate or contumacious individual who is not only prepared to blow himself up, but who views with indifference a similar fate befalling the rest of the row of houses to which he is adjacent, and we must have power to go in and remove the danger.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman to prove to the House that these contumacious individuals exist? I am sure that he will agree that, other things being equal, we do not want to extend the power of public authorities, or anybody else, to enter people's homes without a warrant.
Mr. Lever: Even other things not being equal, the hon. Member may rest assured that I am sufficiently liberal to share his point of view that we do not want to increase any statutory powers to enter people's homes unnecessarily. If the hon. Member wants me to document the reasons for this provision, I hope that he will await the Committee stage of the Bill, when I can retail an interesting list of examples and experiences of premises which were empty and nobody available to give permission and premises where there was the odd person who was not prepared to allow one in. I think that I can put his mind at rest in that way.
At present, we can enter when there is a leak of gas, but we cannot enter when there is a reasonable suspicion of a leak. It is very difficult to work under that restriction, so we propose to change it so as to be able to enter when we have reasonable suspicion of a leak as well as when we have actual proof that there is a leak.
Secondly, it is no use giving power to enter and stop the place exploding because of a leak of gas and not allowing entry when for other reasons there is a danger of a gas explosion, perhaps due to faulty equipment, or blocked flue, or something like that. Therefore, equally, we are altering that situation so that when we have reason to believe that there is danger, other than the danger of a leak, of an explosion, we are entitled to enter. But I emphasise that this will be carefully safeguarded.
We may enter without a warrant only in an emergency. I think that that is reasonable. One cannot carry the rôle of
720
the citadel status of an Englishman's home to the point of saying that nobody, even in an emergency, can enter the house and stop it from exploding and, alas, blowing up many other neighbouring houses which may be subject to damage and injury from the explosion. But we can enter without a warrant only in an emergency.
If it is not an emergency, even though we have reason to suspect the danger of explosion, whether by leak of gas or by defective apparatus, or something like that, we have to go to a magistrate and get a warrant. I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will realise that I share all his anxieties that we should not trespass upon the citizen's freedom and privacy. That is one of the reasons why I turned down the Ronan Point tribunal recommendation, which might have meant at least 1 million entries, if not necessarily by 1 million inspectors, into people's houses to inspect every single piece of new apparatus installed. I hope that we have achieved a solution, but I shall await the Committee stage and listen to what hon. Members have to say on this as on other aspects of the Bill.
I am not attempting, you will be relieved to know, Mr. Speaker, to cover every detail of the Bill. If there are any problems raised by hon. Members on Second Reading, my hon. Friend will be ready to reply to them. We have an interesting Committee stage ahead of us when we can explore these things at much greater leisure.
The structure of the gas industry at present is due to its history. The new structure is the one appropriate to its future related to natural gas. I expect the industry, on the basis of its great successes of recent years, to have a great and successful future in this new development in which natural gas becomes the sole source of gas for the people.
I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, which is necessary to prepare the Gas Council and the industry to undertake the work of the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a much curtailed debate. No fewer than 12 hon. Members wish to speak. I can call them all only if speeches are reasonably brief.
7.22 p.m.
Sir John Eden: It is particularly unfortunate that this is to be a curtailed debate and that so little opportunity is given to hon. Members on the back benches to contribute to it. I know how this has arisen and I am not beginning to suggest that there was any particular wish that this important Bill should be pushed into the distant corners of the day's debates, as it has been, but none the less our opportunities on Second Reading have been seriously limited.
As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely disarming. I wondered at one time why I could ever find it in my heart to oppose anything he asked the House to do. However, he has hardly done justice to the Bill. When he was speaking, I was reminded of a character called Mr. Dooley who said: "It must be a good thing to be good or everybody wouldn't be pretending that he was". He went on to say, "If you'd turn on the gas in the darkest heart, you'd find ii had a good reason for the worst things it done". The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual charm and wit and elegance of phrase, has sought to show us that he has good reasons for everything that he wants via the Bill, but he has not made a case for all the powers for which he is asking.
Hon. Members will agree that the question of safety is extremely important, particularly in the light of the advent of this new fuel. It is a different fuel. It has different characteristics and it requires modified appliances and new combustion techniques.
One particularly important feature is the need for correct ventilation, and many people who are experiencing this for the first time find it rather difficult to adjust to the new disciplines imposed on them in the interests of safety and to ensure that they get the best use from the gas. It is right, therefore, that there should be provision to ensure the proper inspection of installation and to make certain that those who do this work are properly trained and qualified.
Having said that, it is equally right that we should look closely in Committee at what the Minister calls his reserve powers. He sought to allay any doubts and qualms that we might have. He recognised, to put it bluntly, that nobody is against safety but that it is
722
right that we should look closely at the reserve powers to ensure that they are not carried to an extreme point in the definition of the Statute. We must do this to see that there is no abuse of the proper rights of the citizen and that there is protection of his property against excessive entry. Thus, a balance must be struck, and in Committee we will endeavour to probe this matter further.
The next part of the Bill—the restructuring of the industry—attracted some attention from the Minister. This part was originally to have been the major purpose of the Measure. This had long been foreseen. As the Minister said, it had been anticipated for many years, even before the advent of natural gas. Indeed, the 1961 Select Committee on the Gas Industry concluded that the industry would benefit from some integration of the area boards into a national system. Obviously, with the arrival of this new fuel on the scene, it was right that further integration of the industry—of its investment programme and planning—should take place.
This new fuel has led to the superimposition of a new industry onto the old. This must inevitably lead to substantial changes in its structure and organisation. Some of these changes have already taken place. Previous legislation led to the establishment of new members on the Gas Council and the creation of new departments to prepare and pave the way for the introduction of North Sea gas. There are, therefore, already in being examples of substantial co-ordination both in the planning of the development of the industry and of its capital investment programme.
This was well summarised in an interesting article in the Financial Times by Adrian Hamilton in November of this year when he wrote:
"…major policy decisions on the future of the gas industry have already been taken and the next five years will see just how well they work out in practice."
We should recognise that the major policy decisions which have already been taken were taken by the Gas Council and the 12 area boards working together in a federal structure. This has enabled them to co-ordinate developments in the interests of the industry as a whole, while still having regard to the special requirements of each area.

723
The system which has obtained has given considerable scope to men of top managerial quality. We should be anxious, as the Minister said, to ensure that in the new set-up the opportunities for men of top calibre are just as great in future. As he said, each board is very big business. These boards are now tackling enormous problems which would daunt most of us.
Although in some areas difficulties of a considerable magnitude have been encountered—some of these areas are known to my hon. Friends and I hope that they will speak bluntly on this subject in Committee—the overall record of the process of changeover involved in the introduction of this new fuel has been impressive.
Any system must have good in it if it can produce men of top management quality and men of a sturdy individualistic character such as the Chairman of the Wales Gas Board, Mervyn Jones, who will be known to many hon. Members. We regret that he will not be able to carry on for long in this sphere, although we are pleased to know that he will continue to give public service to Wales.
One great advantage of the present set-up which we do not want to lose is the fact that it has led to flexibility and innovation, particularly in the shaping of tariffs. I was, therefore, interested in what the Minister said on this subject. Another benefit has been that through the area board structure there has been a really close understanding of local market needs and there has always been direct contact with the consumer. These are real benefits which we must not lose.
I have no doubt that further changes in organisation are necessary. For example, one need only consider the enormous investment in the control system and communications network which has come into being as a result of the introduction of North Sea gas. Decisions affecting the whole industry must, therefore, be taken at the centre, and there is no disputing the fact that the operational high command for North Sea gas must be centralised.
But this is not to say that all power should be transferred to the Gas Council. We will, therefore, look very closely
724
indeed at this matter in Committee, despite what the Minister said about these matters having to be written into the Bill. We will examine the choice of words used in the Measure and explore the full meaning of those words; and we will seek what assurances we feel are desirable.
We, too, are anxious to ensure that any centralisation which is not industrially necessary does not occur. However, we will also wish to see that there is adequate consumer representation. It is in this connection that things may have got somewhat out of balance, and perhaps consumer representation has not been lifted forward in the consultative consumer machinery in the new set-up in line with the changing relationship between the area boards and the Gas Council. Changes in the centralised consultative machinery may be desirable to ensure that the voice of the consumer is heard at the centre, where the effective power of decision lies.
From a study of the Clauses relating to the part of the Bill with which I am dealing, it seems that the area boards will have very little effective power left to them. They will be kept in name only, and even small decisions affecting their areas will undoubtedly come to be taken in London. I say this because, having created these new departments at the centre, a bureaucracy will inevitably be set up at the centre. This will mean that the decisions of the area boards affecting their interests will be taken not necessarily at board meeting level—I am not worried about that; I accept that the 12 boards will be represented and will have a say at the centre—but further down the line in terms of operational reality. In other words, decisions will be taken not by men at board level but by men at the centre whose decisions will have a direct effect on the interests of the area boards.
Mr. Harold Lever: I am sure the hon Gentleman is aware that they will not have any authority over the area board employees. In other words only the Gas Council will have authority over the area boards.
Sir J. Eden: I cannot believe that the Minister is as naive as that. No matter

725
what authority one gives to a new department which is established at the centre, it will certainly grow into the position of effectively dominating the decisions of the area boards. However, we can explore this matter further in Committee.
I will only add at this stage that no matter how much one may regret this trend, it is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation. This is being experienced now by, for example, the steel industry. If one creates a monopoly in the public sector, then real power is increasingly drawn into the centre.
Mr. Lubbock: Is not this a consequence of technical innovation? Vast amounts of capital are needed in rapidly advancing industries. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the same consideraions would apply to, for example, computers, in which I.C.L. has a monopoly of British manufacture, and in aeroengines, of which Rolls-Royce is the sole manufacturer?
Sir J. Eden: I wish to limit my remarks in this connection to the Gas Council.
The Minister was right to anticipate that the third part of the Bill, which brings the Gas Council into the business of oil, would be contentious. So far we have briefly considered the two other parts of the Bill, and while there is a lot to be closely examined in Committee in those parts of the Measure, I have made it clear that, in principle, we have no rooted objection to what the Government propose.
If that had been all that the Bill was about, there would not be a Vote tonight or any need for us to have brought hon. Gentlemen opposite into the Chamber, though looking at the empty benches opposite one wonders why there are not more of them here in view of the discipline of the Three Line Whip. The Bill, like the new 50-penny piece, is many-sided and two-faced, and not even the eloquence of the Minister could disguise its underlying motive. An otherwise innocuous measure has been used as a prop for that shabby old Socialist reject, nationalisation. Time and again the British people have made it clear that they do not want it, but time and again the Labour Party diligently polish
726
it up and try to palm it off as a new product.
In this case the Minister tried to belittle the whole thing. He is obviously not proud of it, and so he sought to make a small matter of it. It is extraordinary that after experiencing the responsibilities of office, the Government could promote such a wholly irresponsible scheme. It is obvious that they are hankering still after those halcyon days when they were in Opposition.
The Minister claimed that this was a comparatively small matter, that there was nothing much in it and that there would be no immediate expenditure. This is spelled out in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum and there is an extraordinarily elaborate reference about whether or not there is likely to be any oil at the end of the day. Apparently there is no sign of oil, although everybody knows that Amoco is playing its cards very close to its chest and that, when it suits them, the Government will not be averse to playing up the prospects of Cardigan Bay.
The Minister may say that this is just a precaution, just in case that while diligently looking for gas they suddenly come across some oil, and say, "We would not know what to do with it unless we have the whole panoply of powers indicated here". He indicates that we are making a lot of fuss about nothing. I do not agree. If that were the case there would be no need for this part of the Bill at all. It is a matter of congratulation, of course, and some relief, that they did not immediately go the whole way as proposed by the Labour Party National Executive and establish a national hydrocarbons corporation.
This Bill is a lukewarm version of the original Labour Party scheme, but it is not the less unpalatable for that fact. It is rumoured that there has not been a great deal of enthusiasm even for this Measure in high places, but I do not believe it. In this, as in so many matters of the kind, I detect the hand of the Prime Minister. When he has found himself in electoral difficulties he has found it necessary to throw some crumb to the Left Wing, so this Measure has been devised to be just enough to quieten the wild boys without rousing the quiet

727
ones. That is the balance he has tried to strike.
Evidence that that sort of approach does not stand up to closer scrutiny of the Bill was the way in which Ministers have been speaking in its support outside the House. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—whom the right hon. Gentleman described as more muscular, but less generously referred to as the last Minister of Power—was at least an enthusiast for what he was proposing. He said:
"This was but one example of a strengthening and exciting enlargement of the public sector…"
I did not hear the same hyperbole from the right hon. Gentleman. In "Labour's Economic Strategy", a book which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has closely studied, it is said that although pressing for the full national hydrocarbon corporation they saw the taking of the gas industry into oil as
"…a crucial step in broadening the public stake in energy…"
One notes that this is not because the oil industry is "failing the nation" but because members of the Labour Party think that they are on to a good thing. They never wanted it before 1970 in any case, but now that the most difficult part is over, now that the gas has been found, and now that there are signs of oil—then, brothers, they are on their way: they are out to grab.
The Gas Council, too, has not been exactly backward, and I cannot blame it for any lack of enthusiasm here. The day after the Minister's statement in the House the Gas Council announced the formation of a new company called Hydrocarbons Great Britain Limited. It did not, at the same time, tell us that at least two other companies were registered—Hydrocarbons Production Limited and Hydrocarbons Development Ltd. And we have known for some time that there has been Gas Council Exploration Limited. It appears that the first three companies I have named jumped the gun, which is why powers are now sought under Clause 2 to attempt to put them within the terms of the law.
The House should consider this part of the Bill in conjunction with the new terms for Continental Shelf licensing and, in particular, the requirement that in
728
order to secure a licence in the Irish Sea there has to be compulsory partnership with either the National Coal Board or the Gas Council.
I know that it has long been stated by the Government that one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the search will continue. I do not know that they are exactly helping to bring that about by this form of compulsory partnership arrangement they have devised, but I doubt whether there will be any lack of bidders none the less, for the realities of the situation show, first of all, that competition is keen and, secondly, that there is a great deal of interest in prospects for oil and gas on the Continental Shelf in spite of what is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum; and that this is even further heightened by the possibility of finding hydrocarbon so close to such a large market. That must in itself be a very substantial incentive, and will contribute to the maintenance of interest and the furtherance of work of exploration.
But there is some confusion about the Government's true motives. It was claimed, first of all, that the purpose of this Measure was to help the Gas Council gain expertise which at present it does not have. Later came the argument that the real reason was to strengthen the bargaining power of the Gas Council in any negotiations in which it might subsequently find itself engaged with the oil companies. Now, apparently, we are also told that the purpose of these powers is to enable the Gas Council to exploit any discoveries of oil.
The statement made in July by the President of the Board of Trade seemed to be explicit enough. He made it clear that the Gas Council was to become an operator in its own right in order to
"…gain the practical experience necessary to equip it to play an even more active role in the further development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1735.]
But why should it be necessary for the Gas Council to be brought in?
The right hon. Gentleman then said that he wanted us to be able
"to develop our own expertise and gradually build a knowledgeable corps of operators within the public sector who can exploit the Continental Shelf on behalf of the people."

729
What exactly has all this to do with the Gas Council? The Council's job is to supply gas, and very well it is doing that, and it should stick to that job. It should not be required by the Government to get involved in the oil business.
There is an implication here which requires closer examination. It may be claimed that under the present system the British people have not benefited as much as they should, so the balance of ownership must be altered in favour of the public sector—as though in some magical way that will do them good. But that statement does not stand up to examination. The speed and scale with which the search for gas has been carried out is universally acclaimed. The like of it has never been equalled anywhere in the world. The companies have worked in the most appalling conditions in the North Sea, in very hazardous circumstances, at some cost in life as well as in material losses. Rigs have gone down—"Sea Gem" and "Consolation". This is not a child's game by any manner of means, but an operation in a highly risky area.
The objective of the 1964 Continental Shelf Act was to get things moving as fast as possible and to bring this new fuel to benefit the British economy in the shortest time, and the maximum British and international effort was deployed to that end. More than £2 million has been spent in this work and, as was noted by the previous Minister of Power, some of the companies have lost considerable sums of money in their search for gas and oil. That the original objectives of the 1964 Act have been achieved is clear from the enormous changes that have taken place within the Gas Industry itself.
More than a million domestic customers are already using natural gas, and this is a tribute not solely to the rapid rate of conversion and the scale with which that has been carried through, on the whole, but to the highly successful search which has been taking place, and to the experience of the companies engaged in this work. About 25,000 appliances are being changed over every week to the new fuel. It now appears that the target of 300 million cubic feet a day will be reached by 1972–73. Before long the balance of payments will benefit, we are told, by as much as £100 million a year.
730
The Chairman of the Gas Council, Sir Henry Jones, wrote recently that
"to put this into perspective it must be remembered that the first natural gas strike in the North Sea was made only four years ago."
To put that into perspective, I remind the House that it was a Conservative Act and a Conservative Minister that ensured that the search for gas should be prosecuted at the maximum speed by using the experience and resources of private enterprise. No matter how tentatively it may move in this direction, a nationalised industry is totally unsuited for such a high risk business as exploration for gas and oil.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): In that case, will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government allowed nationalised industries to have 3 per cent. of the original concessions?
Sir J. Eden: Yes, this was a point about participation made by the Paymaster-General. Clearly, now that it is taken into a totally different scale of operations, we shall have to look at the whole question of the Gas Council being allowed to consider exploration.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman said that these industries were totally unsuited to this work. Does he now withraw the words "totally unsuited"?
Sir J. Eden: No, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the situation which obtains now where the Gas Council is in partnership with an experienced operator and the proposition in the Bill that the Gas Council shall become an operator in its own right.
Mr. Williams: In that case, the hon. Gentleman can only approve of what is happening in the Irish Sea.
Sir J. Eden: That is a new situation which has yet to be developed. All we know about that is that Gulf, a partner of the National Coal Board, has withdrawn its rig and is taking it away from the Irish Sea.
In spite of what the Paymaster-General said, what is contained in the Bill means that the Gas Council is not to be left just with the question of perhaps finding some oil. Although it may not come about at once and although there

731
may not be any immediate dramatic emergence of some new strike—I accept that in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's mini-skirted threats on the forecourt—the ultimate intention is shown in Clause 2 to be clear enough. To put it simply and bluntly, it is to create a State oil company. I do not believe I am being alarmist in saying this.
Through this Bill the Gas Council will not only be given powers to search for oil on the Continental Shelf, but will be able to refine and market oil brought in from any other source. If it is to be limited to oil that it has found that makes no commercial sense and the right hon. Gentleman's industrial logic does not take him very far. If that is to be the case, I predict that later we shall certainly be asked to have it extended—initially no doubt just for topping up purposes and to balance things out—but later it will grow into something much bigger.
These powers, once given, have a habit of growing and the logic of the exercise itself points in that direction. The Gas Council will want it, the Labour Party will want it, and no matter how much they pretend that there is nothing in it at the moment, they will not conceal from us their true intention, which is to set up a State oil company. Dr. Colin Phipps, the consultant petroleum geologist and a member of the Labour Party's North Sea Study Group, wrote an interesting article recently in the New Statesman. It said:
"Although it may not wish to participate in foreign ventures initially it will almost certainly want to do so once it is well established in the indigenous industry."
We should be clear what that means. It is not too fanciful to say that there will emerge out of this comparatively slight Measure, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe it to be, the beginnings of a State petroleum company marketing its own brand in this country.
The history of State companies is not happy. Italy has its E.N.I. which began by attacking major international oil companies and is now completely dependent on their co-operation and it costs the Italians a lot of money. In France the ELF/ERAP controlled competition and sought to protect Algerian oil by means
732
of artificial pricing. The situation in Germany shows clearly the difficulties encountered by a small nationally integrated company.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—
Sir J. Eden: No. The hon. Member will be able to make his speech. I do not want to give way as there is not much time. The international oil business is complex and involved and subject enough already to the whim of Governments and the demands of nationalism. This country has always stood out against this trend. We are the base for two major international oil companies. We have always maintained a liberal policy about entry to this country rather than trying to create State oil companies, which is an indefensible proposition.
Mr. Harold Lever: Could the hon. Gentleman assist me to clear my mind? Why does he suspect us of having these large ambitions to set up a State oil company when we already have the means to control one of the greatest oil companies in the world and are very careful to leave it in private occupation and not to exercise that control in a way which would prejudice its prospects?
Sir J. Eden: I cannot interpret what may be behind the actual intentions of the Government or of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am concerned with what is in the Bill. When we study this more closely in Committee, I think we shall see that under Clause 2 the Gas Council is to be given powers to set up subsidiaries which include the right to search for oil. It is clearly possible that the Gas Council might employ those powers in the future to extend its operations. It is that aspect that I find a matter for considerable worry. Because this is such a highly capital-intensive industry in any case it is not a proper field for State activity.
The Gas Council should not be brought into the oil business at all. The right hon. Gentleman should ensure that it keeps to gas. The Minister of Technology and he have spoken in the country about what they call their idea of partnership. This Bill shows just what partnership with a Labour Government can bring about. There is much talk about the need to generate an atmosphere of mutual

733
confidence, but I hope that there is to be no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this Bill to hoodwink the unwary. It is that that we are concerned about, for this Government are always hungry for more power and, if they cannot get it by direct assault, they will try to get it by stealth. We have seen enough of the fact that for the Labour Party the key to industrial power lies in the transfer of ownership from private to public hands. That is what this Bill is all about.
I have made clear what parts of the Bill we dislike. We shall vote against them tonight, and when we are returned to power they will be repealed.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Derek Page: I was interested in the constructive speech made by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, but disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), the delivery of which took 40 minutes out of this short debate but said very little.
The possibilities of North Sea gas are enormous. It is pertinent to ask what part the Bill will play in producing the future structure of industry and maximising the country's potential wealth.
Two years ago I had the good fortune to see what the Americans have done, particularly in the enormous fields in Louisiana and Texas, each one of which is of similar size to the North Sea field. It was immensely impressive. I am not saying that the American conditions are all similar to ours, because they are not. Apart from the premium domestic market, there has been an absolutely dramatic development of industry based on gas.
Local wage levels, already high, have risen about three times with the development of the gas. This capital intensive industry pays its workers very well in general. The point had been reached where serious teacher shortages were being experienced in the areas concerned because the teachers could get more pay in the plants than they could from teaching. I do not suggest that we should fall into this trap.
There are four points which will become increasingly important in the long term rather than in the short term. As a short-term measure, I have no
734
grumbles about the Bill. First, what real power is there for effective control of the rate of exploitation? Is the Ministry capable of the very detailed and highly technical analysis of the pattern of development necessary, particularly the rate of production of each well?
I was astonished at how tight public control was over the American wells. Hon. Members opposite would be appalled if they knew the powers that the Texas Railroad Commission has to move in and shut off wells which it suspects of producing more than their quota. There is good reason for this, in that there is a clash between public and private interests here. In general, the private interest is to drill a well and let it rip—to maximise the production over a short period, to maximise the short-term profits. The public interest is to extract much more gradually, because if a well is allowed to rip the total yield over the years is greatly reduced.
So, is there adequate machinery? If so, how will it operate? What voice will the Gas Council have in regulating production in its own wells? What influence will it have in regulating production in private enterprise wells? This is a vitally important question which has been highlighted in places with a much greater experience of gas fields than we have.
Secondly, although the vast majority of natural gas is used for energy production, a rising, although still a small, proportion is used for synthesis. Although the Gas Council is being given power to carry out purification, separation, and the production of by-products, I am not clear how far the word "by-products" applies. Will the council be able to carry out any syntheses?
Wet gas, and probably oil, can be expected to be found when drilling for gas. Salt can also be expected to be found with equal certainty, because a large amount of gas deposits lie underneath the enormous salt domes. In fact, salt is more often found than gas. Elsewhere in the world great use has been made of this, because using the salt and the energy from the gas is the cheapest way of making the two biggest chemical raw materials, chlorine and caustic soda. The cheapest chlorine and caustic soda in the world come from the Texas gulf.

735
If the exploitation of the field is to make real sense, the Council should not be prohibited from at least selling any salt it may be able to pump out. Should it not also be able to use such salt in its other operations?
Thirdly, has adequate consideration been given to the balance of payments possibilities in connection with gas? I see no reference to direct exports of gas. This is possible in theory, since the Council is to be empowered to sell gas to any customers it wishes. A considerable volume of gas may be available for export from time to time. One thousand million cubic feet of gas could be expected to bring in about £50 million, a sum well worth having on our balance of payments. Will the Council be competent in its present form to handle this? Is it intended to establish a special export department? Should there be a separate entity to handle this?
I am also wondering, in connection with the balance of payments problem, whether any detailed cost-benefit analysis has been carried out of different utilisations of gas so far as they will affect the balance of payments. We have gone for the premium market first. Would it not have been better to have gone for total energy plants producing aluminium rather than for the domestic market first? This would have had a dramatic and beneficial effect on the balance of payments, though it might not have been to the short-term advantage of the Council to have undertaken such an enterprise.
Is there any mechanism for solving a possible clash of interests here? Although it would be in the national interest to operate in such fields producing aluminium smelted by tile use of natural gas, or any of the other hundred and one industrial uses saving imports and producing exports, it would not give the same short-term return to the Gas Council which it can get from going on to internal markets? So, how is such a possible clash between the interests of the nation as a whole and the Council's interests to be solved?
My last point concerns total energy. This is an old hobbyhorse of mine. I have written to the Minister of Technology on this subject. I understand that
736
he is keeping his eye on private developments of total energy, but this is not adequate. Costs of energy are so vital in big industrial processes that private companies concerned in developing total energy play their cards close to their chests and I do not blame them. It we want to know the inner workings of this, if we want the expertise for public use, it is essential that the Gas Council should enter this in a big way in conjunction with the Ministry of Technology and set up its own total energy plant, to learn the real ins and outs of the technology and the economies.
I know that the attitude of the Ministry was somewhat lukewarm about this, but if they would only look at the enormous developments which have taken place elsewhere in the world and the tremendous efficiencies being achieved, I am sure that it would develop more enthusiasm.
Those are the points I wished to raise and on which I would like some comment and clarification from my hon. Friend. Points such as these will be of growing importance. Eventually, as Dr. Phipps said, and he is the leading expert in this field, the logic of the situation will lead to the adoption of the policy which many of us have advocated all along, and that is the development of a National Hydrocarbon Corporation, with its full international implications.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: As the Paymaster-General said, and as the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill explains, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend the structure of the gas industry to enable it to exploit to the full the opportunities brought about by the advent of natural gas. I would submit that in the light of the natural gas conversion programme now proceeding it is very important that the Gas Council ought to have more detailed control and management of this project.
The whole future of natural gas is in question. Despite some of the publicity which has taken place, there are great anxieties in the country about the issues and questions being raised by this programme. In a recent Parliamentary Answer which I received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary I was told that

737
only just over 8 per cent. of the population had so far been converted. Many people who have been converted are thoroughly sick of natural gas.
There are three main aspects I want to mention and I raise them because my area in the West Midlands was one of the first to be converted. The West Midlands Gas Board uses more North Sea gas than any of the other boards at present. It has 1 million customers and to date it has converted 100,000 people.
Mr. Harold Lever: I ought to make it clear that our purposes are far less evangelical than the hon. Member supposes. We do not seek to convert people, only appliances.
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman scores a point, but he knows what I am talking about.
The West Midlands Gas Board has converted the appliances of 100,000 individuals and expects to complete its programme in about seven years' time. Leamington Spa was one of the first towns in the area to suffer natural gas conversion. It resulted in over 1,000 complaints to me, as its Member of Parliament, over a period of 18 months. It has reached a state of affairs in which the standing of the board, in the eyes of the public, could hardly be lower. I would not have dreamt that such things could have happened if I had not experienced them personally, interviewed people, and seen their equipment in their own homes. Even now after many cases a year, a large number of appliances are working inadequately and I have many constituents who still do not have proper central heating or adequate hot water.
I have three serious criticisms of the natural gas programme. First, the conversion programme was not properly thought out, the men who carried it out were not properly trained and the system for dealing with complaints was at the best ill-defined, particularly in the West Midlands area. It was certainly lacking any form of co-ordination.
Secondly, the efficacy of natural gas is called into question. Having suffered from the devastating effects of natural gas conversion, many customers tell me that they find it noisy, housewives cannot use it properly for simmering when cooking, and the automatic ignition is well below its pre-natural gas efficiency.
738
Pilot lights are a great curse. I had a constituent who came to see me last Saturday who explained that despite about 20 visits from engineers she still has to light the pilot light of her central heating system an average of 50 times a day in cold weather. This is an extraordinary state of affairs, which should be giving those who run the boards very real concern. Perhaps the most serious aspect is that cheaper natural gas has not materialised for the private citizen. He now finds that his bills are coming in, following conversion of his equipment, and that he is paying more. He is very upset about it.
Mr. Harold Lever Mr. Harold Lever indicated dissent.
Mr. Smith: It is all very well for the Paymaster-General to shake his head. It is all very well to produce Parliamentary Answers such as I and other hon. Members have received, but when a man receives his bill and finds that it is up on the comparable quarter before conversion it is difficult to convince him that he is not paying more.
Mr. Harold Lever: I know that the hon. Gentleman must have seen the evidence that the people were paying more, but has he seen the evidence showing whether or not they were using more?
Mr. Smith: In some cases they are using more gas because it now burns more fiercely and they are having to use more. I do not believe that they are using more in their every-day pursuits. Their mode of life has not changed, they have not got extra equipment in their homes, or extra numbers in their families. But their bills are up. This public relations operation by the gas board, trying to imply that natural gas is cheaper is to say the least misleading and ought to be examined by those responsible for power matters in the Ministry.
The Daily Sketch pointed out earlier this month that complaints have been flooding in from widely differing areas, including Guildford, Southend, Nottingham, and Ashton-under-Lyne, in Lancashire. I know that in Surrey there is great anxiety and, certainly, in the West Midlands there have been protests on a very large scale indeed. I submit that the programme has been tackled at too fast a rate and without adequate preparation. An indication of the strength of

739
feeling can be judged from a letter published a week or so ago in the Financial Times by a gentleman living in Penn, Buckinghamshire, in which he wrote about the
"appalling failures of conversion to North Sea gas".
The writer said that it had been a sorry tale of grossly incompetent workmanship and recalled that at one stage all conversion work ceased until the gas boards caught up with the job of putting right conversions already begun. He said that it was notorious in the areas so far cursed with North Sea gas that it is noisy, that automatic ignition never works at anything like its previous efficiency and sometimes not at all, and that housewives realise to the full how difficult it is to use their gas equipment.
The attitude of the boards and their officials are predictable. They have played the matter down and said that there would undoubtedly be teething troubles, but, overall, nothing much has been wrong. I again submit that this is wholly misleading. There is a very great deal wrong and it certainly needs Ministerial attention. I have had correspondence with my own area gas board and with the chairman of the Gas Council. They have said that they are reasonably satisfied with the progress being made, but are prepared to look at complaints as they come along and to gauge the effect as the complaints come in from individual citizens.
The Bill should perhaps do something towards strengthening the control of the massive operation which is planned over the next 10 years. If it brings about more effective supervision of this programme, in the interests of the individual, it will achieve a reasonable measure of success, even if it has other very undesirable qualities.
However, there has been muddle and confusion. If this is an indication of the alleged business efficiency of the boards of nationalised industries, it is a very sorry state of affairs. If this had been a private industry operation, heads would have fallen by now, there would have been resignations and a complete revision of the whole operation. As far as I know, not a single head has fallen and there has not been one resignation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who
740
will be responsible for power matters when we take office in the autumn of next year will bear these lessons in mind and will bring proper business efficiency methods and proper conduct to the operations of nationalised industries.
I join my hon. Friend in opposing the Bill, but hope that in Committee there will be further comment on this aspect.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: In view of the fair, almost academic, speech of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, I was very disappointed that we should have had a reply typical of the doctrinaire statements which we have been hearing for so long from the Opposition spokesmen and other hon. Members opposite. It seems that British Conservatives suffer from a congenital disease which does not affect the Conservatives of Europe. Most of the nationalised industries in Europe have problems because they are basic industries which have suffered from similar problems, whether nationalised or in private hands. When the Tories in Europe consider these problems, they do so without recourse to party banter on whether the industry would be better nationalised or left in private hands. It is a big weakness in this country that whenever the problems of a nationalised industry are discussed the Conservatives try to make party capital out of them.
The Opposition's arguments are not new. The first criticism of the Bill by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) was that it builds up centralisation. He said that centralisation builds up bureaucracy. He made an appeal for area boards. He did not say whether the sum total of the reorganisation of the industry would be to reduce bureaucracy. When area boards are set up, there are jobs for the boys and there is a duplication of the work done in the central organisation.
That was the argument which the Tories used about British Railways. They wanted area boards to run British Railways. I know from experience how much duplication that led to and how many extra people were employed who need not have been employed. Beeching acted on the ground that this was an inefficient way of running the railways. Again and again we hear the argument from the

741
Opposition that a nationalised industry can be made more efficient merely by duplicating work in the regions. But that is not something which anyone would force on a private industry, and it is ridiculous that we should attempt to force it on a nationalised industry, particularly the Gas Council.
It is remarkable that the Opposition have the nerve to suggest that nationalised industries have a shabby image when we consider the power industries. Whatever shabby image the nationalised industries have is based, not on their record, but on the talk which we have often heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They often make it a party stick with which to beat the Labour Party. To use that argument this year is particularly stupid in view of the progress which the gas and electricity industries have been making. This year the electricity industry has made a £100 million profit, to the benefit of the taxpayer. When we consider the state of the gas industry when it was nationalised, we realise how much its image has improved since. It was in such a shocking state when it was taken over that most people thought that it had not much life left. But enormous strides have been made since.
How much bleating we get from the Opposition when a Bill is introduced to make the gas industry still more efficient. They speak as if it is a great sin that the Gas Council should deal with any oil found when prospecting for natural gas. Has it not occurred to them how similar these products are and how they are found in close juxtaposition? It would be madness to hamstring a private enterprise concern by saying, "You are allowed to exploit any gas you find, but not any oil you find". The Opposition talk about the Gas Council being keen to grab the oil. Of course it will be keen to do that, particularly if the oil would otherwise fall into foreign hands.
The Opposition have a perverted sense of patriotism. It is true that they would put the British capitalist before the foreign capitalist. But they are always prepared to put the foreign capitalist before the British consumer or the British non-capitalist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am sorry if I have misunderstood the Opposition, but that is what they always say whenever a
742
nationalised industry tries to gain as big an advantage as possible for the British taxpayer. I heard it from the Conservatives even when the Government were bargaining to reduce the cost which the Gas Council paid for natural gas, although hundreds of millions of £s of the taxpayers' money were involved.
Time and time again we heard that if we got the figure for which the Gas Council was negotiating no one would prospect for gas any more, but, of course, prospecting has gone on, and our example has given encouragement to the Dutch Government to follow on similar lines. They speak, too, as if it were a shocking thing for the Government to insist, in the exploitation of gas and oil, on a compulsory partnership with companies. At the same time they say that nationalised industries have not the expertise, the technical knowledge, to know how to cope with this industry. By means of the compulsory partnership it is learning and is getting just that expertise. It would seem most inconsistent of hon. Gentlemen opposite to oppose this provision.
My criticism of the Bill would be that the Gas Council has not been given sufficient powers. I should like to see it freer still. I should like to see it as free of restrictions as is the nationalised power industry in Italy, which has complete freedom, and is as free as any private concern.
I finish by asking the Minister particularly to say something about the export of natural gas. It seems to me that the reserves which were forecast have been under-estimated and that in a few years' time we may have much gas to export. I should like to see in the Bill provision of means whereby we can help to hurry up the export of some of the reserves as they are increased.
With that, I congratulate the Minister on producing a Bill which, I feel, will help to bring about a very rosy future for the nationalised industry.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: I must in all honesty agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) in what he said about the attitude of the Tories to the Bill. Whenever any Bill with the word "gas" or "electricity" is included in its title comes before the House hon. Gentlemen

743
on the Conservative benches react like Pavlov's dogs.
For example, there were the debates on the 1968 Bill. I have been refreshing my memory of those debates and they make very instructive reading. Many Conservative Members were trying to stop the Gas Council from increasing its borrowing powers to exploit this natural asset. Now we find them all saying what a splendid job the Gas Council and area boards have been doing, and forgetting that they tried to deny them the wherewithal to carry out these tasks. Conservatives, including the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who, of course, has departed from the scene, said that natural gas would not result in any price reductions.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) repeated that this afternoon. It is quite untrue. If he looks at the figures over the years he will find that gas has a better record than any other fuel. If one installed gas appliances in one's home in 1959, after 10 years the price of the gas would have increased by 6 per cent. If one installed oil, its price would have increased 19 per cent.; if electricity, 26 per cent; if coal, 55 per cent. So the House will see that over this decade, at any rate, the gas consumer has had a very good bargain indeed.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I was not talking about the last few years, but the past year, since natural gas has come. There are many instances of prices having gone up. I should like to see them come down. I know there has been a trend in several areas for gas prices to be held relatively stable, and I do not criticise that. What I say is wrong is that it should have been implied that, with the arrival of natural gas, gas would be cheaper to the consumer. It is not.
Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what it is like in the hon. Gentleman's area, but the Chairman of the South Eastern Gas Board has given a firm undertaking that as and when natural gas is introduced into peope's homes they will be given a price reduction. I cannot speak for my own constituency, because the conversion programme has not come as far as that, but I am confident that if the
744
chairman of the board tells my constituents they will receive such a reduction he means what he says.
The hon. Gentleman is also being a little harsh in his description of the conversion programme as muddled and chaotic. He should remember that over 1 million consumers have already been converted and that conversions are continuing at the rate of 25,000 a week. It would have been extremely surprising, he will agree, if there had been no complaints at all.
The hon. Gentleman said that, if this had been a private enterprise firm, heads would have rolled and people would have been sacked once the blame had been pinned down. But that does not happen in the private enterprise that I have been used to. When a motor model goes wrong, and the cars have to go back to the works for modification, one does not hear of the service manager or the chief designer being sacked by Ford's—that is simply the first name that occurred to me. He will agree that, with many of the goods which one buys from private industry, when one submits complaints to the manufacturers, one does not expect the chairman to write back and say, "Yes, Mr. Dudley Smith, we quite agree. Your car has gone wrong and we will immediately sack the fitter who failed to put in the ignition key."
So I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being fair in these disparaging comparisons between public and private enterprise. Nor do I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Eden) has done the House a service in his alarming description of the powers conferred on the Gas Council under the Bill, but I will come to that in a moment, after I have dealt with the uncontroversial part of his speech.
I absolutely agree with him that one of our tasks must be to see that, in whatever framework we devise, men of top managerial calibre are brought into the industry, both at Gas Council and area board level. But I have one anxiety here. I can see that the job of chairman of an area gas board is attractive, because he will sit on the council, but I wnoder whether with so many other function being centralised, the other directors of the area boards will find the job rewarding and using to the full the talents of the sort

