Sitting of 13 February 1969

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

    Police (Recruitment)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rise of 6·7 per cent. in indictable offences in England and Wales during the first nine months of 1968 and of the shortages of manpower in many police forces, if he will now review his instructions to police authorities to limit from 1st April their recruitment to a small percentage of the vacancies at 31st March in their uniformed establishment.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I have authorised an increase of 2,000 police officers in England and Wales for the financial year 1969–70. This is twice the rate of increase authorised for this year.
    Sir G. Sinclair: How can the Home Secretary expect people to swallow that as an adequate Reply, especially in Surrey, where the increase in serious crime last year was 23·5 per cent.? Would he not agree that this limitation itself is an inhibiting factor on recruitment, because it tends to show that the Government do not have a proper priority for their basic responsibility of the fight against crime?
    Mr. Callaghan: That is a good party speech, but it does not represent the facts. It so happens that this figure will be larger, in terms of actual increase in strength, than for six out of the last eleven years, including some years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. I can claim to stand comparison with anything that the hon. Gentleman's party did as a Government in this matter. Of course, the overall strength of the service is much
    1540
    larger than it was then. If we get away from that kind of thing, we have to consider what the forces can do in the matter of recruitment, when keeping up their standards to establishment. I had a careful check made on that.
    Mr. Hogg: How far does the figure of 2,000 mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's original reply represent an increase on the policy previously announced under the economy measures? Will he not recognise that not only the increase in crime but also the duties in relation to the control of demonstrations and the discouraging effect of limitations on recruitment have to be taken into account in arriving at the proper figure?
    Mr. Callaghan: These figures do have to be taken into account. This simple figure neglects the fact that there will be 600 additional traffic wardens this year to relieve the police of some of their duties, and 1,000 additional civilians this year who will also relieve the police of some of their internal functions; so the figures can be out even more. These figures must be looked at in addition to the other figures. I have looked at a number of forces and, although it is not universally true, a number of them, if they manage to get the figures they have been allocated for this year, will do better than they have done for many years past, even when recruitment was unrestricted.

    Fireworks (Accidents)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of adults and children, respectively, who suffered serious or minor injury as a result of firework accidents in each of the years 1964 to 1968, inclusive; and if he will take steps to make it necessary to obtain a licence in order to purchase fire works.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The figures for 1968 are not yet available, but I hope to publish them shortly. The figures for 1964 to 1967 were given in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 7th March, 1968. I am not at present satisfied that there is a case for restricting the sale of fireworks to licensed purchasers.—[Vol. 760, c. 131–2.]
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that some attempt must be made to reduce the dreadful number of injuries due to this cause? Would he accept that the simple way to do this would be to confine fireworks to organised displays, so that firms or groups or individuals would have to obtain a licence to buy fireworks?
    Mr. Rees: I realise the problem. Between 1962 and 1967, the total number of casualties fell by nearly 30 per cent. and the total number of severer casualties fell by nearly 65 per cent., so we are making progress.
    Mr. Loveys: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that a very high proportion of these accidents are caused by home-made fireworks? What action is he taking to ensure that sodium chlorate is sold in a form which will make it less effective as an explosive compound?
    Mr. Rees: I will have a look at that last point. I do not think that a large number of accidents are due to homemade fireworks. A proportion are, but most of them occur at firework parties at home.

    Minor Offences
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that many workers plead guilty to minor offences rather than plead not guilty and thus have to attend court and lose wages, he will introduce legislation to enable minor offenders who do not wish to appear in court to submit a written plea of not guilty together with their reasons for this plea.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): No legislation is necessary for this purpose; but if a defendant wishes to dispute the facts the court is unlikely to be able to reach a satisfactory decision without hearing oral evidence.
    Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend agree that if courts were encouraged to accept such a plea and if forms were issued enabling people to plead not guilty, it would considerably reduce the pressure in many magistrates' courts? Does he further agree that it would make the system more akin to justice in that
    1542
    there would be a reduction in the tendency for industrial workers to plead guilty to avoid losing a day's pay?
    Mr. Morgan: I do not think my hon. Friend can have understood the position. At present it is open to a defendant to do no more than write to the court, giving his reasons for pleading not guilty. It is inevitable that the court will take into account that such evidence has not been given on oath and the defendant has not been subject to cross-examination.
    Mr. Carlisle: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although an accused man might not lose a day's work, all the prosecution witnesses would have to give up a day's work merely because the accused had decided to put in a written dispute of the charge?
    Mr. Morgan: I would not dispute that.