745
of people which the Minister will hope to attract.
If one excludes the functions mentioned by the Paymaster-General—the three principal ones were capital expenditure, control of pipelines and fixing of tariffs—what one is left with in the area boards are consumer relationships and marketing on a smaller scale. Even the marketing would be in the hands of the Gas Council for very large industrial consumers. I am not sure that this will be a big enough job to atract the sort of people that one wants on area gas boards. I should like to probe this further in Committee, but the Minister may like to say something about it tonight.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, that the voice of the consumer should be heard at the centre, because the effective power will lie there. By that, I do not mean that we should dispense with the area consultative councils. I have found them very useful. I used originally to make complaints direct to the Minister of Power or to whoever in his Department dealt with these matters, but I have recently found that, by going to the chairman of the consultative council, I have had a very good service indeed. I have received prompt action which has generally been successful—even more so, I would say, than when I used to go to the Minister.
This machinery has proved valuable and it is a pity that it is not more generally known to the public. When people come to my advice bureau to draw my attention to what they think are defects in the service which they have had from the area gas boards, I find that they had not been made aware of the existing machinery when they made their original complaints in the showrooms. More publicity might be given to the facilities available to the consumer.
I now turn to the things on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First of all, he says that centralisation is a consequence of nationalisation. I hope that my intervention on this point was not too much of a red herring, when I referred to companies like Rolls-Royce and International Computers Limited. I was trying to say that centralisation and concert ration of power is not a function of whether an industry is in public or
746
private hands. It is a function of other things, such as the capital intensive nature of the industry concerned, the calibre of management required, and so on.
The reason that we need to concentrate the gas industry more today than used to be the case when carbonisation was the principal method of production is precisely the same as the reason that the whole of the computer industry is in the hands of I.C.L. The capital investment of the Gas Council is so enormous, amounting to about £1,600 million, that a programme of that size must be handled centrally.
The lack of any central machinery of this kind already has been felt. To give one example, all the area boards in the gas industry have had control over their investments in computers. Many different systems have been adopted by different boards and each has developed its own software to do precisely the same job. The customer invoice stock control in various area boards must be similar. Surely the experience of the first gas board that undertook this task could have been made available to the rest of the boards. The Gas Council might do well to look into the future computer investment programmes of area boards to see whether these could be harmonised so that the software which is now being developed might be given wider use.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's only fundamental objection to the Bill, the part dealing with the extended powers of the Gas Council. I could not quite make out what he was after. He said at the beginning that he had no rooted objection to the Gas Council having powers to explore. Indeed, he could not have any rooted objection, because if the Gas Council is exploring for gas, then, as the Paymaster-General pointed out, one cannot be certain in advance whether one will find oil or gas in a particular form or a combination of the two.
Sir J. Eden: I am sorry that I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, but when I referred to having no rooted objections in principle that applied to two parts of the Bill, the one dealing with safety and the other with the reorganisation of the industry.
Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Is it right that he does not like the Gas

747
Council to have powers to explore on its own either for gas or for oil? He does not mind the council have the right to do so in association with AMOCO, but as soon as the Council goes out and undertakes the job without a partner he suddenly finds that objectionable. I think that I now have his attitude correctly.
The whole of the powers of the Gas Council in Clause 2(2) are objectionable to the hon. Gentleman in principle. He is not prepared to entertain the idea that the council can venture into the North Sea and the Irish Sea without having its hand held. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact, but the companies engaged in these operations do not themselves conduct the drilling. They hire firms with wide experience.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) confirms what I have said. They hire firms with the necessary expertise in drilling to carry out these operations in many parts of the world. Therefore, it makes little difference whether the Gas Council itself has the management capacity to undertake drilling because it will not do itself the drilling.
Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman condemn the Gas Council if in future it decided to buy an oil drilling rig?
Mr. Lubbock: It is a most extraordinary proposition that the Gas Council should buy an oil drilling rig. I do not see any point in its doing so. Nor do I see that the powers contained in Clause 2 would be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. If he has knowledge of the Gas Council's intentions to undertake such an operation, I am sure that the House will be interested to hear about it. In the absence of such information I doubt whether it would go into an operation of that kind.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that in theory these powers can be applied in many ways—the mini-skirted girls in the forecourt, as the Paymaster-General said—he is correct. If one thought that the powers in subsection (2)(b) were to be applied in that way, one would have the strongest objection to it, and if I have
748
any quarrel with the wording of the Clause it is that before the Gas Council exercises any of these powers it does not have to come back to the House, but merely has to obtain the tacit consent of the Minister, who, under subsection (3)(b) can put an absolute veto on any operations in which he does not think the Gas Council or its subsidiaries should engage.
If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West is worried about this, perhaps he will be comforted by the thought that next year, as he thinks, the Conservative Party will be returned to office, no doubt he will be appointed Minister, and he can exercise the powers in this subsection to direct the council not to engage in these activities, not to have petrol stations, or to indulge in any down-stream activities, from exploring onwards.
When the hon. Gentleman reflects on this, he wil lsee that it is a gross exaggeration to say that "it is not fanciful to say that out of this comparatively small Measure will emerge ultimately a State oil company". I do not want the House to take my word for this. I want to quote briefly from some journals of a non-political nature which confirm me in my opinions.
For instance, the Gas Journal, of 3rd December, said:
"Visions of high-speed petrol stations beloved by certain newspaper journalists, are farfetched."
Gas World, of 6th December—although my faith in the impartiality of this journal was somewhat lessened when I saw that it was a Benn Group journal—said:
"Publication of the Gas Bill should go tar to allay some of the irrational fears expressed in earlier uninformed comment. The National Hydrocarbons Corporation bogey seems to have been finally laid and what have been called the 'wilder fears of creeping petrol stationisation' appear to be entirely without substance. The heart of the matter lies in the transfer of greater power and responsibility to the centre and this is looked upon as a logical step, with town gas being phased out over the next few years."
That magazine places the emphasis on the reorganisation of the relative functions of the Gas Council and of the area boards, and does not take very seriously the fears expressed this evening by the hon. Gentleman.
In short, this is a sensible Bill, and one which will enable the Gas Council and the area boards fully to exploit the discoveries of natural gas in the North

749
Sea, which have come up to the expectations of the fuel White Paper. There are Committee points with which one might want to take issue, such as those about the rights of entry into private premises, and the exact wording of the new powers to be conveyed to the Gas Council, but otherwise this is a good and sensible Measure, and I canot understand what possesses the Conservative Party to vote against it.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: While there are numerous points in the Bill on which clarification will no doubt be sought in Committee, there are three particular aspects which cause me varying degrees of concern.
First, the Bill follows the all too familiar and regrettable trend of giving the Minister very wide but not clearly specified powers. The Bill is laced with phrases such as, "The Minister shall decree", "The Minister shall have power to direct", or "Where it appears to the Minister". Those are three phrases taken at random from the later Clauses. Surely, it is a basic axiom of all legislation that it should be specific and not abound with generalisations. Likewise, the Bill gives blanket powers to the Gas Council, and I have reservations about giving such extensive powers to any statutory body. It is a matter of principle that one should be wary in giving extensive powers to organisations whose accountability to Parliament tends to be somewhat loose.
Secondly, I conceded that there is a clear argument for increasing the powers of the Gas Council vis-à-vis the area boards, and the somewhat harrowing tale told by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) about the problems of natural gas make me glad that Northern Ireland is not to have the product. While some area boards may not have behaved too brightly about observing the instructions for conversion to natural gas, nevertheless I would have thought that the mood of the country, which has been manifested so often in different ways, is towards decentralisation. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) correctly
750
stated, could charm with any argument, the centralisation of the powers of the Gas Council, even if area board chairmen are to be represented thereon, will not give a desirable impression. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how those who are operating from London can necessarily have a clear or even a passing understanding of what happens in the more remote regions of the Kingdom.
Clauses 1 and 2 are the meat of the Bill and the centre of controversy. The entry of the Gas Council into the oil business inevitably rekindles all the arguments, some of which we have heard tonight and others we shall head in Committee, about nationalisation and Slate enterprise, and I will do no more than say how horrified I was by the statement of the former Minister of Power about exploiting the Continental Shelf on behalf of the people. I will not digress into the realms of nationalisation, bit merely ask the Minister certain specific questions which inevitably arise out of the Bill and out of the powers being granted to the Gas Council.
Should the Gas Council be side-tracked into operations which can be undertaken more efficiently by other people? Surely, the Council's primary responsibility is the marketing and supply of gas, and all other operations are secondary and tertiary considerations. How can the Gas Council have or be expected to have the expertise to operate in the search for and the marketing of oil as efficiently as the oil companies who have been doing it for so long? Searching for oil, and indeed for natural gas, is an expensive and risky venture. Is it right that public money should be put at risk in seeking such commodities? Not everyone is fortunate enough to make a strike in the North Sea or anywhere else. I have read that quite a number of North Sea prospectors have spent over £20 million and found nothing. Is this the sort of undertaking in which a nationalised body should be asked to engage?
What happens if oil is found? Will the Gas Council build a refinery, or will it go to one of the jobbing refineries that already exist? A clearer statement on this is required from the Government Front Bench.

751
I cannot understand why the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill contains words to the effect that there is no likelihood of finding oil, whereas one of the main Clauses goes into this in considerable detail.
Let us assume that in fact there is a likelihood of the Gas Council finding oil in the North Sea. Surely it is wholly inequitable that the oil companies cannot go into the gas business, but the Gas Council can go into the oil business. By no standard of commercial or any other judgment is that a fair situation. Of course there may be partnerships, but there is a world of difference between a partnership and an arranged marriage, and that is certainly what will happen with any explorations in the Irish Sea.
Mr. Emery: Shot-gun marriage.
Mr. Pounder: I thought of that, but decided that it might not be the case; however, I would not dissent from that view.
With the emphasis on natural gas conversion and the problems which are allied to it and which must inevitably be in the forefront of the Gas Council's current activities, this is the worst possible moment for it to consider diversification. Its financial resources are fully stretched in undertaking the fairly extensive programme on which it has currently embarked. After studying last year's Gas Council accounts, I do not see how it can have the resources reasonably needed to take it into this new venture at this time. Perhaps we shall have clarification from the Minister later tonight or in Committee.
What is the criterion for the economic justification for the Gas Council to go into the oil business? Clause 2 represents the very worst of legislative practice in that it gives retrospective powers. Why did the Gas Council jump the gun? Why did it anticipate and assume that it had bowers to go ahead when it did not? What steps did the Minister take to reprimand the Council for being so presumptuous?
Clause 1(5) provokes nothing more nor less than a weary smile. Who is kidding whom when it talks about a reduction in the price of gas? Certainly my researches do not reveal any examples of
752
price reductions to domestic consumers in areas within the orbit of the Gas Council. The only area of the United Kingdom where there has been a fall in the price of gas has been in Belfast where the writ of the Gas Council does not run.
I conclude by asking the Minister what is his latest knowledge of the likelihood of finding natural gas or oil in the Irish Sea.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: I must begin by declaring an interest. As the House knows, I have an interest in a number of oil companies.
The first thing I must do after that is to tell the Minister that it is grossly unsatisfactory that on a Bill as important as this back benchers should find themselves limited to what will probably be 90 minutes of debate. This is crass mismanagement of House of Commons business by the Government, and I hope that the Paymaster-General will make it clear to the Leader of the House that a number of us feel more than indignant about the way in which we are being treated.
I should like to take up one thing which was said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and I do so in order to try to make this a debate instead of a series of set speeches. I must correct what he said about the Opposition being opposed to the borrowing power in the 1968 legislation. What we opposed was the giving of the borrowing power in one lump. We wanted the Gas Council to return with rolling forecasts. We believed that we were giving it too much at one time, and that is still my view.
Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member's speech in that debate related to the amount of the borrowing power and not the timing. He said:
"This borrowing by the Socialists is likely to leave a millstone, a hidden depth charge, to upset the balance of payments at some time in the future…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 646.]
Mr. Emery: If the hon. Gentleman will do his researches a little more thoroughly, he will find that in that portion of my speech I was referring entirely to borrowing from overseas and what I said will be proved correct by the German loan which the Gas Council

753
has already taken and which will have to be repaid.
It is shameful and wrong that the Government should have seen fit to entwine and amalgamate in one Bill the provisions necessary for the organisation of the Gas Council, provisions for safety in the gas industry, and massive and highly contentious legislation allowing the refining and distribution of petroleum to a much greater extent in the public sector 'by the Gas Council, which is not naturally equipped to deal with it.
If one were to describe Clause 2 kindly, one would describe it as enlarging the public sector; to describe it reasonably it could be termed a foolish and harmful piece of further nationalisation; at worst, it is damned, vindictive nonsense. Until now there has been little conflict between the two sides of the House about fuel policy and up to and including the 1967 White Paper and the Continental Shelf Act all this had been agreed. It has been reasonably liberal and the conditions of participation laid down by Ministers of both Governments about the issue of licences have been acceptable not only to British interests, but to foreign interests, on which the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) poured scorn, but which in fact have provided the major risk capital in the fast development of the North Sea which has helped us to take it as far and as quickly as we have.
Today we see in this Bill pressure for politically dogmatic reasons on the part of a section of the Labour Party which first gave birth to the proposals for the Hydrocarbon Corporation concept. Now, in order to placate the Left wing, it is reappearing in modified form as Hydrocarbon (Great Britain) Ltd. On that ground it is shaky in the extreme, both economically and internationally.
Past Ministers have aimed to encourage exploration to strengthen the balance of payments and to reduce energy costs. I believe that the new policies will not achieve the Minister's objectives in the way he wants. In fact, the further establishment of State corn-parties elsewhere in the world, particularly Europe, in the petroleum industry has proved a massively costly experiment both in resources and capital. The Minis-
754
ter will realise this when I mention E.N.I. and E.R.A.P. in Europe.
The international implications of the Bill are particularly serious. Both producing and consuming countries need little encouragement to distrust and attack British oil interests. The United Kingdom's foreign investment in oil is a major positive factor on the invisible side of the balance of payments. Many nations do not need to be presented with further examples of nationalisation of exploration, production and refining to want immediately to copy Britain.
The increasing demand for oil will call for ever-increasing investment. While there may not be a shortage of risk capital for this purpose available in this country—although the Minister will have observed that there is not as much risk capital about now as there was—would not Britain's public fund be better employed in providing capital for, for example, roads, hospitals, schools, dealing with the B.B.C. or even assisting the West Country, rather than being used in one of the most risk-operating industries in the world.
Without a shadow of doubt, we should praise Sir Henry Jones and his band of gas men for the magnificent way in which they have reinvigorated the industry in the last 10 years. Whatever might be said in criticism, a magnificent job has been done by the gas industry, both in resuscitating itself and in turning to North Sea gas with such energy and determination. This must have been the greatest exploitation of a natural resource that we have ever seen. I can best illustrate this by quoting from a letter which I received from the then Ministry of Power. With the address Thames House South, Millbank, it reads:
"My dear Peter,
"Thank you for your letter of 17th September about the possibility of finding oil or gas under the North Sea.
I entirely agree about the importance of this matter and the Government intends to make progress with it as soon as possible.
…my Department cannot consider granting concessions until the necessary legislation has been passed. Such questions as the size and duration of concessions and the procedure for granting them now being examined by my Department".
That was sent to me by the then Minister of Power, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), on 3rd

755
October, 1963. We had not even got the Continental Shelf arrangement signed at that time. But we have had the legislation, the concessions, the discovery and the exploitation. This has been a remarkable achievement.
As the Minister said, the Bill is designed to centralise matters. I see nothing wrong with that, and the boards are turning from manufacturing to become salesmen and distributors. How-every, they will lose their manufacturing, tariff-fixing and capital planning powers. All along the line the area boards will have their capacity, control and management capabilities reduced, though not entirely diminished. Why, then, need we increase the membership of the Gas Council? This seems a typical bureaucratic saving in reverse, and I hope that the Minister will have further thoughts on this issue.
A number of points are worrying me. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says about the financial interest of the Bill:
"…the Gas Council do not at present have power, and hence cannot establish a subsidiary with power, to search for and exploit oil as a primary object…there is no likelihood at present of any early expenditure by the Gas Council on activities falling clearly outside their existing powers".
If this statement is not untrue, then it is certainly written to bemuse or set at ease the worries of ordinary people, for anybody who has followed these matters and is acquainted with the real facts must want strongly to question that statement.
The Minister must have been informed by his staff of Press statements—I have them with me—about a successful discovery contiguous with the United Kingdom Continental Shelf of 2,000 barrels of 51 degree gravity condensates per day. That may be a long way to go, but it is a large and normally commercial find.
I challenge the Minister, if he still holds to the statement he made, to tell the House what he knows about the actual production and exploration—he should give the information at his disposal—of Plot 22/18 owned by the Gas Council and AMOCO. It does not take much investigation to know that rumours in normal gas and oil circles suggest that substantial discoveries, probably not of condensates but of oil, have occurred; and there are rumours
756
that the Gas Council and AMOCO have spent £2 million on that project.
We on this side are worried lest a State oil industry can be provided. The Liberal Chief Whip says that the Bill does not allow that to be done, but I have gone to the trouble of looking at the memorandum of association of Hydrocarbons (Development) Great Britain Ltd. which was the company quickly registered by the Gas Council on 24th July, the day after the Minister made his statement.
In view of the time, I will refer only to Clause 3(3) of the memorandum, which allows the company:
"To carry on business as producers, refiners and distributors of petroleum, naphtha and other mineral, vegetable and animal oils, gases including natural gases and combustible substances, and to purchase, acquire or get, import, explore, sell and deal in all kinds of fuel and lubricants."
It might be said that this provision is just a sop—that it is a general clause seeking all powers—but let not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Gas Council will not take those powers, because it has already done so—
Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that these powers could be read into this Bill. The only powers in this Bill deal with oil which the Gas Council gets in the course of its search—there are no powers to import vegetable oil, and the rest.
Mr. Emery: We can pursue this further in Committee, but the reference is to petroleum. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman, who is a great expert in the oil industry, wishes to interpret the word "petroleum", but I know how I interpret it, and this provision would allow the Council—
Mr. Harold Lever: Not the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is the memorandum of association of a company which the Gas Council has formed.
Mr. Emery: If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Gas Council does not have powers to do this it would appear to make the Gas Council look foolish, and the Gas Council is not foolish. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go further in this matter, I would refer him to file No. 958879/3 of the register of companies—
Mr. Harold Lever: I do not know how many articles of association the hon.

757
Gentleman has read in his time, but he will know that in them he will see the most quaint range of powers expressed. In the articles and memorandum of association of firms about to set up hire purchase rental business one may find that they have the right to quarry stone, for instance, and to engage in worldwide exploration of all kinds—but it does not follow that they will.
Mr. Emery: But they may wish to do so. I have formed companies and, of course, I seek to make the powers as wide as possible because I believe that one day I might want to use them. I do not think that the Gas Council would wish to take these powers unless one day it wanted to use them.
Mr. Harold Lever: The Bill would not give the Council the kind of powers of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. The Bill wilt not give it any additional power because of any memorandum of association or articles of association of any company which it may now possess or acquire hereafter. The only power the Bill gives is the power to deal with oil that the Council comes across in its searches, and nothing else.
Mr. Emery: I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument slightly misleading, because the powers given are retrospective. I believe that the Gas Council did not have the right to register these companies when it did, and that that is why there is this retrospective provision. It is there because the Government want to ensure that the powers that existed then were as extensive as everyone thought.
We are worried about the cost that this will involve for the taxpayer. We see today that the Gulf-National Coal Board drilling in the Irish Sea is being withdrawn. How much has this cost the National Coal Board? How much in risk capital will have to be put on to the price of coal or borne by the taxpayer in some other way for this discovery?
I see that consumer councils are to be financed by the Gas Council rather than by area boards. Will the Minister consider doing away with all the coal, gas and electricity consumer councils and have ore energy and power consumer council? This is not a party political point, but it seems worth making.
758
Because many hon. Members wish to speak I will throw away much of my speech and now turn to one last important point. I believe the Government's policy of protecting the home fuel industry has not necessarily brought about the cheapest fuel policy. We must realise the amount of Government intervention. The C.E.G.B. is restricted in the way it buys fuel, there are restrictions on coal imports, the 2·5d. tax on fuel, the ban on Russian oil and pressure on local authorities in the market to buy coal, the sum of £415 million has been written off by the N.C.B., and £46 million of taxpayers' money goes to subsidising the cost of electricity produced by coal burning.
We are giving protection to gas as well as coal. I am not sure that this industry ought to be protected. I wonder if we should think of finding a way of protecting the coal industry and not protecting nuclear power or the gas industry. This all adds up to more Government interference. What worries me about the Bill is something which is known as the law of increasing intervention. This has been described by Professor Collins in his recent pamphlet, A Policy for Fuel? He says that
"a 'Law of Increasing Intervention applies'. This states simply that once Ministers and officials, distrusting the ability of the market to find what they regard as the 'right' solution, have intervened in a particular area a process is set in operation which tends to lead to progressively increasing intervention. Intervention which appears to be successful will thereby seem to justify itself and so it continues. Lack of success, because of the authorities' inherent distrust of the market, generally appear to lead to their drawing the conclusion that more rather than less intervention is necessary. In addition whatever the degree of success of intervention, it will often lead to the need for new measures to try to correct the market effects which of the original ones".
That is what the Bill is designed to do. The Bill gives takeover powers and blanket powers to the Gas Council in Clause 3(2). Those powers concerning petroleum are no help and are unnecessary. Even with the kindly and supposedly reassuring and very bland speech of the Paymaster-General, the Minister is given the most extensive powers of further creeping nationalisation. This will not be to the benefit of the Gas Council, to the benefit of the petroleum industry or of the nation.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: It is a tragedy that the debate on this important Bill has been so severely curtailed. Many of my hon. Friends will be prevented from speaking because of the shortage of time.
In the few minutes which I can take I shall deal with only two questions. First, everybody wants safety. Therefore, powers of entry are necessary. But there should be due warning to a householder that his equipment is to be inspected. I would like a system similar to the Ministry of Transport test for cars to be operated—a system of regular inspection of facilities and equipment rather than the board making a sudden entry into a house and shutting down equipment. If the householder cannot get it repaired, this can be very serious for families, including my own, in the middle of winter.
I want to follow some of the comments so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I want to consider the controversial part of the Bill dealing with the extended powers of the Gas Council. It is obvious that there should be two Bills—one dealing with safety and reorganisation, and the other containing the new powers. The Minister must, for the House and for the country, justify Clause 2 and the other Clauses containing the new powers.
How can risking the taxpayers' money in this high-risk industry of oil and petroleum be justified? The international oil companies spread their risks over large geographical areas and, therefore, can take one place with another. If we are to go into the oil business, for whatever reason—perhaps because we have just stumbled upon some light distillate—we could find ourselves in some uncompetitive part of the business sector.
An international oil company, obtaining its crude oil from different places, can mix good with bad. The liquid hydrocarbon found either under the Irish Sea or on the Continental Shelf may well be unsuitable for our market. Then the Gas Council will either have to blend it with another crude oil or sell it on another market.
Thus the Gas Council or its subsidiaries may be in possession of some
760
products which sell and some which do not. An oil company can overcome this by importing crude oil from other areas. If the Gas Council were in this situation, would it require a tanker fleet to bring in additional crude oil to mix in its refineries with the wrong condensate it was taking from its own fields?
This is an issue which would take the Gas Council into the whole area of big oil business in the marketing of products. The big oil companies diversify right down into petro-chemicals and into other areas. Can the Minister assure us that the Gas Council does not intend to go into the petro-chemical business as well as into the oil business? I should have thought that the logic would lead in that direction.
A private industry maintains rates of return by cutting costs. When a nationalised industry maintains rates of returns, as we have learned, it does so by increasing prices. We are being asked in the Bill to give a nationalised industry a chance to enter into a business which is commercially not viable, which runs counter to all the parameters of a successful oil industry, and where it will find that it has products which are useless. It will have refineries which are underworked. It will have to buy crude to make them work. Either it will lose a great deal of the taxpayers' money, which is my guess, or the business will have to be subsidised in the future.
I regard this part of the Bill as entirely typical of the Labour Party's philosophy—two years ago the steel industry; this year the oil industry; next year, who knows? The fact is that the Government are buying up, or attempting to buy up, British industry with taxpayers' money—like the conjurer, before your very eyes. It is a bad Bill, and we shall reject it.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: We all regret that this debate has been so short and that so many hon. Gentlemen have not been able to take a part. I, for one, shall make my contribution to shortening the time taken in winding up for the Opposition.
In acknowledging that gas is no longer the old industry, but will be a completely new industry based on a new

761
fuel, we should pay tribute to the industry which is passing for its great service over many years. In welcoming the industry which is coming, we acknowledge, as all hon. Gentlemen have done, that it is an entirely new enterprise.
It has been common ground that some centralisation is necessary—this is the greatest area of agreement which has emerged from the debate—but there has also been an undercurrent of unhappiness that that should be so. The solution that the Paymaster-General proposed, that by making all the area board chairmen sit on the Gas Council he was somehow avoiding excessive centralisation, was simply not accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) put his finger on the point: one does not create devolution by making the constituent parts all part of the centre. It is not just 12 area board chairmen who have to be appeased. It is inherent in the Government's approach to centralisation that they will achieve that sort of result.
The only way in which one could achieve some form of devolution would be—I hate this word and apologise for using it—to encapsulate certain parts of the activity and make those parts responsible to the Gas Council for earning a return on the capital which they employ. That could well be done to the exploration part of the Gas Council or the oil company which it intends to set up, or it could be done to the Scottish part or the Welsh part of the distributive network. That could be a much more sensible solution than concentrating on trying to deceive by rigging the composition of the council.
There will be an end to the area boards as we have known them, and this is a great pity. But I hope that more work will be done on finding ways of devolving responsibility down from the centre, for otherwise the heart and soul will go out of those people who are trying to contribute by working their way up through an industry such as this.
There is one grave danger. If all the expertise in an industry like this is concentrated in the Gas Council, there will be no one qualified to be a technical critic. This has been admitted by the C.E.G.B.; there are few people qualified
762
to criticise technically who are not within in. There is this danger from size itself, in that we shall cease to have the ability for open debate about the future and about failings.
Now, another point on the structure of the industry. The history of Gas Acts since nationalisation of the industry has been as follows: 1948, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969, and now this Bill. There have been all those Acts of Parliament for this one industry, whereas, to my knowledge, the House has never once debated the electrical engineering industry or I.C.I. How extraordinary it is that the nationalised industries force Parliament to debate their structure, to alter it and mess it about, leaving so little latitude to management. Surely, the Minister of Technology will agree that one of the roles of managerial authority is to be able to make those dispositions in one's organisation which one thinks right, and not to have come to the House for authority every time to change the structure.
If there is one complaint I make it is that we have had to discuss the gas industry too frequently. This is not good for managerial enterprise. The first contentious question is that of the partnership in the drilling operations in the North and Irish Seas. The difference between the partnership envisaged in the Bill and that which exists, is that this partnership is forced and the other is free. Hon Gentlemen who have essayed into marriage will realise that that is quite an important distinction when it comes to matters of this sort.
The reason that has been given for forcing the partnership is very unsatisfactory. It is this curious negative reason which the Paymaster-General let fall, that the Gas Council might find oil, therefore it had better be in on the deal. Secondly, and more extraordinary, he said that we must increase the public stake in the Continental Shelf. This was the reason for forcing the partnership. When we come to think about it, the development of the North Sea has been done with extraordinary rapidity and skill. There have been no complaints about the rate of exploitation, so why is there any need to alter the arrangements?
The reason emerges from the speeches of the rather garrulous former Minister of

763
Power, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who said that we should develop our own expertise and gradually build a knowledgeable core of operators. The reason for forcing the partnership was given away—the State does not know how to look for gas and so will force the people who do to go into partnership so that it can learn from them. This is the motive behind the partnership and it is a fairly obvious deduction that the effect of forcing this partnership will be to slow down the pace of exploitation rather than to speed it up. The point here is to use the power of the State to force a partnership for no other reason than to obtain knowledge from other people to build up a State drilling organisation, at the expense of the exploitation of our natural gas reserves.
There is a major objection and it is that if we take into partnership the person to whom we are to sell our product we are in a hopeless position. If a farmer takes into partnership the butcher to whom he hopes to sell his fat meat, and he gives the butcher the power to decide upon the price, the butcher will take all the profit.
That is what will happen here, because when it comes to negotiating with the Gas Council for the sale of gas it will be the council, representing the forced partnership, which will try to fix the price for the beach-head price of the gas and it will give no profit whatever to that part of the Gas Council in partnership with the oil industry. Instead, it will give all the profit to the Gas Council when it has landed the gas. This is an attractive proposition, to ask someone to go into partnership when the sole monopoly buyer will be the Gas Council and, therefore, the partner will have no means of defending his profit margins even if a successful strike is made.
This is chocking off applications from oil companies which might otherwise have been interested in putting some of their capital into this exploration. In the day of the 1964 Tory Act, there was rapid and universally-acknowledged successful exploitation. Now, with this Bill, the likelihood is that it will steer off the oil companies, make it less attractive, and slow down the rate of exploration for North Sea gas. On that ground alone
764
my hon. Friends are absolutely right to be suspicious of the Bill.
Then we come to the question of the new Hydrocarbon (Developments) G.B. Limited, the new subsidiary which will have power to market oil. The Paymaster-General introduced this new subsidiary rather in the way that the housemaid's baby was described—"It is only a very little one, though". It is a statutory housemaid's baby.
The Government are in a bit of a dilemma. The ex-Minister of Power, when he goes to Barnsley, says:
"This is but one example of a strengthening and exciting enlargement of the public sector…"
That is to cheer up the Left wing in the constituencies. On the other hand, the Paymaster-General blandly says, "It is possible that there will be oil at some stage, but it must not be taken seriously". We do not know whether the Government intend to build this concern into a large international oil company or to keep it as a very small company.
The arguments against a State international oil company are so well known that I need not rehearse them. I will simply make one quotation which I think will be convincing to the House:
"Total nationalisation would, therefore, tend to hinder the exploitation of North Sea gas—and we should also remember that through Shell and B.P. we have a tremendous investment in the energy resources of other countries which could be endangered if other countries followed our lead and nationalised their own oil industries."
That unexceptionable statement comes from the Labour Party's document "A National Hydrocarbons Corporation". It at least had the sense to reject setting up an international oil company in competition with the existing major companies.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, the statutory housemaid's baby is not viable because an oil company cannot take one small source of crude oil and turn it into petrol and make a profit. Two oil companies have tried to do this, E.N.I. and E.R.A.P. Since there has been reference to them, I need say no more than that they were set up for just this purpose—to exploit small deposits of local oil and to try to operate in a

765
monopoly position in their own domestic markets.
The sums of money which these two small oil companies have lost are astronomical—absolutely fantastic. The resulting protection in their home markets and the cost to the taxpayers in the countries concerned have been sorry examples of the folly of this sort of thinking. The Paymaster-General, with his business sense and skill in these matters, should know better than to think that an operation of this sort would have the slightest chance of being viable.
The Government hope that from this vague, woolly thinking about a State oil company will come good profits for the nation. Why not just take the profits without bothering to set up the international oil company? Already a 12½ per cent. royalty will be paid on all finds of gas and oil in the North and Irish Seas. Corporation Tax of 45 per cent. will be paid on the profits arising from any finds. The rents of the blocks have hitherto been £6,000 for the first year, rising to £65,000 per annum for 100 square mile blocks later. There would not be the slightest risk to the Government if not one drop of oil or gas were found. The Government can get their profit from the oil industry and the nation's share of its own resources by this means. They are already doing so under the Tory Act. What more do they want?
In addition, the Government have a 50 per cent. share in one of the greatest oil companies in the world, British Petroleum, which currently can be worth £1,000 million at today's valuation to the Treasury. If they want more, why not buy more shares in B.P. or one or two American oil companies? Then they would at least be putting taxpayers' money into the hands of people who knew something about the exploration and distribution of oil.
For all those reasons, my hon. Friends would be well advised to reject the Bill. If by chance this statutory housemaid's baby finds its way to the Statute Book, I assure the House that when we take office it will be quietly drowned in a bucket of water.
9.40 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): The hon. Gentleman the
766
Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and I both limited our time at the end of the debate in order to give back benchers rather more opportunity to participate, and I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate it when I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to deal with every single point which has been raised, and that they will appreciate also that this will not be because I am deliberately running away from points but simply because of inadequate time. Many of the points, in any case, I think hon. Members will recognise, are points which can very easily be dealt with in what I am sure will be a rather lengthy and very amiable Committee on the Bill.
Before going into the main points I wish to make I will deal with one or two individual points which hon. Members have put to me. My hon. Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) and Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) both felt that it was important that, should we find ourselves in the position of having surplus natural gas, we should be able to export that natural gas. In fact, this power already exists under the 1965 Act. It is also embodied in Clause 3(1)(f), but this is subject to the approval of the Minister, and this applies to a private firm as well which has a field in the Continental Shelf. This control by the Minister, this ability to say yea or nay to the export of gas—and this is in answer to a further point made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn—is one of the ways in which we are able to control the rate at which the natural gas is exploited in the finds which are made. In addition to that method of control the Gas Council exercises a form of control as well through contracts which it undertakes in so far as these gear the rate of exploitation of a field.
I shall deal in the main body of my speech with one of the points which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised, but he referred to the need for a co-ordinated policy in relation to computers. This point I agree with completely, and he will be glad to know that the Gas Council has just this matter in hand and that it is developing a co-ordinated policy on hard and soft ware.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley

767
Smith) brought many constituency points which, I am sure he will agree, can in general be dealt with more appropriately in Questions, letters, and, perhaps, in Committee.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but they were not purely constituency matters but covered a very wide area of the country.
Mr. Williams: I appreciate that, and I am aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been running advertisements asking people to complain to him if they have any complaints about natural gas—
Mr. Smith: No.
Mr. Williams:—and I am not surprised, therefore, that anyone who shares his common interest in making an Aunt Sally of the Gas Council should contact him.
Mr. Smith: Prove it.
Mr. Williams: It is true, but the hon. Gentleman is free to refute this, and I will give way to him if he wants to do so, and I will withdraw if he does.
Mr. Smith: I have certainly not published any advertisements but I gave an interview to my local paper saying that people with legitimate complaints could get in touch with me, and they did, and they were not frivolous complaints.
Mr. Williams: The information I had is that the hon. Gentleman—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me. As I say, the information I have is that the hon. Gentleman has indulged in an advertising campaign of some sort for this purpose. If not, I will withdraw, and unreservedly.
But let us take the point which he was making about the higher bills on conversion. The first fact that has emerged is that no written evidence has been submitted to us by the hon. Gentleman or anyone else which substantiates the claim that as a result of the introduction of natural gas there have been higher bills. What has tended to happen is a coincidence of several events. One is the introduction of natural gas in some areas at a time which coincided
768
with N.B.P.I. approval of increases. We have also got a natural increase in consumption. So far—I would be glad to see any written evidence anyone can produce on this—we have not yet seen evidence to prove that natural gas itself increases bills.
To come to the main substance of the debate, because on occasions we became rather heated on the objectives and aims of the Government, it is as well to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said at the start about the reason for the Bill being introduced. The aim is to give the gas industry the appropriate structure and powers to utilise the known natural gas resources and any new discoveries of gas or oil on the continental shelf. Most of the provisions in the Bill flow from this objective.
The existing powers and structure of the gas industry reflect the nature of the industry at the time of the initial nationalisation Act, and are geared to bringing cohesion to a thousand separate undertakings which were manufacturing town gas and distributing it locally. The organisation of these undertakings into 12 separate areas was an important rationalisation. As then envisaged, the Gas Council was seen in a far weaker rôle than that which it will need to carry out its functions in the next few years. It was set up to advise the Minister and to promote efficiency, and it had an essentially advisory and co-ordinating rôle. Even today, constitutionally the industry is still federal in structure. This point has emerged from many speeches. The key financial and supply responsibilities for the industry still rest with the areas, and it is important to bear this in mind. The Council at the moment, although with the co-operation of the areas, implements its policy through persuasion and agreement.
It will be seen how inappropriate is this situation in view of recent events. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, it is only four years since B.P. made its first discovery in our sector of the North Sea. Since then five major fields have been discovered, and already one-third of our total gas needs are being met by natural gas. It is to the tremendous credit of the industry that we have achieved one of the swiftest rates of exploitation and

769
development of offshore gas of any country in the world.
Mr. Ridley: Would not it therefore be wiser to leave well alone, and have the same arrangements for the next slice as we had for the last?
Mr. Williams: I suppose that the difference between the two parties is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are always satisfied with the past, whereas we always want to build a better future. The fact that progress has been satisfactory in the past in no way abashes us or leads us to think that better progress cannot be achieved, particularly if there is a Labour Government, as I am sure there will be.
In proof of this optimism about the future, I remind the House of the objective, which is to treble the consumption of gas within this country by the mid-1970's as compared with the level of only last year. This will be achieved only if we manage to get considerable industrial as well as domestic use of natural gas. In the relatively short period of a decade 30 million appliances have to be converted in 13 million households and, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, so far about 8 per cent. have been converted; 1 million consumers have had 3 million of their appliances converted.
What emerges from the last four years is a complete metamorphosis in the position of the industry. There has been a tremendous transition in a very short time. They have moved from decentralised production to centralised supply. They are moving from localised distribution networks to a national grid. They are moving from diverse costs of production to a common supply price.
We should pay tribute to the way in which the areas, despite the balance of powers which exists within the industry, have subjugated their local roles to achieving this transition or to helping towards it. But no one can deny that in the long term—I believe everyone has recognised this, although one or two hon. Members have found rather peculiar excuses for its happening, such as its being a function of nationalisation—the managerial and technological logic of the situation demands that at the centre there should now be central investment decisions and greater control of prices and tariffs. This point we have established.
Mr. Keith Speed: While the hon. Gentleman is on the point of expansion of natural gas supplies, are the Government considering changing their policy in regard to dual-fired power stations involving coal-firing and natural gas since so far they have prohibited the extension of natural gas into these stations?
Mr. Williams: If the Government were contemplating such a change, I am sure the Government would announce the fact. Inevitably central decisions on central tariff policy becomes necessary. Consequently, therefore there must be financial responsibility in the industry and if it has control over investment and tariffs then equally it must have the duty of fulfilling financial targets.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West rightly raised the question of the possible suppression of area interests if this transference of power takes place. I would point out that of the 19 members of the Gas Council, 12 will be area chairmen. There is therefore ample opportunity for the area point of view to be expressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that men of the calibre of chairmen of boards should he given the opportunity to use their abilities in the top decision-making. The centralisation is purely concerned with those functions which by their very nature are central. Ample room is left for local initiative and for dealing with consumer needs. The boards will have a duty to provide an efficient and economical gas supply, and will have duties in relation to safety and service.
The hon. Member for Orpington raised an important point when he asked whether there would be ample incentive for the more able members of the boards as opposed to chairmen in what he saw as an inferior rôle as a result of shared powers. At the moment these boards have a turnover of £53 million and on average will soon have a turnover in excess of £60 million. Therefore, they are big businesses in their own right.
Further, in addition to the other aspects of area policy which I have mentioned, one must bear in mind that we are retaining the area organisation of the Gas Consultative Councils so that they will

771
exist to represent area consumer interests but with wider powers than previously. They have in the past been able to make representations to the Minister only on those issues which arise within their own areas, but under the Bill we contemplate that they will have the power to raise as a last resort with the Minister any decision of the Gas Council which has an adverse regional or area impact. This is a substantial widening of their powers and, at the same time, we recognise that a countervailing consumer voice is needed.
We have, therefore, decided, in agreement with the chairmen of the consultative committees and the Gas Council, that these chairmen shall come together as a group and be able jointly to have meetings with the Council to deal with consumer interests and problems.
It would be inadequate if I were to sit down without diverting a little of my attention to the question of oil which seems to be causing a certain amount of animation on the benches opposite. It is difficult to understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting as excited as they are. The Bill is not intended to deal with preferences which will be given to firms undertaking joint ventures with the Gas Council and the N.C.B. in the Irish Sea. That is a separate thing altogether under the Continental Shelf legislation. What the Bill does is to empower the Gas Council to search and bore for oil as well as for gas, to get oil, that is to tap any oil wells that it finds, to refine and market it, either in the crude or the refined state.
These powers relate only to oil found within United Kingdom territorial waters, and the work must be done through a subsidiary. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that this is desirable because it forces the Gas Council to channel the work through a subsidiary, and a subsidiary which is essentially indulging in a commercial activity loses those advantages or privileges which it would otherwise have as a public utility.
Mr. Ridley: At what rate will the Council lend capital to its subsidiary?
How will it determine the market rate? How can it possibly reproduce the true disciplines of the private enterprise system?
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my points. This will be dealt with in Committee.
Mr. Ridley: It will not do for the Minister to say that this will be dealt with in Committee. This is a fundamental flaw in his argument, and I wish him to answer my question.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must remember that about a dozen Members have taken part in the debate and have raised points on this issue of oil. Each hon. Member thinks that the matter he has raised deserves an answer, and I therefore have to exercise some discretion in the points with which I deal.
Let us consider the provisions which we are imposing in respect of oil. First, there is the power to search and bore for gas. There is no question of principle here. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have given this power themselves. There is no element of principle whether it should be gas or not. The argument is whether the power should exist in relation to oil. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that the quirks of geology are such that it is not until the boring is undertaken that one knows whether one has found oil or gas, or neither. Under the existing law, if the Gas Council finds oil rather than gas, it has no specific or clear power to do anything at all with it. Even if it accidentally discovers oil, it has no power to deal with it.
What we are aiming to do is not to create a monolithic giant which will enter into the international petrol scene. All that we are trying to do is to give the Gas Council the same commercial basis for its operations in the North Sea and in the Irish Sea as that which exists for everyone else.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 128.

Division No. 36.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Beaney, Alan

Armstrong, Ernest

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Ashley, Jack

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Bessell, Peter

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bidwell, Sydney

Binns, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Oram, Albert E.

Bishop, E. S.

Hilton, W. S.

Oswald, Thomas

Booth, Albert

Hobden, Dennis

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

Boston, Terence

Hooley, Frank

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Boyden, James

Horner, John

Padley, Walter

Bradley, Tom

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Brooks, Edwin

Howie, W.

Paget, R. T.

Broughtcn, Sir Alfred

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Palmer, Arthur

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Hunter, Adam

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Hynd, John

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

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

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Buchan, Norman

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pentland, Norman

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Concannnn, J. D.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Conlan, Bernard

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

Price, William (Rugby)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Randall, Harry

Cronin, John

Kelley, Richard

Rankin, John

Dalyell, Tam

Latham, Arthur

Richard, Ivor

Davies, K. Hudson (Conway)

Lawson, George

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Leadbitter, Ted

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Lee, John (Reading)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Dell, Edmund

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Rose, Paul

Diamond. Rt. Hn. John

Lomas, Kenneth

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Dickens, James

Loughlin, Charles

Rowlands, E.

Driberg, Tom

Luard, Evan

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Dunnett, Jack

Lubbock, Eric

Sheldon, Robert

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

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

McCann, John

Silverman, Julius

Eadie, Alex

MacColl, James

Skeffington, Arthur

English, Michael

MacDermot, Niall

Slater, Joseph

Ennals, David

Macdonald, A. H.

Small, William

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Snow, Julian

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

Mackie, John

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Faulds, Andrew

Mackintosh, John P.

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Finch, Harold

McNamara, J. Kevin

Taverne, Dick

Fitch, Alan (wigan)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Manuel, Archie

Marks, Kenneth

Tinn, James

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marquand, David

Tuck, Raphael

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Varley, Eric G.

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Fowler, Gerry

Mendelson, John

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Walden, Brian (All Saints)

Freeson, Reginald

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Gardner, Tony

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

Wallace, George

Garrett, N. E.

Molloy, William

Watkins, David (Consett)

Ginsburg, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wellbeloved, James

Golding, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Whitaker, Ben

Gray, Dr, Hugh (Yarmouth)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Whitlock, William

Gregory, Arnold

Murray, Albert

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Neal, Harold

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Newens, Stan

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Norwood, Christopher

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamling, William

Oakes, Gordon

Mr. Neil McBride and

Harper, Joseph

Ogden, Eric

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.

Hattersley, Roy

O'HailOran, Michael

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

O'Malley, Brian

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Farr, John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Fisher, Nigel

Astor, John

Carlisle, Mark

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

Channon, H. P. G.

Fortescue, Tim

Balniel, Lord

Chataway, Christopher

Foster, Sir John

Bell, Ronald

Clegg, Walter

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Corfield, F. V.

Glyn, Sir Richard

Bitten, John

Costain, A. P.

Goodhart, Philip

Black, Sir Cyril

Crowder, F. P.

Goodhew, Victor

Blaker, Peter

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gower, Raymond

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Dance, James

Grant, Anthony

Body, Richard

Dean, Paul

Gresham Cooke, R.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Drayson, G. B.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Eden, Sir John

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Emery, Peter

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Bullus, Sir Eric

Errington, Sir Eric

Heseltine, Michael

774

775

Hiley, Joseph

Nott, John

Temple, John M.

Hill, J. E. B.

Onslow, Cranley

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Tilney, John

Holland, Philip

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Hunt, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Percival, Ian

Waddington, David

Iremonger, T. L.

Pounder, Rafton

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Pym, Francis

Wall, Patrick

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Walters, Dennis

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Ward, Christopher (Swindon)

Kimball, Marcus

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ward, Dame Irene

Lambton, Viscount

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Weatherill, Bernard

Lane, David

Ridsdale, Julian

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Langford-Hott, Sir John

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wiggin, A. W.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Royle, Anthony

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Longden, Gilbert

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Scott, Nicholas

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Maddan, Martin

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

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Mawby, Ray

Silvester, Frederick

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Sinclair, Sir George

Worsley, Marcus

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Wright, Esmond

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Speed, Keith

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Tapsell, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mr. Jasper More and

Murton, Oscar

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

GAS [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Gas Council, Area Gas Boards and Gas Consultative Councils and to amend the enactments relating to gas, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which fall to be issued out of or paid into the National Loans Fund under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963;

(2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which fall to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section 45 of the Gas Act 1948 (including that section as extended by section 4 of the Gas and Electricity Act 1968);

(3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Technology in consequence of the said Act of the present Session and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section 55(3) or section 72 of the Gas Act 1948; and

(4) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable into that fund under section 72 of the Gas Act 1948.—[Mr. Harper.]

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK) BILL
Ordered,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Food and Drugs (Milk) Bill.
Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
Committee Tomorrow.

MALTA (AID)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: There is no need for me to emphasise Malta's long association with our country. I would, however, remind the House that the Maltese people voluntarily placed themselves under the Crown of this country about 160 years ago and in 1964 the Sovereign of this country became the Sovereign of the independent Commonwealth State of Malta. During those 160 years, Malta has been an important British base and her economy has been wholly geared to defence, and the world knows of the courage and the loyalty displayed by the Maltese people during the Second World War.
The whole question of British aid to Malta is related to the rundown of the British military forces in the island and to the subsequent industrialisation of the island of which the dockyard forms the most important factor. I shall, therefore, deal with the rundown and the dockyard before going on to the present dispute about the level of aid given by Britain to Malta.

777
In the late 'fifties it became clear that British defence commitments in the Mediterranean would have to be cut. As a result, the first five-year development plan, starting in 1959 and ending in 1964, was designed to convert the naval dockyard to commercial use and to attract both industry and tourism to the island. Under this five-year plan Britain provided £million in aid, which included £7½ million for the dockyard, two-thirds of it being in the form of a grant.
I move on to 1964, the year when Malta became independent. Immediately after independence the Maltese Government signed defence and financial agreements with Britain. These were linked agreements and were part of a package deal. Under the financial agreement we agreed to provide £51 million to Malta in the following 10 years. This was designed to continue the industrialisation of the island and, in return, the Maltese asked for no payment for the defence facilities of the Island, which they freely offered to the forces of this country.
Of the £51 million, £18·8 million was to be spent in the first three years and the balance in the seven years commencing April, 1967. It was agreed that 75 per cent. of this sum would be grants and 25 per cent. loans. This amounted to £18 per head of the population. I accept that it was a large sum, but the House agreed to it because of the indebtedness of this country to the Maltese people and because of our responsibility for pushing the economy of the island solely into the defence ambit and then altering it at a rate which the island could not absorb—the island being grossly overpopulated; indeed being one of the most populated parts of the world.
I come to 1966 and the period for which the present Administration are responsible. After the Defence White Paper of that year, it became clear that the rundown was to be accelerated. The Maltese were not consulted about this. They were told that, for example, Her Majesty's ships would be withdrawn, that one Royal Air Force squadron would be disbanded, that Britain would no longer have financial responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery and that the two British battalions stationed in Malta would be withdrawn by 1970. The total
778
effect of this accelerated rundown meant that British defence expenditure in Malta would be cut from about £12½ million a year to under £6 million by the early 'seventies.
I will not go in detail into the ensuing row, but hon. Members will recall that there were demonstrations in Malta led not by the Maltese, but by British nationals. There was considerable discussion and a major debate took place in this House. As a result of all that fuss, Her Majesty's Government agreed to extend the rundown period from two to four years. They also agreed to joint discussions on industrialisation.
Later that year, in July, 1966, the Report of the Joint Mission for Malta, the Robens Report, was printed. That comprehensive document, in suggesting how the island could be fully industrialised by 1972, took as its target the provision of 15,000 new jobs to absorb the 6,500 people who would lose their employment as a result of the withdrawal of British defence forces. That proposal was estimated to cost about £44·3 million.
I have spoken of the military rundown, but there is a further background subject to which I must refer before coming to the question of the present dispute with the Maltese Government, and that is the issue of the dry docks, which are the major employer in Malta and which are vitally important for the economy of the island, no only for the ships that are repaired or produced but for the industrial training of apprentices for both dockyard and other industrial purposes.
During recent years the dry docks have had a chequered history. In 1959, they were leased to Messrs. Bailey by Her Majesty's Government for 99 years. This did not work out very well and, in 1963, Her Majesty's Government put the yard in the charge of the Council of Administration; and in 1968 the Maltese Government nationalised the yard.
During this period while the yard was in the charge of the Council of Administration, Messrs. Swan Hunter acted as managing agents and did a remarkably good job. However, that company faced two difficult problems which it could not overcome. First, the yard was overmanned by about 1,000 people; this had occurred for political reasons and it was a problem which Messrs. Bailey had had

779
to face previously. This made it difficult for the yard to be competitive with yards in, for example, Italy and Greece.
Secondly, the closing of the Suez Canal meant that Malta was no longer on the tanker route through the Mediterranean. This meant a great deal of trade in repairing and cleaning tankers being lost. Indeed, it meant that last year the yard lost about £1¼ million.
The litigation between the Government and Messrs. Bailey started about the time when the yard was taken from that firm—in 1963—and is, I understand, still continuing. If that is so I cannot go into it in any detail, but I should like confirmation that the litigation is continuing. Can the Minister say how long it is likely to last? I recall that when the dispute started, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in charge, I advised them that it would be far cheaper to pay what Messrs. Bailey asked rather than enter into a litigation which could go on for years. It seems that I was a correct prophet. As long as litigation continues foreign firms will not put their money into the dockyard, and it will be impossible to form an international consortium to lease the dry docks.
Further, there is now very little direct workers' financial participation in the yard, and that encourages political strikes, which have been affecting the yards during recent years. Under Messrs. Bailey, the workers had a direct financial interest through Bailey Trust (Bermuda) Ltd., but this Trust was dissolved when the yard was nationalised, the funds being frozen in Bermuda. The Trust can, I understand, be restored only by agreement between Messrs. Bailey and the two Governments concerned. This uncertainty about the future of the yard is very important to the future of Malta, and if it can be cleared up the Maltese economy will greatly benefit.
The Robens Report makes three recommendations about the dockyard. Briefly, it said that both Governments must settle the ownership problem. That cannot be done until the litigation is over. Secondly, it recommended that after the settlement the Maltese Government should take over the yard. This they had already theoretically done in 1968, when they nationalised the yard. Thirdly, the report said that the dock-
780
yard must be brought up to date so that it can compete commercially with foreign yards. The report was made more than two years ago—how far have we got towards meeting those three recommendations?
The third five-year plan was due to start on April 1st of this year. The British contribution to this the second part of the 10-year plan announced in 1964, was to be £21·7 million, including £3 million for the dockyard, but not the £1 million for the repair of historic buildings which had been agreed as a grant in the financial agreement of 1964. I understand that what has happened since then is that the Maltese Government proposed that during the second five-year plan they should receive the whole sum as a 100 per cent. grant, and that the British Government suggested a 50 per cent. grant., and that this should include the £3 million allocated to the dockyard in previous years and the £1 million for historic buildings, which really means that they were suggesting a 40 per cent. grant and a 60 per cent. loan.
The Maltese Government turned down this proposal, and I suggest that they were right, because they were affording free defence facilities to this country and acceptance of such proposals would have meant that the Robens plan would have had to be financed virtually on loans, though at the time of the dispute over the run down there had been a clear commitment to make available adequate financial assistance.
Further, the period of repayment was 25 years, so that it could not be argued that that would affect our present economic position. Interest charges of about £1 million now would rise to about £2 million by 1974, and as the total Maltese budget is only just over £31 million that would be a very high commitment. It is against the suggestion of the United Nations and that made recently by the Lester Pearson Committee that the money should be provided by grant rather than by loans. For all these reasons the British Government have not got all that good a case. I do not blame the Ministry of Overseas Development—as usual, we have to go to the Treasury to allocate the blame.
Quite apart from our historic and wartime obligations Britain has a written as well as a moral obligation to assist

781
Malta to diversify her economy. Yet, because of an argument over whether from £1 million to £2 million a year should be a grant or a 25-year loan, all aid has been stopped. For nine months Malta has received no aid from Her Majesty's Government. It is rather hypocritical to say, as the Government said in an Answer to a Question on 27th November, that they were glad that this nine months' withholding of aid had not held up Malta's development plan.
I believe that the right answer is to continue the terms of the first five-year development plan—75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan, excluding the £1 million for historic buildings under the 1964 Financial Agreement. I believe, also, that events in Libya and elsewhere should now enable us to use the excellent facilities in Malta for our troops and that our two infantry battalions should remain in Malta for the 'seventies and so assist their economy.
I was in Malta in June when the Budget was presented to Parliament. I was much impressed by the able way in which the Government presented their Budget, not knowing whether or not they were to receive the promised aid from Britain. I was heartily ashamed of the Government of my country who, because of a technical argument, were prepared to stop all promised aid to a friend and ally. This action is surely unprecedented and can only bring grave discredit on this country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us tonight that this unhappy story will not be continued into 1970.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has allowed me to come into this debate for one minute. I am also glad to see him in his present office in the Ministry of Overseas Development, because I know of his great and genuine interest in these matters.
I emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about our long friendship with Malta and our very considerable moral and actual obligations towards Malta in peace and war. I was in the old Colonial Office under my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) at the time when the 10-year agreement was made. I was very embarrassed when
782
the last defence rundown broke the spirit and indeed the letter of the independence arrangements concluded by my right hon. Friend and myself in 1964, and also by the way in which it was done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, I feel embarrassed again, now, that a British Government have taken nine months to negotiate an agreement which could have been concluded in nine weeks. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able at least to end this very long-drawn-out argument tonight and to tell us that agreement has at length been reached.
10.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) for the kind words he said about me. I am sure that the whole House was sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was ill when he wished to raise this matter previously and that we are all glad that he is now restored to health. I am grateful to both hon. Members for their interest in this subject.
I wish that we were in a position to announce an agreement, but notwithstanding that I am still confident that our traditional friendship with Malta and her people and our common interest will bring about a fair and amicable settlement. Many hon. Members, like myself, have visited and know and like Malta and we are glad of her present prosperous position. We are all conscious of the shared history in wartime when we stood shoulder to shoulder.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice for giving me notice that he wished to be informed about the position over the dockyard. As he stated, the British Government have said that they would make support available to convert the dockyard to civilian use and so far over £10 million has been made available for this purpose. As to the case concerning Messrs. Bailey's, I have investigated and found that litigation is still pending both in the Maltese courts and United Kingdom courts. Therefore, the matter is sub judice and there is nothing further I can say on it. As to how long any law case might last, as a barrister I would not hazard a guess.

783
Early in 1963 the firm of Swan Hunters was put in as managing agents and it is now responsible to a public board appointed by the Malta Government. More recently, early in 1969 consultants were appointed for the dockyard. These were paid for from the Technical Assistance Vote and are to advise the Malta Government. The Malta Government are at present considering the recommendations of the consultants to see what action they would wish taken on them. In spite of the difficulties which the hon. Member outlined, anyone who has visited Malta is aware that Malta now has a well-equipped civil dockyard which turns out good work, and we all hope that this will have an extremely prosperous future.
Coming to the main subject of the debate, we accept that we have an obligation to assist Malta in her economic development within the limits of our own financial circumstances. We have been most concerned lest the present dispute should be protracted to the point that Malta's current development programme would thereby be impeded. It was very much with this in mind that the British Government offered as an interim short-term arrangement to resume the cash flow to Malta on a 50–50 basis of grant and loan for the two years ending 31st March, 1971.
We understand, meanwhile, that Malta has been able to finance current development by resort to local government and commercial sources. This does not lessen our anxiety to reach as quickly as possible full agreement satisfactory to both parties which would enable us to resume the flow of British aid to Malta in accordance with the Financial Agreement entered into in 1964.
There is no question of the British Government's going back on their obligations under this agreement. The agreement, drawn up in the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Surbiton referred, requires the direction of our aid and the grant/loan proportion, which is presently the main matter of contention between the two Governments, to be reviewed in discussion with the Malta Government after the first five years.
In considering what the terms should be in the second period of five years, the British Government have rightly taken
784
account of the economic circumstances now obtaining in Malta. There has, I am glad to say—I am sure that we all appreciate this—been a radical improvement in the Maltese economy since the Financial Agreement came into effect, partly because of the British aid, amounting to £27·8 million so far, which has been disbursed, and also because of the private investment in industry and tourism which this aid has helped to attract.
During the past nine years Malta has received £45 million from the United Kingdom. Malta's foreign exchange reserves are now among the highest per capita in the entire world and are equal to about three years of imports, compared with eight months in the United States and two or three months in this country. She has three times per capita Germany's foreign exchange reserves and ten times per capita the United Kingdom's foreign exchange reserves.
Mr. Wall: The Parliamentary Secretarytary will recognise that this boom is due largely to a great deal of building, particularly hotels, which cannot be repeated for very many years.
Mr. Whitaker: No, but we hope that the hotels will continue to be full in the Maltese sunshine with many people whom we all know. I will not go into a great deal of figures. The projections on which Malta's Development Plan were made have been amply over-fulfilled. We are all glad that, for example, per capita income has risen by 27 per cent.
It is interesting to note that the special privileges for immigration to this country have needed to be resorted to by Maltese people less and less. They were given a special annual quota of 1,000 people since 1965. Both the number of employment vouchers issued and the number arriving here with vouchers has fallen successively in each of the last five years. This performance is due in no small measure to the efforts of the Maltese people themselves and is all the more impressive viewed against the background of the rundown of the Service establishments in Malta.
In these circumstances, the British Government do not regard our offer to provide the balance of £23 million equally by way of grant and loan over the period

785
1969–74 as being ungenerous. Indeed, the economic criteria normally applied to the use of our overseas development funds would by themselves have led to a much less favourable result. We recognised, however, that there were special circumstances to be considered, and these were fully taken into account in arriving at our 50–50 offer, which, in fact, is more generous than our original contention, which was one of 75 per cent. loan and 25 per cent. grant. In an effort 10 have a settlement reached more easily, we made this more generous offer earlier this year.
Malta's per capita income is many hundreds per cent. above that in many other countries which look to us for aid, including many which also fought at our side during the last war. Hon. Members realise, too, that Britain herself has had to take massive loans and has not received grant herself recently.
Other areas of the Commonwealth are affected by the changes in the United Kingdom's defence policies. It has also not escaped the notice of some British people, who have written to the Government, that Malta's tax position compares extremely favourably with Britain's, and that its percentage of gross national product going to tax is 26 per cent., compared with the United Kingdom's 38 per cent.
One of the ingredients which have to be considered is the matter of the £3 million far the dockyard and the £1 million for historic buildings. But, once again, we do not believe that our attitude on this point involves any injustice or breach of faith. Both those sums are comprehended within the balance remaining available under the terms of the Financial Agreement and thus fall to be treated in accordance with Article 5(b)
786
of the agreement, which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Surbiton recalls.
As I say, the only real bone of contention is the proportion of grant and loan to be applied over this period. There is no disagreement in principle about the annual maxima to be issued or the sectors of development to which aid should be directed. I am sure that we all agree that such discussions and negotiations must take place with the Malta Government rather than across the Floor of the House. Therefore, with great respect, I do not think that it would be helpful if I went into the current differences on both sides in much greater detail.
Malta now has a degree of prosperity which inspires confidence in her future, and we all earnestly want an amicable solution as early as possible. We are very grateful to Lord Robens for his personal efforts to achieve an initiative. His interest derives from having been Chairman of the Joint Steering Committee. He has been working ceaselessly and travelling a great deal between London and Malta in order to achieve a settlement. He is, however, acting independently, and I am not free to discuss his proposals in detail. I can say, however, that he brought back new proposals for an interim settlement 48 hours ago, and these are now being studied urgently.
I have taken careful note of all the points which both hon. Gentlemen have made. I am sorry that I do not consider that it would be helpful if I said any more, and I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to say or do anything which would prejudice what we all earnestly desire, that is, a satisfactory solution at the first possible moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Computer Education
  Computer Education
  Science Expenditure
  Science Expenditure
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
  Initial Teaching Alphabet
  Comprehensive Schools (Pupils)
  Comprehensive Schools (Pupils)
  North Riding (Primary Schools)
  North Riding (Primary Schools)
  Deaf/Blind Children
  Deaf/Blind Children
  C.E.R.N.
  C.E.R.N.
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Nottinghamshire (Primary Schools)
  Nottinghamshire (Primary Schools)
  Teaching Profession (Mature Students)
  Teaching Profession (Mature Students)
  Swimming
  Swimming
  Certificate of Secondary Education
  Certificate of Secondary Education
  Primary Classes and Dining Halls (Derbyshire)
  Primary Classes and Dining Halls (Derbyshire)
  School Transport (Rural Areas)
  School Transport (Rural Areas)
  Wath and Kirklington (Primary Schools)
  Wath and Kirklington (Primary Schools)
  Clapham Transport Museum
  Clapham Transport Museum
  Trained Teachers (Unemployment)
  Trained Teachers (Unemployment)
  Direct Grant Schools (Report)
  Direct Grant Schools (Report)
  Divorced Women Students (Grants)
  Divorced Women Students (Grants)
  Teachers and Pupils (Confidential Files)
  Teachers and Pupils (Confidential Files)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Teachers (State Schools)
  Teachers (State Schools)
  Sunderland (Primary School Classes)
  Sunderland (Primary School Classes)
  Morden Bog Reserve, Wareham (Right of Way)
  Morden Bog Reserve, Wareham (Right of Way)
  Bideford (Reorganisation Scheme)
  Bideford (Reorganisation Scheme)
  Okehampton (Primary Schools)
  Okehampton (Primary Schools)
  Avonmouth (Primary School)
  Avonmouth (Primary School)
  Darlington (Oversize Classes)
  Darlington (Oversize Classes)
  Redbridge (Primary School Classes)
  Redbridge (Primary School Classes)
  Forestry Training Centre
  Forestry Training Centre
  Burnham Committee (Departmental Representative)
  Burnham Committee (Departmental Representative)
  Sheffield (Primary School Classes)
  Sheffield (Primary School Classes)
  Birmingham (Primary School Classes)
  Birmingham (Primary School Classes)
  Secondary Education Reorganisation (Brecon and Gwernyfed)
  Secondary Education Reorganisation (Brecon and Gwernyfed)
  Wildlife (Deaths)
  Wildlife (Deaths)
  Lancashire and Manchester (Primary School Classes)
  Lancashire and Manchester (Primary School Classes)
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Comprehensive Education (Sunderland)
  Comprehensive Education (Sunderland)
  Polytechnics (Teachers)
  Polytechnics (Teachers)
  Teachers' Council
  Teachers' Council
  York Railway Museum
  York Railway Museum
  Museum of Transport
  Museum of Transport
  Railway Records
  Railway Records
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Suxamethonium Chloride (Control)
  Suxamethonium Chloride (Control)
  Springbok Rugby Team
  Springbok Rugby Team
  Arms (Metropolitan Police)
  Arms (Metropolitan Police)
  Absolute Discharges
  Absolute Discharges
  Robberies (Use of Firearms)
  Robberies (Use of Firearms)
  Murder (South Croydon)
  Murder (South Croydon)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Dependants)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Dependants)
  Mr. Christopher Nwanaga (Visa)
  Mr. Christopher Nwanaga (Visa)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Unemployed Miners (Sunderland)
  Unemployed Miners (Sunderland)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Report)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Report)
  Night Shift Working (Women)
  Night Shift Working (Women)
  Company Directors (Incomes Policy)
  Company Directors (Incomes Policy)
  Lower-paid Workers
  Lower-paid Workers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Additives (Research)
  Food Additives (Research)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephone Directories (Maps)
  Telephone Directories (Maps)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Building Land, Wolverhampton (Tettenhall)
  Building Land, Wolverhampton (Tettenhall)
  Repairs and Management Costs
  Repairs and Management Costs
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic, Consular and Trade Missions
  Diplomatic, Consular and Trade Missions
DEFENCE
  Headquarters and Outstations (Civilian and Military Personnel)
  Headquarters and Outstations (Civilian and Military Personnel)
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Cateswell Barracks, Birmingham (Sale)
  Cateswell Barracks, Birmingham (Sale)
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft (Press Briefing)
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft (Press Briefing)
TRANSPORT
  A5, Tamworth (Land)
  A5, Tamworth (Land)
  Elderly Persons (Concessionary Bus Fares)
  Elderly Persons (Concessionary Bus Fares)
  British Road Services (Dispute)
  British Road Services (Dispute)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  50p Coin (Member's Letter)
  50p Coin (Member's Letter)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Home and Export Performance
  Home and Export Performance
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WALES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WALES
  PRESIDENT OF UGANDA (FUNERAL)
  PRESIDENT OF UGANDA (FUNERAL)
  C.N.D. DEMONSTRATIONS AND (ATTENDANCE BY MINISTERS)
  C.N.D. DEMONSTRATIONS AND (ATTENDANCE BY MINISTERS)
  ANNUAL ABSTRACT OF STATISTICS
  ANNUAL ABSTRACT OF STATISTICS
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  TOURIST INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  TOURIST INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Defence Works
  Defence Works
SCOTLAND
  Community Centres (Glasgow)
  Community Centres (Glasgow)
  Forestry (Education and Training Centre)
  Forestry (Education and Training Centre)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Stanley Fenwick, Newcastle-upon- Tyne (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Stanley Fenwick, Newcastle-upon- Tyne (Medical Treatment)
TECHNOLOGY
  Beagle Aircraft Ltd.
  Beagle Aircraft Ltd.
  Beagle Aviation Finance Ltd.
  Beagle Aviation Finance Ltd.
  Electric Heating and Lighting (Private Households)
  Electric Heating and Lighting (Private Households)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
BOARD OF TRADE
  Trans-Siberian Air Route
  Trans-Siberian Air Route
  U.K.-U.S.A. Air Services (Bermuda Agreement)
  U.K.-U.S.A. Air Services (Bermuda Agreement)

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

DERELICT LAND
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 it is correct that derelict land is increasing by 10 acres a day.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the answer is "No". I am glad of this opportunity to refute this mistaken figure which is being widely quoted in the Press at the moment, and even appeared in this year's Reith Lectures. It is based on a misunderstanding, which I shall now explain.
Since 1964 there have been annual surveys of derelict land. The figures to the end of 1968 show an increase of 13,870 acres in land classified as derelict, and that is of the order of 10 acres a day. But this does not mean that land is being despoiled at that rate. The figures reflect new survey work and the fact that, owing in particular to railway and colliery closures, land which has long been despoiled is being classified as derelict as it ceases to be put to operational use. In other words, what is increasing is the amount of despoiled land which is ceasing to be despoiled, and thus becomes eligible for reclamation. That increase is good news, not bad. Nevertheless, a misunderstanding has arisen, and I am looking into the way the statistics are presented to see whether they can be made more clear.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while appreciating the reply of my noble friend and also its significance, may I ask him if he is satisfied with the present rate of reclamation and whether he anticipates that there may be some early
650
indication of improvement in the situation?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not think that anyone can be satisfied with the present rate. It is increasing: it ought to increase faster. As the House will know, Exchequer grants are now available to local authorities at the rate of 85 per cent. in development areas and 50 per cent. elsewhere. The latter figure will be increased to 75 per cent. in the intermediate areas, if the Local Employment Bill goes through Parliament, as it should.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate what is the acreage that is being reclaimed every year?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the last annual figures—that was in 1967—show an acreage of 2,695 acres.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the additional figures of derelict land include pit heaps which are about to be reclaimed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, they include pit heaps which are no longer being worked and therefore are eligible for reclamation.

TAX LEGISLATION AND INLAND REVENUE STAFF
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the Fifth Report of the Estimates Committee (Session 1968–69) which states that the errors and delays resulting from the overwork of the Inland Revenue Department are causing widespread distress and hardship for which there is no legal right of redress, and that the fundamental cause of the Inland Revenue's plight is the growth in tax legislation over the last few years, and whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to remedy this state of affairs.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government are now studying the Report, and as soon as they have fully considered its recommendations they will give their observations to Parliament in a White Paper.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, but may I ask whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue is physically incapable of bearing the burden of the extra work which has been imposed upon it during the last five or six years, that it is no uncommon thing for six months to be taken over answering a letter, and that the correspondence is often equally bewildering to the writer and to the recipient?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that the latter part of what the noble Earl said is fair, but as to the first part it is a fact that an enormous burden has been put upon the Inland Revenue and we should all like to lighten it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, while recognising what the Report says about the distress caused by the problem that has been raised, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that if we get the value-added tax there will be chaos and disaster in future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think there is a good deal in what my noble friend says. It is also fair to say that when we brought in a tax that did not add to the burden on the Inland Revenue —namely, the selective employment tax —we had even greater criticism from the other side.

TAX RELIEF ON BANK INTEREST
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any guidance has been given to the Inland Revenue concerning the allowance or disallowance of bank overdraft interest as a deduction from taxable income.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, instructions have been circulated by the Board of Inland Revenue to inspectors of taxes concerning the provisions of the Finance Act 1969 relating to tax relief for payments of interest, including interest on bank overdrafts.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the complexity of this matter has been enormously increased by the decision to make retrospective the disallowance of interest on old overdrafts incurred a long time ago? And is he aware that, particularly in the case of agricultural estates, where owners may have to go back ten or twenty years into their accounts to discover how much overdraft has been incurred, how much in respect of maintenance, which is disallowed, and how much in respect of improvements, which is allowed, the difficulty will be quite insuperable?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that there are many complexities about this subject. At the same time he will probably agree that the position which appertained before, under Section 200 of the Income Tax Act 1952, gave rise to an economic situation which was quite intolerable.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether a copy of the instructions to which he has referred has been placed in the Library, or could be placed in the Library, in order that some of these many complexities might be simplified in our minds?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, a copy has not been placed and could not be placed in the Library. It is an internal instruction from the Chief Inspector to the inspectors of taxes. But there is a Press statement which sets out the matter in some detail and which I will send to the noble Lord; or, if he will wait till the New Year, a more comprehensive booklet is to be published.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord would also put a copy in the Library, because I do not suppose I am the only Member of this House who will be interested?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would do that; but I think that the other booklet which is now being prepared and

653
which will be issued in the New Year will possibly be more helpful. I think I should wait till then.

IMMIGRATION: OVERSEAS ADVICE AGENCIES
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 what action has been taken to establish advice agencies for intending emigrants to Britain at places of departure in Commonwealth countries.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 came into force, British High Commissions in Commonwealth countries have provided advice for intending emigrants to Britain. As a result of the Government's decision last May to make entry certificates compulsory for dependants coming here for settlement, staffs of immigration sections at High Commissions have been strengthened where necessary to enable them to continue their advisory function.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that many of us are receiving reports from India and Pakistan which confirm the warnings that were given of the cruel effects of ineffective administration in this matter? Is he aware, for example, that illiterate families living in Gujerat have to travel 300 miles before reaching the High Commission agencies, and that in the Punjab they often have to travel more than 100 miles, when they have never been more than 10 miles from their village? They often have to travel with their children and take them back before a decision is reached. Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to accept two suggestions? One is that there should be effective communication with these applicants before they leave their villages and, secondly, that voluntary agencies should be encouraged, as they would be more acceptable than Government officials.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not accept in full the strictures of my noble friend. Conditions have
654
been very much improved by the increase in the number of staff in our High Commissions who now deal with emigration. Even if there were advisory committees I do not believe we should be able to assist, if I take the example of my noble friend, somebody who lives 300 miles from a main town. Naturally we will consider anything we can do to help people. There is a limit to how far we can go in such a country so large as India or Pakistan.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on environmental pollution, after which he will make a statement on Peers' expenses, allowances and car allowances. This will be followed by a Statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith.

COPYRIGHT (ROYALTIES ON RECORDS) BILL [H.L.]
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to royalties on records of musical works. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(Lord Willis.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, this is a straight Consolidation Bill and, except that one or two further repeals are added, it is substantially the same Bill as I introduced last Session, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading, and which went in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. It was towards the end of the Session and the Joint Committee were so occupied with the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill that they were unable to consider this Bill as well. Therefore, it is now reintroduced earlier in the Session. If your Lordships give

655
the Bill a Second Reading, it will of course go back to the Joint Consolidation Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Liability for damage done by dangerous animals]:
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("of any kind").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to refer to a point which I raised on Clause 2(2) of the Bill at the Committee stage. At that time I suggested that there was a possible ambiguity or uncertainty in the wording of this subsection. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in replying, said that he thought the wording was right, but he suggested that we might refer to the point at this stage in order to see whether it was indeed correct. He invited me to look at what he had to say at that time, which I have faithfully done, but I am afraid that what he had to say has not altogether allayed the doubts which I have on this point.
I should like briefly to repeat the substance of the criticism that I made on that occasion. It relates to the wording of Clause 2(2) which reads:
"(2) Where damage of any kind is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, and—
(a) the animal has such characteristics that it is likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of that kind or that any damage of that kind …"
Then it goes on to say if the keeper of the animal knows of those characteristics
656
he will be liable for any damage. The words to which I wish to direct the attention of the House are the words "damage of that kind", because I ask myself what is this damage which is so described as "of that kind"? If one looks back to the beginning of the clause one sees the words "damage of any kind". It seems to me, on the face of it, that one interpretation of this clause is that the words "of that kind" are intended to relate "that" to the words "damage of any kind" at the beginning of the clause, with the result, if that interpretation is correct, that the section would read like this:
"Where damage of any kind is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, and—
(a) the animal has such characteristics that it is likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of any kind "—
and then, if those characteristics are known to the keeper, he will be liable for damages.
It seemed to me that that is a possible construction to be put upon these words; and if it is a possible construction, certainly it is not what is intended to be covered by the clause, because it is clear that the purpose of this clause is to provide (if I may use informal language) that where damage of any kind is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, and the animal has such characteristics that it is likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of the kind which has in fact occurred in this particular case—the case under consideration at the time—then, and then only, will the keeper, if the characteristics are known to him, be liable in damages.
I think that the reason why there are these two alternative possible constructions—the second one, obviously being the right one, but the one to which I have drawn attention nevertheless being a possible one—is because of the use of the word "kind" in the beginning of the clause, and then the repetition of the word "kind" lower down. One automatically thinks that one is being referred back to the words "of any kind" at the beginning of the clause. If I am right about that, may I suggest how I think my Amendment cures the difficulty? It would be possible, I suppose, in order to put the matter beyond any doubt, to insert in subsection (2(a), after the words

657
"cause damage of that kind", the words "that actually occurred" or words to that effect. I would suggest, however, that the proposal I have made, to leave out the words "of any kind", clears up this difficulty altogether. May I read the clause as it would be worded with my Amendment:
"Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, and—
(a)the animal has such characteristics that it is likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of that kind…".
Pausing there, I would point out that if these words are used it is perfectly clear that the words "damage of that kind" means damage of the kind that was actually caused by the particular animal on the particular occasion—the occasion with which one happens to be dealing.
I would respectfully suggest, further, that the omission of these words is good on its own account, because the words "of any kind" appear to me to be redundant and otiose. If we were to leave out the words I suggest should be deleted, and leave in simply the word "damage", would not the word "damage" comprise damage of all kinds and of any kind? Is it necessary at all to add the words "of any kind"? Therefore, by adopting this Amendment, in addition to clearing up the ambiguity which I foresee we should be getting rid of some words which are, in my submission, unnecessary. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, drafting questions are of course important but not necessarily easy, and I apologise, as usual, for my position. The Amendment would delete the words "of any kind" after "damage", so that, as the noble Lord has said, the provision would read:
"Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species …".
This would hardly make any difference to the sense of the subsection, which would still refer to the damage caused by the animal—and prima facie, damage would be damage of any kind. On the other hand, we do not want the drafting to make the whole provision wider than was intended. I am not certain that the noble Lord has not got a point. I have, therefore, been re-examining the clause,
658
in consultation with the experts in the Law Commission and others, to try to ascertain whether the noble Lord's concern is justified. It has not been possible so far to conclude these consultations in the time available.
The Government's intention is that Clause 2(2) should give effect to the Law Commission's recommendation on strict liability for animals of a normally harmless species which are known to have dangerous characteristics. The recommendation is summarised in paragraph 91(iv) of the Report as follows:
"Strict liability should also be imposed in respect of injury or damage of any kind done by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, if the particular animal had dangerous characteristics known to its keeper which made it likely that injury or damage of that kind would occur or that any injury or damage of that kind which might occur would be severe. Such characteristics should he capable of giving rise to strict liability even if they are shared by other animals within the species, whether at a particular age, at certain times of the year or in certain conditions."
The background is explained more fully in paragraphs 17 and 18.
As I have said, these consultations are still going on; and if the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, if it is found that Clause 2(2) goes wider and imposes liability in circumstances not contemplated in the recommendation, I would undertake, in consultation with the Law Officers, to ensure that the necessary Amendments to narrow the scope will be introduced in another place.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I hope that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack looks at this matter again he will make it perfectly clear whether this provision applies only to animals not of a normally dangerous species, individuals among which develop dangerous characteristics. I have in mind a particular case that happened to concern myself. I keep some animals which certainly could not be called dangerous in the ordinary sense, but on one occasion they managed to escape from the field in which they are generally lodged and took themselves to trespass into somebody else's garden, where they walked all over the lawn and made lacerations with their hooves. They are not dangerous animals. Fortunately, on this occasion (it was a summer day,

659
but the whole family were indoors, with the french windows open) the people were glued to the television and therefore did not see what happened. But this raises the question whether the clause refers to ordinarily undangerous animals which can do damage, or merely to dangerous specimens of undangerous species who do damage. Will the noble and learned Lord look at this point in the reconsideration?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I, to a certain extent, support what my noble friend has said? I am thinking in particular of cattle of the bovine species. Either the species has to be dangerous or it has not to be dangerous. We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, thought that this provision automatically would apply to bulls. In my own experience, the bull is a much maligned animal. A cow, particularly with a young calf, is often more dangerous than a bull. But the bovine species as a whole has to be considered as one that is not dangerous. Therefore, a wicked bull—let us say a Jersey or Friesian bull—would not be considered an animal of a dangerous species, although he might be a very dangerous beast himself.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, my Amendment is concerned simply with the wording of this clause and is directed simply to trying to get it right in order to express the principle which the clause is intending to express, and to express it so that it will be beyond any doubt. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for undertaking to look at this matter again. In those circumstances I am quite satisfied and have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN LORD ROWALLAN moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Liability for loss or expense occasioned to owner or occupier of land by straying livestock.
".Where livestock belonging to any person strays on to land used by a herd, or any part of a herd, accredited pursuant to a scheme for accrediting brucellosis free herds, and as a consequence of the straying, and in order
660
to retain the accredited status, the owner or occupier of the land—