    Demonstrations
    Mr. Joplingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to designate a large open space such as part of Wimbledon Common or Richmond Park to be equipped with full Press and television facilities, and to be used for demonstrations, so that both police and property can be less subject to frequent disorderly attacks.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jopling: No one wants to stop demonstrations, but why should police, visitors to London and property-owners be subject to hustling and violence every Sunday? Is not the time coming when these demonstrations must be put in places where people are not put to inconvenience but where they can have full publicity?
    Mr. Callaghan: I always associate Wimbledon and Richmond with tennis and polo, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to have demonstrations up in the Lake District no doubt he will put in a bid. However, I feel that we cannot very easily order people where they are to demonstrate.
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

    1543
    will now cause an inquiry to be made into methods for the better personal protection of police engaged in the maintenance of law and order during political protests, marches, demonstrations, or civil commotions or disorders.
    Mr. Callaghan: I keep these matters under review in consultation with chief officers of police and do not think any special inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Ogden: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that the standard police helmets help to identify rather than protect, and that the police officer who was injured in the Grosvenor Square demonstration would have been less severely injured if he had been wearing a standard crash helmet rather than his rather stupid police helmet? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that crash-type helmets are available to police in such circumstances?
    Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but there is a serious matter for consideration in relation to distinguishing the particular type of police who are dealing with these demonstrations. The Commissioner's view, which I share at the moment, is that this should be regarded as the duty of the ordinary policeman and the public are expected to respond in the corresponding manner. If they do not, as I have said on many occasions, I trust that the courts will take due note of what has happened.

    Parliamentary Boundaries Commissions (Reports)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to receive the reports of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commissions.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Commissions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will submit their reports before November, 1969.
    Mr. Ridley: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the article in the Sunday Times saying that he had decided firmly and irrevocably not to implement the Commissions' reports? As this would be grossly improper, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny it and say that he has every intention of implementing them as soon as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that if he had attempted to put that question on the Order Paper he would not have been allowed to do so because neither he nor I is expected to comment on Press reports.
    Mr. Hogg: Surely the Secretary of State is now in a position to give an assurance that he will implement his statutory duty to put into effect the Boundaries Commissions' reports as soon as may be and, in any event, before the next General Election?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be well aware that I am aware of my statutory obligations.
    Sir D. Renton: It is six years since various county boundary changes were made affecting the counties of Huntingdon, Peterborough, Cambridge, the Isle of Ely, Bedford and Northampton. There are certain non-controversial Parliamentary boundary changes which should follow as a matter of course. How long will those Parliamentary boundary changes be held up?
    Mr. Callaghan: I shall consider the matter when I receive the Commissions' reports.
    Mr. Ogden: Since there may well be wide changes made in local government boundaries in the very near future, would it not be foolish to base Parliamentary boundaries on present local government boundaries?
    Mr. Callaghan: I note that there seem to be opposing views on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In view of the delay in the reorganisation of Welsh local government boundaries, may I have an assurance that the same delay will not happen when the right hon. Gentleman has the report of the Welsh Commission on Parliamentary Boundaries?
    Mr. Callaghan: The Act clearly lays down my obligations, and until I am relieved of those obligations they will have to be carried out. If I have any proposals to be relieved of them, I will bring them to the House.
    Mr. Blackburn: Might not my right hon. Friend have some difficulty in carrying out the Opposition's wishes, because

    1545
    I understand that they are preparing for an election this October?
    Mr. Callaghan: Election considerations would never enter my mind.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's last reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Leave to Appeal (Application)
    Mr. Tinnasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the action of his Department which caused the delay in the hearing of an application for leave to appeal about which the hon. Member for Cleveland first wrote to him on 11th September, 1968.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Home Office was not responsible for this regrettable delay, which, as has been explained to my hon. Friend, occurred because the trial papers were not sent promptly to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals by the clerk of the peace. I am informed that the clerk has taken steps to prevent similar delays in future. My right hon. Friend has recently reminded all clerks of assize and clerks of the peace that every effort should be made to expedite the supply of trial papers to the Registrar.
    Mr. Tinn: I welcome that reply and the action which has been taken. Which Minister is responsible for the actions of clerks of the peace? Apparently the Lord Chancellor is not. My constituent might well have been detained unnecessarily for four months had his appeal been upheld purely as a result of mistakes in the office of the clerk of the peace.
    Mr. Morgan: The Home Secretary does not appoint clerks of the peace and they are not answerable to him for the conduct of their business. However, he has a concern in the efficient administration of justice and, for this reason, he has sent the circular referred to in the Answer.