(a) is restricted in the use of the land, or any part thereof, for a period; or

(b) is restricted in any farming or business activity;

the person to whom the straying livestock be-longs shall be liable for any loss or expense occasioned thereby to the owner or occupier of the land."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to take long in reviewing what happened at the Committee stage, but for the sake of your Lordships who were not then present I may say that I pointed out then that no provision was made for the recovery of damages for loss caused by the trespass of cattle from a non-accredited herd on land which was in the occupation of an accredited herd. In one case the damage was immediate, in that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food immediately put a closure order on that field, which disorganised the whole of the rotational grazing. I spoke also of the very serious damage—in fact the crippling loss—that might be incurred when a herd lost its accredited status and the owner was no longer allowed to take the animals to shows or to accredited markets. This was happening more and more frequently as time went on. I withdrew my Amendment at the last stage because I was not quite sure exactly what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, and I wished to study it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, asked the Lord Chancellor whether it was not the case that Clause 4(1)(a) covered damage of the kind which I anticipated. Clause 4(1) says:
"Where livestock belonging to any person strays on to land in the ownership or occupation of another and—
(a) damage is done by the livestock to the land or to any property on it which is in the ownership or possession of the other person …"
In reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it covered only damage done by the trespassing livestock to property. He said that if this Amendment were accepted it would be a dangerous thing to have a herd next door to somebody with a brucellosis-free herd. My Lords, it is infinitely more dangerous for a person with a brucellosis-free herd to be surrounded on all sides by farms where no efforts whatever have been taken to control brucellosis.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, again asked whether, when cattle which are not accredited within the brucellosis scheme stray on to ground where there is a brucellosis-free herd, and the straying cattle have contact with the accredited herd, the accredited herd will lose their accreditation and thereby will depreciate in value quite significantly. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied that this was a loss incurred, but not damage.
Clause 4(1)(a) is intended to reproduce the existing law which deals with small amounts of damage that may be done by trespassing cattle. The whole importance of this matter has been slurred over. The importance is that a man who is doing his best in the interests of agriculture, and in the interests of the consumers of milk in particular, is being left in the hands of the man who has done nothing towards clearing his herd and has run no risks whatsoever in his farming practices.
It was suggested by several noble Lords that this point should me covered by insurance. Not more than an hour or so ago I was in touch by telephone with the Yorkshire Insurance Company, which probably does the largest business in livestock insurance in this country. They said that they had no experience of a claim of this nature. I pointed out to them that it would be rather complicated to draw up a rational scheme because the conditions would vary so greatly between the man who was surrounded by non-accredited cattle and the man who was entirely out on his own with no reasonable chance of infection from outside. I asked the accident assessor whether he would let me know what the mature consideration of the insurance companies would be on this question. I fear, however, that in the meantime the premium would be almost entirely prohibitive to the man who most needs insurance; namely, the man whose land forms an enclave between non-accredited herds.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having at long last decided to call it a brucellosis-eradication scheme and not an accreditation scheme. They have expressed their intention of taking steps which for the past ten years, and more, all farmers have been pressing them with increasing urgency to take. But, my Lords, it will take some time for that step to become a reality, and during
662
that time I must press my point that the man who has done his best, who has worked and risked his capital and his own future, deserves the protection which this Amendment would give him. I beg to move.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this Amendment. As a country we are somewhat late in the day in trying to eradicate brucellosis. It is most important that we should do so, not just from the point of view of the health of the cattle but also from the point of view of the position and reputation which our cattle hold in the world and the export possibilities which are now being frustrated. Furthermore, this disease is a hazard to human health, even though it is not what I believe is called colloquially a "killer". If we now have this scheme under way it cannot be so long, one would hope, before brucellosis in this country is eradicated, and therefore this extra protection for which my noble friend asks in this Amendment is not something which will continue until the day of judgment. It is just something a little extra which these forward-looking farmers deserve during this short period while we are making this great effort to rid this country of a very serious cattle disease. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the support of your Lordships.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, may also offer my support for the Amendment? I too am glad that the Government are now at last going to tackle the problem of brucellosis. I have felt it to be rather ridiculous that an accredited herd could be implicated in brucellosis simply through animals straying on to a neighbouring farm. I have also been concerned with the human aspect of brucellosis. More than half the veterinary surgeons in this country have contracted it because of their contact with cattle, as also have a considerable number of farm workers. It is not a pleasant disease; it is an undulant fever, and I believe that it is almost impossible to cure it. There is therefore a further virtue in this Amendment in that it will persuade farmers to make sure that their herds are properly enclosed, and thereby help to prevent the spread of the disease by contact.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I also support this Amendment. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, would feel strongly about it, if she were present, since she has on the Order Paper an Unstarred Question on this subject. It seems to me that, if we are now passing an Act of Parliament on this subject, to leave out the danger and, as it were to pay no attention to this great attempt by farmers all over the country to get their herds brucellosis-tested would be doing something very retrograde. I remember when attestation for milk was first started. A great many herds were not tuberculin-tested cattle. It took some time to get them all tuberculin-tested, but the work is now complete. I imagine that in a few years the situation will be the same with brucellosis, and every herd will be attested as brucellosis-free. It will take a long time, but it is something for which we should aim. In my view, it would be most unfortunate if this new Act were passed, in December, 1969, without provision being made for something that is obviously coming, and if those farmers who are spending a great deal of money trying to get the herds clear of this disease, not only from the point of view of cattle but also from the point of view of human beings, were handicapped. I support the Amendment.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment for the reasons I gave on the previous occasion.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while appreciating the point of view of my noble friend Lord Rowallan, and sympathising to a certain extent, I am afraid that I cannot entirely support him. Cattle are peculiar creatures; they are always doing the unexpected, and the fact of being brucellosis-free will not make them any less likely to stray. After all, the grass is always greener on the other side. I believe it is a regulation with brucellosis-free herds that double fencing is essential, in which case the neighbours' cattle are also double fenced. The animals in the brucellosis-free herd will stray just as frequently as the non-accredited cattle. Therefore I think it would be prudent of the owner of the brucellosis-free herd to insure, if need be, against any consequential loss which may occur as a result of his own cows straying. Until such time as we eradicate brucellosis—and I
664
hope we shall continue moving in that direction; indeed, I am sure we shall—the owners should insure against consequential loss.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a moment because it so happens that I myself last month had a very serious outbreak of this disease in my herd, as a result of which one quarter of my breeding cattle, cows and heifers, have had to be destroyed. In the country where I farm, across the St. George's Channel, there has been a compulsory eradication programme for over three years, and I have been fortunate enough throughout the three-year period to be completely free of any reactions. Moreover, I have a completely self-contained herd. I never buy any cattle; I never use an outside bull, and outside cows never come to my bulls. So far as I know, there have been no strays, and the neighbouring farms have all been clear. Yet, quite suddenly, after being completely clear of the disease over the three-year period, when the annual test—which I faced with complete equanimity —took place, it was found that 14 out of 60 cows and heifers reacted, and under the rules in Ireland had to be destroyed.
Full and generous compensation is payable, which is not the case in this country. Here, if a cow is affected the farmer is faced at once with the difficult problem of what to do with it. The only honest thing he can do is to isolate it, try to get some condition on it, and then sell it to the factory for beef. But there is a very great temptation, until the compulsory eradication programme, to put it on the market as a springing cow. If he sells it for beef there is a loss. There are also important secondary losses, in that he cannot sell any females, or is restricted in the selling of both females and, what is important in my case, pure-bred bulls. I have three young pure-bred bulls which I should normally be selling now, but I cannot sell them until they have passed another 90-day test and then a 60-day test.
I mention my experience to show the great difficulties that will be found in eradicating this disease. I feel that it would be somewhat unfair to put a responsibility on a farmer next door to prevent his cattle from straying when it may be the obligation of the owner of the accredited herd to see that his own

665
land is fenced and that his cattle are not allowed to go across to his neighbour's land. However, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has moved this Amendment, and in general I have great sympathy with it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment, but, as I have said previously, I feel that it is not going to he very effective. If the neighbour is a man of no worth, you will not get any compensation out of him. That brings me to the question of insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said he did not know what the insurance rate would be for accredited herds. As the Government are starting this brucellosis eradication scheme in this country, would they also start a scheme whereby the accredited or brucellosis-free herd can be insured with the Government until the rate is fixed by the insurance companies?

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
3.47 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if this is a convenient moment, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place in reply to a Question. The Statement is as follows:
"With regard to the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, I gave full information to the House on October 13. The House will also recall that I asked my right honourable friend to go urgently into the question of environmental pollution in all its forms and to make proposals to me on how the problem should be dealt with.
"He has now reported. He is setting up a permanent central unit, composed mainly of scientists, on his own staff, to assist him in his co-ordinating role on environmental pollution. Through his staff he will maintain close relationships with the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and with the Research Councils and other institutions concerned with the problem.
"Following on my right honourable friend's report I have recommended,
666
and Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve, that a Standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution should be set up with the following terms of reference:
'To advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment.'
"It is intended that this shall to a Standing Commission able to take up any problem relating to pollution so that the benefit of the best possible advice will be available to Government Departments responsible for executive action.
"One aspect of this matter which has caused particular concern is the problem of noise. My right honourable friend proposes to establish an Advisory Council to deal with this, on the lines of the Clean Air Council.
"Concern has also been expressed in the House and outside about the use of pesticides. I should therefore inform the House that the Agriculture Ministers are already engaged in consultations about the preparation of legislation to replace the existing voluntary system of control on the use of pesticides. Proposals will be brought before the House.
"On the general question of environmental pollution, the Government intend to present to the House a White Paper next year. This will show how much has so far been achieved under the existing arrangements, which our new proposals will greatly reinforce."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating to your Lordships' House this Statement. I have no doubt about the importance of work on environmental pollution, but is the noble Lord aware that many people are very doubtful about the value of Standing Royal Commissions? Is he aware that many people feel that the direct responsibility of Ministers to Parliament may achieve more effective action than if these matters are referred to standing non-Parliamentary bodies? May I express the hope that the Advisory Council on the subject of noise will prove to be as valuable as the Clean Air Council were certainly to me when I was Minister on

667
clean air questions? May I finally ask about the strange timing of this action. How is it that the Government are proposing here and now to set up a Standing Royal Commission on environmental pollution, and next year to present to both Houses of Parliament, presumably, a White Paper on the subject? Will that express their views or the Royal Commission's views?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. It seems to us to be a very important Statement, one extremely welcome and indeed possibly well overdue. The whole problem of pollution is a very complex one, but there were two major strands to it. The first is the scientific—the diagnosis of pollution—and the second is the cure, which often involves serious economic problems, such as the allocation of costs. There is no mention of the economic side in the Statement, and I should like to ask whether it is suggested that economists should work on and with the Standing Royal Commission, because certainly we on these Benches think it would be a very good idea if they did.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave this Statement quite such a cool welcome. If I may say so, with respect to somebody of his great experience and judgment, I do not think he has quite grasped the implications. But that is always a difficulty with Statements. The fact is that responsibilities rest with Ministers; there is no doubt whatever that it is Ministers who will be responsible for executing policy. In the past a large number of Ministers have been involved and that is bound to continue, because you cannot just take a problem that affects the whole environment, take it away from twenty Departments and put it all within the responsibility of one, because it is still the responsibility of the others. Departmental Ministers deal with problems that arise in their own field. But the important decision which was taken previously was that one Minister should take on the main responsibility; that he should consider the problem as a whole, set up the necessary machinery to consider and keep it under review and
668
recommend action, and co-ordinate the large number of bodies who are involved in this field, so that problems are looked at synoptically. This is what my right honourable friend is proposing to do, and the Statement makes clear that he will have the necessary advice to achieve this.
In addition, this is an area where external opinion, whether it be scientific, the general public, those interested in natural history, or whatever it may be, will be able to give advice and guidance and to publish this, so that Governments may take account of it—and I think that nationally we have been, and indeed all nations have been, slow to face this problem. I have debated this subject often in this House over many years, and I am particularly gratified to see that at last really firm action is being taken. The Standing Royal Commission will provide an important sounding board and focus for consideration of problems. They will tender their advice to the Government and will be able to publish that advice, and I feel that this is a very important step forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley properly pointed to the great economic difficulties, and it is of course the economic consequence of either coping with pollution or failing to cope with pollution that needs proper assessment. He is absolutely right; and although I have no precise information it seems to me inconceivable that economic advice will not be available. Clearly, one will have to arrive at the right sort of cost estimates in dealing with this matter.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in appointing the members of the Advisory Commission, he will bear in mind the desirability of including representatives of the water undertakers, local authorities, and other classes of undertaker who have a very wide experience in questions of pollution?
LORD SHACICLETON: My Lords, I should stress that this Royal Commission is not a representative body in that sense, and if one were to put every interested group on it I think it would be very large indeed. It is intended to be a well informed, mainly scientific group; but of course it would be quite absurd if it was not to obtain the advice of the

669
local authorities, water undertakers, and others who have such a vital interest in this field. So whereas I cannot suggest that there will be specifically representatives from these bodies, I am sure that their views will be very much taken into account. It is worth pointing out to the noble Lord that this responsibility has been placed in the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, which does bring local government right into the field. I should also tell noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Kennet, who is deeply interested and is heavily involved in local government also, is especially concerned with this matter.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this will cover Scotland as well as England?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand that it does.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Confederation of British Industry will be represented on the Royal Commission, as they feel strongly about this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I have answered that question. Obviously the Commission will need to take account of advice from everywhere, and particularly industry, which plays a large part and has in the past been responsible for much of the pollution.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify one point? Since the Natural Environmental Research Council is concerned at points with the behaviour of pollutants, would he explain a little more clearly what is the relationship between the Standing Royal Commission and this Research Council?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Natural Environmental Research Council plays a crucial part and, as the noble Earl, with his geographical land planning interests will know, they have been in the forefront. However, looking at it from the point of view of their own responsibility, the Natural Environmental Research Council—or, before it, the old Nature Conservancy—have not had the
670
wide remit that this Royal Commission has. If I may stress it again, the responsibility will be on Ministers collectively and the Minister particularly responsible for co-ordination, and the Natural Environmental Research Council will, of course, be fully consulted and no doubt will contribute. For all I know. they may even have some Commission members on some of the Committees that they may set up.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since on the last occasion when the question of the Minister's responsibility for questions of pollution was raised, I put forward the importance of the question of noise, may I say how glad I am that Her Majesty's Government have set up a body to deal with this extremely important matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. We always listen with great attention to what he has to say.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether oil on beaches will be included within the ambit of this Royal Commission? Recent legislation has failed to cure this menace completely, and would not the noble Lord agree that much more stringent methods are needed to combat it?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Royal Commission will be responsible over the whole field of pollution. But again I must stress that the agencies who deal with this matter may be spread over a number of Departments, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I, who have both been particularly involved in this—he succeeded me as chairman of the Oil Pollution Committee—are well aware that a number of people are involved. But clearly this is another example of pollution.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my noble friends and I are extremely anxious for executive action in this field, and we are faintly suspicious that this announcement may be a matter of "window-dressing"? The noble Lord did not answer my question about the White Paper. The Government are proposing to set up a Standing Royal Commission, presumably to advise the Government, and simultaneously promise a White

671
Paper on the subject next year. Will that White Paper contain the Government's views or the Royal Commission's views?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord is doing his best to blur the issue. I repeat: the Government are responsible, but, because they think this is a matter of such importance, they want a body of power and of status and of influence, but also a non-executive body, to tender advice and to provide a focus for all the different interests that may be raised.
On the subject of the White Paper, it may surprise the noble Lord to learn that this Government believe in getting on with the job; there has been quite a lot of work going on already and quite extensive studies. The Government propose to publish the results of these studies, and no doubt they will from time to time, in the executive field, publish this sort of information independently of the Royal Commission, which is an independent body and will no doubt chase Governments. I suspect they might have to do more chasing if there were a Conservative Government.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no Ministers have taken a more active interest in clean air than Mr. Duncan Sandys and myself? Will the Royal Commission be consulted about the contents of this Government White Paper?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is pressing it much too far. He is really doing his best to play this down. I fully acknowledge that individual Ministers, and particularly Mr. Duncan Sandys in certain aspects of the environment—and I acknowledge the part played by the noble Lord—have been very active. We just think that we need much more pressure, much more co-ordination and much more action, and these proposals are designed for that purpose.

PEERS' EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES
4.3 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House, I might now make another Statement,
672
which I hope will be welcomed. It concerns the expenses allowance payable to Members of the House of Lords and the car allowances and official travel arangements.
Your Lordships will be aware that Members of the House of Lords have been entitled since 1964 to claim reimbursement of expenditure necessarily incurred in connection with attendance at sittings of the House up to a maximum of four and a half guineas for each day's attendance. Whilst a number of Peers do not find it necessary to claim the full amount, representations have been made that the present allowance is no longer realistic in relation to the kind of expenditure for which it is intended to provide; for example, hotel accommodation, meals, taxis in London and other incidentals. The Government have therefore reviewed the position and have concluded that the rise since 1964 in the cost of those items of expenditure which the allowance is intended to cover justifies an increase in the amount of the upper limit which may be claimed. They therefore propose that this maximum should be raised to £6 10s. 0d. for each day's attendance.
The Government also propose that the present rate of car allowance of 4½d. a mile should be increased to 6d. a mile. This follows the basis for calculating the car allowance adopted by the Lawrence Report, and is broadly related to the cost of first-class travel—very broadly related; first-class travel is slightly less. The allowance is not directly related to the cost of actual car expense. In addition, the Government propose a number of changes to improve and rationalise our present travel arrangements. For example, a Peer who has to travel by car to his local railway station and who at present is entitled to claim for this will now normally be eligible to claim the allowance for the car's return journey, also.
I would, however, remind the House that eligibility for travel expenses will continue to be based on the principle of assiduity of attendance—that is to say, an attendance of one-third of the possible attendances during the month or period of claim. The special relaxation for Peers who live in Scotland will continue.

673
The Resolution required to give effect to the proposals which I have just announced will be laid before both Houses as soon as possible; and if this is approved, the new arrangements will then come into force at once.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Statement, and I am particularly glad to learn of its contents. It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and a particular pleasure to listen to him speaking in his role of Father Christmas. I am glad to have this further evidence of Her Majesty's Government's appreciation of the services rendered by your Lordships. I would only add that these new arrangements for the reimbursement of our necessary expenses seem, to me at least, to be both sensible and realistic.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement he has made, and for its contents. I think it must reflect a great deal of the hard work which the noble Lord has done on behalf of us all to obtain this excellent increase in our expense allowances. I am sure we are all very grateful to him for that work as well as for the Statement.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I should like to congratulate him on his Statement, and also on the very important part he has played in getting these improvements for your Lordships? Perhaps I might observe that I still think there is racial discrimination here, because Peers who live 300 miles away and have rail and hotel expenses to meet are at a considerable disadvantage when compared with those who live in London.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to noble Lords. I always seek to serve your Lordships: I hope, equally, that your Lordships will continue to deserve my services! Perhaps I might also add one small point—a matter which has not hitherto been covered. Whereas I mentioned that local taxi fares are included in the £6 10s. Od., reimbursement of bus or coach fares for journeys of more than five miles may now be claimed, as are rail and air fares. But there are certain detailed matters involved, and on this I understand that
674
the Committee of the Whips are able to advise and arbitrate, with the Officers of the House, with great skill. I am obliged for the comment of my noble friend Lord Blyton. I must say that any racial discrimination in favour of Lady Elliot as against my noble friend raises very acute difficulties for me.
THE EARL OF JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a further question. He said that the necessary Resolution to give full effect to these proposals will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. Could he say how long is "as soon as possible"?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it will be possible for it to be laid within the next 24 hours. In the rather dynamic atmosphere in which we live now with regard to Parliamentary business I can only say that I hope it will come before both Houses for approval before the Christmas Recess.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (Loan DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology. The Statement is as follows:
"I informed the House on June 19 of the arrangements the Shipbuilding Industry Board were making to provide assistance under the Shipbuilding Industry Act to Upper Clyde Ship-builders Limited.
"This action has not yet restored the confidence of suppliers and customers to the extent necessary to enable the Company to carry on its business on a satisfactory long-term basis. The Shipbuilding Industry Board do not consider that they would be justified in present circumstances in providing further help to the Company out of the funds available to them under the Shipbuilding Industry Act.
"However, the Company have been seeking ways of improving their position in recent months, and in order to

675
allow them a further period in which to show results the Government have decided to introduce fresh legislation to provide assistance to this Company by way of loans not exceeding —7 million and, if necessary, guarantees of completion in the case of new orders of particular and immediate value to the Company because they are for early completion.
"Any funds required immediately for such loans will be provided in the first instance from the Civil Contingencies Fund; a supplementary estimate will be submitted to the House at the appropriate stage.
"While we are seeking to provide financial help to the Company outside the Shipbuilding Industry Act, this will be related to the continuing process of reorganising and strengthening the shipbuilding industry, particularly on the Clyde, with a view to improving its productivity and future prospects. I am in close touch with the Ship-building Industry Board who are actively considering what further measures may prove desirable to that end."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement which I am sure will come as a great relief to Upper Clydeside, which is well aware of the present difficulties of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. But is the noble Lord aware that that relief is bound to be tempered with anxiety in view of the time that is being taken for this merged industry to get on its feet? Could the noble Lord tell us how much Exchequer money has already been put into Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (including Fairfield, before Upper Clyde Shipbuilders were formed) by way of grant and loans respectively? Could he also say what is the significance of the Shipbuilding Industry Board not being prepared to give any further financial assistance to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Can he further say when this legislation will be brought before Parliament and on what Parliamentary authority in the meantime the advances that he referred to will be made?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement
676
As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, it will be a matter of considerable relief in Clydeside. But I think we should look at the principles involved, since possibly these "one-off" contributions to industry from Government outside the normal machinery are a disturbing factor. I should like to echo Lord Drumalbyn's question about the significance of the fact that the Shipbuilding Industry Board does not appear to be able to help while the Government are able to do so. At first sight this seems to be evidence either that this loan is not a very good risk or that the machinery in use for the Board is not adequate. If so, are the Government considering any change in the machinery of money supplied through the Board?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, in answer to the first question put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I am in a position to give him the figures for Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. The amount received from the Shipbuilding Industry Board has been £5½ million in grants and £7·7 million in loans or subscription to share capital. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, both asked about the position of the Shipbuilding Industry Board in this connection. The Act under which the Shipbuilding Industry Board operate requires the Board to exercise their powers to promote the abilities of the United Kingdom Shipbuilding Industry. The S.I.B. considered that in the present case they could not provide more on the basis of their commercial judgment and having regard to the statutory purposes for which they were established, their responsibilities as a whole, and the funds available to them.
This is not a question of disagreement between the Government and the S.I.B. The Government accept the S.I.B.s views of their own responsibilities; but the S.I.B. recognise that the Government have wider social and economic responsibilities. I cannot at present state when the legislation will be put forward, nor can I add to what I have already said in respect of the immediate advances. On the broader question of the future, the S.I.B. are currently considering what industrial measures might be helpful to the industry following the action which the Government now propose to take.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Report stage continued.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know why good financial news was followed by such a marked exodus from your Lordships' Chamber —whether it was to convey the news elsewhere or to get away from the discussion of brucellosis. Brucellosis, as some of your Lordships have made plain, is a most important subject; and on this Amendment there are two entirely different points which we must keep distinct. The first is whether the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was right on Committee stage in taking the view that this animal welfare problem is one which ought to be dealt with in a Ministry of Agriculture Bill, since it relates to one problem of disease only; or whether it is suitable that it should be dealt with in this Bill. Plainly, many of your Lordships know a great deal more about brucellosis than I do; but I am told that the relevant facts include the following.
The great problem with brucellosis is that of effectively diagnosing it. That is the main reason why it does not rate as a notifiable disease, since the genuine symptoms cannot readily be detected by owners or stockmen. There are tests to establish the presence of the disease, but these are bedevilled by the widespread vaccination of adult cattle with Strain 19. By way of result, cattle so vaccinated cannot be distinguished in practice from animals which are genuinely infected. This makes the difficult task of diagnosing brucellosis even more difficult. Adult vaccination with Strain 19 stopped in 1967; but it will be 1973 before the great majority of these vaccinal reactors will have been culled from the national herd. Here is one of the main keys to the Ministry's policy towards eradication; that is to say, a compulsory slaughter programme at this stage would involve the wasteful slaughtering at appreciable expense of large numbers of healthy animals simply because they react to adult vaccination.
In 1967 the Ministry introduced the present Brucellosis Accredited Herd Scheme, a voluntary scheme, and the herds of those participating in it were
678
required to undergo a series of qualifying tests. In the event of a failure in one of these tests the owner must test the herd at his own expense and cull the resulting reactors. After successfully completing qualifying tests an official blood test is carried out. The reactors discovered at this stage are slaughtered, with full compensation, and the owner is then qualified for an accredited herd register.
Despite criticisms to the contrary, progress with this scheme has been encouraged, especially when allowance is made for the long standstill period of the foot and mouth epidemic of 1967–68. Up to the end of November some 6,250 herds in Great Britain have been registered as accredited, and a further 7,150 were undergoing qualifying tests. In practice, the timetable of the economic approach to eradication rests on the interplay of two main factors. First, we do not want unnecessarily to slaughter large numbers of vaccinal reactors, and secondly, we need a reservoir of brucellafree stock from which to replace infected animals that have to be slaughtered. To eradicate now would be premature, and in fact we gain doubly by deferring compulsory eradication. As each month passes, so the number of surviving vaccinal reactors diminishes and so also the reservoirs of disease-free replacements expands. In fact, to go for compulsory eradication now would call for far more replacements than in, say, three years' time, when the vaccinal reactors will virtually have disappeared from the national herd.
My Lords, I ought perhaps briefly to refer to an answer by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which he gave yesterday in another place. He said:
"The main obstacle to an early start with area eradication is the existence of large numbers of vaccinal reactors. To start too early would mean the unnecessary slaughter of those animals and would cause an unduly large number of replacements. These factors will be progressively culled from herds over the next three years. In two year's time, for example, some 15,000 to 20,000 accredited herds should, on certain assumptions, provide sufficient replacements for a start to be made with area eradication on a worthwhile scale. My aim is to start limited eradication projects in specially selected areas in 1971, and I am already looking at the practical requirements. The annual cost will depend on the scale, timing and terms of the compulsory scheme."

679
Then my right honourable friend was congratulated on making what was called a "tentative decision", and he replied:
"What I said was not tentative. I said that I was considering practical schemes for area eradication in certain areas in 1971. That is positive. This is a satisfactory proposal, bearing in mind the increasing progress which we are making. Since I made my statement on 5th November, the level of applications has been rising. Currently it is exceding 150 a week. Therefore, very good progress is being made "—[0FFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 10/12/69, col. 414.]
I do not think that I ought to go further than that, because next week, as your Lordships will know from the Order Paper, my noble friend Lady Summerskill has down an Unstarred Question under which the whole question of brucellosis can be considered. But I would have submitted, in agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Burton, that the problem of this particular disease is one which really ought not to concern us on this Bill, though I would certainly pass on to my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the suggestion which has been made about insurance when the Scheme is in force.
The second question, which is an entirely different one, is this. There is no doubt at all that the effect of this Amendment would be that where, because of trespassing cattle, an accredited scheme herd becomes de-accredited, the farmer whose cattle has wandered will be absolutely liable, whether it is his fault or not. This Amendment is proposed to a clause dealing with strict liability. This is very unusual in our law. All our law of negligence is based on this: if A owes a duty to B to take reasonable care, he may be liable for any damage sustained if he has failed to do that which a reasonably careful man would have done, or has done that which a reasonably careful man would not have done. But if it is not his fault he is under no liability. The principle of strict liability in Clause 4 is this historical strict liability for trespassing cattle, which usually of course do very little damage indeed, and it saves actions and trouble. It is a hard line, but every farmer knows what it is.
What I have not heard yet is what justification there can be for a man who has chosen to have an accredited herd
680
and then suffers what it is admitted may be a crippling liability to put this crippling liability on a neighbour who has done nothing wrong at all and who has taken every care himself. This point, as your Lordships may remember, was raised during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe. He said:
"I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, in his Amendment means that the straying livestock is straying owning to the negligence of the owner."
Then he asked what might happen where it was a third party who was at fault. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said:
"The authorities are very strict about having double fencing where there is the differential between the two".
Lord Clitheroe replied:
"I know that that is so. But it is an important point that the damage should be due to the negligence of the owner of the straying animal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/11/69; col. 1410.]
Under this Amendment that is not so. The unfortunate neighbour's liability is not based on negligence at all; it is strict liability. That means that the unfortunate neighbour, who has taken every care that his cattle should not stray, will be liable for what is described as a crippling liability which the man who has the brucellosis-free herd is going to impose on him, although the damage is not at all his fault. After all, our ordinary law of negligence, in saying that, if you do not take proper care and damage your neighbour you are liable, but if you take proper care you are not, has a moral principle behind it and makes sense.
I should think that in relation to brucellosis herds in particular we ought to bear in mind that under the Scheme Rule 1 says—
"The owner shall ensure that his cattle do not come into contact with other cattle."
That rule, I think, operates from the date of application for registration. Rule 6, which becomes operative from the date of passing the first qualification tests, reads as follows:
"The owner shall provide and maintain boundary fences/walls which will prevent contact between his herd and other cattle."
It would seem to me extraordinary to extend the Common Law so as to enable a man who is not carrying out his own contractual duty to recover damages from his neighbour who has not been at fault at all. I am afraid that, for those

681
reasons, I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment, if, as I hope will not happen, it is pressed to a Division by the noble Lord.
4.30 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, we have all listened with attention to the noble and learned Lord's exposition on this difficult and complicated problem. There are, of course, two aspects of it: the legal one, which the noble and learned Lord dealt with second, and the agricultural one, which he dealt with first. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that he has my sympathies 100 per cent. for the substance of his complaint, but I am bound to say that I do not think this is the right way to cure it. This is not the right Bill in which to put such an. Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has just explained, if this new clause were to be put in the Bill as it is drafted, it would have terribly severe consequences for the owner of any straying cattle from a non-accredited herd which happened to contact the cattle of an accredited herd, and would go far beyond the general spirit of the Bill.
The real difficulty of this case, and the reason, I suspect, why many noble Lords on all sides of the House came in to support the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, is because the brucellosis eradication scheme is at present in a very unsatisfactory state. I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had certainly equipped himself with all the best possible agricultural arguments to show that good progress was being made. I am glad to hear it and that the Minister of Agriculture sees a prospect of setting up eradication areas, with slaughtering and compensation, within the next two or three years. Most of us have felt that this ought to have been done long ago.
There is no doubt at all that an accredited herd now is at a very severe disadvantage. As a dairy farmer becomes accredited, he culls out reactors and off they go into the market, and other dairy herds buy them. This is a very unsatisfactory position. So I very much sympathise with the noble Lord in his plea for some relief to this situation. I also understand what I am sure
682
he is going to say: that the condition which is in the brucellosis scheme. that a farmer should fence in his animals so that they cannot contact other cattle, is perfectly sensible but that in practice it is impossible to do it 100 per cent. and there may be cases where such contacts are made. These are very good reasons for saying that the Minister of Agriculture ought to try to think of some way in the interim two or three years of improving the position under the brucellosis scheme and, if he can, of accelerating the setting up of accredited areas. But I do not think that making this Amendment would be the right way of trying to cure the scheme. It is certainly the wrong Bill to put it in. If the noble Lord reads the Long Title of the Bill, he will see that it simply does not fit here at all.
If the noble Lord wishes to proceed with an Amendment of this kind, I think, as I have told him privately, that the right place is to the Agriculture Bill which is now proceeding in another place. That is a wide, miscellaneous Bill, covering veterinary matters, and on which I suppose that he could put down a new clause which would perhaps improve the basis of the brucellosis scheme. That would seem to me to be the right procedure, rather than trying to insert a new clause into this complicated, tight little legal Bill we have before us now. Much as I sympathise with the noble Lord, if he pressed this Amendment to a Division I should feel absolutely torn, because my personal sympathies are entirely with him, although I feel that his method of trying to cure his problem is the wrong one. So I hope that he will not press it now. Perhaps his ingenuity may find another new clause to put down on the Agriculture Bill, when we may ventilate this matter further.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, may I ask whether the insertion of the following words:
"Where livestock belonging to any person owing to his negligence strayed on to land used by a herd",
would meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and of the Front Bench of the Opposition? I am willing to do that. I am concerned that we should not wait

683
all this time. Long waiting makes the heart sick. Owners of accredited herds have been heartsick for many months, and I hope that it will not be necessary to keep them heartsick any longer.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I, for clarification, ask the noble Lord what difference these words could possibly make? A farmer has a duty to fence in; so if his cattle get out he is automatically negligent. There cannot be any way round this.
LORD ROWALLAN: It is not the case, as may have been suggested, that when cattle stray from an accredited herd on to unaccredited land the damage is done. It is only when non-accredited cattle stray on to the holy ground of an accredited farm that damage occurs. I believe that in general practice, though perhaps not in law, it is a question of fencing in and not of fencing out. May I also ask—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for straying a little—what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to warn the general public of the dangers which they are putting in the way of the farmer? For instance, the police, without any malice or carelessness on their part and merely following hundreds of years of practice, finding cattle straying on the road, open the nearest gate and push them in. I myself have warned the Chief Constable of Ayrshire of the danger of this and he has told me that he has informed all his police that they must not do any such thing unless they are absolutely certain that the farm into which they are putting the cantle is not accredited.
The Electricity Board also have issued instructions to all their linesmen, who are crossing land constantly, that not only must they close every gate they come to, but also secure the gate. I have received most courteous replies to both those suggestions and assurances that instructions have been issued and would be complied with. I hope that the Government will do something to bring the attention of the public and in particular of the local authorities to the danger of these practices. I am still recalcitrant about the withdrawal of this Amendment.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that no damage is done if
684
accredited cattle stray on to non-accredited land and thereby come into contact with non-accredited cattle. I should have thought that damage must be done because, surely, they could become non-accredited?
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, no damage whatever would be done to the non-accredited herd. It is the accredited herd which is getting into trouble.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the Report stage of the Bill and, therefore, apart from the Mover of an Amendment and the noble Lord who replies, no other noble Lord is entitled to speak twice. Therefore, I must ask leave of the House in order to reply to the question that has been raised. To insert a reference to negligence in Clause 4, which relates to cattle trespass generally and imposes strict liability, would be completely to re-cast the whole of the clause. I say this while realising that it is always difficult to advise on an Amendment 1 have not seen. I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture everything which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has said. Meanwhile, I venture to hope that he will think it right to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and reserve further action for the Agriculture Bill.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, with regret, on the assurance that this matter will be brought to the attention of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4]:
4.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("proved") to end of line 3 on page 3, and insert ("either—

(a) that the animal was not kept there fox the protection of persons or property; or

(b) (if the animal was kept there for the protection of persons or property) that keeping it there for that purpose was not unreasonable ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, several noble Lords were not

685
happy about the terminology of this subsection dealing with the position of trespassers. The Amendment substitutes fresh criteria for those used in the Bill to impose liability for damage done by animals to trespassers. As a result, the keeper of an animal will be strictly liable under Clause 2 for any injury he may cause to a trespasser only where, first, the animal is kept for the purpose of guarding persons or property, and, second, the use of the animal for that purpose is not reasonable.
The test of reasonableness in the use of the animal for guard purposes will, in practice, never be satisfied for animals of a dangerous species. It is unthinkable that a court could find circumstances where the use of a lion or snake to guard property was justified. There is therefore no need to distinguish between dangerous species and others. On the other hand, where normally harmless animals are trained for guard duties so that they will act against intruders, their use for the protection of persons or property will be justifiable or not, depending on the circumstances. The courts can be expected to have regard in this connection to any warnings given to potential trespassers, to the obstacles which a trespasser would have to overcome before coming into contact with the animal and to the likelihood of innocent trespassers unwittingly straying on to the premises. The use of a fierce guard dog could be expected to be held unreasonable to protect an open field on which hikers or children are likely to wander, while it might not be unreasonable to use such a dog to protect a factory against intruders who had managed to scale walls or railings.
The Amendment covers the protection of persons as well as property. It is not unreasonable, for instance, that elderly persons living alone should keep a dog as a safeguard against intrusion. The Amendment is intended to accord with the general trend of the law on liability of occupiers for the safety of their premises. The authorities are not consistent, but they show a tendency to permit the creation of reasonable, unconcealed dangers which will deter trespassers from intrusion into private property, but not to permit the creation of a hidden danger or the doing of any
686
acts deliberately intended to do serious harm to trespassers known to be there.
I hope the House will support this Amendment. In substance, what we have done is to give up trying to find some phrase that will cover any one of a very large number of varying circumstances. We have laid down the test of reasonableness and, recognising that the circumstances will vary very considerably, we have left it to the judge hearing a case to decide what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his Amendment, which certainly goes a long way to meet the point that a number of noble Lords made on the Committee stage. I do not wish to sound unappreciative, and I entirely follow the noble Lord's argument. But, I still have three points of qualification that I should like to make, before I agree that this is the right Amendment to put in here. The first point I would query is whether it is right to put on the keeper of the dog—and of course we think first of the ordinary householder who has a house dog which is kept at a watch dog—the onus of proof. I wonder whether the subsection should not be constructed the other way round, thus throwing on the trespasser the onus of proving that it was unreasonable. I am speaking now with regard to paragraph (b) of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
The second point concerns the method which the noble and learned Lord has now chosen for dealing with this difficult and complex matter of dangerous and tame animals. I quite see the advantage of getting rid of differentiation in this matter, but it seems to me that dealing with it in this particular way could lead to difficulties. Not least, I should have thought is the difficulty that paragraph (a) says exactly what we do not want to do. It is going to say that the animal" was not kept there for the protection of persons or property", when nine times out of ten, the animal will in fact be kept there for the protection of persons or property; and we all wish that it should be there for that purpose.
We have a Bill with the most praise-worthy intentions, notably inspired by

687
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and it seems unfortunate that it should contain a paragraph saying exactly what we do not mean. I quite understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying with regard to the way this provision will be construed in the courts; nevertheless, it is going to say what I suggest we do not mean. Looking at it as a layman. I have should have thought the Bill would have been clearer if it had continued with paragraph (a) of subsection (3) drafted as it now stands. It deals separately with the dangerous species, as against the non-dangerous species, and this makes the intention of the Bill absolutely clear. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may feel that this form would create other difficulties, but it seems to me that there would be great advantage if this Bill, which in all other respects is so admirably clear, could continue to be clear on this particular point.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would deal with these two points: first, the question of onus of proof, and whether it would be possible to redraft this subsection so that the onus of proof is thrown on to the trespasser to prove that it was not reasonable; and, secondly, the question of making the Bill say what we intend it to mean.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for putting down his Amendment, which has to a great extent met my Amendment. I was chiefly concerned with guard dogs, as I stated at the time. I had hoped that in paragraph (b), about which I am talking, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might have had, instead of the word "keeping", the word "finding". As I pointed out at the Committee stage, a man may have a dog guarding his property that is not kept on that property. It may come to the property every night with its keeper. Therefore, I should have thought the word "finding" would have covered the position better than the word "keeping". I have nothing more to say on this point.
Regarding paragraph (a), I agree that a man cannot keep tigers, lions or cheetahs to deter people from entering his premises or to deter them from entering a
688
field. I cannot agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding paragraph (a). I agree with him regarding the onus of proof, but I cannot agree with him the whole way. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the new paragraph (b)—apart from the word "keeping" which I should have liked to see changed to "finding"—because he has gone a long way towards meeting my point.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has put down exactly meets the point which I ventured to include in the Amendment that I put on the Order Paper at the Committee stage. In fact it goes very slightly further in that I did not challenge paragraph (a). I must say that I was rather gratified, on reading the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had put on the Order Paper, after consulting the Law Commission, to find how near I had come to getting it right—a rather rare experience. In my Amendment, I had not challenged the onus of proof, and as the present Amendment completely meets my point I can only thank the noble and learned Lord for it.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that part of the new paragraph (a) looks a little curious to the layman at first sight. But the layman must not stop there; he must go on to read paragraph (b), because otherwise the wording would be nonsense. But if he goes on to read paragraph (b), I think that the precise point which we all have in mind, apart from the question of onus of proof, has been met by the noble and learned Lord, and I thank him for it.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I felt some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, when he drew attention to what appeared to be the some-what incongruous wording of paragraph (a):
"that the animal was not kept there for the protection of persons or property".
But on reading paragraph (a) in connection with paragraph (b) I thought I saw the common sense of it. Under paragraph (a) it may well be that I keep a pet dog—not the dog that I keep as a fierce watchdog. But it may well be that if a burglar enters my drawing-room my little pet dog will bite him, or the

689
ferret which I keep for the amusement of my children may bite him also; and that covers paragraph (a).
Then we come to paragraph ((b), which I think is perhaps the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has not paid sufficient attention. It says:
"if the animal was kept there for the protection of persons "—
that is to say, if it is a watchdog, if it is an Airedale, or if it is an Alsatian—then the owner of the dog is exempted from any liability if he was keeping it there for a purpose which is not unreasonable. If you are trying to protect your house against burglars, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to keep an Airedale or an Alsatian, whereas it would clearly be quite unreasonable to keep a cheetah, a leopard, a lion or a tiger. Therefore, although at first sight it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was right in the interpretation he put upon this paragraph, I think that the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is quite correct and will cover every possibility.
LORD AIREDALE: Airedales are very fierce dogs indeed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I reply to two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? As to the first point, onus of proof, it is submitted that this is right because it is to be a defence that the animal was not kept for the purpose stated, and the only person who has any knowledge of this will not be the trespasser but will be the keeper of the animal. In relation to the second point, Clause 5(3) is concerned only with strict liability. There will be no such liability where the animal is kept for any purposes other than protection of persons or property; for example, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland said, as a pet or, for that matter, for zoological study, or to put on show.
But it does not follow that a trespasser injured by such an animal would never have a remedy. If the animal constitutes a hidden danger he would often have a remedy against the occupier of the premises in negligence if in the circumstances the presence of the animal might be expected to draw trespassers into the area; for example, inquisitive children attracted by an interesting animal would readily be treated as im-
690
plied licensees and have a remedy as such. If the keeper of the animal is not the occupier he might be liable to a trespasser under the ordinary law of negligence—anyone, for example, inciting an animal to attack someone.
The answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is in substance the same: that it is a defence. Clause 5 is simply dealing with defences of people who would otherwise be liable, and it is to be a defence that the animal was not kept for that purpose. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I am gratified to find that in substance in adopting his suggestion we have, I hope, this time got it right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, on the point of my noble friend Lord Massereene I think the difficulty is that the defence will not be available because, under the definition of "keeping" in the Bill, if the dog has been brought in by some organisation who produce guard dogs on a hire basis the person on whose property it is will not, I think, either own it or have it in his possession; I think it is in the possession of the person who brings it and looks after it while it is there. There is therefore a certain difficulty about this which is not covered at the moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may speak again, I will certainly take that point into account and make inquiries about guard-dog hiring businesses.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation of certain expressions used in sections 2 to 5]:
4.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 6(3)(b) in the Committee stage which inserted a reference to the head of the household, at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. A corresponding reference to the head of the household in relation to animals kept by members of the household is needed in subsection (5), paragraph (a). There is no change in substance. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("who") and insert ("he is the head

691
of a household and the characteristics are known to another keeper of the animal").— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("servant") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) which lays down, first, that an animal's characteristics, if they are known to the servant, are deemed to be known to the master. The second part of paragraph (b) goes beyond that; it goes into the past, because it says that if an animal's characteristics "were at any time known" to a servant, still they are deemed to be known to the master. I should not have thought that this was a very useful provision. As I ventured to suggest in Committee, it would be useful only if one supposed that an animal was born with certain characteristics, retained them throughout its life and died with those characteristics. But this is not so. Experience shows that both human and other domestic animals tend normally to be boisterous when young and become considerably more docile as they grow older. But, of course, there are exceptions to this, and some human and other animals undoubtedly become cantankerous, fractious and troublesome in their old age. The point is, however, that an animal's characteristics usually do not remain the same over the years.
My quarrel with the second part of paragraph (b) is that it seems to interfere with the court's discretion to operate the rule of relevancy which courts have to administer every day on questions of whether or not to admit evidence. Presumably a court would admit as relevant evidence of an animal's characteristics in, say, recent months, before an incident occurred. But if the incident occurred a matter of two or three years before, the court would tend to say, "Well that evidence will not be useful to us; we rule that it is irrelevant and we do not want to hear that evidence."
This second part of paragraph (b) would seem to interfere with that discretion of the courts, encouraging litigants to adduce evidence of an animal's characteristics as they were known to a
692
servant "at any time"—that is what it says, at any time—in the past. I feel that these words which I seek to leave out will do more mischief than they seek to cure, and the Bill would be better without them, leaving the courts unfettered in this regard, as they ought to be, to decide what evidence is relevant, and to admit that, and to exclude what is irrelevant because it relates to a situation too far in the past. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, criticised the paragraph on the ground that it seemed to assume that an animal's dangerous characteristics would never change, and that it might impose liability for the acts of an animal which had long ceased to have those vicious traits—that is, almost denying the power of redemption to an animal. If the Amendment is intended to meet that criticism it is respectfully submitted that it is misconceived. Even without the words which the noble Lord seeks to delete, the paragraph would still impose liability in respect of characteristics known to the owner from past experience. The only difference would be that he might not have imputed to him the knowledge of a servant who had left his employment.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead pointed out on the Committee stage of the Bill that the subsection is concerned with questions of knowledge of existing characteristics. If the past conduct of the animal is still relevant to the continuing existence of those characteristics, then knowledge acquired in the past should found liability. If the past conduct has become irrelevant, knowledge of it will not found liability now and the clause will not make it do so. However, paragraph (b) is sound in principle and accords with the existing law in imputing to the master the knowledge acquired by a servant who has charge of the animal and in fixing the employer with that knowledge, even though by the time when the animal's conduct causes injury the servant may no longer have charge of the animal or, indeed, may no longer be in the master's employment. In so providing we are really only applying the existing Common Law. If the animal no longer has those characteristics then knowledge of them becomes irrelevant. I hope that

693
with that explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I put down the Amendment because when I mentioned the matter in Committee on the Question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, I did not get any answer at all and I thought the point was sufficiently important for me to be given an answer. I now have an answer which I shall be pleased to study; and in the meantime I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Duty to take care to prevent damage from animals straying on to the highway]:
5.3 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that this section shall not apply to livestock straying on to public footpaths, bridleways or driftways.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 which stands in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, very much regrets that he cannot be with us as he is laid low with influenza. But although he cannot be here in person on this occasion he tells me that he is here with me in the spirit.
This Amendment substantially repeats the Amendment which we moved at the Committee stage, with the addition of "driftways" to footpaths and bridleways, in order to make it more comprehensive. Briefly, the case for excluding these rights of ways across fields from the effect of Clause 8(1) is as follows. Subsection (1) of Clause 8 is a very important subsection which changes the law of the land and makes it a statutory duty on all farmers to take reasonable care to see that their livestock do not stray on to the highway where they may cause accident and injury.
We accept, and I believe all noble Lords accept, that this is a reasonable change from the existing Common Law position to the statutory law position, in so far as it applies to the public highway, that is to say, the carriageway. I would
694
suggest that bridleways and footpaths fall into a completely different category. They run across the middle of fields and across farms, and therefore they are not normally fenced. If cattle are grazing in a field which is crossed by a public right of way, they will naturally from time to time cross the footpath or bridleway in the course of their grazing. They are unlikely to be dangerous to users of these rights of way—in fact they usually move
away when somebody approaches. The dangers to the users are more likely to be under foot when they are going along footpaths or bridleways. I suppose an animal might barge into a cyclist (who is now allowed to ride on the bridleway under the 1968 Countryside Act) and might knock him over, but this would be most unlikely. Certainly the danger is a small one. The point was made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Committee stage that the danger was small, so therefore why not let it fall on the farmer? Whatever the danger, my contention is that this is a risk which the user of the right of way takes in crossing the field. Obviously, the farmer cannot be expected to fence both sides of the path in order to keep the cattle off the path, but it seems to me to be wrong, in a Bill which is making a big change in the law, to place a new obligation on the farmer to keep livestock from straying on to the rights of way where they might cause damage to those who use them. In my view, the users of rights of way should continue to take them as they find them.
Noble Lords may remember that on Committee stage the Opposition was united on this Amendment, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cunningly sowed a doubt in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, by suggesting that the leading case of Searle v. Wallbank did not apply to rights of way —or there was some doubt whether it did—thereby implying that as the main effect of subsection (1) of Clause 8 is to wash out the effect of this leading case of Searle v. Wallbank, the farmer would be no worse off if the Clause were left as it is. If I may say so, this was an ingenious argument, but in the interval since the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I have been able to confer further with our advisers. From the advice that we have been given in

695
regard to the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it seems to us that there was a doubt as to whether Searle v. Wallbank applied to footpaths and bridleways, and that his statement in this particular context was rather straining the nature of the doubt. Surely such doubt as there was as to whether Searle v. Wallbank did apply arose because it was obvious that in the nature of things a farmer could not prevent his cattle straying upon rights of way in the fields and therefore it was doubtful whether there would ever be any need for Searle v. Wallbank to be applied as a defence.
In this context, my Lords, I am relying particularly on another leading case with which I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be familiar, the case of Fitzgerald v. Cook Bourne (Farms) Limited, which is quite a recent case, of 1963, and which clearly implies that. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that this brings us back to the straight issue that we have to decide, as a House, on the Report stage; that is, whether the farmer should have the duty placed on him by this Bill to take care to see that his cattle do not stray on public rights of way where they may cause injury to those who are using them. This is really the simple, practical point that everybody can understand. I suggest that it is really unreasonable to put such a duty on the farmer, because he cannot possibly prevent his animals walking across the rights of way from time to time. It is in the very nature of things. That being so, it seems to me that although it is a small danger, it is unfair to put such an additional obligation on the farmer which he certainly has not had before. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept this Amendment, in whatever form he prefers to have it, as being a real improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has reminded us of the Lord Chancellor's opinion on Searle v. Wallbank which led to this Amendment being withdrawn at the Committee stage. In Committee the Lord Chancellor then added:
"It can hardly be said that an animal grazing in a field which is crossed by a footpath strays
696
on to the footpath; nor does its mere presence there create a danger ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/11/69, col. 1453.]
But, of course, in certain circumstances an animal can cause danger on a bridle-way, footpath or driftway. A cow could presumably crush a watch left beside the path by somebody picking blackberries. Or a pedestrian might be kicked by a horse. It is true that insurance can cover this possibility from the point of view of the farmer. As my noble friend has pointed out, it can also cover it from the point of view of someone who takes a chance in crossing a field by a right of way. I suggest that it would be illogical to hold that the farmer should be responsible for fencing tame animals from public paths. In some cases it might be pertinent to ask: which came first, the field or the path? Moreover, from an amenity point of view, it is very doubtful, as we all know, whether the public would wish such rights of way to be fenced.
There is one other point. If a right of way runs through a field where there are valuable or high-spirited animals, the owner will presumably fence for everybody's good, as so often happens to-day. Indeed, one finds this time and again where horses are kept. But to make fencing a statutory liability seems both harsh and illogical, and it would be appreciated by the rural fraternity if this Amendment could be accepted.
5.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry if there is still a difference of opinion, as appears to be the case, on this point, particularly as it is such a narrow one. On the one hand, it is said, "We should not be liable for this", and on the other hand, it is said, "All this clause does is to remove a rule which never applied to us at all." While I will certainly look at the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred, I still do not see how the rule of Searle v. Wallbank could have reasonably applied to footpaths and bridleways.
That case concerned a cyclist on a road who was knocked down by a horse which had strayed from an adjoining field, and the judgments of Lord Maugham and the other Lords refer again and again to animals straying or escaping from land adjoining the highway on to the highway. Clause 8 abolishes an exception from the normal duty of

697
care which any keeper of an animal must exercise to prevent his animals from doing damage. Searle v. Wallbank established that this duty does not cover the taking of any special steps to prevent animals straying on to the highway. There is no authority to found any similar exemption in respect of animals found on footpaths or bridleways, and the reason, no doubt, is that there can be no straying or escaping on to a footpath or bridleway which forms an integral part of the field. An animal grazing in a field which is crossed by a footpath or bridleway is perfectly entitled to graze on the land which is used as a footpath or bridleway, just as it may graze anywhere else. It is a normal use of the land and there could be no duty on the keeper to keep the animal from doing so. In Searle v. Wallbank Lord Maugham said:
"The above considerations seem to me to be conclusive to show that no such duty to road users as the appellant relies on could possibly have existed before the advent of fast traffic on made-up roads"
My Lords, if there can be no such duty, equally there can be no exception from the duty which the clause would remove.
However, even if there were doubt about the scope of the rule, there can be no doubt about the scope of the clause. It abolishes the rule excluding or restricting the duty to see that damage is not caused by animals straying on to the highway. Since animals cannot stray on to a footpath or bridleway crossing the land on which they are kept, the clause does not affect them; and if there were a rule excluding the duty of care in the case of animals which are on a footpath or bridleway crossing the land (but not straying there), such a rule would be unaffected by the clause; nor would the Amendment, which relates to animals "straying" on to public footpaths or bridleways, make any difference.
While I will certainly consider the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has referred, I cannot, I am afraid, advise the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I have listened closely to the answer given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for which I thank him. As I understand it, he is saying that in fact it is impossible for
698
cattle to stray, within the meaning of Clause 8(1), on a footpath or bridleway, and therefore the implication is that the duty which is set out in Clause 8(1) does not fall on the farmer in this respect. It is a great comfort to me to hear this. But if that is so, would not the Bill be improved if we say so? This matter is certainly construed with great authority by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, but the Bill has to be read by everybody, and clearly everybody is supposed to know the law. Would this clause really be weakened by putting in such words as I have moved in this Amendment, which would then make it quite plain that no such duty as is set out in Clause 8(1) fell on the farmer and that in fact those who use footpaths and bridleways have to take them as they find them. We are now on a very fine point. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has conceded the point of our Amendment in substance and says it is implied in the Bill, but all I am asking is that it should say so.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one point to my noble friend? I do not think it is really quite as simple as he has said. I can see the force of what he has said if the footpath were going through a field. But public footpaths do not always go through a field; they sometimes go between two private properties, both fenced. I have such a public footpath through my own property.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Conesford. I do not think that alters the substance of the point I am making. The greater number of footpaths are not fenced and there is no duty on the farmer to fence them, and it would in fact be impossible to do so. Of course there are some footpaths that are fenced, and my noble friend Lord Belstead referred to instances where landowners fence them for a specific reason. But I am thinking about the generality with which we are all familiar. The point has been conceded by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that it is not intended that the liability of subsection (1) should fall on the farmer in such circumstances, and I just want to make it clear in the clause that it does not.

699
We have one further stage of the Bill; we have the Third Reading to come, I believe rather quickly, on Monday. I can put down this Amendment or a similar Amendment for that occasion, or an Amendment in any other form in which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would wish to see it. I do not want to upset the balance of the clause or the drafting, but I feel that it is desirable for clarity that a clause, which matters greatly to the whole farming and land-owning world, should be clear on this particular point. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, the few slightly encouraging words he has given me—I am most anxious to get agreement rather than disagreement—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment now and put it down again, in some form acceptable, if possible, to the noble and learned Lord, on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
"Provided that this section shall not apply to straying from adjoining land on to any special road being a motorway for which the Minister of Transport is the Highway Authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This again repeats an Amendment which we moved on the Committee stage. It deals with a very simple point, and there are no legal complications. The effect of this Amendment would be to exclude from the effect of Clause 8(1) the duty to take care to keep cattle off the motorways.
Briefly, the argument is that a motorway is a special road for high speed long-distance traffic. Its use is confined to certain classes of traffic only, for safety reasons; it is built by the Minister of Transport under special powers, and it is driven straight through the countryside, bisecting farms and fields. In order to maintain safety, the Minister of Transport povides high-class stock-proof fences on both sides, with bridges and under-passes in order to connect the severed parts of farms and fields, so that the farmer can move his cattle and his farm machinery across the motorway without
700
running the very great danger which would obviously be involved if they crossed on the surface. The major implication here is that the Minister of Transport has clearly accepted a special responsibility for keeping the cattle off these roads, and it is in these special circumstances that we think the farmers should be relieved of the duty laid upon them by subsection (1) of this clause of keeping their cattle off the highway, and that this duty should be placed on the Minister of Transport for this purpose.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly undertook to consider this point with his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in the interval between the Committee and Report stage, and in the interval we have slightly improved the Amendment to take care of the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I hope that the consultation has been productive and that the Amendment, in its new form, is acceptable. I beg to move.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why his Amendment discriminates between what is technically a motorway and an ordinary highway? I have in mind the district near where I live, Epping Forest, where there is a very busy roadway running right through the forest on to which cattle are constantly straying, to the danger of themselves and indeed of pedestrians and motorists. I cannot see for the life of me why there should be this discrimination between motorways, which evidently the noble Lord wishes to protect, and highways which, technically speaking, are almost as busy as motorways. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would explain to me why he wishes this discrimination.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, perhaps I could attempt to answer that question. In the case of motorways, the Minister of Transport assumes the responsibility of putting up high-class fencing to fence animals off his motorway, but in the case of ordinary highways there is no such duty laid upon the Minister of Transport. It is thought that where the Minister of Transport has this duty, then it is up to him to carry it out, and if the animals nevertheless stray beyond and over the Minister's high-class

701
fence on to his motorway, then it is the Minister who also takes the responsibility.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I said, I have had full consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and while I am not in a position to advise the House to accept the Amendment I am in a position to deal with a number of points which, I am not unhopeful, may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
It is true that motorways are new roads which are imposed on the countryside through which they pass. Although care is taken to minimise the damage caused to agriculture, it is inevitable that farms are severed and farmers with land fronting a motorway may well find themselves facing certain risks or liabilities which did not exist before. As a result of the Bill, there may be some extra liability if their animals should escape on to the motorway. Where new roads are built this is looked after by the compensation code. When land is acquired for a motorway, full compensation at market value is paid not only in respect of the land which is actually acquired but also in respect of the damage caused by severance and injurious affecttion to the remainder of the land which was held with the land taken. In so far as this Bill imposes an extra liability upon farmers with land fronting a new road, this liability is insurable, and if the extra cost is significant in financial terms it will in future feature in the amount of compensation paid. This is the proper way to deal with the matter, rather than to exempt one kind of highway from the provisions of this clause, and to allow the loss to fall on the injured motorist.
In practice, as I explained in Committee, the Minister of Transport always erects stock-proof fences along motorways for which he is the highway authority, and where he acquires land from adjoining land-owners he covenants to erect and maintain such fences. Highway authorities have rights under Section 85 of the Highways Act 1959 to erect fences along certain major roads, and this is done extensively where the circumstances require it. The Minister of Transport accepts that where he is the highway authority and has provided a fence under
702
Section 85 (whether on a motorway or on another special road) he also has a moral obligation to maintain it.
The Minister of Transport's practice in regard to the fencing of motorways is different from that in regard to other roads for which he is responsible. On trunk motorways the Minister provides the fence, under highway powers and on highway land, as an official barrier marking the boundary, and he maintains it thereafter. On other roads the fence is normally provided on the frontager's behalf as an accommodation work, on the frontager's land, and it is up to the frontager to maintain it thereafter. This difference in practice is due to the different legal implications of a motorway, and the compensation paid to the frontager reflects this difference in practice. But the question which noble Lords will ask is: since the Minister is responsible for the maintenance of the motorway fence should not the liability for an accident caused by a straying animal fall on him rather than on the owner of the animal? In practice it often will; if it is clear that the accident was due to the Minister's failure to maintain the fence, then he would accept liability.
But other cases can be envisaged. Leaving aside the possibility of malicious damage, the farmer may be keeping a different kind of stock from that which was on the land or readily foreseeable at the time that the fence was put up; the fence may be proof against cattle, but not against piglets or poultry. The Minister's liability should not be extended on account of any future change in farming practice on the frontage land, because he has no control over it. But the idea seems to be current in some quarters that in putting up fencing along a motorway the Ministry takes account only of the practice which is prevailing at the precise time that the land is acquired. This is not correct. In general, he tries to pursue a reasonable and flexible policy. But what he cannot undertake to do is to keep changing the fences in the years after the motorway is built as the farm changes hands and stock-breeding practices on the frontage land change. Nor can he undertake to provide at the outset against purely longterm or speculative changes in practice, if only because to do so would be a waste of national resources.

703
My Lords, I apologise for having taken up a little of the time of the House, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, might be interested in that position as the Minister sees it. I hope that in view of that very full statement he might think it right not to press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very full statement, which I should certainly like to study. I think in one way or another it meets every point. I feel quite happy about the position where new motorways are built; clearly when compensation is being settled for severance this will be an additional liability which will be taken care of. I was a little anxious about the position of existing motorways where, as I think the noble and learned Lord acknowledged, a new liability is being created by this Bill. There is no question about that. It seemed to me that the noble and learned Lord's statement, about the obligations the Minister will accept in such circumstances, went a long way in the direction that I wanted. I certainly was not considering a situation in which a farmer kept tigers or elephants and still expected the Minister to confine them within his fence. This, of course, would be completely unreasonable. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me the opportunity to study this to-morrow, and if I feel that there is any aspect which is not satisfactorily covered I still have my opportunity on Third Reading. But in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.31 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 39, after ("green") insert ("or on land which was proved by him not to have been fenced during the previous twenty years as between the land and the highway and to have been available for the keeping or grazing of livestock thereon throughout that period")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which stands on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself. Once again, Amendment No. 8 substantially repeats the Amend-
704
ment which we put down on this point at the Committee stage, but again I think we have achieved some slight improvement in the drafting. We have given closer definition to what this land—that is, unfenced land which is not common land—should be. We have given it further definition, first, by reference to the period for which it should have been unfenced—that is, twenty years—and, secondly, by reference to the use to which it has been put; that is to say,
"the keeping or grazing of livestock thereon throughout that period".
If, very briefly, I may recapitulate the purpose of the Amendment, it is to relieve farmers from the duty laid down in Clause 8(1) with regard to their cattle straying on the highway in those areas of the country where the land is traditionally unfenced. These arc the upland areas, in private ownership, of course, which are used for cattle and sheep rearing, which never have been fenced and which it would be completely uneconomic to fence now. Clause 8 as drafted, by its last paragraph, excludes common land from the effect of subsection (1) of that clause, and our Amendments seek to put these upland areas of unfenced, livestock-rearing land on the same basis as common land. I think it would be true to say that, in practice, this land looks exactly the same to the motorist as common land. When any of us motor through it we probably think we are motoring through common land. It is all open and we can picnic on the side of the road; and very nice it is to see it open!
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor undertook to consult with his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture during the interval between the Committee stage and Report stage to-day, and I hope that he may have been as successful with his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture as he was with the Minister of Transport. I beg to move.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I hesitate somewhat to intervene again, but I want to revert to my previous illustration of real local difficulties. Does not the Amendment which the noble Lord has now moved strengthen the end of Clause 8, in so far as, in the case of Epping Forest and somewhat similar areas in other parts of the country, the

705
land has not been fenced for, indeed, many centuries? To use Epping Forest merely as an illustration, may I say; that there have been commoner rights there going back for many centuries, and at no time in the history of Epping Forest—saved for us by the wisdom and foresight of the City of London—has there ever been a fence. In these days, when the conurbation of London presses heavily upon Epping Forest, circumstances are quite different from what they were even fifty years ago, let alone a hundred years ago.
I had hoped that the Bill as it stood, including this particular clause, might come to the aid of literally thousands of people who live adjacent to Epping Forest. Apart from the possibility that the last paragraph in the existing clause might itself exempt such owners of cattle, it seems to me that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord will cause that exemption to operate still further. In other words, does it not mean, for instance, that if this particular Amendment is carried all those owners of cattle in Epping Forest or a similar area in any other part of the country will be entirely exempt from the operation of the Act, and that therefore their cattle may constantly wander to and fro across the highway—in the case of Epping Forest, an extremely busy highway nowadays—causing danger to themselves and sometimes injury, and occasionally death, to pedestrians and motorists? If that be so, surely it would be unwise for this Amendment to be carried, in so far as it would then cease to bring relief to a very large number of residents in the district in which I live.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, of course, what the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, has said is absolutely right. because so far as I can see it is covered in lines 37 to 40 on page 5 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has described how he has tried to improve the Amendment, and it appears in a revised form. At the last stage of the Bill, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor queried the twenty-year proposal which remains in this Amendment because of the difficulty of proving the facts about whether fencing had or had not existed. But do not rights of way rely on proof of remaining unenclosed for a period of years? I should
706
have thought that the problem here, the twenty-year problem, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor brought up, was a minimal one, and certainly it would not occur as a point of argument in the large, unfenced tracts of land which are really affected by this Amendment.
The point was well made in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that such areas usually receive a Government subsidy. How illogical now to threaten those who are subsidised for their activities with the possible consequences of their activities! In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor argued that that is precisely what is not going to occur, and that the farmers ought to trust the judges to act reasonably. In column 1466 the noble and learned Lord said:
"What they"—
the judges—
"have to do is to take into account all the circumstances—the kind of road it is, whether farmers in the locality fence or not, the amount of traffic there is about, what it would cost to take whatever precautions it may be said should have been taken …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/11/69; col. 1466.]
and so forth. Of course, the noble and learned Lord was basing that passage on Clause 8(2), which he has been at such pains to put into the Bill. But there are so many provisos there that it is easy to see why fears continue to exist.
Those who support this Amendment would certainly concede that insurance must play its part in farming, as in other activities. But if Clause 8 means anything, insurance premiums for this particular risk are going to rise. On the other hand, if Clause 8(2) is really supposed to protect the keepers of animals on these wide, open lands, then this Amendment would, I submit, certainly codify the law here—fair, practical and understandable to all.
5.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have considered this matter again with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The reversion to a twenty-year period immediately preceding the accident once more lays the Amendment open to the objection that it will discourage fencing in areas where it would be desirable to encourage it. If the land has been unenclosed for some time, it will normally not be in

707
the farmer's interest to enclose it, lest he should terminate the twenty-year period or stop an inchoate period running. The fundamental objections to the exemption of particular land by a reference, not to any criterion determined by the extent of the risk but solely by the arbitrary criterion of the existence of a fence, remain. The Bill, in requiring the courts to have regard to the fencing practice in the neighbourhood, goes as far as one can reasonably go in ensuring that, in areas where the risk is not particularly great, the person who places an animal on unenclosed land is not likely to incur liability.
The Law Commission examined the possibility of categorising highways according to those carrying special risks and others, but found it impossible to do so by a reference to any existing statutory classification. Since the Report was received, a number of other methods of classification have been examined, but none of them was practicable or provides a satisfactory line of demarcation. As I intimated on the Committee stage I would have preferred the opening words of Clause 8, abolishing the ruling in the Searle v. Wallbank case and saying:
"So much of the rules of the Common Law relating to liability for negligence as excludes or restricts the duty which a person might owe to others to take such care as is reasonable to see that damage is not caused by animals straying on to the highway is hereby abolished."
So there would be a duty to take such care as is reasonable. That must mean "as is reasonable in all circumstances". The circumstances vary indefinitely.
I should have preferred to leave it to the court, with no more ado, but it was said in some quarters that the Act ought to mention the sort of things which a judge will take into account; so included in the Bill now are the things which the judge is to take into account, namely:

"(a) the nature of the land and its situation in relation to the highway;

(b) the use likely to be made of the highway at the time the damage was caused;

(c) the obstacles, if any, to be overcome by animals in straying from the land on to the highway;

(d) the extent to which users of the highway might be expected to be aware of and guard against the risks involved in the presence of animals on the highway;

708

(e) the seriousness of any such risk and the steps that would have been necessary to avoid or reduce it."

That was as it eventually left the Law Commission.
Then the National Farmers' Union still said that it does not say anything about fencing. They were told that probably one of the things that a judge will take into account is the question of fencing, how far it is usual, what it would cost and all that. They said that they wanted to see it expressly mentioned in the Bill. Then I agreed to add this:
"and, where it could have been avoided or reduced by fencing, the extent, if any, to which fencing is the normal practice in the area in which the land is situate;"
No judge in a place like, for example, Cumberland, where highways run over unfenced moorland is going to say that land ought to be fenced. He is going to apply common sense to the circumstances of the case.
But there is this wholly artificial provision about twenty years. Why twenty years? This is a risk that can easily be insured against. No noble Lord has suggested that there will necessarily be any increase in the standard farmers' insurance policy. What it comes to in practice is this. A family goes off in a coach along a motorway to the seaside for their annual holidays. Because of the negligence of a farmer—he will be under no liability unless it is his fault—an animal comes on to the road, perhaps the coach overturns and the man and his wife and children are all gravely injured. Under the present law they have no claim against anybody at all. They may be unable to work for the rest of their lives. There is nobody against whom they can recover. The person to insure is the farmer. After all, he is only insuring in respect of his own negligence. If this Amendment is accepted this family have to find out—how can they find out?—and to prove that for twenty years these particular fields had not been fenced (and your Lordships will remember that "fencing" in the definitions includes ditching). They have to prove the practice about this particular field for the last twenty years. How can they do it? This Amendment would largely defeat the object of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will accordingly not press it to a Division.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the noble and learned Lord to let the hill farmers know what they are supposed to do. He says the Amendment is not sufficiently precise, that it leaves a certain vagueness; but, frankly, the clause as drafted leaves a great deal of vagueness, too. He said that a farmer who uses the highway might be expected to be aware of and to guard against the risk. Does that mean that he puts up a notice, "You are coming to an unfenced highway"? Is that a total and adequate protection for the farmer? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord says that fencing is the normal practice. If my neighbour puts up a fence, am I under an obligation to put up a fence?
This is a real problem for hill farmers. It leaves them no precise picture of their duties. They are now having an added duty placed on them by this Bill and their obligations are made greater by this Bill; there is no doubt about that. The noble and learned Lord said that he does not want this Amendment because it might restrain farmers from putting up fences. Are we trying to compel farmers in vast hill areas to put up fences? Is that not the deduction to be drawn from this Bill? I would only ask that the hill farmers should be given a fair picture of in what way their obligations are increased and how they might meet these obligations. I do not think that to say, "Insure!" is the whole answer. I do not know whether they can insure. This practice has been going on for some time.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble and learned Lord for his answer, which I am bound to say was not as good as the last one. On the other hand, I must thank my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, for his support. This is a major problem for the farmers in the upland areas where tens of thousands of acres of land are unfenced and always will be unfenced. The example given by the noble and learned Lord—the coach full of people going for their holidays which hits an animal crossing the road, the coach turns over, the people suffer damage and ought to have a right to proceed against somebody; and therefore farmers ought to be insured —breaks down on this point. The noble and learned Lord said that all that the farmer is being asked to do is to insure
710
in respect of his own negligence. But it is not negligence on the part of a farmer in an upland area where he has livestock grazing on the land if his animals stray on to the road. The land has never been fenced and it never will be fenced. It would be quite uneconomic to fence it. That is the difficulty.
I simply cannot accept that view. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, that it is not enough to say to the farmer: "You must take out an insurance policy to cover this risk." We are making a very big change in the law in Clause 8, and when we place a new burden, as we are now doing, on the farming community, we should see that the burden is fairly placed. It is perfectly fair to place on farmers in the lowland areas this burden to keep their cattle fenced. If unfortunately they break out, then the farmer can plead the various defences available here. But it is a totally different matter in the upland areas. They are absolutely comparable with common lands, like Epping Forest, to which Lord Sorensen referred, where the cattle have always strayed across the roads. It is a nuisance, and the noble Lord has my sympathy; but that is what has always been done. Because you want that land to be an open space in which the public can walk and have picnics, it is likely to continue to be so. Even though this Amendment may not be perfect, I feel that it at least expresses the sense that those of us familiar with the problem feel is right. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord feels unable to accept it in some sense, I shall ask your Lordships to join with me in pressing it to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, dealing first with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, this is the trouble when you start writing things down. In every walk of life the duty to take reasonable care must depend on all the circumstances of the case. If you go to the dentist, he is under a duty to take reasonable care; to act as a reasonably competent dentist would do. One cannot write down a long screed of exactly how it is going to work out in practice. These cases will be tried by judges, many of whom are farmers, and it may be that we should receive the benefit of the advice on this point of the

711
noble and learned Lords whom I see present in the Chamber.
Judges are used to deciding cases according to the circumstances before them. The idea that any judge, when referring to an area where highways go over moors which are completely unfenced, would say that the farmer was liable because he ought to have fenced, is, with the greatest respect, absurd. The judge has to take all the circumstances into account and a farmer will not be liable unless the judge finds that he has done something which no reasonable farmer would have done, having regard to his circumstances, or has omitted to do that which any reasonable farmer would have done.
In the courts people are always judged according to their own standards, whether the person be a solicitor, or whoever he may be. A garage proprietor would be in trouble if a repair was not carried out with the use of reasonable care and skill. Nobody is ever expected to do the impossible or to be any better than the next man. People are judged by their own standards. It is common ground that you cannot possibly win an action on medical negligence unless you are supported by medical evidence. The question always is, "Did this doctor do something which no reasonably careful doctor would have done, or did he omit to do something which any reasonably careful doctor would have done?" I am afraid, therefore, that I must respectfully maintain my opposition.
This reference to twenty years is an absolutely artificial conception. None of the farmers will be affected so far as fencing is concerned when they are in areas where there is no fencing. It was entirely to please the National Farmers' Union that any specific reference to fencing were added, and the words:
"… and, where it could have been avoided or reduced by fencing, the extent (if any) to which fencing is the normal practice in the area in which the land is situate …"
do not sound like a reference to any land to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was referring. It is, I would submit, a quite unreasonable burden to put on the injured family that they should have to prove, as they would have to do, if this Amendment were accepted, that all the area of the field in question had been without a fence or without a ditch for the last twenty years.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with great respect, the noble and learned Lord is wrong. Under this Amendment the burden of proof is placed upon the person who says that the land has not been fenced. It is not for the person claiming damages to satisfy that burden; it is for the person who is the defendant in the action.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Carnock, L.

Headfort, M.

Selkirk, E.

Congleton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Bowles, L.

Collison, L.

Birdwood, L.

Brockway, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Blyton, L.

Burden, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boothby, L.

Chorley, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Mitchison, L.

Snow, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Sorensen, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Moyle, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Strange, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wigg, L.

Kilbracken, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

Willis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs

Serota, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

McLeavy, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9 [Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock]:
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 6, line 26, after ("livestock") insert ("has not left the vicinity")
Page 6, leave out lines 29 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together, since they deal with the same point? This is a change in emphasis and degree, made in response to arguments advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, at the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that the Amendments meet with their approval. I venture to think that I need not take up the time of the House further, if I may reserve my position in reply in case of further points arising. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for these Amendments, which seem to me a great improvement in definition, in regard to both time and location.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I also thank the noble and learned Lord. I think that the Amendments meet the point very effectively.
Clause 11 [General interpretation]:
6.5 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("animal") and insert ("animals")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 makes a grammatical change in the definition of
714
livestock. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, moved an Amendment to this definition in Committee stage, when he sought to change the list of animals from the plural to the singular. I suggested that there might he a better way and the noble Lord was good enough to accept that. I beg the noble Lord's pardon: it is his Amendment. But I was accepting it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I kept quiet because I knew that the Amendment would be explained so much better by the noble and learned Lord. All I need add is that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said in Committee that he would prefer the singular to the plural. Normally I bow to the noble Lord in these matters, but it is more important still to bow to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if you want your Amendment to be accepted. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Lord Airedale and I so far agree that I never can remember whether I am supporting his Amendment or he is supporting mine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("and poultry")
Page 7, line 19, at end insert ("and, in sections 3 and 9, includes poultry")
Page 7, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert ("'poultry' means the domestic varities of any of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails and also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse; and")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I take Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 together, since they relate to the same matters? These Amendments widen the definition of poultry, which forms part of the "livestock" for the purposes of the Bill, by including peacocks and

715
quails and, while they are in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse. They also exempt poultry from the definition of livestock for the purposes of those clauses of the Bill to which poultry are irrelevant. There were exciting proposals about this matter in Committee and I said that I would discuss them with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. Peacocks and quails are always domesticated in this country. Quails might escape from a farm but, we understand, would not be able to survive out-side it. Pheasants and partridges are basically wild birds and could be a subject of ownership only while in captivity. For the purposes of breeding, female birds and their young are frequently kept in pens or enclosures. We have little evidence that the same practice is followed regarding grouse, at any rate in England, but it could be, and there is no reason why, if they are kept for breeding purposes, they should not enjoy the same protection.
As a result of the Amendments, pheasants, partridges and grouse will enjoy protection while they are in pens, so that the owner of a dog which attacks them will incur strict liability and the owner of the birds will have a good defence if he shoots a dog which worries or attacks them. The addition of these birds accentuates the absurdity of including various classes of poultry in the definition of livestock for the purposes of Clauses 4 and 7. They had previously been included because, although it made little sense, it was thought to be convenient and would do no practical harm to have one definition for the entire Bill. However, the existing law regarding cattle trespass and distress damage feasant, which is replaced by these clauses, did not apply to poultry and there is no real case for extending it. In relation to pheasants, partridges and grouse, it would be absurd to do so since they could only trespass on another person's land when no longer in captivity and, correspondingly, no longer belonging to the owner of the land from which they had come. The Amendments therefore take the opportunity to rationalise the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving these three Amendments and for meeting the points
716
which we raised in Committee stage. His Amendments have done so fully—indeed, even more fully than we suggested, and I am very happy to accept them.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask one small question? I, too, welcome this Amendment. I am glad that it would appear to embrace my pheasants. I am not talking about the common or garden pheasant, which some of my more bloodthirsty friends massacre at the weekends: I am talking about the distinguished and beautiful pheasant, the Reeves Pheasant. Am I right in assuming that this special variety would be included under the genetic title of pheasant?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to that is that a definition of species includes sub-species, and if the pheasant to which the noble Earl refers is a species of pheasant it is included.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not want to be difficult, but there are other birds. I have never heard of capercailzies being kept in captivity, but there are doves, and many other types of birds, which may be kept. Do they fall into this definition or are they deliberately excluded?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A dove is an ordinary domesticated bird. A pheasant is ordinarily not in captivity at all. I must confess that I did not know that dogs attack peacocks. If they do, it is right that peacocks should be protected. I should have thought that a dog would not stand very much chance with a dove and that a dove was capable of looking after itself.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for including quail in Amendment No. 14. May I point out to him that the Amendment refers to "quails" whereas when talking of the plural of the bird one refers to a bevy of quail. It is an unimportant point, I know, and I will leave it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to decide.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I will certainly consider this important point before the next stage of the Bill. Curiously enough, in connection with the Consolidation Bill, the

717
Second Reading of which I moved to-day, I was being equally concerned (and if I had known that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was about I could have asked him) as to whether the plural of herring was "herring" or "herrings".
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the answer is, "herring".
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, am I allowed to speak again?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD VIVIAN: On another point?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE LORD WILBERFORCE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 22 at end insert—
("( ) In ascertaining the meaning of any provisions of this Act, regard may be had to the Report of the Law Commission on Civil Liability for Animals (Law Commission No. 13).")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put this Amendment down as an Amendment to Clause 13, but it has been represented to me that it would more appropriately come into Clause 11, the interpretation clause; and if that is so I am quite willing to fall in with that suggestion. Wherever it is, I will explain it quite shortly in this way. I must refer to two dates. The Bill now before the House is based on the Report of the Law Commission, No. 13, which appeared in 1967. Subsequent to that, in 1969, the Law Commission produced a Report on the interpretation of Statutes in which they considered, in response to a request from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the general question whether the courts should be entitled, in interpreting Statutes, to take into account outside matters, such as Reports of Committees, Hansard, and so forth.
A very interesting and constructive Report was produced by the Law Commission in which they made various suggestions, which included the suggestion that the courts might, in interpreting a Statute, take into account the provisions of any Report of a Committee, including a Report of the Law Commission itself on which the Statute was based.
That was only one of many suggestions which was made. It was taken up by the Government in a Bill recently before the House, the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, which contained a clause—Clause 35(2)—identical, except for reference, to the clause which I am now proposing. It was accepted by the Government and by this House when the Bill came before it.
It seemed to me, therefore, that it might be not inappropriate for the House to consider the inclusion of a similar clause in this Bill. I simply place it before the House for its consideration. If there is any controversy about it, I certainly shall not press it. It seemed to me that as we had before us what is really a liberal and progressive proposal from the Law Commission, we ought to give it a chance to see whether the Government are willing to incorporate the principle of it in this Bill. I do not propose the Amendment simply for consistency or logic; I propose it also because I think it would be helpful in the construction of this particular Bill.
The Law Commission's Report No. 13 on the subject of Civil Liability for Animals is a very carefully worked out document, which reviews in a scientific way the pre-existing law and states in detail the reasons for each of the Commission's proposals. I suggest that it would be helpful to the courts if they were able to look at this Report. They would not be obliged to do so, but it would be helpful if they could have the right to look at this Report in certain cases where they are called on to interpret it.
I will give two simple examples of where it would, or might, be useful for the courts to have a look at the Law Commission's Report. In Clause 1 of this Bill, your Lordships will see that there is a reference, in subsection 1(a), to the fact that the provisions replace
"the rules of the common law imposing a strict liability in tort for damage …"
In order to know what are the rules of the common law that are replaced it is very convenient to be able to look at this Report. The rules of the common law are obscure, difficult to find out and sometimes difficult to understand; and they are very lucidly explained in the Report in an accessible way.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at an earlier stage in this debate today, related to the reference in Clause 2(2) to "damage of any kind". If one simply looks at the Bill, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is somewhat obscure. If you turn to the Report, you find that in paragraph 18 it is explained what is meant by "damage of any kind", and the reader is told how cases of infection may in some cases be covered. Cases where a bitch with a litter has a characteristic to bite people at a particular time would come within this expression, which is one that did not exist previously in the law. There are many other examples, many in relation to this rule of Searle v. Wallbank that we have just been discussing.
I venture to think that most judges would find it helpful to be able to have access to this Report. I should like to move the acceptance of this Amendment, though if the noble and learned Lord finds that there are objections to it, I will not press it. One final point: it would be an objection. I think, to a clause of this kind if the Bill had been extensively amended as compared with the proposals of the Law Commission, and it is for that reason, among others, that I am moving the Amendment at this stage rather than at the previous stage. We are now able to see that the Bill as it leaves this House has been only very slightly changed from the draft Bill put forward by the Law Commission. So I think it is true to say that the Law Commission's Report is still extremely relevant to the interpretation of the Bill, and the Amendments which this House has so far made do not make it less so. I hope that I have adequately explained the purpose of what is, I think, an innocuous Amendment. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before I put the Amendment proposed, or call for the next Amendment, which is an Amendment to this Amendment, may I remind your Lordships that the Marshalled List has been corrected? The Amendment that has been introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, instead of applying to Clause 13, should apply to Clause 11; and the reference should be to page 7, line 22, instead of page 7, line 29. Then
720
the Amendment to the Amendment (No. 16) which is described as "an Amendment to Amendment No. 14", should be shown as an Amendment to No. 15.
6.20 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved Amendment No. 16, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 15:
At end insert ("and a copy of that Report shall be bound up and supplied with every official copy of this Act".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In the beginning, let me make it quite clear that I am opposed to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for reasons which I will explain in a moment. My Amendment is only in case your Lordships should decide to accept that Amendment.
What of the consequences of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord? It is not only the case that if it is carried judges will refer to the Report of the Law Commission when they are considering any case which this Bill bears upon; it is inevitable that everybody who has to deal with this legislation will be compelled to refer to the Report of the Law Commission, because the Amendment says:
"In ascertaining the meaning of any provisions of this Act, regard may be had to the Report of the Law Commission …".
When it says, "regard may be had to the Report of the Law Commission", it means that regard will be had to it and regard must be had to it. Therefore, not only the judges will have to be provided with copies of the Report of the Law Commission, but other people also.
Suppose one morning a lawyer is sitting in his office in Holborn and one of his clients comes to him, not on the business he usually deals with relating to contracts or some such matter. The client happens to commute from some still rural district and comes to London and has a problem about straying animals, or perhaps about a dog biting his child. The solicitor whom he consults then gets a copy of this Bill and reads through it and says to himself, "Yes I think I understand what this is all about," and then when he gets almost to the