    Escalators (Safety)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce regulations governing the provision of warning notices
    1546
    in connection with escalators installed in stores and other public places.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend has no power to make such regulations, but the associations concerned have agreed to recommend to their members that suitable warning notices should be displayed on all escalators in departmental stores and multiple shops. I understand that the London Transport Board intends to take similar action where appropriate in Underground stations.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of children have had to have legs or feet amputated as a result of soft-soled shoes getting caught in the side of escalators? The situation is aggravated by the fact that invariably they are advised to hold on to the rail, which means that they have their feet in the most dangerous position. Has the hon. Gentleman drawn attention to this?
    Mr. Rees: We are aware of this matter and are discussing it with various bodies. The existing statutory powers relating to escalators come under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which was passed for a different purpose. We are doing all that we can to help.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce regulations governing the safety of escalators in stores and other public places.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: My right hon. Friend has no power to make such regulations. But a British Standard dealing with lifts and escalators is expected at the end of April, and if this introduces any new safeguards for members of the public my Department will do all it can to see that these are adopted.
    Mr. Goodhew: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of seeking powers to make these accidents notifiable so that the size of the problem may be assessed? Also, has he considered requiring micro-switches to be installed so that the machinery cuts out the moment that there is an obstacle in the way?
    Mr. Rees: I do not think that there is need for action on the first part of the supplementary question, but I will look

    1547
    at the matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the last part, which I will pass on to our scientific advisers.

    Mr. Fahrner (Entry Permit)
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he allowed a foreign visitor to enter this country on the sole condition that he undertook not to study Scientology during part of his stay.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Fahrner was refused leave to land in accordance with the statement made to the House on 25th July, 1968. Subsequently he said that he had reasons for coming here other than the study of Scientology, and he was granted leave to land for two weeks. This took a considerable time and accounted for the delay Mr. Fahrner experienced at the airport. He left the country the following day.
    Dr. Gray: Is it not absurd to prohibit adults visiting this country to study Scientology or any other philosophy or religion? More importantly, as the whole matter is sub judice and the subject of investigation by a committee, should not my hon. Friend be impartial and lift all bans on Scientologists visiting this country meanwhile?
    Mr. Rees: No, Sir.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can it seriously be said that Scientology is a religion, and are there not hundreds of parents who have been very upset that their children have been sucked into Scientology, have wasted money and been mentally upset?
    Mr. Rees: An inquiry is taking place to answer these philosophical questions.

    Fireman Liptrott (Death)
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the representations made to him regarding the operation of the 1968 Amendment Order to the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order, 1966, following the death of Fireman Liptrott of Bolton in April, 1968, while trying to rescue three children from a gas-filled cavity at Brackley Colliery.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Discussions have taken place with the representatives of
    1548
    the local authority associations and of the fire service associations at a meeting of the Joint Pensions Committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils. The matter is now being considered.
    Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend say if the municipal corporations and the Fire Brigades Union gave approval to the 1968 Amendment Order? If so, does not the approval of such a restricted range of qualifications show remarkable lack of foresight?
    Mr. Rees: Agreement was reached, but I would rather offer no comment on it. It is being discussed at the moment.

    Crowd Control
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces on riot control.
    Mr. Callaghan: There is standing machinery for discussion of operational matters of this kind between the Home Office and chief officers of police; but the general answer to my hon. Friend's Question is that, with my approval, the police have no intention of departing from their traditional methods when dealing with crowds and demonstrations.
    Mr. Judd: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread admiration throughout the world, as well as in this country, for the record of the British police in crowd control, and will he continue to assure the police that the House will support them if they resist all temptation to take short cuts which are likely to become counter-productive.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He has expressed a general view which is held not only in this country but outside. There are at the Police College courses for senior officers, which cover public order and the control of demonstrations. All officers in the Metropolitan Police district are given special training, and my hon. Friend may assume that they are well aware of the manner in which it is our general conclusion that they can best control the unruly minority who try their patience so sorely.
    Mr. Clegg: Is the Home Secretary fully satisfied that the police have all the legal powers they need to deal with

    1549
    riots and disturbances on private property, in particular within the precincts of universities and other educational establishments?
    Mr. Callaghan: That is another question. There are difficult matters concerning the law of trespass, but I am not persuaded that the police need any more powers to enter upon universities, nor am I satisfied that this is the best manner of handling that situation.