721
end of it he finds this provision that reference may be made to the Report of the Law Commission. So he has to send for a copy of the Report of the Law Commission; and presently his messenger comes back and says, "I am sorry to tell you that I can't get one from the Stationery Office; it is out of print". Being careful and resourceful, the solicitor then has to go down to the Law Society, which in its excellent library no doubt has a copy of the Report of the Law Commission. So he is able to consult this and to form a judgment as to whether or not his original impression of what this Statute means was correct.
Well, so far, so good. But suppose the solicitor is in some country town in Northumberland. He instructs his agent in London to obtain a Report of the Law Commission, and then discovers that it is out of print. He then has to get his agent to go to the Law Society and order a photostat copy of it. So your Lordships will see that if this Amendment is carried it is absolutely essential that my Amendment to it shall be carried also.
It may be said that this is not quite what usually happens; that lawyers depend upon annotated copies of the Statutes, which are unofficial and which are produced by well-known firms of publishers on subscription. That is perfectly true. It is conceivable, I suppose, that an annotator producing one of these editions of this Statute would say, when he came to this particular provision, "I don't think it makes the slightest difference to the interpretation of this Statute." But, on the other hand, he might have formed a different opinion and he might produce some annotations saying that the meaning of such-and-such a clause seems to vary from what the Law Commission have been saying in their Report; and, in any event, whatever is the case about that, the publishers of this unofficial edition upon which most lawyers will rely will have to print in it a copy of the Report of the Law Commission, because a body may refer to it and at any moment it may be raised in correspondence, in pleading or in the court itself if a case comes up for trial.
I submit, with all respect, that this is going to make the law still more expen-
722
sive, still more complicated, and instead of producing greater certainty, is going to produce uncertainty. A Statute ought to be straightforward and easily intelligible in itself, and it ought not to require any extraneous aids in order to interpret it. But the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is inviting exactly that process of looking at a body of material which in many cases will be longer and more extensive than the Statute itself. This is bound to produce an area of uncertainty which probably would never have existed before, and it is certainly going to add to the cost of litigation because all the overheads of this process must be covered somehow or other. It is, with all respect, a retrograde step, but if it is taken then I insist that every Queen's Printer's copy of the Statute ought to have a copy of the Report of the Law Commission annexed to it.
Now let me point out a further consequence of this. I do not know whether this particular piece of legislation when it becomes law will be consolidated or not, but a few days ago this House inserted into the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill a reference, not to one but to two Reports of the Law Commission. That is a piece of legislation which doubtless is going to be consolidated in the not very distant future. because it is very desirable that the law relating to matrimonial causes should be consolidated. When that happens, what will the Statute look like? In Consolidation Bills clauses which appear in one solid mass in one of the Acts consolidated will be distributed all over the Bill into various classifications. When one comes to the reference clause at the end of it, one will find that it reads something like this:
"In ascertaining the meaning of the provisions of sections 13 to 17, 23, 25(2)"—
and so on—
"reference may be made to the Report of the Law Commission No. so-and-so and in ascertaining the provisions of sections 7 and 8, 19 to 20 and 31(3) reference may be made to another Report of the Law Commission."
Both of those Reports ought to be annexed to the consolidating Statute. Where are we going to get to if this process is going to be part of our Statute law? My Lords, I beg to move.
6.29 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I add a very brief word of support to the tremendous broadside that Lord Douglas of Barloch has just let loose on the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I must say that I found Lord Wilberforce's speech in moving his Amendment very persuasive and I thoroughly understand its intention. But, apart from the objections which Lord Douglas put before us so cogently, there is of course this additonal one. It is that if we were intending to bind all future courts in ascertaining the meaning of this Bill, it would be necessary for both Houses of Parliament to study in detail all the material in this Report. This really would be quite impossible. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, nodding his head. I can imagine the sort of hey-day he would have had in another place if this had gone there in this form. Clearly it is not possible, and however helpful this document is—it is a quite excellent Report and indeed the Bill is founded on it—I am sure that it would not be right to legislate in this way. At the end of the day the Bill is the best we can make of it. It is what we want it to say—or at least it is what some of us want it to say—and if we are in a minority we must put up with those parts we do not want. I am sure that the Report should have no official status in connection with this Bill, and therefore I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I agree with what has been said. I think we ought to hold back from the top of what looks to be a very slippery slope. I feel that the Statutes ought to stand on their own feet and not seem to be holstered up by something else.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have first to consider and determine the Amendment to the Amendment, which has to be put first. This would require a copy of the Law Commission's Report to be published in the same document with copies of the Bill after enactment. I respectfully suggest that this is wrong, and I appreciate that in a sense the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has moved his Amendment not to improve Amendment No. 15 but because he does not like Amendment No. 15.
724
To bind both the Report and the Statute together in the first place would be starting something which has never happened before; and, secondly, I am told that it would quadruple the cost of the Act and would have a most serious effect on the Statute Book. If the same practice were adopted as regards any Bill recommended by the Law Commission or other bodies, the annual volume of Statutes, already over 2,500 pages, would be very much bigger still. In my submission, it would be quite wrong to require anyone who only wants one document, the Bill, to buy both. If anybody wants both he can buy both. Therefore, I would urge the Committee to reject the Amendment to the Amendment. When that has been decided upon, I imagine that would be the right moment to address the House on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on Amendment No. 15, I would only say that it has the support of the Law Commission and I should have thought that it was right. There is a much more extensive Report of both Law Commissions together, which is unanimous in that it is signed by all the members of both Law Commissions, recommending that it should be provided by Statute that the court should be entitled to look at quite a wide range of documents—not only Reports of Committees, but White Papers, and so forth. This full Report has not yet been considered by the Government and I should not like it to be thought that any decision made on this Amendment to-day in any way prejudged what that decision might be. But this Amendment is in a very small compass. It is not making the judges look at anything that they do not think it would be helpful for them to look at.
The judges tend sometimes to be criticised for construing Statutes in a way different from that which Parliament intended, while at the same time they are not supposed to look at documents which any sensible person construing an Act would look at, and which in fact they do of course look at. It is not infrequently that one has to refer to a Statute, although many judges and

725
lawyers are familiar with the Statutes with which they are used to dealing; but however you look at Statutes it is a rare event to have a question of construction, and the idea that if we pass an Act allowing a judge to look at this Report, every lawyer will have to spend his time studying it, is quite unreal. All it will do is to regularise what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, told us judges do; namely, to look at a Report of this kind.
It would be ludicrous to have a Committee carefully considering some amendment to the law, as with the Theft Act, carefully explaining why they had chosen these three words to express something in the Act and not those two words, and if a question of doubt arises as to how the Act ought to be construed, for the judge (who is a grown-up person) not to be allowed to look at their Report. There is not a word in this Amendment which would compel a judge to do anything at all. For those reasons, so long as it is understood that this Amendment is not intended in any way to prejudice the consideration which will have to be given the Special Report of the Law Commission on Interpretation of Statutes, I would advise the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend what he thinks of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that "may" will become "must" in people's minds?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, all I can say is that a barrister who is trying to get a judge to look at something that the judge does not want to look at, and cannot be made to look at, is in a very weak position
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I do not think I need add much in view
of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said. This is not a matter of wide import because, as noble Lords will appreciate, this Bill is dealing with a simple subject matter and most of it is put in plain language in relation to plain facts of everyday life. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, that in most cases where some question of damage by a dog or trespassing cattle arises the position is perfectly clear to an ordinary layman, and still more to a lawyer, and nothing will then cause him to feel that he has to look at the Law Commission's Report.
The value, if any—and I think it has some value—of the subsection which is suggested lies here. There are in the Bill necessarily certain technical expressions, certain legal expressions—how often they will come before the court is anyone's guess—and it is only in relation to those, when they arise, that it seems to me it would be useful, instead of a judge having to plough through a lot of reported cases, for him to be able to look at it all set out in this document, which costs 5s. 6d., in order to see either what the pre-existing law was or what the Law Commission had in mind. I do not feel that this will put lawyers, and still less laymen, in the position of having to search through the Report every time. I feel it gives them minor but useful assistance in some of the difficult questions which may arise. So, having regard to the support which the noble and learned Lord has been willing to give to this as an isolated case in this Bill. I feel justified in maintaining the Amendment before the House.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 44; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lindgren, L.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Boothby, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Longford, E.

Bowles, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McLeavy, L.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Merthyr, L.

Burden, L.

Headfort, M.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Mitchison, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.[Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Kennet, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Moyne, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Killearn, L.

Phillips. Bs.

Raglan, L.

Serota, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wilberforce, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Sorensen, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Negent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teviot, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Clwyd, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wigg, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Transport (London) Amendment Act,

Expiring Laws Act,

Rent (Control of Increases) Act,

Police Act,

Customs (Import Deposits) Act,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL
6.50 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before that Question is put, would the Leader of the House be kind enough to tell us what his proposals are about business? I am extremely anxious that there should be an interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and I am sure it would facilitate business and it will certainly make me much easier in mind if I know that that interval is to exist.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord's ease of mind is of im-
728
portance to me on a matter of such importance as this particular Bill, and it is the intention of the Government, if that be the wish of the House, that we take only the Committee stage. I was going to say this, but the noble Lord anticipated me. We should hope to finish it on Monday. I think it is right that the further stages should be separate, and we hope the House will then co-operate in ensuring that we get Report and Third Reading.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment and status of Ulster Defence Regiment]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Ulster Defence Regiment") and insert ("Northern Ireland Territorial Force")
The noble Lord said: May I again express my regret that we are entering the Committee stage of this very important Bill at so late an hour? I want to make it quite clear that I am not complaining of the arrangements for to-day, because I appreciate the long discussion which has taken place on the Animals Bill. Nevertheless, it is a little regrettable that we are at this late hour engaged on a discussion of this very important Bill.
There are four Amendments regarding the title of the Regiment. I want to make it clear in moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and myself, that we are in no way tied to the terms of the title we are suggesting. All these four Amendments have one thing in common: they

729
seek to delete the name "Ulster" from the Regiment which is to be authorised. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if all four Amendments are discussed together. As I understand it, at the end of that discussion there is likely to be a Division on the Amendment which the noble Earl and I are moving, but I want to make it very clear indeed that if there is a Division on that Amendment our concern will be the principle of the inclusion of the word "Ulster" in the name. We would be ready to accept any of the suggestions made in the other Amendments for a different name; indeed, we would be prepared to accept another suggestion to which I will refer before I conclude, which has very authoritative support in this House. Therefore, when a Division does take place on the Amendment which I am now moving, it will be on the broad principle of deleting the word "Ulster", and, after the discussion, when we have heard other suggestions, we should be able, on the Report stage of the Bill on Monday, to propose an Amendment which would be most appropriate and most acceptable to this House.
I always think it far the best to be honest and frank with this House, and therefore I want to say, even though other Members may differ with me, that I am opposed to this Bill altogether. I am opposed to it on the grounds which I expressed on Second Reading. I do not think there is a threat from Southern Ireland; I think the threat from the I.R.A. is very much exaggerated, and I consider the Bill itself is a provocation which will prejudice the desire for harmony. Having said that, and recognising that the Bill is likely to become law in one form or another, I want to emphasise very strongly that those who are associated with this Amendment wish to contribute, in the critical, perhaps even dangerous, situation in Northern Ireland, proposals which will make for the harmony of the races there.
I first want to say that we have deeply considered the appeal which was made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whose absence I regret, that we should refrain from pressing this issue because it might encourage in Northern Ireland Catholic abstention from this new force. None of us who is concerned about
730
harmony in Northern Ireland can have rejected that appeal without careful thought, but we have come to the conclusion that the danger of the title in its present form, including "Ulster", as a deterrent to the minority response in Northern Ireland, is greater than the deterrence which may occur because we have debated this matter. After all, this debate follows controversy in Northern Ireland itself; it follows a night long debate in another place, and I think it is pressing things a little far to suggest that because we have a debate here on this matter it is likely to be a contributory factor in dissuading the Catholic minority from joining this force. On the other hand, we take very strongly the view that the inclusion of the term "Ulster" would deter them from joining the force.
I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who has recently been to Northern Ireland and investigated these issues. He did not say it, but another noble Lord said that he had taken a different view before he went to Northern Ireland; and I am impressed by that fact. The noble Lord will excuse me if I pay more attention, even than to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was the head of the Committee which investigated this problem and prepared the very remarkable Report that has been the basis for so much which has contributed to conciliation.
I would draw attention to the words which Lord Hunt used in this House on the Second Reading; they appear in column 332 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Monday:
"Ulster, as we know, is a fact, a historic fact, but a fact which has strong Party political and partisan connotations, whereas Northern Ireland is simply a geographical fact of life. I am sorry that that name has not been attached to the force. I realise, of course, the difficulties with which the Government have to deal in this matter, and I am not going to press it. But I cannot help wishing that my Committee, who felt that this subject was outside their terms of reference, had not strayed outside those terms to suggest a name for this force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/12/69, col. 332.]
In view of the authority of the contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made, none of us can be indifferent to that expression of opinion. I would

731
add that I had the opportunity this morning to speak to Lord Hunt, and he has authorised me to make a statement which I shall do before I conclude my speech, and I hope that it may have a considerable influence on this House in relation to the decision which it reaches.
I felt that the weakest possible argument made from the Front Bench during the Second Reading by my noble friend, Lord Winterbottom, was that the term "Ulster" should still be included in the title of this force because of precedent; because, in the past, it had been attached to certain regiments in Northern Ireland. Surely the one thing that we have learnt in recent months on the issue of Northern Ireland is that we must not be tied to precedent and that we must not be tied to the past. If there is one happy or hopeful feature in the situation —and I have paid my tribute to the Home Secretary; I have paid my tribute to the attitude of the British troops there —it is that the past is ended, the past is forgotten, and we are building something new. To argue in favour of the retention of the term "Ulster" on the ground that it has been included in the name of certain incidental regiments in Northern Ireland in the past seems the most ineffective argument that could be made to persuade your Lordships.
There is no doubt at all that the name "Ulster" evokes emotive resistance from a large section of the population whom we wish to bring into harmony. In Northern Ireland the term "Ulster" has for many years been associated with the Orange organisations. It is included in the name of organisations which now represent the great danger from the majority side, as there are dangers from the minority side, that community relations will not get better. It is in the name of the Ulster Defence Committee; it is in the name of the Ulster Constitutional Defence Committee; it is in the name of the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force; it is in the name of the Ulster Special Constabulary. The first three of those organisations, in which the name "Ulster" is emphasised, exclude any Catholic from being a member. In those circumstances, can it be surprising that the minority Catholic community in Northern Ireland have this emotive response to the term "Ulster"?
I want to put another argument very seriously to my Front Bench. This is the first occasion in all history that the term "Ulster" has been used in a constitutional instrument adopted by the Houses of Parliament. Always before, the term "Northern Ireland" has been used. It is quite true, as I have previously said, that the names of certain regiments which are not determined by the decisions of the Houses of Parliament have had the term "Ulster" associated with them; but it is this moment, when the desire of all of us must be to create a condition of harmony between the communities in Northern Ireland, that for the first time in the whole of history the term "Ulster" is included in an Act of Parliament. The effect must be prejudicial to the harmony of its people.
The next point I want to put is this. The term is inaccurate—hopelessly inaccurate. Ulster is composed of nine counties. Only six of those counties are within Northern Ireland under the control of the Stormont Government. Three of them—Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal—are in the Irish Republic. Yet it is suggested that, for this legislation, we should use the term "Ulster" rather than the term "Northern Ireland". To suggest that we should use that term in a constitutional instrument for the first time is an affront to the Republic of Ireland and, still more, to the population of the three counties which are not within Northern Ireland. In fact, it is ironic that we are now asked to accept the term "Ulster" in the name of this Regiment when the majority of the population of Ulster, including those three counties, are Catholics. In Northern Ireland the Catholics represent what we recognise is a minority, but in Ulster itself they are actually a majority.
I do not want to be provocative on this occasion. I regard this issue as so important that I want to make a persuasive appeal to the Government Front Bench. They have said that the title of this force is unimportant. That has been said by Ministers in another place and in this place. I say to them, if it is unimportant, why retain it at the cost of the danger of losing the co-operation of the Catholic minority? Our stated object is to build a multi-community force. Very quietly but sincerely, I ask this question: is this not the crucial decision which we have

733
to make tonight? Will more or fewer Catholics join this Regiment if the name is changed? If more will join by a change of name and so help to secure harmony in Northern Ireland, surely we should make the change.
My Lords, I want finally to say this. I have repeated what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in this House, and he has asked me to express his regrets that he is not able to be here tonight to take part in this debate. But he has authorised me to say that he supports a change in the name of this Regiment. The proposal which he endorses is that it should become the Northern Ireland Defence Regiment. I say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, who is associated with me in this Amendment—and, I think, probably on behalf of those others who are proposing a change in the name —that we should accept that proposal.
The vote will be on the Amendment which I am proposing. It will be a vote on the principle of some change and the deletion of the term "Ulster". We will listen carefully to the other proposals. It may be that all of us will accept the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has authorised me to make to the Committee tonight. If our Amendment is accepted to-day then, when we reach the Report stage, we shall be very well prepared either to accept whatever change is most supported in your Lordships' House or the change which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has suggested. I beg to move.
7.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I think that the noble Lord rather over-played this question of a name. It was Shakespeare who said, "Call a rose by any other name …". The noble Lord appeared to think that any title containing "Ulster" would be complete anathema to Catholics; but I put the example of the Ulster Unionist Party; there are many Catholic members of the Ulster Unionist Party. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord that names do not have to apply strictly to geographical boundaries. For instance, in the Highland Brigade in Scotland, you have a regiment (I think it has been amalgamated now; but I am talking of a few years ago) like the H.L.I., which is recruited entirely from Glasgow and has nothing to do with the Highlands.
734
Take the Black Watch, recruited chiefly from Dundee. You cannot call that the Highlands. I think that the noble Lord has rather exaggerated the importance of the name. I cannot imagine that Catholics would be prevented from joining a regiment just because its title included the word "Ulster".
LORD BOOTHBY: I rise to make a few remarks because, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has just said, I do not propose to move the next Amendment, which stands in my name. I am well content with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the force should be called the Northern Ireland Defence Regiment, which I think is admirable. I put mine merely as an alternative suggestion which might be more acceptable to your Lordships; but I think on the whole that Northern Ireland Defence Regiment is the best that can be devised. My main concern, as it is the concern of Lord Brockway and of others of us who feel very uneasy about this situation, is to delete the word "Ulster". That is the point. I want to say, in a few words, what has already been said much better by Lord Brockway and to express my deep apprehension—and it really is deep apprehension—that the name "Ulster" will frighten the Catholics away. It is as simple as that.
As Lord Brockway has said, the Province of Ulster is not the same thing as Northern Ireland. The name gives rise to frightening memories of a past which, as I have already said, is best forgotten and which it is part of the objective of this Bill—I should have thought the main part—to achieve—forgetfulness of a tragic past which has lasted nearly 300 years. If the new Defence Regiment is simply to be a reactivation of the B Specials it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, a farce. That is what I am genuinely frightened of.
I do not think that your Lordships can ignore the very statesmanlike speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, on the Second Reading of this Bill. After all, his associations with Ulster are much closer than those of most of us. He went a long way; he went so far as to say that if the Title of the Bill was a stumbling block to Catholics joining the new Regiment, then the Title should be swept away and a new one put in its

735
place. I thought that a remarkable statement coming from that source. Equally, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, could not possibly be ignored. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has quoted him; and his Report has given rise to this Bill.
I feel so apprehensive about the possible consequences of the Bill, so apprehensive that the name "Ulster" will drive away Catholics and that they will not join the new force—which is perhaps the primary objective of this Bill—that it will lead to the re-creation of the B Specials under a slightly different name, that I feel inclined to press the Government very hard on this matter. I would make an appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House to reconsider the question (I should regret it if we had to go to a Division to-night) over the weekend and perhaps come forward with a new proposal on Monday.
I do not think that he can go against speeches of the kind that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Rathcavan and Lord Hunt, and from Lord Brock-way to-night. I think the feeling is strong, I think it is very sincere, and I beg the noble Lord to give serious consideration to it.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: May I add my voice to that appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? I wish that I had made the speech that Lord Brockway made to-night. I also want to put to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard—and I apply this to the Front Bench as well—the question whether the new Regiment will include recruits from the three counties that do not belong to Northern Ireland but which are in fact included in the term "Ulster".
LORD WIGG: I should like to add my voice to that of Lord Boothby and to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider very carefully whether it would not be wise to use the time between now and the Report stage to consider the feeling in the House and not to force this issue to a Division. If it is forced to a Divison, then, whatever the result, the fact that there is a cleavage will be reported in the Northern Irish Press to-morrow morning; and though there the gap may be closing this may force it apart.
736
I should not have intervened in this debate after the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Boothby, except for this reason. My position is quite different from that of Lord Brockway. I am impressed with the Hunt Report. I am convinced, as I said during the Second Reading debate, that Lord Hunt's basic principle that a military solution has to be found is absolutely right. If a military solution has to be found, surely you must try, above all, to make that solution work. My occasional visits to Ireland have generally been to The Curragh and not to Northern Ireland, though I once served there for a brief period. I listened with some interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, during the Second Reading debate and I found it impressive, until I recollected that a Liberal going to Northern Ireland over the week-end in search of the facts is, perhaps, not always the least gullible of persons. So I took the precaution of checking with people of established reputation.
The truth is, for better or for worse, that there is a belief in Northern Ireland— perhaps it is this that people want to believe—that the Title is the result of a deal; that there has been a deal with the Stormont Government that they accept the implications of the Hunt Report provided that this Title is used.
LORD BOOTHBY: That is right.
LORD WIGG: If that is so, it is about the most shortsighted deal that ever could be; because that horse will never get out of the stable. I believe entirely in the Government's intention to try to make this work—that is my difference with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that a military solution is necessary and that you must have something like this Bill. But those who wish it well need, as it were, to check the Government from some of the shortsightedness which is inevitable when a complicated measure of this kind, complicated not only politically but organisationally, has to be put through both Houses of Parliament against some misunderstanding and—if the Government wish— some mis-representation. In the circumstances the Government would be wise to listen to

737
their friends. I want to see this Bill work. So does the noble Lord, Lord Boothby; so does the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is against it root and branch. We want it to work, and if it is to work we have to obtain good will. if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is a bit of a romantic if he thinks that at any time you can wipe out the memories of hundreds of years with mere words. The memories are there, and what you have to do is as Lord Brockway himself said, to look at the problem frankly and honestly. You have to see the other chap's point of view and do your honest best to meet him. I do not, of course, agree with the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, which I thought were a little flimsy and advanced on the spur of the moment.
Of course, there is nothing in a title. Of course, a rose smells as sweet, whatever you may call it. But take, for instance, the Celtic versus Rangers football match and see what happens! Not only is the fire brigade needed to keep order; you need the Brigade of Guards. At that football match all the fundamental differences which have surged through the centuries come to the surface. As rational men, as men of good will, as men who claim to influence the affairs of the nation, we have to meet the irrational; we have to drag it out into the open and do what we can to make the best of a bad job. But that does not mean we should necessarily accept any particular title. It is for the Leader of the House to go back to the Government, to go back to the Cabinet, to go back to the Prime Minister, and to say that the feeling of this Committee is that there ought to be second thoughts.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I wish most heartily to associate myself with the objective described by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, which I accept as being an aim to get rid of the Title of the Bill. My arguments are not precisely the same as his; they are nearer to those of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. Whatever Amendment is ultimately accepted, what I am most anxious to secure is that the words, "Ulster
738
defence" shall be left out of the name of the Regiment. More time has been spent discussing the word "Ulster" than anything else including the word "defence", and some curious things have emerged as a result. One of them is that the Government do not care about it. During the Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State for the Army, referring to an Amendment of this kind, said
"… the Government considered that the use of the word 'Ulster' is, frankly, unimportant "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons 1/12/69, cot. 1041.]
In your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said something slightly different. He said:
"… Army Units have used and continue to use the word 'Ulster' in their titles.… It has been the practice, when forming new units, to incorporate names which have been used before and, in using the word 'Ulster' on this occasion, we are simply following this practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/12/69; col. 311.]
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke to some effect on the argument about precedent.
Another point is involved which almost everyone has missed so far. Hardly anyone in another place noticed it, or axed on it, and, so far, there has been only one Member in your Lordships' House; that was the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. This is not a precedent at all. We are not simply following a practice, because never before has there been a Regiment, or unit, or any formation of any kind, which has confined its recruiting solely to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. I was for some years an officer of the Royal Ulster Rifles. Nobody objected to that title. The Regiment recruited all over Ulster and far outside the Six Counties; far outside even the North. There was no restriction, any more than there is, or was, on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or, for that matter, the Royal Irish Fusiliers. This Regiment is the first in history in which any resident in the three Republican, Northern Ireland, counties of Ulster—that is Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, is forbidden to serve at all. For that reason the word "Ulster" must be wrong, because some of the men in Ulster —three-ninths of them—are actually excluded by law from joining the Regiment; and they have every right to object to the

739
word "Ulster" being used in the title of a Regiment which they are forbidden to join. That must be accepted as a point.
I wish to refer briefly to something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. He said that when he was in Northern Ireland—it was not for very long—he discussed the question of including the word "Ulster" in the title with a number of Catholics and
" … the answer I got was that this should not be a major issue; that there was enough trouble without raising the name of this regiment into a large political issue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/12/69; col. 329.]
My Lords, I could not be more totally in agreement with that. So why in the name of sanity should we fix on a name that can be raised into a big political issue? It is almost incredible. It is interesting to note—now I come to what is really worrying me—the line taken by the Government against changing the proposed name of the Regiment. No defence has been put up at all.
I have already stated that the Government have said that they do not care about the word "Ulster". The Minister, at the end of the Third Reading debate in another place, said:
"I am bound to say … that when one puts these advantages"—
he had meant to reel off twelve advantages but he was shouted down before he got to the end—
"and these achievements on the one side of the balance sheet, and on the other side one puts the criticisms one has heard in debate on the Bill—namely, that the name is wrong and that the force is too high—the overwhelming advantages for Northern Ireland come down very much in favour of the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 1/12/69; col. 1255.]
Of course they do. But what an astonishing piece of balancing! You do not put the title of the Regiment on one side of the balance and everything else in the Bill on the other, and say, therefore, that, on the whole, it is a good Bill because there is nothing wrong with the title. If we put the title of the Regiment on one side of the balance, we must put an alternative title on the other and say which is the better. That was a totally irrelevant answer.
When we come to your Lordships' House, we had one of the most interest-
740
ing speeches on this Bill. I refer to the winding-up speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government regard the Title of the Bill as unimportant, it is interesting and illuminating to see what the noble Lord said about it. I have a suspicion that he was, not for the first time, trapped by his own honesty. He said:
"This brings me to the highly contentious question of title of the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/12/69; col. 378.]
It is a "highly contentious question", but no other spokesman for the Government had bothered to pay any attention to it at all. The noble Lord went on:
"Powerful arguments have been put forward by nearly every noble Lord who has spoken… I must say that this is important to both sides in the argument …"
It is not important to the Government. So why do we find the Government coming down heavily on one side which is important? Indeed, what are the two sides? One we know, the one represented by the national minority, who bitterly resent the title. What is the other? It is on that other side that the Government come down.
If we go on seeking for illumination, we find a strange thing. We find that the noble Lord does not extoll the merits of the Bill but the merits of the Northern Ireland Government, and does it for something like three-quarters of a column. He says:
"… the Northern Ireland Government have shown, I believe, a great deal of courage —although one may have criticised them in the past—in accepting a number of measures which will provide a large-scale programme of fundamental reforms in Northern Ireland." [Col. 378.]
And so on—I will not read it all out; I do not think it is necessary. Perhaps your Lordships can take my word for it that it is a eulogy—a well-deserved eulogy, if I may say so without impertinence—to the Stormont Government, which ends up like this:
"Your Lordships know the range of advance in difficult circumstances that the Northern Ireland Government have made, under very heavy pressure and, if I may say so, in an inflammable situation—and the Government, having considered all the aspects and having considered the very arguments that noble Lords have put forward, of which I myself am only too well aware, have come

741
to the view that in the circumstances it was right to agree that this should be called the Ulster Defence Regiment." [Col. 378.]
All the circumstances that the noble Lord listed in that column are circumstances of merit on behalf of the Stormont Government, which in the noble Lord's view makes it right to agree that this force should be called the Ulster Defence Regiment.
So far as I can see—and I stand willingly to be corrected—there is only one possible inference to be drawn from that. It is that the Government of Northern Ireland do so well that the least we can do is to let them have this title. Naturally agreements are made and even deals are made. A "deal" is not necessarily disreputable, and I do not choose to use it in that sense. But in this case, what was the deal? We know, and nobody in the world knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is an absolutely deadly title. He knows exactly what I mean when I say that it has echoes of the voice of Carson, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has also said. Yet this is something which the Government of Northern Ireland apparently wants so much that we ought to let them have it. Why do they want it so badly? Who have they done a deal with? Is that a fair question? If not, I would ask another one. Do they really want this provocative title attached to a Regiment raised in their defence. Do they want it, the Government as a whole, or are they themselves under pressure from their extreme Right-Wing? There is no question but that this title is extreme Right-Wing. This title is militant, Protestant, Unionist—if you like, Orange, but I do not particularly want to bring that in.
Perhaps at this moment it might be appropriate for me to explain where I stand. I do not want to be looked at too askance by too many noble Lords. I have no home in Ireland. I have what might be called a foot on either side of the Border, perhaps not so heavily planted in the South now as once it was in the North. So far as sectarianism is concerned, if that is the word, I am a Protestant.
In the debate on Second Reading I was concerned to explain why I believe that suspicious persons (that is, persons of the Nationalist or Roman Catholic
742
minority) had grounds for suspecting the motives of the Northern Ireland Government or even of the British Government in Westminster in putting forward this title. I am bound to say that I now no longer take that stand. I am not speaking as an advocate of those who are suspicious. I am myself one of them. I cannot believe that it is possible for any Government simply to let this title go through, without offering any defence of it whatever—and none has been offered either in this House or the other place. Knowing what damage it would do, they cannot possibly do that, unless they have some reason that we do not know. I find it impossible not to think that something very strange is going on behind the scenes, and I do not like it. That is why I am not deterred from putting down an Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appealed to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—he admitted that this was a dangerous argument to use, and he was right—to consider whether the Amendment he was moving was making a contribution to peace in Northern Ireland. He did not mention my own idea, but naturally I take the question as addressed to me also. I see the force of it, and I am worried as to whether the idea in my Amendment may conceivably represent a danger to peace. Who is going to re-act against such an Amendment to such an extent that it will be a risk to peace? I also ask myself the corresponding question: if I remain silent and say nothing in the face of what I believe is wrong and dangerous, am I then not also and even more so endangering the prospects of peace in Northern Ireland? If I took the noble Lord's advice and was silent, the danger would be far greater than any danger that could be brought about by moving this Amendment.
May I make one more short quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to emphasise what I have already said. He said:
"I think the noble Earl put his finger on a crucial point"—
It is crucial, yet the Government are saying that they do not care—
"and this is the only one that gave me doubts. It is the association of the word 'defence'. I want to urge that, although this is an important point, we can make too much of it …"

743
The Government have made nothing at all of it yet. Yet the noble Lord himself says that it is crucial. It is time, surely, for the Government to come out into the open and either accept an Amendment, whatever it might ultimately be, to delete the present name "Ulster Defence Regiment" with a good grace or else say why not.
7.40 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I should like to take further what the noble Earl has said about the speech made by my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he cited the passage:
"… and the Government … have come to the view that in the circumstances it was right to agree that this should be called the Ulster Defence Regiment …".—[Col. 378.]
I want to press a little harder with this point and ask what agreement was reached by whom and with whom, and whether my noble Leader meant to say that some quite definite assurance had been given to the Stormont Government that the title of the Regiment would be the Ulster Defence Force.
The Minister in another place was questioned very forcibly, both by Miss Devlin and by Mr. Michael Foot, as to whether the Government—even if they thought it were desirable—would be in a position to accept such an Amendment, or whether an assurance had in fact already been given to Stormont that the name would not be changed. Although the Minister was pressed over and over again very hard indeed, he did not admit that any such agreement existed.
On Second Reading in this House it seemed to me that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, said that the Stormont Government had made certain concessions; that agreements had been reached, and that we in turn felt it right to agree that the new force should be called by the proposed title. I feel—and my honourable friends in another place said that if this were the case they would feel—that it would be a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs if the Government's hands were in effect tied and that in coming to this House, and to the other place, they were unable to accept such an Amendment because of assurances that had been given beforehand to Stormont.
744
I began by putting my name to this Amendment, and I decided to put down an Amendment of my own, which is the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I did so solely because I thought there might be some objections on technical grounds to the inclusion of the word "Territorial" in the title. If there is none, then I will not press my Amendment. I think the most important matter is that we should agree upon which is the best title, and we should all, if it comes to a Division, vote for whichever we think is most appropriate. I felt a certain apprehension about what my noble friend Lord Brockway said about perhaps waiting until Monday and moving it again, because we might possibly get agreement to-day whereas on Monday, if it was put to the vote again, we might not be successful.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I just interrupt the noble Lord? The suggestion I made was that we should vote to-night. The vote will have to be on the Amendment which I proposed. I made it clear that if the vote was on that Amendment it should be on the principle of deleting "Ulster" from the title, and that we should consider on the Report stage moving a title which would be most acceptable to the House.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My only fear would be that that motion might be lost if there was a fuller House, with more people voting. In any case, I have no objection to the proposal that my noble friend has made. I am not so happy about the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made, because it includes the word "Defence". I would personally prefer simply to vote on this Amendment and hope all those who want to get rid of "Ulster Defence" from the title will vote for it and leave it at that.
7.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Last time spoke I promised to take five minutes and I am afraid that I took seven. I will try to take three minutes to-day, and if I take five I hope your Lordships will forgive me, if only on the principle that I think it would be a pity if nobody spoke from the Liberal Benches to express solidarity. I made my position quite clear last time that I spoke as a

745
Back-Bencher, and gave my own views. I find it very unusual to get up and find almost nothing that has been said with which I can disagree. I will save your Lordships' time if I concentrate on the only two propositions which I found difficult to accept and which have been put up to-night. I will do this as shortly as I can.
One was the proposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard —and it was a sort of a proposition, because he recalled Shakespeare's words, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", implying that the title is not important. He knows more about Ireland than I do, but I wonder whether, if you called an orange a greengage in Northern Ireland, the answer would not be a lemon. All I want to emphasise is that I would certainly vote for any Amendment which has been put up to-night. And I think I would go further, just to ram home the point, if I may, with regard to names and logical defences of names. I have only this minute thought of two names for which I would not vote. One would be if the Regiment were to be called "Carson's Own", and the other if it were to be called "Casement's Own". I would not be convinced that Southern Irish people would be pacified, if it were to be called "Carson's Own", by the fact that Carson was a South Irishman, or that Northern Irish Protestants would be pacified, if it were called "Casement's Own", simply because Sir Roger Casement was in fact a Northern Irish Protestant. There are emotional associations here and one wants to get away from that.
The second point is that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the only thing on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is that history has to be considered. History is a very important factor here and we have to realise—as anyone who has read Miss Devlin's interesting book knows—that Irish history is taught in two quite different ways. In Catholic schools you hear one view; in Protestant schools you hear another. People have a great many prejudices to get out of the way.
To emhpasise that, may I read a very short extract from a Liberal who was writing a long time ago—in 1821—about a siege that was almost the contemporary of the siege of Londonderry, the siege
746
of Limerick, which most people in English history do not know about. I think it is a pity that we do not know about this, but I will quote a few lines from an article in the Edinburgh Review, which was published a very long time ago, but is, I think, relevant to-day. The writer mentions the William of Orange War and says that this was terminated by the surrender of Limerick:
"upon conditions by which the Catholics hoped, and very rationally hoped, to secure to themselves the free enjoyment of their religion in future, and an exemption from all those civil penalties and incapacities which the ruling creed is so fond of heaping upon its subjugated rivals"—
He goes on to enumerate the various articles. I will not read them, but they were giving complete liberty. This is how he concludes:
"These, and other articles, King William ratifies for himself, his heirs and successors, as far as in him lies; and confirms the same, and every other clause and matter therein contained.
"These articles were signed by the English general … and diffused comfort, confidence and tranquility among … the Catholics. On 22nd October, the English Parliament excluded Catholics from the Irish Houses of Lords and Commons by compelling them to take the oaths of supremacy before admission.
"In 1695, the Catholics were deprived of all means of educating their children. at home or abroad, and of the privilege of being guardians to their own or to other persons' children. Then all tae Catholics were disarmed,—and then all priests banished. After this (probably by way of joke). an Act was passed to confirm the Treaty of Limerick."
If that is an account given by an English clergyman who was anti-Catholic, one can imagine how that would be taught in Irish schools. I am not for a moment supposing that that is necessarily correct history, although I think it is an objective account. We have these prejudices and the more we can forget them, the better. The one way to rub them in is to insist on names which quite lately, in our lifetime, not in William of Orange's time, are associated with fire, slaughter and injustice.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It is certainly not for me in these latter days to give even the mildest hint as to how long this debate should suitably continue, but I feel that we have now drawn near a point where we shall be anxious to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The arguments have been

747
deployed with extraordinary effect by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the first place, and other speakers. There cannot be anybody here who by now has not made up his mind. I do not imply that we are not likely to hear new arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is extremely ingenious in argument, and a very good set of arguments it is that he has already put forward. He has made what must at any rate have been the main part of his case in the earlier debate.
I am not going to speak for more than a minute or two now. We all agree that we want this to be a balanced force; we all attach tremendous importance to that. We all agree that it is going to be extraordinarily difficult, whatever name this body is given. I do not remember in my time—I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader has a clearer recollection—such an overwhelming mobilisation of well-informed opinion against a particular proposal as we have to-day. There is this overwhelming conviction that this difficult task of getting a balanced force is going to be made virtually impossible if we go ahead with the name "Ulster". So I hope that fairly soon, after the Leader has spoken, it will be possible to divide and test opinion.
7.53 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to my noble friend, who has not forgotten his part as a former Leader of the House in trying to help the House to come to a decision. The reason why I did not rise earlier was that there were a number of names down to Amendments and I felt it was only fair that every noble Lord should speak first. They will, of course—but I hope they will not take advantage of it—have the right to speak after I have spoken.
I should first like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that I am sorry it is late, but really it is not as late as all that; and I should have thought he was one of the last people to complain of the lateness of the hour, since he is quite good on occasions at keeping us here. Of course it is difficult ever to foretell just how long debates are going to take; but I think this debate might have taken place two or three hours earlier and there still would not have been as many Members in your Lordships' House as there are now.
748
I have listened with great care to everything that has been said. I am bound (to say that some of the noble Lords who spoke struck me as being not very familiar with Northern Ireland or Ulster. Even the terms and the pronunciations suggested a certain unfamiliarity. I really cannot accept the argument in general terms that the world "Ulster" is not appropriate and in general use in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords are not entirely correct. I know that my noble friend Lord Rathcavan lives on what he chooses to call the right side of the Border—
LORD KILBRACKEN: My name is Kilbracken.
LORD SHACKLETON: There was a strange alliance across the Border on this occasion, but—
LORD KILBRACKEN: We can all get our facts wrong.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord says, as he made clear last time, "on the wrong side of the Border".
LORD KILBRACKEN: The right side.
LORD SHACKLETON: Well, I do not know which the noble Lord wants. He tries to correct it each time. I tried to find out what he meant. He was not able to explain it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I immediately said, "on the Republican side".
LORD SHACKLETON: At any rate —does the noble Lord wish to go on interrupting me?
LORD KILBRACKEN: No. I have finished.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am only trying to say that while I fully acknowledge that the noble Lord certainly knows both sides of the Border, I simply do not accept, as somebody who also knows both North and South Ireland, that the word "Ulster" is not in general use in relation to Northern Ireland. This is not, I may say in making this point, to dispose of some of the other very valid arguments that have been made, with which I will try to deal. I must address myself now to some of those arguments. First of all, my noble friend Lord Brockway said that the I.R.A. are no threat. It may well be that in recent months

749
there has not been the type of I.R.A. activity which has occurred at intervals over a number of years; but I do not believe that anyone responsible for security in Northern Ireland, or if I may say so, in the Republic, can ignore the possibility of a threat from the I.R.A.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that one of the weakest arguments my noble friend Lord Winterbottom used was the argument of precedent. The case for calling this unit, this body, the Ulster Defence Regiment, does not rest simply on precedent. What my noble friend sought to prove was that there were plenty of precedents to suggest that it would be appropriate to name this new force as in fact the Government propose that it should be named. I cannot understand why it should be proper to use the term "Ulster Rifles", or "Ulster" for any of the other units which I mentioned on the last occasion, but not apply "Ulster" to this particular unit, on what seems to me the peculiarly illogical argument that everybody who belongs to it happens to live in Northern Ireland. I cannot see that that is an effective argument.
LORD BOOTHBY: Will the noble Lord forgive me interrupting for one moment? It is because we want the Catholics to join it, and we are afraid that they will be put off by the word "Ulster"—as they will.
LORD SHACKLETON: If noble Lords will allow me, I will try to deal with this matter point by point.
LORD WIGG: I want to follow the noble Lord as closely as I can. He says he cannot see the logic; that if one accepts the title "Royal Ulster Rifles" one should now accept the title "Ulster Defence Regiment". For heaven's sake!, you are not recruiting for the Royal Ulster Rifles. They were established a long time ago. At that time the Royal Ulster Rifles had a pull. But the point is this: if the noble Lord were now establishing a new infantry regiment of the same kind, and recruiting in Northern Ireland, unless he was mad he would not call them the Royal Ulster Rifles.
LORD SHACKLETON: What I have been addressing myself to is the fact that some new units have been formed in
750
which the word "Ulster" has appeared. and no objection has been raised. The particular point I was on in terms of logic is the argument that it is logical to use the word "Ulster" provided they recruit from everywhere—not only in Northern Ireland and Ulster but in other areas—but that it is illogical to do so if they are all in fact inhabitants of Northern Ireland. I am dealing only with arguments; I am not dealing with the central point at this moment. But those arguments have been advanced, and I think it right I should deal with them.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and my noble friend Lord Kilbracken—I apologise for getting muddled on the last occasion—chose, I think, to read a great deal more into what I said on the Second Reading. Let me repeat again that it is really showing signs of paranoic suspicion to believe that there is some kind of mysterious deal. I should like to make very clear that the British Government discuss the problems of Northern Ireland with the Government in Stormont. Obviously there are consultations on the name of the force and other points which relate to it. We took account of their views in the same way that we took account of other views, but it was Her Majesty's Government in Westminster who made up their minds on this matter, and the decision in regard to this title is in fact the decision of the Government in London.
I am naturally concerned at the argument that this title will have a divisive effect. I am concerned that it should be suggested that as a result of it very few Roman Catholics will join. It is worth pointing out that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has 10 per cent. of Catholics, and I believe the fact that there are not more Catholics in the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not because of its name. Therefore, while I believe this to be of importance, I think its importance can be exaggerated out of all proportion. I have listened with great care to everything that has been said. I have not sought to answer every single argument, and I am grateful for the fact that your Lordships have chosen to focus the different Amendments on the one subject of Northern Ireland or Ulster—apart from the use of the word "defence".

751
On the latter subject, although the word "defence" is sometimes used in a rather euphemistic sense, it was deliberately chosen to distinguish this from other units which might well go outside their particular country, and it was for that reason that "defence" was considered so particularly appropriate. But on the subject as to whether we should now adopt a name such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said he would be content with, I can only say that I am certainly prepared to consider, with my right honourable friend, the very strong opinions expressed in this House. But it would not be fair for me to offer any sort of undertaking, and I think it would be quite wrong if I did not allow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to test the opinions of your Lordships in this matter.
I am bound to say that I am still unconvinced that it will serve a valuable purpose to change the name. Indeed, I am nervous of the consequences in other areas. There are the most delicate judgments to be made in Northern Ireland. I think it was either the noble Earl or some other noble Lord who pointed to the fact that there are two sets of opinions, and it has been pointed out that there is a majority in Northern Ireland who prefer the word "Ulster". Therefore, whatever we do, we shall be in some difficulty, and it is a question of measuring what is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. So, while I cannot give any undertaking, and I think it is right that we should now settle this matter by dividing, I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have deployed their case.
LORD BROCKWAY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just say how much I appreciate the spirit in which he has spoken. But in view of his inability to
give an undertaking we must press this Amendment to a Division tonight.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: May I express my personal regret that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is determined to divide on this, because I had hoped that he would accept the assurance given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he and the Government would consider this matter further. This is obviously a difficult matter, and I think it would be wrong if nothing were to be said from this Bench. If there were a generally agreed alternative title for this Regiment I should be happy to support it. At the same time, in a case where there is apparent agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Northern Ireland which, to put it mildly, do not spring exactly from the same political philosophies, I doubt whether it is wise to intervene and seek to upset that agreement.
I have some experience of Northern Ireland, and I hope noble Lords will accept that I appreciate all that has been said by the supporters of these Amendments. I cannot go so far as to agree with those who say that the term "Ulster" is one which all Catholics avoid using, and I think it would be fair to say—to quote one of the bodies instanced in another place —that such a body as the Ulster Federation of Homing Pigeon Societies probably includes Catholics as well as Protestants among its members. So do not let any of us press our arguments too far. As I have said, if there were an alternative agreed title I should be happy to support it, but at this stage there is not and, therefore, if it comes to a Division I shall feel it my duty to support the Government.
p.m.
Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTES

Barrington, V.

Ferrier, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Longford, E.

Boothby, L.

Greenway, L.

Merthyr, L.

Borckway, L. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Headfort, M.

Nunburnholme, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Raglan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Strang, L.

Wigg, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Stocks, Bs.

Swansea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Bessborough, E.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bowles, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Serota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Conesford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that, in the establishment and maintenance of the Regiment efforts shall be made, under conditions to be prescribed, to ensure that not less than one quarter of the men accepted for service are of the Roman Catholic faith.")
The noble Viscount said: In putting down this Amendment I have done so entirely as a private individual. As I have strong connections with the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland, may I repeat that: this Amendment is entirely a private effort. We have heard, in this House and in another place, great doubts expressed whether this Regiment will serve any useful purpose, because the Catholic minority fear, so we are told, that this force will be Protestant-dominated and that it will therefore oppress them. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who has chosen to pitch this Republican flag rather close, I should have thought, to the Protestant Bishops, appears to look upon this regiment, the Ulster Defence Regiment, as a form of Orangemen's plot, as he said in his Second Reading speech, "to harry and terrorise" the Catholic minority. I must say that I think that is very extravagant language.
My family have had a very long political connection with Ireland, extending over hundreds of years. We have held all sorts of political offices in that country for the British Crown, for the Protestant Crown, ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth. I am the proud possessor or, rather, my father was (now the Bank of Ireland has it) of the Mace of Ireland and the Speaker's Chair (which got burnt
754
in the Rebellion) but I still have all the Parliamentary Linen. This is because on the Ferrard side of my family John Foster was the last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and was well enough thought of when he had to give up his post, owing to the Act of Union in 1800, to be allowed to take the Mace and the Chair and the Parliamentary Linen. The Mace, as I have said, is now in the Bank of Ireland, and the Chair got burnt in the Rebellion.
I am really tired of hearing, and a great number of my Unionist friends are tired of hearing, what I can only call wild statements as to the oppression of the Catholics in the North of Ireland. Some of these statements are greatly exaggerated. This Amendment, coming as it does from me, may surprise some Unionists in the North of Ireland; but it will not surprise what I call the educated Unionists. These are the Unionists who really love the North of Ireland, and who have the interests of that country at heart.
As I said when talking about the North of Ireland in the Second Reading debate, any oppression that may exist does not come because the people in the Province in the North object to Catholics: they are quite at home with the Catholics as in England or Scotland. As I pointed out at the time, it comes from a perfectly legitimate fear—though I do not agree with it—of their more populous and powerful neighbour in the South. Their fear is a territorial fear; it is intrinsically a fear that, if the North of Ireland went into the South, gradually, over a period of time, they would lose their jobs and be driven out of the North of Ireland. This fear is held by a great number of less well educated people in the North of Ireland, and we

755
have to accept that fact. But we can only hope that time will cure it.
I cannot say that in the last two or three months the Nationalist Movement and the Civil Rights Association have helped to pour oil on troubled water, nor do I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, really has attempted to pour oil on troubled water. When he spoke of being happy to be on the "right side of the Border" I was wondering whether he was approaching the Border from the West or from the East. Of course I now realise what he really meant. I do not want to hit the noble Lord below the belt, but perhaps the reason the noble Lord is happy on what he calls "the right side of the Border"—in other words, the Republic of Ireland— is because it is cheaper to live there; wages are lower; you can get drink cheaper, and there are various other advantages.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Should I be in order in asking the noble Viscount whether this relates to the Amendment in any way at all?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It leads up to it. There are a great many people who live in the North of Ireland because they get higher wages and various other social benefits. Where I think a great many people go wrong is in thinking that every Catholic in the North of Ireland wants to go to the South. But there are plenty of Catholics in the North of Ireland—I know several —who are extremely loyal to the British connection, and are perfectly happy to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Personally, I should he very sad to see the North of Ireland lose the British connection. We have been assured, of course, that that can never happen so long as a majority in the North of Ireland desire to keep the British connection. Provided we have that assurance, we cannot ask for more.
I have put this Amendment down because, in my opinion, if this Regiment is to be accepted, it must include quite a high proportion of Catholics. I am slightly frightended that if Catholics do not have great encouragement to join the Regiment they may not join in sufficient numbers to make it quite impartial. I am not saying that the Ulster Defence Regiment, if it was composed of Prot
756
estants, would not be impartial, but I think it would certainly be fair to say that some of the fears of the Catholics in the North of Ireland would be calmed if a certain percentage of this Regiment were Catholic. I have chosen the figure of 25 per cent. of the population. I think the actual percentage of Catholics in the North of Ireland is 30 per cent.
A NOBLE LORD: More.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I understand that if you do not count the children, the proportion in the adult population is round about 25 per cent. Whether it is 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. is a small point.
I am in rather an awkward position this evening as I have to go downstairs to be host to the Irish Peers. Your Lordships are probably quite pleased to hear that, because I shall have to stop speaking very shortly. However, there is no doubt that my Amendment may not be entirely practical. But I should like to see whether something like this can he done to encourage Catholics to join this force. I am a full-blooded Protestant, and my family have been for hundreds of years, but I feel, and there are many other Protestants who feel like me in the North of Ireland, that we are prepared to do anything reasonable that we can to try to solve this problem and make it a happy Province. I beg to move.
8.29 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I assumed that its purpose was to get a balanced force. I did not quite get that impression from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I would put just two objections to the Amendment. The first is that the suggestion that not less than one-quarter of the men should be accepted from the Catholic faith is rather an under-representation of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. Much more deeply there is the objection that I think it is very dangerous indeed if, in the laws of this land, we make a reference either to a particular race, or a particular religion. Those of us who are opposed to racial discrimination, and also to discrimination on religious grounds, take the view that it would be a bad precedent in our law to have a reference to a religious faith as there is here.

757
But I particularly wanted to rise to put a question to Her Majesty's Government. There was a debate in another place on this question of a balanced force, and at the end of that debate Mr. Hattersley, the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, agreed that he would write to the members of the B-Special force outlining clearly the methods and the terms of recruitment. That promise was given because there had been some evidence that the B-Specials were not joining as individuals but were joining as groups, and, most extraordinarily, that it was as a result of a meeting of an unofficial committee within the Regiment. Because of that, there was the very great danger that there might be over-pressure to get B-Specials to join; and Mr. Hattersley promised that he would communicate with the members of the B-Special Regiment. I just want to ask my Front Bench: What has been done in this respect? Has such a letter been sent? And, if so, what are the contents of that letter? I ask this in order that we may feel that everything is being done to create a multi-community force.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to intervene for a moment. The noble Viscount asked me various questions about myself and why I said I was happy to live in the Republic of Ireland. I really do not think it is necessary for me to explain again. I live in the Republic of Ireland because I prefer the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I prefer the life there, and that is why I am happy when I wake up. I say this and I am not ashamed of it; indeed I am pleased and proud of it. However, I felt that his remarks were considerably irrelevant to the Amendment he was proposing. I myself think—I certainly hope—that this Amendment is completely unnecessary. That is because the Government have indicated over and over again that they are going to do everything in their power —and I completely respect their sincerity —to get as many members as possible of the Catholic faith and followers of the Nationalist belief to join this force. I know that they will try, and I know that attempts are being made in that direction. I am afraid they are not going to be successful; and I think that if one other noble Lord or noble Baroness had voted the other way just now the chances would be much greater that there would be
758
Catholics who would come forward. I feel certain that every attempt will be made, but I am afraid that even as things are the figure that the noble Viscount wants to see of 25 per cent. will not be reached, and that therefore absolutely nothing will be gained by putting it in.
On the other hand, I cannot help having a sneaking wish that it could be in the Bill, for the reason suggested to me by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who is not in the Chamber at present. That is, because if it were in the Bill it might very well restrict the size of the force to three Protestants. If no Catholic chose to come forward, which I think will be extremely probable, then, if this were a part of the measure, the force would be restricted to three; and that is about the size I should like it to be.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I sympathise with the idea in the mind of the noble Viscount, and as he is a member of the Unionist Grand Council, or words to that effect—a very high Unionist body in Northern Ireland—I think it comes very well and handsomely from him. I am sorry he marred that noble aspiration by some of the observations that fell from him; but let us et those aside. There is no doubt at all that we all want to see a proportion as high as this if we can, and, if possible, higher; but I think it is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve this proportion. The only question is whether one gains anything by putting it in. I should not have thought so myself, except that Lord Hunt, who recommended against continuing a fixed proportion in the police, in his speech on Monday actually recommended introducing a fixed proportion, or words to that effect, here. That was rather striking, coming from him. Therefore, I should like the noble Viscount to feel that when he throws out a liberal idea of this sort he does meet with some response. But, having said that, I can only tell him that if he presses the Amendment to a Division he will not find me there.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): The noble Viscount has proposed an Amendment which, in the spirit if not in the letter, will, I know, command a good deal

759
of sympathy from your Lordships' Committee. If I may express a personal opinion, I should have thought the ideal make-up of this force would be 100 per cent. agnostics; but that is something which I think we are unlikely to achieve.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether he is speaking for the Government?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I thought I made it quite clear that this was a purely personal view; that, to me, that would be the ideal composition of the force; but I said it was not likely to be achieved. I think the noble Viscount was right to draw attention to the question of achieving a proper balance within the new force, because that might well be an important factor in the success of the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government are paying so much attention to this aspect of the new arrangements in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that there would be serious difficulties in seeking to find a proper balance by legislation in the manner of the Amendment, not only because of the practical difficulties in enforcing a fixed percentage of members of a particular religious denomination or faith but also because it has not been our custom, and rightly so, to regard religion as a relevant consideration for entry into the Army. That is not to say that Her Majesty's Government will not take positive steps to see that a proper balance is achieved. On the contrary, as stated in the clearest possible terms by my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration in the Second Reading debate on November 19 in another place, the recruitment of a well-balanced force will be a primary objective.
The detailed arrangements that are being made are directed towards that end. Applicants for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment will be asked to state their religion on their application form—and I want to stress this point—for the sole purpose of enabling a watch to be kept on this aspect of the balance. There will be no automatic transfer of members of the Ulster Special Constabulary to the Ulster Defence Regiment. Application forms will be widely available for all
760
potential recruits, and the recruitment campaign will be directed towards all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. As I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on December 8, General Sir John Anderson, the Colonel Commandant-designate of the Ulster Defence Regiment, will be taking special steps to see that as many as possible of the members of the minority community in Northern Ireland apply to join the new force. Again, the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, will have the benefit of the help of an advisory council—I mentioned that in the debate—one of whose tasks will be to advise on the composition of the force and on matters of improving recruitment in minority communities.
Her Majesty's Government believe that they have already taken such practical steps as are open to them to see that the Ulster Defence Regiment becomes a well-balanced force which is fully representative of all the responsible communities in Northern Ireland, and that the arrangements that they have made are far preferable to seeking to incorporate in legislation a provision which would be out of keeping with our custom, not necessarily workable in practice and, indeed, virtually impossible to enforce. I hope the noble Viscount will accept the fact that we are in complete agreement with the spirit behind his Amendment, but I hope he will not force it to a Division.
LORD BROCKWAY: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he heard the question which I put to him, which I think is important in this connection? Mr. Hattersley, his colleague, made a definite promise in another place. I am asking whether the letter which he promised would go to the members of the B-Specials has been sent, and I am asking him what are the contents of that letter. My noble friend has ignored that question altogether.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me. The position is that the matter is still being looked into. I am therefore not able to tell him what will be the contents of such a letter, if it is in fact sent.
LORD BROCKWAY: But it was promised.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That promise has not yet been broken. It is being looked into.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his explanation. I am glad to hear that every effort is to be made to achieve a proper balance in the force, and I can only hope that that will be successful. I quite appreciate —in fact, I knew—that it has never been the custom in the British Army to choose recruits on their religious faith, or to have a certain percentage of one faith and a certain percentage of another. Of course, Northern Ireland is a rather unusual place, perhaps— certainly at the moment. It was the best solution that I could think of, but I quite agree that it is probably not practicable. As I said before, I am very pressed for time. I should have liked to answer the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and others. I do not agree with him when he says that it could happen that there would be only three in the Regiment. I think he was exaggerating. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.42 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("when he is in possession, or ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is completely non-contentious and non-controversial. Clause 1(2) lays down the occasions when members of the force will be subject to military discipline, and subsection (2)(b)(ii) states that a member of the force will be under military discipline
"… when he is in possession, or when, in pursuance of any order given … by a superior officer of his, he is required or authorised to be in possession, of any arms or ammunition … ".
I am proposing to delete the words, "when he is in possession, or". My point is simply that these words are unnecessary. A member of the force remains under military discipline, if these words are deleted, if
"he is required or authorised to be in possession, of any arms,"
and so on. Those are the only circumstances under which he should possess them. If these words are left in, there
762
would be the implication that a member may be in possession of arms when he is not "required or authorised to be in possession". I propose for the sake of clarity that these words should be deleted. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has the point right, but he has not spotted the danger. He has argued that these words are unnecessary in that a member of the force should be in possession of arms only if he is required or authorised to be so. That must certainly be the hope of all of us. But your Lordships will appreciate that no one can guarantee that some occasion will not arise when a member of the force is in unauthorised possession of arms either because he mistook his orders or because he was negligent or perhaps even because he was disobedient. This is a possible and genuinely dangerous situation. It seemed only prudent to provide against such a contingency. To do so is not to make a judgment on the likelihood of such a contingency arising.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has emphasised that this is to be a well disciplined and well trained Regiment. No one assumes anything else. But if there were to be only a single breach of the rule it would be intolerable to find that for lack of this provision a member of the force in irregular possession of arms was not subject to military law. May I repeat that: for lack of this provision a member of the force in irregular possession of arms—which is a situation which could arise—was not subject to military law. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. It seems to me that if a member of the force were in possession of arms at a time when he was not required or authorised to be in possession, he would be guilty of an offence and could be taken to court for acting in a way in which he should not act, and would be liable to the penalties of the court, whether under military discipline or not. However, in the light of the assurance that my noble friend has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("any") to end of line 4 and insert ("equipment belonging, to Her Majesty of such description as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section".)
The noble Earl said: I must apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. I must disclose the personal fact that yesterday I was in bed with 'flu. If I had been in a better state of health I would have noticed the errors in the drafting of this Amendment. I wonder whether it is worth while explaining the point that I meant to make. We have in the Bill the words, "prescribed description of equipment", possession of which can bring a man under the operation of military law. "Prescribed description of equipment" is a vague term. "Prescribed" means, according to the definition, "rescribed by order or regulation" and it might cover anything from a bicycle to water bottles. Presumably it is not intended to refer to possession of that kind of equipment which is normal for every man in the force. The purpose of my Amendment, if it had been correctly drafted, was to make it read in such a way that "equipment" would refer to such equipment
"of such description as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section."
In other words, "prescribed" in this clause refers only to equipment "prescribed for the purpose of this section." In other words, if he is ordered to take a bicycle or a wireless set he comes under military law; but if he has only web equipment or a water bottle, obviously he does not.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Earl has explained that his concern is with the wording more than with the merits of this provision—I believe he accepts that the possession of some kinds of equipment, like arms or ammunition, should make members of the force subject to military law. His difficulty, as I understand it, circulates round the word "prescribed". I can assure the noble Earl that "prescribed" in line 2 of page 2 does indeed mean "prescribed for the purposes of this section"; and prescription will be by regulation made by my right honourable friend under the provisions of Clause 4(1) of the Bill. When
764
he raised this topic on Second Reading, the noble Earl said that he though it of "somewhat dubious propriety" to bring a man under military law by a minor regulation made under Clause 4(1). I hope it will help the noble Earl if I say, first, that these regulations are in no sense "minor": they will be made under the authority of this Act, and will not only have all the force of, for example, Regulations of the T. & A.V.R., but, like them, will be drawn up with care, and will be published and laid before your Lordships' House. The purport of the noble Earl's Amendment being thus the same as the words of the Bill, I hope that with this assurance from me he will not press it further. The regulations in question follow a known pattern relating to defence forces. They will be laid but will not be subject to Parliamentary control by either Affirmative or Negative Resolution; but since they are laid before the House they could be debated if the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wished to do so. Control will be kept so that the important elements will be included and the nonsenses excluded.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that more than adequate explanation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In calling Amendment No. 8 may I point out to the Committee that, if it were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
8.50 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I am doing so because I believe the words which I am proposing to delete are unnecessary. So far as I am aware, a member of this Regiment would not be liable to any service of any kind unless the force or some part of it has been called out under one or other of the subsections of Clause 2 which are mentioned. It therefore seems to me all the more clear that he cannot be liable to whole-time service

765
unless he has been called out. An alternative would be to include the words, "or part-time" as is suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in Amendment No. 10. So far as training is concerned, the obligation of a member for full-time service is already clearly stated in Clause 2(5), because a member cannot be liable for any kind of service unless the force has been called out.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My noble friend is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that the only liabilities for service or training imposed on members of the force are those under Clause 2 of the Bill. But my noble friend will have appreciated that none of these is framed in exclusive terms—indeed, they could not have been so drafted, because the liabilities for service are alternative. The subsection to which my noble friend's Amendment relates gives my right honourable friend power to make orders and regulations for the duties of the force. That is obviously necessary, and it is usual in Royal Forces legislation to give the Secretary of State this kind of discretion. But as legislation expressly concerns itself with prescribing liabilities for service it is desirable that there should, in this subsection, be a corresponding limitation. My noble friend will have observed that the same argument applies to the provision about service in Northern Ireland.
I think it is fair to say that these words only add emphasis: they are a positive expression of a limit which, as my noble friend has acutely observed, is implicit elsewhere in the Bill. But they do follow the precedent of an earlier Statute, the Home Guard Act 1951, and I hope my noble friend will agree that they do no harm in making clear this crucial protection of the rights of members of the force.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to study my noble friend's reply. I feel that he has given a very detailed and satisfactory answer and I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("require") and insert ("call upon")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, which is to substitute the words "call upon" for "require" in the passage which in the last Amendment I have just proposed we should delete. It seems to me that the word "require" is not strong enough. All this subsection says at present is that members of the force may not be required to give whole-time service, except when the force or part of it has been called out. But surely that does not mean that members of the force, if they were willing to be called out, might not be able to take part in operations. I feel that there is very little meaning or force in the sentence so long as the word "require" is used and that something stronger, such as "call upon", should be substituted.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think that my noble friend is tripping over something that arises from the art of the Parliamentary draftsmen. We believe that the word "require" in line 34 is better than the phrase "call upon". The subsection describes what is and is not to go into the regulations. The regulations are mandatory and I am advised that "require" is not only the traditional but the proper term. There has been previous legislation in which the term "require" has always been used and I hope that for this reason my noble friend will accept it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I feel a certain amount of doubt about it because the Bill says that orders or regulations "shall not require members of the Force" to do so and so. It does not say that these orders or regulations shall not request them. The regulations made could still request members of the force to do whole-time service although they might not require it. Therefore I feel that they go a little further than is perhaps intended. But in view of the fact that my noble friend assures me that this is the word normally used, and cannot have the effect that I feared, I accept what he says and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 34, after ("whole-time") insert ("or part-time").
The noble Earl said: I feel that I may fairly claim that this Amendment is drafted with the most unfailing accuracy. As I understand it, the second half of subsection (5) is designed to protect the soldier from being imposed on and required to perform any kind of military duty when not out training, on the one hand, or called out, on the other. It says that members of the force shall not be required to give whole-time service, which does not exclude the possibility that they might be required to give part-time service. It seems to me that this difficulty could be overcome by leaving out the words "whole-time", but that would leave the words "give service", which would seem rather curious in a military context. It would be easier, neater and self-explanatory to add the words I suggest, so that the subsection would read:
"shall not require members of the force to give whole-time or part-time service except during any period"—
and so on. Only then, I submit, would the man be completely covered in the way the subsection intends he should be. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to add a word of support to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I see this as a possible solution to the problem which was worrying me. It seemed to me that no service of any kind should be given unless the force had been called out. I do not see why only whole-time service is specified in the subsection. If the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted, and whole-time and part-time service specified, the force would not be called out before it could be required.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Earl's Amendment is designed to ensure that all the circumstances in which members of the force attend for training are covered by this provision. I recognise the force of his argument, but I believe there are special reasons for emphasising whole-time service in this way. It is not the practice with reserve forces generally, and in particular with this force, to prescribe by Statute the total amount of part-time training. The demands of training vary from time to time, and on the whole it is best to be as flexible as possible and to prescribe by regulations
768
rather than in the Act. But service 24 hours a day is a serious matter for a part-time force, and for this reason we have particularly emphasised the utmost extent of the demands that may be made on a man for whole-time service. We have laid down what is the most he can be asked to do, but if he is asked to do less than that, we feel that it would be better to leave the question undefined.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am slightly puzzled, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. If I understood him aright, a question might arise of additional periods of training being prescribed under regulation. So we do not know, simply by reading the Bill, how much work a man would be required to do. But if that happened, surely it is covered by the words or they are undergoing training" in line 36. So that no matter what happens, whether statutory periods of training are increased or decreased, a man is still covered, in the sense that he must do what he is told when he is training. It does not affect the fact that while he is undergoing training or called up, he can still, as the subsection is now drafted, be called up to do half a day's work when he should not be. Is that not possible?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I should have thought not. The regulations I mentioned will be available to the House, and if this is a matter of concern to the noble Earl I am certain that he will watch them. Since this is a voluntary force, I am perfectly certain that we will take the trouble to see that no-one is driven out of the Regiment by overwork or by an oppressive use of the words, "whole-time". I am pretty certain that common sense will be applied, and that it is not necessary, as the noble Earl wishes, to define it in this exact phrase.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I do not wish to press this Amendment, but simply wish to register the point. I am not at all convinced by the noble Lord's argument, but I am happy to leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("(2)")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) states that regulations
"… shall not require members of the force to give whole-time service except during any period during which the force or the part of it to which they belong is called out under subsection (2), (3) or (4),…"
Clause 2(3), states:
"The force shall be liable to be called out for permanent service in Northern Ireland in defence of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended attack;…"
Under subsection (2) the force may be called out
"… for emergency service in Northern Ireland if, and for so long as, it appears … to be necessary or expedient for the defence of life or property in Northern Ireland against armed attack or sabotage, whether actual or apprehended."
I am of the opinion that if the only threat to security in Northern Ireland is one which requires the defence of life and property against armed attack or sabotage, there would never justifiably be a case to call out the entire Regiment for whole-time service, though I appreciate that it could be called out to defend the United Kingdom, which in this case means to defend Northern Ireland, because it may not serve outside Northern Ireland, against actual or apprehended attack. But the whole force should not be called upon for full-time service subject to the condition foreseen in Clause 2(2). I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With respect to my noble friend, I think that this is essentially a question of semantics. He must make a distinction between whole-time service and permanent service. Whole-time service means service 24 hours a day: it is likely that members of this force will often do less than this—for instance when they are undertaking guard duties or when they are doing evening training. But it is also possible that even on emergency service they may be called out for more than 24 hours at a time and in those circumstances they would be treated, and of course paid, as on whole-time service. For example, a man could do a 36-hour period when doing training at weekends. Permanent service extends this concept. It is whole-time service of indefinite duration as is to be expected in the context of general war. That is the difference.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I had not appreciated the difference between whole-time and permanent service. In view of what he has told me, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
LORD WIGG: During the Second Reading I raised with the noble Lord the spokesman for the Government, the matter of the reference in subsection (3) to Parts II to V of the Army Act. He has since Written to me (I received the letter only to-day) and argues that the reference is sufficient to override the doubts that I have, or that arise from the fact that the Army Act would remain unamended; and for a man to become liable for military law, as it seemed to me, reading the Army Act, he had to be one of those designated in Section 205.
I should be prepared to leave it there because I sensed the difficulty that the Ministry of Defence must have had in drafting this Bill. There was no suitable opportunity of amending the Army Act, and so they have got round it in this way. The Minister argued that there is a precedent, in that the same thing was done when the Home Guard Act was introduced in 1951. My worry is that subsection (2) refers only to Parts II to V; there is no reference to Part I. Yet during our deliberations this evening the noble Lord said that the Government attach special importance to the answer that a man would give on attestation. The point where a man can be charged with a false answer on attestation does not arise on Parts II to V; it arises out of Section 19 of the Army Act 1955, which states that a person appearing before a recruiting officer and makes a false answer under attestation should be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £20. So it seems that procedures would arise here under Section 19. I have not had the time to go into this because, as I say, the Minister's letter telling me that he is satisfied about the drafting of the Bill before us reached me in the House only to-day.

771
I suggested to the Minister that perhaps he could ask his advisers to look at this point again. Frankly, I do not like it. It is legislation by reference. And in dealing with a disciplined force this is particularly unfortunate.
I speak from the experience I had on the Select Committee which considered the Army Act, and which produced the revised version. We were most anxious to get it all in one place. That is the reason why every five years the Act comes up and, instead of being continued year by year, is referred in the fifth year to a Select Committee in order to keep it up to date. It is something of very great importance to the Armed Forces, and I do not like a reference of this kind. If the Minister's legal advisers are satisfied that in the future, if a man is charged under the provisions of Parts II to V there will be no legal difficulties, I shall be satisfied, except that I think that, in the interests of the job he is doing, it would be as well if he considered whether a reference to Part I is necessary. It may be that it is not. However, I repeat that I do no more than raise the point because I have had no opportunity of studying it in any depth.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The whole House takes very seriously any views that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg expresses on the matter of military law. I am afraid that I cannot convince him. I have done my best. However, to make assurance doubly sure, I will ask my advisers to look at it again, and I will write to the noble Lord when they have considered what he has had to say.
LORD WIGG: There is no need to write to me; I will not trouble the noble Lord to do that. If his advisers are satisfied that the point I have raised is adequately covered, then there is no need to do anything about it. On the other hand, if he finds differently—and he himself said that he attached importance to the answers on attestation—and if he finds the enlistment provision here is necessary, then in his own interest he ought to do something about it. Whether he does or not is a matter for him, because the future will show whether or not there was a need to do something.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Liabilities for Service and Training]:
9.14 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("of a rank not lower than major").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 12, and I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider at the same time Amendment No. 14. I consider these two to be dependent upon each other, and I should not wish one of them to be operative without the other being operative also. This is a question of the officers to whom the right may be designated to call out a force. It was stated on three separate occasions on a Committee stage in another place by the Minister, Mr. Ivor Richard, that it was the intention of the Government that this power should be exercised only by officers whom the Secretary of State had personally authorised. I will not quote directly what the Minister said, because I think I should be out of order in doing so, but in column 1237, for instance, on the Committee stage of the Bill, he quite definitely stated that it is the Government's intention that the power of call-out should be reserved for those persons whom the Secretary of State had specifically authorised.
Will your Lordships look at line 3 on page 3? It seems to me that here are two words that are extremely ambiguous, and they confused me as they stand at present. Those words are "him" and "such". We have the situation that the Secretary of State may certainly grant authority in writing to a designated officer of the regular forces, and we go on:
"with or without authority for that officer in turn to authorise any other officer designated by shim".
My point here is that we do not know whether this means designated by the Secretary of State, or designated by the officer to whom authority has been designated by the Secretary of State.
When I read this Bill for about the fourteenth time I decided that it meant that the officer to whom the right had been designated by the Secretary of State himself was being given power to designate that authority to another officer.

773
But then, when I read what had been said in the Committee stage in the House of Commons, it seemed to me that the word "him" must refer to the Secretary of State. In any case, whether it refers to one or the other, it certainly is not clear; it is ambiguous. I think that it should refer to the Secretary of State, and that only the Secretary of State should be entitled to decide which officer should have this very important power, in which case "Secretary of State" should be substituted for "him". But it I am wrong in that, then again it should be clear whether this power to delegate the authority further resides in the person who has been designated by the Secretary of State.
Then we have to consider what is meant by:
"being such an officer of the regular forces as aforesaid".
At present we read that this authority may be granted:
"to any designated officer of the regular forces within the meaning of the Army Act 1955 of a rank not lower than major".
It simply is not clear whether "such an officer" means an
"officer of the regular forces within the meaning of the Army Act 1955"
or an
"officer of the regular forces within the meaning of the Army Act 1955 of a rank not lower than major".
I now understand what I had not understood before, that it is meant to have the latter meaning, and that the officer to whom the right can be designated must be of the rank of major or senior to that rank. But I suggest that it is not clear at present precisely what is meant by the expression "such an officer". Believing, as I do, that no officer should have this right unless he has been granted authority by the Secretary of State, I am proposing to bring that about by deleting these two passages, as proposed in my Amendments Nos. 12 and 14. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am sorry that the intention of this subsection is not clear to the noble Lord, and if it is not clear to him it is probably not clear to other people. For that reason, I should like to say, here and now, that the words which he mentioned, "him" and "such an officer", refer to, not the Secretary of
774
State, but the officer authorised by him; they refer to the authorised officer. That is quite clearly for practical purposes. The object of the provision is to ensure that the power to call out the force for emergency service is devolved in a practical way without sacrificing essential control. Too much centralisation would be a mistake in the conditons in which this force is to work. From time to time requirements will change and the organisation of the force must be reasonably flexible. The main thing is to ensure that at all times some responsible officer is available to call out a given unit of the force. This, obviously, cannot be achieved without delegation. You do not expect the Secretary of State to call out a section of a platoon to guard a pumping station. That is a job for an officer not below the rank of major to whom responsibility has been delegated by the Army chain of command.
LORD KILBRACKEN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should call out some small platoon, but that it should be only the Secretary of State who has the right to designate an officer as having the right to call out that platoon.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, the Secretary of State authorises the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, and then he can delegate authority to other officers who are authorised by him to use the delegated authority given to them. It is a simple and straightforward chain of command, and the delegated authority stops with the man with the rank of major. But one simply cannot so organise things that the Secretary of State is constantly concerned with authorising individuals of a comparatively junior military rank. He has to leave it to the judgment of the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, to whom he delegates authority, and for that reason I must repeat that the words "him" and "such an officer" do refer to an officer authorised by the military chain of command, the chain starting with the Secretary of State but being delegated to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and other officers.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I completely accept the assurance given by my noble friend, but I feel that it is not immediately

775
or necessarily obvious that the "him" referred to in line 3 is the designated officer, or that "such an officer" means an officer of a rank not lower than major. I had certainly assumed that officers below that rank would be entitled to have this power delegated to them. However, if, having drawn the attention of my noble friend to the difficulty I had in interpreting these passages, he feels it is perfectly clear and does not need any change I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.23 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 45, afer ("major") insert ("who is not such an officer merely by virtue of his membership of the force").
The noble Lord said: This refers back to the question of the major to whom authority may be granted in writing by the Secretary of State to call out the force, and we are told, clearly and simply, that he must be an officer of the regular forces. As I understand it, almost any officer who is serving with this Regiment is in fact a member of the regular forces. At the time of the Committee stage in another place the Minister, Mr. Richard —and again I must not quote him, but I will paraphrase what he said—
LORD SHACKLETON: It is in order for the noble Lord to quote it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: That makes it much easier. I sought advice, but I was led astray. The Minister said that:
"They would be regular officers and not persons who would come within that category merely by virtue of their membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment."
For that reason, because I think it important that this very important power should be exercised only by regular army officers and in the words of the Minister, not by those who come within that category merely by virtue of their membership of that Regiment, I am proposing to add here the words that were used by the Minister on that occasion. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. I can assure him, as my right honourable and honourable friends have said in another place, that it is our
776
intention that power to call out the force on emergency service will be vested in officers of the Regular Army. Having examined this subsection again in the light of my noble friend's Amendment, we agree with him that this point needs more accurate definition. My noble friend's Amendment does not fully meet the point, but if he is willing to withdraw it I will undertake to move a Government Amendment to achieve the same effect at the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving this undertaking. I thought it was a point of substance. I was not sure that I had worded it correctly. I am glad to know the Government will take it up, and in view of the undertaking given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that all arms under the authority of such officers shall be stored in armouries and not in the private houses of members of the force, unless it has been called out; and then only in rural districts, with the written permission of a designated officer ".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This question was debated at very considerable length in another place. It is, of course, the question whether members of this force should be allowed to keep their arms in their own homes. My honourable friends in another place put down an Amendment which was identical with mine except that it ended at the word "force"; their proposal was that all arms must be stored in armouries and not in the private houses of the members of the force, and that was all there was to it.
I am not making as big a demand on the Government as that. I am saying that this may be permitted, but only if the force has been called out and then only in remote rural districts and with the written permission of a designated officer. I feel most apprehensive about the whole idea of members of a force being allowed to keep rifles and offensive equipment in their own homes. Of course, I know that so long as they have their rifles with them they will be subject to military discipline, but as things

777
stand at present they could have their rifles in their own home when the force has not been called out.
What is the point of this? I imagine a member of the force in an outlandish farmhouse in Fermanagh or in the wilds of Tyrone, and he has his gun there in the corner of the room, which makes him very much more a target and very much more unpopular than he would otherwise be. He hears a fusillade of shots outside the window, which might turn out to be a car backfiring, but he is a bit jumpy and nervous, and he realises that he has not been called out. Therefore, although he has his gun in the room, he is not, as I understand it, allowed to use it. What does he do? How does he get called out? He may have a telephone. Can he ring up the designated officer and say, "For Heaven's sake, there is a fusillade of shots outside the window; will you please call me out?", and the designated officer says, "Yes, you are called out". And will he go out with his rifle and search for this probably mythical enemy in the mountains of Tyrone?
I am surprised that the form that has to be gone through before a member of the force is called out is not laid out anywhere in the Bill. It has been stated in another place, and I think here, that it is the intention that rifles should only be permitted in those remote rural districts where members of the force are under what was admitted, in the Commons, to be an irrational fear of attack by members of the I.R.A. from over the Border. If there is this irrational fear, I suppose that for a certain length of time it is possibly right that some members of the force should be allowed a rifle at home, if they are in these remote rural districts and if they are men who have been given written permission as being responsible people by a designated officer; but I do not see that it is any advantage to them to have a rifle in their house unless they have been called out. As I say, they cannot use it and an emergency may arise, but I think the call-out procedure should involve going to a barracks, or some central depot, and being formally told, "You are now called out; you are under military discipline;here is your rifle;you must now take it home and look after it and keep it under lock and key, and you may use it if neces-
778
sary". But unless the force have been called out, they should not have a rifle; and they should have a rifle in their hands only in the most exceptional circumstances. It is because I believe these things that I beg leave to move.
LORD BROCKWAY: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. It is recognised, and indeed it has been said by members of the Government, that one of the great difficulties in Northern Ireland to-day is that so many people have guns in their own homes, and I think the call-in of those guns has been rather disappointing to the authorities in Northern Ireland. Under this Bill it will still be possible for those in isolated rural areas to retain guns, and the reason is that they might be specially subject to attacks. In the debate in another place it was described how they were being threatened in letters and over the telephone and in other ways. May I just say, incidentally, that that does not happen only in Northern Ireland. I was interested, in reading that debate, to find that when Mr. Fitt, a Republican Member of Parliament, said that he was subject to exactly the same threats, the answer of the Government was: "Yes, but you are living in a town and not in a rural area".
This afternoon I have been speaking to Miss Bernadette Devlin. I want to say, and I say it because so much is said in denigration of her, that I have the greatest possible admiration for Bernadette Devlin. I do not endorse all that she has said, but she has brought to politicians, of the younger generation at least, a credibility and a belief in her honesty and forthrightness, a belief that in all circumstances she will say what she believes and what is the truth, which is what politicians to-day want more than any characteristic which I can conceive. This extraordinary tribunal in Belfast, where she says "Yes, I did throw bombs"—
LORD WIGG: Pardon me, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough, as I am puzzled, to explain what this eulogy of Miss Bernadette Devlin has to do with the clause we are discussing at the moment.
LORD BROCKWAY: I accept that interruption. I admit at once that I was

779
expanding too far my references to Miss Devlin. What I was going to say was this: that, unlike Mr. Fitt, she lives in a country village, and she is subject to all the threats which were put forward in another place as the justification for members of this force having arms. I express my regret to your Lordships' Committee if my appreciation of Miss Devlin went further than it ought to have done.
What I want to say to the Minister is this. If there are individuals in the Regiment who are in danger of these attacks, it will be because they are known partisans in the Irish conflict. Miss Devlin was threatened because she is a partisan. If members of the new force are threatened it will be because they are known to be partisans; and I suggest that those who are known to be partisans in that way are the last members who should be accepted in a force which is going to be independent, impartial and multi-community.
There is one other possibility. There may be individuals who are particularly nervous and who, because they are particularly nervous, want arms. I want to suggest again in their case that it is very dangerous to permit them to have arms in their homes, because a person with that kind of temperament might easily let loose an arm too readily even when there is no danger to his own life. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will be accepted, particularly as it adds the suggestion that there might be exceptions to the prohibition of arms in private homes in the event of a call-up. I hope that members of the Committee will give their support to this Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: As we move towards the end of the Committee stage, I am certain that your Lordships are grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken at this late hour on the splendid scenarios they have put to us. The picture painted by my noble friend Lord Brockway, of a neurotic bigot cowering in his hole and discharging his arm at random, really does not fit in with what we have been trying to explain to noble Lords during the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House. These men, who will be very carefully chosen because of their impartiality, their
780
character and their suitability, will not be the type of men described by my noble friend. They will be sound, disciplined men who will be given arms only on the judgment of their superior military commander. He will be able to assess the characters of the men, and I am pretty certain that he will not give arms to a man of the type depicted by my noble friend.
LORD KILBRACKEN: If I may interrupt my noble friend, perhaps I may ask him: is it not virtually certain that at least part of the force, and probably two-thirds, will be former members of the Ulster Special Constabulary?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: That, surely, is somewhat scandalously said of that particular body of men. Is my noble friend saying that the whole of that force is made up of bigots? I do not think the Committee would accept that. The noble Lord thinks so, but I do not think the Committee takes that view.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think that the great majority are.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: If they are known bigots, I am certain that they will not be recruited into the Ulster Defence Regiment.
If I may turn to the first scenario, I am afraid that I cannot picture it because I have not had the pleasure of travelling in the part of Ireland described by my noble friend. But it really would be a ludicrous situation, if the countryside is as empty and as remote as he described it, for a man, having heard the explosion, having looked outside, having found that it was not a car which had back-fired, then to have to rush across country by some means to report to his commanding officer, to receive authorisation to be given firearms; and then to have to rush back to the scene of the explosion. This really introduces an element of farce into the situation. As we have constantly said, it is desirable that arms issued to the force be stored, wherever possible, in armouries. We hope that this will be practicable, but there will of course be some occasions (from what I know of the country there are remote areas) where the arms must be kept at home. They will be kept under the safeguard of a responsible military commander and a

781
trained disciplined man. But the man who is in this particularly responsible position must have his arms at home so that he has not to travel substantial distances in order to carry out the duties he has to perform.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Can my noble friend tell me what is the position if the force has not been called out? Let us suppose that it has not been called out; that the man is sitting at home with his rifle, and that he has no telephone. He cannot communicate with the designated officer. Is it not the case that when the force is not called out he is not allowed to use the weapon and that therefore his having the rifle is of no use? Unless he is called out he is merely a civilian. Is that not the case?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I will write to my noble friend on this point. I can say that a man at that lime would be under military law if he has the weapon at home. He is then under military law, and presumably, he is in possession of orders from his superior officer. But I will confirm this so that my noble friend is in no doubt.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I look forward to hearing from my noble friend. This is a matter of some importance. What is the position of a man on his own with a gun who has not been called out? Can he use that gun—and if he can, in what way?—without communicating in any way with his superior officer? I know that the Government intend to proceed with a programme of building armouries, so that it will become less and less necessary for members of the force to keep arms at home, and I would express the hope that this programme will continue as rapidly as possible. I do not intend to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WIGG LORD WIGG moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 13. at end insert:
(2A) The Secretary of State shall, on the relevant date for the purposes of this subsection, report to Parliament the occasion of any calling out of the force or any part of it in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section.
(2B) The relevant date for the purposes of the foregoing subsection is the first day of March, June, September or December imme-
782
diately following the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the first sitting day thereafter.
The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need to say much about this Amendment; it speaks for itself. I raised this point on Second Reading. It has been constitutional practice down the centuries that Parliament should have control over the Armed Forces. It is clearly laid down in the Reserve Acts that when the Reserve Forces as a whole are called out. Parliament must be informed and, if necessary, recalled for that purpose. The circumstances in which executive action can be taken by one of Her Majesty's Ministers to call out the Army Reservists are governed by Statute and are very closely defined. The situation with which this Bill is drafted to deal is quite unlike the circumstances in the Reserve Acts.
I made it clear—I am not absolutely sure that the Minister who replied thoroughly understood my point—that I do not suggest that when a member of this force has been called out, that should be reported by teleprinter to the Minister of Defence and that forthwith he should go to the House of Commons, or that a Minister in this House should then come along to inform your Lordships, that that has happened. That would be absurd. But what I do say is that it is constitutional practice, and of great constitutional importance, that the Houses of Parliament should have control over the Armed Forces and that it should not be left to the will of a Minister, however eminent, to decide when he will inform Parliament.
In my judgment, this must be governed by Statute, and so in this Amendment I propose that the Secretary of State shall report on relevant dates the purposes for which the men have been called out; and for that purpose the relevant dates shall be March 1, June 1, September 1 and December 1. If the Minister wishes he can alter these dates; but enshrined in the Amendment is the principle that Parliament shall be informed and that the Minister shall be under statutory obligation to inform the House. In order to meet his convenience this could be done at intervals.
To depart from something such as is contained in the Amendment would be to run right away from what has been

783
the practice for centuries and something from which the House of Commons was reluctant to depart when the procedure on the Army Act was altered. Although I do not think that any of Her Majesty's Ministers are likely to indulge in any arbitrary action as a result of the provisions in this measure, as the guardians of freedom we should be very careful before we depart in the slightest degree from the principle of very tight Parliamentary control over the use of the Armed Forces, particularly when the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to deal with a situation where the forces which are being organised under its provisions are likely to engage in warlike acts. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has drawn on his formidable experience of Army matters. He emphasises the constitutional principle that Parliament must keep control of the activities of the Army, at least by being informed of them. It is true that the call-out of the Reserve Forces, and indeed of this force, in circumstances of imminent national danger must be reported to Parliament. So too, of course, must be the call-out of the T. & A.V.R. when warlike operations are in preparation or progress. There is no similar provision for call-out in circumstances of actual or apprehended attack under Section 6 of the Army Reserve Act 1950. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has asked me to express his regret that in his remarks when winding up the debate on Monday he stated that this was the case. The absence of such a provision must no doubt be attributed partly to the view that there would not be an opportunity to do this in circumstances of war. These liabilities are all designed to be invoked in circumstances of grave national crisis, and in each case they bear particularly heavily on the part-time soldier because they call him out for permanent service.
It is noteworthy that under Section 10 of the Army Reserve Act 1950 there still exists another liability for men of the Army Reserve to be called out
"to aid the civil power in the preservation of the public peace"
which does not have to be reported to Parliament. Though there are important differences between this liability and that for emergency service under Clause 2 (2)
784
of the Bill, I think it fair to say that both are directed to local rather than to nation-wide crises and to short-term rather than permanent service. At all events, it is not unprecedented to be able to call out a part-time military force without automatically reporting to Parliament.
Having said so much, may I say that I recognise the entirely proper concern shown by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, regarding this matter. I can certainly repeat my noble Leader's undertaking given on Second Reading that if a general call-out is necessitated by a general emergency, the Government would expect to come to Parliament. I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate to undertake a binding commitment in this Bill to report at stated intervals for all time the exercise of the power to call out under Clause 2(2). I believe that that would be going too far. We must all hope that in due course tensions will leave Northern Ireland and that the need to call out the force on emergency service, even on routine guard duties, will die away.
Therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord that a permanent provision of this nature might prove superfluous, and certainly would be most onerous to administer. But during the early days of the force's existence I am certain, as the noble Lord is, that Members of both Houses will be anxious to receive reports from time to time. If the noble Lord will accept my assurance, I hope that at a later stage of the Bill in this House we can suggest some machinery which, without going so far as a statutory requirement, will meet the substance of his proposals. I hope that on the basis of that assurance he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WIGG: I am sorry but I cannot accept that. It is quite wrong for a matter of this kind to be left to the will of the Minister. It does not matter who the Minister happens to be. A special force is being organised. It may find itself engaged in war-like operations. I am not going to press the matter too hard, but I should like the Minister to give an assurance that he will give the matter further consideration, or ask his right honourable friend to consider it, and then see whether it is possible to find some words—not to satisfy me

785
because I am merely a voice calling attention to what I regard as an important problem—which could be moved on Report stage to meet this problem.
9.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: As the noble Lord knows, we pay great attention to his views in such matters. I understand that what he is proposing would in its own way be rather unprecedented. There are cases when forces are called out and this is not reported to Parliament—indeed, in more exceptional circumstances than are likely to be foreseen for this force. None the less, while I think it would be wrong to give an undertaking to put down an Amendment (the noble Lord may wish to preserve his own position with regard to that), I will certainly undertake to ensure that we look at this further. Anybody who knew the noble Lord in another place knows that, like other Members of Parliament, he is not content just to trust the Executive in such matters, unless there is something rather more binding. I do not know whether it will be possible but I fully take the point of what he is saying and will see whether there is a little more we can do to help him.
LORD WIGG: I am much obliged. I want to make this point because it seems to me that it would narrow the gap. The noble Lord the Leader of the House says that he is alive to the fact that there are no precedents for legislation of this kind. He is completely wrong about this. Up to the outbreak of the First World War it would have been regarded as a constitutional outrage to attempt to do anything like this. At least that opinion has changed. Up to the Second World War it was still required that Parliament should be recalled if the Reserve Forces were called out. My noble friend will recollect that under Vote A of the Army Act there was strict control by Parliament.
It was only with the emergence of the cold war that a change came. It was realised that it might be undesirable to let the enemy know what was being done. There was also a great danger of worsening the situation by informing the world at large that you were going to call out the reserves. So came the first break with tradition which was carried through in the lifetime of the first Labour Government,
786
when it was then legislated that Section A of the Army Reserve could, if necessary, be called out by notice. Section A were the people required to bring establishments up to something like strength.
There have been a number of other breaks for administrative reasons. Therefore, I refute the argument that I am asking for something which is quite extraordinary. What is extraordinary is the way that, on a rather salami basis, the control of the Houses of Parliament has been whittled away, if you like in the desire to meet for administrative reasons the national need. When you get a Bill of this kind, which envisages a possibility of war-like action on the soil of the United Kingdom, it seems to me that it is the time to call a halt—not to switch back to what was the pre-Second War position, and not to go back to anything like the First World War position. But to say to the Executive. "Yes, you take this" is certainly an encroachment on liberty. Evil men could use this. Therefore, the only safeguard you have—and the only safeguard the public have—is to know what is going on.
If you also make the concession, as I have tried to do, of not asking the Executive to inform the House of Commons at once, then there ought to be a willingness on the part of the Government—particularly a Labour Government—to say, "Yes, we accept the principle that Parliament must have supreme control in a matter of this kind. But it might be a matter of life and death"—and that might be so in the future—" therefore, we say that we shall not do it when it happens, but we will accept the statutory obligation to come at convenient intervals"—and they can choose the intervals. But they must accept a statutory obligation to keep the Houses of Parliament informed. On that basis I will be glad to accept—and I will not stretch it—not the Leader of the House's assurances, but the kindly way in which he has tried to meet the points of view that I am putting to him. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment.

DEFENCE POWERS (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1969
10 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM rose to move, That the Draft Defence Powers (Continuance) Order 1969, laid before the House on November 13 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Defence Powers (Continuance) Order 1969, laid before this House on November 13 last, be approved. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Special Orders Committee, when considering this particular Order, recommended that your Lordships should pay special attention to it because it was creating a precedent.
The Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 repealed certain Defence Regulations, re-enacted a number of them with modifications, and continued the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act 1939 until the end of 1969. The purpose of the Defence Powers (Continuance) Order 1969 is to continue in force the powers granted by Sections 3 and 16 of the 1964 Act, which will expire at the end of 1969, for a period of five years. The purpose of this operation is that, as noble Lords are well aware, arrangements to control the export to Communist countries of goods of strategic importance are agreed by an international Committee, COCOM, representing the NATO countries (less Iceland) and Japan. A review of the list of goods involved was completed earlier this year and the Draft Order now before your Lordships is designed to renew the powers necessary to enable us to continue to comply with these arrangements, which are to deny to our potential enemies strategic materials and equipment.
The Order contains no new power. It merely continues powers which have been available for many years and which give us some essential flexibility in operating the controls. It is a precedent, of course, only in so far as this is the first time that the Regulations have been reactivated after they have run out at the end of the first five-year period starting in 1964. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Defence Powers (Continuance) Order 1969, laid before the House on 13th November last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, when my right honourable friend introduced the parent Bill in another place he expressed the hope that the powers given by the relevant clauses would not be needed in perpetuity. Her Majesty's Government have, unfortunately, found it necessary to renew them for another five years. But five years is a long time, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that the powers will not be used any longer than is absolutely necessary.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
10.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I go any further, I must declare my interest in the subject matter of this Bill. This arises because I hold office as the Official Verderer of the New Forest, nominated by Her Majesty the Queen, and as such I am Chairman of the Court of Verderers. It was during the proceedings on the Bill for the Countryside Act 1968 that I had occasion to address some remarks to your Lordships on various problems concerning the New Forest. I do not propose to repeat what I then said about the origin of the Court of Verderers, their constitution, and their powers under the New Forest Acts from 1877 to 1964. Broadly speaking, the function of the verderers embraces the administration of common rights, animal health and welfare, and preservation of the amenities of the Forest.
We work very closely with the Forestry Commissioners on matters concerning the general administration of the Forest and in carrying out our functions under the New Forest Acts. We seek to maintain a fair balance between the interests of the commoners, the Forestry Commissioners and the public. It is important to realise that all these interests are in fact interdependent. The powers which are contained in the main clauses of this Bill deal with entirely separate matters, yet they are all linked together in that they have a common underlying purpose; because the need for these powers springs in each case from the fact, as I shall explain later on, of pressure on the part of the public to enjoy the many facilities that

789
the New Forest has to offer. This pressure is increasing and it will continue to increase.
This pressure is not, of course resented by the verderers. We are glad that the New Forest is so widely enjoyed by members of the public for motoring, camping, picnicking and so on. However, it produces a number of practical problems for us. I think we can call ourselves a reasonably forward-looking body, and the verderers have been aware of these problems and have been active in assisting and encouraging the Forestry Commissioners in the provision and improvement of suitable facilities for the public. They are participating jointly with the Hampshire County Council and the Forestry Commissioners in a study of the problem, which I hope will result in a long term plan to conserve the amenities of the Forest. Also, a party of verderers recently visited Holland, at their own expense, to see at first hand the measures that are taken there to deal with a similar state of affairs involving the public recreation. However, the time has now come when further statutory powers are needed if the verderers are to carry out their functions properly and if the new Forest, as we know it, is to survive.
Turning to Clause 1 of the Bill, it may be recalled that when what is now Section 23 of the Countryside Act was being considered in this House I had something to say about its effect upon the New Forest. Section 23 of the Act enables the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal by the Minister of Agriculture to provide various tourist, recreation and sporting facilities, including camping and caravan sites, parking places for cars and so on. These powers apply inter alia to the open wastelands of the Forest, that is to say, the unenclosed lands of the Forest which are subject to Common rights. Similar, although not so extensive, facilities can already be provided under the New Forest Act, subject to the agreement of the verderers, and there is a principle which is enshrined in all these New Forest Acts: that in matters of this kind nothing shall be done on the open wastelands of the Forest without the agreement of the verderers. They were therefore extremely worried at that time that the powers of Section 23 might be
790
exercised over the open wastelands of the Forest without their agreement.
During the proceedings of the Countryside Bill, I moved certain Amendments with the object of preventing that happening. Unfortunately, my Amendments were not acceptable, because they would have had the effect of turning the Bill into a hybrid Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough on that occasion to give a firm assurance that the Forestry Commissioners would not in fact exercise the powers of Section 23 over the New Forest without the agreement of the verderers. Indeed, at our request the noble Lord went further, saying that the Government would raise no objection if the verderers wished to give statutory force to this undertaking at some future time. In saying this, I have summarised what is to be found in the report of the proceedings on the Committee stage of that Bill on May 9, 1968, at columns 1643 to 1645.
That is precisely what Clause 1 of this Bill sets out to do. The clause will prevent the Forestry Commissioners from exercising the powers of Section 23 over the open wastelands of the Forest without the agreement of the verderers. The clause also applies to land which has been enclosed for recreational and other purposes under Section 18 of the New Forest Act 1949. The clause gives the Forestry Commissioners further powers of enclosure and makes provision for payment of compensation to the Commoners; and I understand that the Forestry Commissioners have no objection to this clause.
Moving on to Clause 2 of the Bill, I would preface my remarks by saying that the three most important roads crossing the New Forest are the trunk road A.31, which runs from Cadnam to Ringwood; the main road A.35, which runs from Southampton to Christchurch; and the main road A.337 which runs from North to South, from Cadnam to Lymington. It is not so many years ago that none of these roads was fenced so as to prevent direct access to them by the forest animals. Moreover, at that time there were virtually no physical barriers to confine the animals within the New Forest. The animals would wander at large both within the Forest and outside it, and with the increasing use of

791
motor cars this led to the most appalling consequences in terms of animals killed and injured, and of course at night worse accidents happened. And, of course, there were unfortunate and severe accidents to human beings as well as to the animals. It became quite obvious that something had to be done.
Under the New Forest Act 1949, the fencing of the A.31 was authorised, and for various reasons this was not completed until the middle of 1964. In the meantime, the verderers evolved a scheme for altering the perambulation of the New Forest so as to bring it right up to date. I should perhaps mention that the perambulation is the name given to the boundary or perimeter of the New Forest. This scheme also involved fencing the whole of the altered perambulation and erecting cattle grids so as to contain the animals within the New Forest. In addition, it was envisaged that the portion of the A.35 traversing the New Forest should also be fenced. The powers necessary to implement this scheme were conferred by the New Forest Act 1964.
Fencing and gridding of the New Forest has now been completed. The fencing of the A.35 was completed in July, 1967. I do not want to go too deeply into past history, but there were those who doubted at the time whether the verderers' fencing and gridding policy was the right way to solve the problem, and I am quite certain that those views were held most sincerely. However, there can be no question that the verderers' policy was entirely justified by subsequent events.
I have here the relevant accident figures, and it is clear that after the respective dates on which the A31 and the A35 were fenced, the number of accidents involving animals fell dramatically on both those roads. For example, in 1963 there were 89 such accidents on the A.31, both inside and outside the Forest. In 1964, during which year the road was fenced, this figure fell from 89 to 28, and the year after there were none. In 1966 there were 85 such accidents on the A.35, both inside and outside the Forest; in 1967, the year of fencing, the figure fell to 18; the year after that to 1; and I believe that this year there have in fact been no accidents on either road within the Forest. Those, I think,
792
are very striking figures. They are even more remarkable when one considers that the traffic census gives figures showing that in August of this year the number of vehicles using the A.31 was just under 14,000 per 16-hour day, and at Whitsun this year the number of vehicles using the A.35 was just under 16,000 for a 16-hour day. The way now lies ahead to the next step, and that is the fencing of the A.337.
According to the traffic census, the number of vehicles using the A.337 in August was 7,321 for the same 16-hour day. This is approximately half the figure that I have mentioned for the A.31 and the A.35. In 1966 there were 42 accidents on this road involving animals. This figure rose to 52 in 1967. and to 54 last year, which is more than half the rate at which accidents were running on the other two roads before they were finished. I do not pretend that the fencing of the A.337 will prevent further accidents involving animals within the Forest. There are other roads; but I do not think it is practical to fence these other roads. However, the fencing of the A.337 would indeed reduce the accidents.
At this point I should like to mention the helpful guidance that I have received from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Shackleton. He has, as I think your Lordships all know, a deep knowledge of the Forest and a very great love for it, and he played an important part in the proceedings of the New Forest Act 1964, and in his wisdom at that time during the proceedings he advocated that the A.337 should also be fenced. Clause 1 of this Bill follows very closely Section 4 of the New Forest Act, and it will enable the highway authority, the Hampshire County Council, to fence the A.337. That includes a number of safeguards relating to public access, amenity, the rights of the commoners, and so on, and I believe that the County Council are quite willing to exercise these powers.
I now go on to Clause 3. This clause enables the verderers, on a presentment, and with the agreement of the Forestry Commissioners, to take such steps as they consider necessary for the improvement of grazing on the open wastelands of the Forest. It would probably seem at first sight that this proposal is of no great

793
significance. In my view, however, it is a very important one, and, indeed, one which is vital for the preservation of the Forest in its present form. Our present difficulty regarding grazing arises in the following way—I have the detailed figures, but I will give your Lordships only the totals. In 1878, there were just over 6,000 animals grazing in the Forest; in 1884 there were just under 6,000. Two years ago, in 1967, the number was just under 5,000. So this rather indicates that the number of animals the Forest can support has not altered very much during this period. But I am sure your Lordships will realise that in those days of 1878, and indeed earlier, there was little grassland within the Forest, apart from what we call the natural lawns. Nevertheless, these animals had access to many thousands of acres of grass from the verges and from the banks of the lanes outside the Forest, and this lane-grazing outside the Forest was of enormous value in the early spring, after a hard winter. Moreover, of course, the pressure from the public hardly existed at that time.
During the last war large areas of the Forest were ploughed up and used for the growing of crops. After the war those areas were reseeded, and the animals were attracted to them in preference to the rough areas where, in the past, they had browsed on heather and bracken shoots and natural grasses; and to some extent their feeding habits changed. The very existence of these large reseeded grass areas has also attracted the public to the New Forest in ever-increasing numbers, and much damage by weight of numbers has been done to the pastures on which these animals have come to rely. The loss of the lane-side grazing has very much worsened the situation, and the unusually poor condition of the animals at the end of the last two winters illustrates the lack of adequate grazing. So your Lordships can see that, because of the damage done by mounting public pressure, or alternatively the steps which have had to be taken to minimise it, the commoners have lost the grazing they used to enjoy outside the Forest and they are now losing the benefit of a great deal of the grazing within the Forest.
We are, of course, concerned to see that the animals are maintained in good condition, and we are already taking steps
794
—last year and again this year—to remove large numbers of ponies which we consider cannot survive the winter without undue suffering. As a result, many commoners will have to provide winter keep elsewhere, and this may result in a proportion of them deciding that it is uneconomic to turn out animals in the Forest in the future. If a serious reduction in the number of animals depastured were to occur—and the verderers are very frightened that it may happen if nothing is done about it—there is no doubt that much of the Forest would, if not grazed, deteriorate to scrubland, and this would in turn result in a complete change in the character and ecology of the Forest.
So steps must be taken to improve the grazing available within the Forest. As 1 see it—and in this matter we have had tremendous help from the National Agricultural Advisory Service—this will take the form mainly of encouraging the growth of natural grasses by swiping coarse herbage and eradicating bracken, and by the application of fertiliser. There is absolutely no intention (and I want to emphasise this) of creating further large reseeded areas—in other words, of making the forest look like a large farm—because is is obvious that the commoners would eventually lose such areas to the public; but we intend rather to improve the rough areas and thus encourage forest animals to revert to their pre-war grazing habits and at the same time compensate them for what has been lost. It is for these reasons that I claim that this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill.
Clause 4, I think, is hardly less important. This clause amends Section 5 of the Countryside Act in such a way as to permit the Countryside Commission to give financial assistance to the verderers by way of grant or loan in respect of projects which have been approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. A project which we hope will find favour with the Countryside Commission and with the Minister is the improvement of grazing, about which I have already spoken. and also a scheme to meet various other expenses which verderers have to incur in order to deal with the problems caused by the public.
The verderers' income comes almost entirely from capitation fees in respect of animals turned out in the Forest. These fees are paid by the commoners. The

795
verderers, needless to say, are not alone in finding that their overhead expenses have increased very steeply in recent years. The verderers have had to incur continuing expenditure which is largely attributable to the rapidly-increasing public pressure. We have had to get shortwave radio equipment to facilitate the work of the agisters by placing them in direct contact with each other and with the police; and more recently the verderers, have appointed a full-time steward whose duties are, broadly speaking, the same as those of a warden in a national park.
I say frankly that without the services of the steward we could no longer carry out with any degree of efficiency our duties which involve the public. The greater part of his time is spent in dealing with matters that arise directly or indirectly from the various pressures on the Forest caused by the public. There is the educational side of his work. We have to teach motorists not to feed the ponies. Besides being damaging to their health, this practice also attracts the animals to the roadside where they are in danger from traffic. Feeding and petting animals can, moreover, be dangerous. We have had a number of accidents where bones have been broken as a result of a kick. We had one rather serious case where a child suffered a fractured skull because the ponies get spoiled and annoyed if they do not get the titbits they expect. The public have to be continually taught that it is wrong to draw the ponies on to the roadside by feeding from the cars.
Another aspect of the steward's work is to prevent, so far as possible, damage to the grass areas in the Forest by motorists driving their cars over the lawns. Again, the steward is responsible for the radio communication system that I mentioned. He also has to study the causes of accident "black spots", and is concerned with the taking of practical steps to reduce the number of accidents, such as cutting back bushes which grow close to the roadside and which may conceal animals. His duties are endless. As I have said, the verderers' income is mainly from the commoners, and it is obviously unfair to the commoners, who represent just one of several interests in the Forest, that they should carry the whole financial burden, particularly as I have explained that so much of the
796
verderers' expenditure is caused by public pressure, a matter over which the commoners have no control. One cannot go on increasing the marking fees progressively, because that would discourage people from depasturing their animals; and the gradual disappearance of the animals from the Forest would inevitably result in changes in the character and ecology of the Forest.
My Lords, it is possible that this clause may not provide a long-term solution to the problems of the verderers' finances, because these provisions were made in different circumstances in a Statute passed very nearly 100 years ago. However I hope that it will find favour. The remaining clauses of the Bill are important but ancillary to its main purposes. I do not think they call for any detailed explanation.
It would be a poor effort on my part if I did not express, before I sit down, the gratitude due for the tremendous assistance given by so many and so willingly in the production of this Bill. I should like to mention Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, at a rather cold and snowy time, spent a whole day in the Forest studying our problems and seeing for himself exactly what happens or does not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, Chairman of the Countryside Commission, has taken endless trouble to understand the difficult and virtually impossible position of the verderers, and her great experience in these matters has been of enormous help. She has given her valuable time quite unstintingly. In mid-summer Mr. John Mackie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spent a whole day in the Forest with the verderers. He, too, showed a complete understanding of our position.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have taken up too much time, and I must apologise for my voice. I thought it necessary to try to explain the Bill and the need for it. The New Forest is unique, and this legislation relating to it is also unique and, necessarily, perhaps, somewhat intricate. I commend the Bill to the House and trust that your Lordships will see fit to accord it an unopposed Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
10.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, at this late hour I am not going to speak at any length, but I should like to give my warm support to the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. We are all intensely grateful to him for introducing this Bill, all of us who love the New Forest. I must refrain from saying what I had intended to say, but I should like to pay a warm tribute to the Court of Verderers, newly constituted by the New Forest Act 1877, and again by the Act of 1949. It now consists of five elected verderers in addition to the five appointed verderers. I am well aware of the devotion and care with which they so conscientiously seek to fulfil their responsibilities in caring for the rights of the commoners, in promoting the welfare of animals and in preserving the amenities of the Forest.
I hope that your Lordships will encourage the verderers in their task by supporting this Bill. In many parts of the country to-day, not excluding South Hampshire, we are witnessing the spectacle of much lovely countryside being absorbed by urban and industrial development. How important it is that we should do all in our power to preserve for posterity a Forest which has been aptly described as a miraculous survival of pre-Norman England, this priceless heritage of our nation, including the ponies and cattle which are an essential part of its glory.
10.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, for the clear and persuasive way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, despite the condition of his voice, and for giving us the interesting background of the New Forest. I am almost inclined to describe this Bill as the latest New Forest Bill, as it is the third Bill we have had in ten years, and I judge from the list of speakers that it is perhaps the least controversial. I believe that the very fact that this is the third Bill is a tribute to the uniqueness of the Forest, which of course dates back to King Canute and spreads over 90,000 acres of Hampshire.
I would also pay tribute to the watchful concern and responsible attitude of the verderers as guardians of this remark-
798
able Forest. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, is not with us to-night, though perhaps he is not quite so sorry, for he piloted the 1964 Bill through this House with such skill. I am sure that he would approve of the main provisions of the Bill, which are a logical extension of the 1964 Act.
I suppose that in any Private Member's Bill of this nature, involving and affecting private rights—and in this case commoners' rights—the first consideration for this House must be to examine closely these rights to see whether or not any loss is being sustained. Under Clause 2 of this Bill, dealing with the proposed fencing of the A.337, there must be marginally an effect on the commoners' rights, as land, in this case road verges, is lost to grazing. But, as the noble Earl has said, no precedent is being caused by this, as both the 1949 and 1964 Acts cover the fencing of the other two major roads, and the advantage of Clause 2 to commoners was dramatically described by the noble Earl by the results achieved in the startling reduction of accidents to animals since the A.31 and A.35 have been fenced.
The balance as to the extent of any damage to commoners' rights under this Clause seems to be whether they value the roadside verge grazing of the A.337 higher than the risk of losing ponies straying on to the road. I presume from the Bill that the commoners accept the need for this fencing, which I am sure is welcome. My only concern with fencing, after listening to the noble Earl's description of the rate of progress of fencing the A.31, is that I hope that the fencing of the A.337 will not take 15 years to complete.
Turning to the provisions under Clause 3 of the Bill I am sure that all interested parties in the Forest would agree that the purpose of the clause is splendid—the improvement of grazing. In fact, it is so reasonable that one wonders why it had not been incorporated in previous Acts. I was very interested to learn from the noble Earl about the present stocking of the Forest and that it is virtually the same as in 1887. This is a tribute to the balanced policy of the verderers over the years, a policy that has remarkably preserved the character and ecology of the Forest over the generations.

799
I was also interested to learn that the verderers are actively engaged with the problem of seeing that cattle and ponies are maintained in proper condition, especially during the winter months. This goes a long way to answering certain adverse newspaper criticism of the conditions of ponies over the last two winters. In introducing this Bill, the noble Earl said that a large number of ponies will be removed this winter as they are considered unfit to survive the winter. Again, I think that this fact will be generally welcome.
At this late moment, perhaps I could briefly digress to a matter of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. though I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be replying. It is about the sister forest, the Forest of Dean.
The Forest of Dean has been less fortunate than the New Forest in the matter of Private Members' Bills. One could almost say that it has been neglected by the Government since the day they set up a Committee to report on it in 1956. That Committee reported in 1958 with some firm and important recommendations, particularly in regard to the rights of commoners. Since the Committee reported, the Report seems to have been firmly pigeon-holed, and by now even the recommendations could be out of date. Despite requests from the verderers of the Forest of Dean, the Government have allowed no time for a Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—particularly in view of the fact that this Forest does not come under Cromwell's registration Act—what action the Government intend to take on that Report, and why they indeed have taken no action all this time.
Returning to the New Forest Bill, I should like again to express my welcome to it and say that it is a Bill clearly designed for the future good of the New Forest, a concept I fully support, and I wish it a speedy and safe journey through Parliament.
10.42 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should first of all like to apologise on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Kennet. He had a very important engagement this
800
evening, and I confess I did not hesitate to persuade him to keep it, so that I might have the pleasure on behalf of the Government of speaking to the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury. I should like to congratulate him on his determination in speaking under such disabilities. I remember once losing my voice reading the lesson in chapel after leading some "rugger" forwards. I had just reached Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego in the fiery furnace, and at that point my voice went entirely. The noble Earl was of sterner stuff, and he kept going. I mention this because I know the noble Earl, having heard him speak on occasions in the New Forest, and he is a very eloquent and witty speaker.
He gave us the benefit (and it was right that he should) of a very full account of the purpose behind the Bill. I have participated myself in a Back-Bench capacity on some of the previous Bills, particularly the 1949 Act, and again on a Bill with the former Member for Parliament Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, who is an old ally and sometimes an adversary in these matters. We have to recognise that there are liable to be contentious issues, and I think it is a credit to all those who have been involved—whether they are the verderers or the former Member of Parliament or others—that this Bill (and I keep my fingers crossed!) looks like being the least controversial of them all. But in any relationship as sensitive as the relationship between the commoners, the Forestry Commission, the general public and the local authorities, there are bound to be difficulties.
It is very worth while to strive to solve any problems that assist in the preservation—and essentially the preservation in a living and active condition—of an area of such unique character as the New Forest. Of course, this uniqueness has led to all sorts of problems. I was interested, listening to the noble Earl, to hear echoes of earlier difficulties which were even then beginning to be apparent and which have grown into major problems, such as fencing the roads (I am speaking personally here); and I am interested to see the further extension of fencing to the A.337. Here again, I hope, no doubt like other noble Lords, that there will still remain many areas in the New Forest that remain unfenced. And it is

801
perhaps appropriate that we are discussing this Bill on a day when my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has been steering an Animals Bill in respect of which some of the more controversial aspects do not apply to the New Forest.
The unique popularity of the New Forest is, of course, a challenge to everyone, and it is right that the Countryside Commission recently set up should be in a position to provide the kind of cooperation that the noble Earl, as the Official Verderer, is seeking. The amount and the quality of the grazing have greatly deteriorated, and of course the existence of the ponies themselves can he threatened. I remember sometimes the controversies that went on concerning whether there should he more ploughing up and re-grassing of areas in the open Forest; that it might reduce the number of animals who would keep the scrubland at bay. But a firm case has been made by the noble Earl for the provisions in this Bill; for the steps that they hope to take.
I believe that the relationships between the verderers of the New Forest and the Forestry Commission are vital, and I think it is necessary for there to be a very good understanding. for we ought not to minimise the contribution that the Forestry Commission has made in the New Forest. and indeed to the welfare of the commoners—sometimes I think not always recognised. None the less, they have to live together there as much a part of the ecology of the New Forest as any other animal or person. Both bodies are alive to, and must face, the growing problems and pressures for public recreation which are at the root of the problem we are discussing to-day.
The Forestry Commission has given a good deal of thought to ways of coping with these pressures, and has already provided facilities for this purpose. The Commission's powers in this respect are set out in Section 23 of the Countryside Act. And Clause 1 of the Bill gives legislative effect to the assurance (to which the noble Earl referred) which my noble friend Lord Kennet gave, with the agreement of the Minister of Agriculture, in Committee during the passage of the Countryside Act.
802
As the noble Earl made clear, the verderers, and therefore the commoners themselves, are not merely playing an indirect part by helping to preserve and create the modern New Forest—the ancient and modern New Forest—but have also had to cope with problems imposed on them by the campers. The task now of improving the grazing is largely a problem of finance; and since questions of animal husbandry and welfare are not within the province of the Forestry Commission, it cannot help with them. The noble Earl has explained why the verderers are seeking help from national funds, and the solution under the Bill is to amend the Countryside Act 1968 so that Exchequer grant may be paid to the verderers towards projects approved by the Countryside Commission and by my right honourable friend.
During the passage of the Countryside Act there was some discussion about whether bodies such as the verderers should be included among those entitled to apply for grant. The view was then taken that the normal channel for grant should be local authorities. Despite this, the assistance which the verderers are now seeking does not seem to be obtainable through this means, and, on the basis that this is a special case and not a precedent, the Government support the Bill.
I listened very closely to what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. I dislike to have to say this to him, because I have said it before. But I really cannot, within our Rules of Order, deal with the Forest of Dean. I appreciate what he had to say. I do not doubt there will be further opportunities for discussing it, but unless he is advancing what he said as a reason for not giving support to this Bill, which I am sure is not his intention, I think it would be unwise for me to embark upon dealing with it. None the less, the point has been noted and no doubt there will be further opportunities to deal with it.
My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill has described the type of projects that the verderers have in mind. If the Bill becomes law, the Government will consider on its merits any application that is made for grant, and with that blessing, which I am able to give officially on behalf of Her

803
Majesty's Government, and personally from my own long association with the New Forest, I wish the Bill well and congratulate the noble Earl.
10.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, at this late hour I am sure that none of you wishes me to make another speech. I should, however, like to thank those who have taken part in this debate and who have helped me and listened to my painful voice. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that this time the Commoners Defence Association are very much in favour of this fencing. I thank most sincerely the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said, because I appreciate that he knows intimately most of what goes on in the Forest, and he understands the balance of it all. So far as the Forestry Commissioners are concerned, ever since I have been Official Verderer my intention has been that we should work as closely as possible together. A very good opportunity arrived earlier this year when the verderers, at their own expense, went to Holland to have a look at the problems of public pressure there, and I am delighted to tell your Lordships that the Deputy Surveyor, who had only recently been appointed, asked if he might accompany us. This was a wonderful opportunity for the Deputy Surveyor, the senior officer of the Forest, to get to know us
804
and for us to get to know him. I thought that was a very good beginning. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

  PICTURE LOANS TO OVERSEAS EMBASSIES
  PICTURE LOANS TO OVERSEAS EMBASSIES