    Gaming (Overseas Investments)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to control the increase of United States investment in gambling in Great Britain.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Gaming Act, 1968, provides that no one may apply for a licence to promote commercial gaming except with the consent of the Gaming Board, which must first be satisfied of his trustworthiness, taking into account his financial backing. One of the objects is to exclude investment from undesirable sources, whether here or overseas.
    Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he will specifically refute the allegations in the Wall Street Journal last November that American gangsters were planning big investments in British gambling and assure the House that, whatever may be the pressures in terms of the balance of payments and so on, we shall continue to exercise the strictest possible control?
    Mr. Callaghan: The Exchange Control Regulations provide us with an appropriate way of ensuring liaison between the Treasury and myself on questions of foreign investment and gambling. On the allegations about the Mafia, I obviously have no idea what they are planning, but if they were to try to establish a foothold here, there are many weapons in our armoury for repelling that undesirable organisation.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread anxiety that he should bring in the Regulations and use his powers under the recent Act, as there is widespread uncertainty as to the future, which uncertainty can only be dispelled by the
    1550
    exercise of those powers in a clear manner.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, but I do not think that that has any relationship to the original question.

    Aliens
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the total number of aliens admitted to the United Kingdom with or without work permits in 1967 and 1968 compare with the figures of 48,878 in 1965 and 48,637 in 1966.
    Mr. Callaghan: The figures quoted by the hon. Member refer to aliens admitted with work permits. Comparable figures for 1967 and 1968 are 45,867 and 45,142, respectively.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman relate the number of permits granted to the capacity of this country to assimilate aliens or to the number of applications which he receives?
    Mr. Callaghan: The permits are issued in accordance with a request either from those who wish to come here or from employers in this country who wish to employ them. Apart from that, there is no limitation, except the limitation of time that has been put on them.

    Immigrants
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in cases where immigrants holding vouchers have been accompanied or been followed by dependants, what is the maximum number of dependants which have been admitted for one such voucher holder in each of the last three years; and what is the average number of dependants admitted for voucher holders with dependants in these years.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not possible to answer the first part of the hon. Member's Question. But the figures suggest that about three dependants have entered for each voucher holder, their entry being spread over eight to 10 years.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: What does the Home Office consider to be a dependant in relation to the directness or remoteness of relationship?
    Mr. Rees: This comes in the Regulations and in the Act. The main dependants are the wife and children under the age of 16. In certain cases on compassionate grounds children between 16 and 18 may be included, but principally children under 16 and the wife are the main dependants.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many would-be immigrants were refused entry into the United Kingdom in 1968 and returned to the country of their origin; what was the cost to public funds of their return fares; and what estimates he has made for 1969.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In 1968, 4,060 aliens and 2,570 Commonwealth citizens were refused admission to the United Kingdom. The cost of repatriation is met from public funds in only a small number of cases. In 1968 the cost was £16,500, and I expect expenditure in 1969 to be of the same order.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Office is now making progress with the examination of the admissibility of these people at the point of departure instead of at the point of arrival and how soon we may expect some progress in that important reversal of procedure?
    Mr. Rees: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this refers to aliens as well as to Commonwealth citizens. We are looking very closely into this concerning Commonwealth citizens. But concerning aliens, visas would be involved if the hon. Gentleman's plan were taken up. Visas have been abolished in Europe by most countries for the last 20 years, and it would be regarded as a retrograde steps to reintroduce visas in a Europe which has become freer.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much has been paid out from public funds in the last year, say, to help immigrants already here who wish to go home?
    Mr. Rees: That is not my responsibility. The hon. Gentleman should put down that Question to the Department of Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
    1552
    he will seek to arrange for trained teams of officials to test the applications of immigrants in their countries of origin instead of when they arrive at ports and airports in Great Britain.
    Mr. Callaghan: Posts overseas in the main Commonwealth centres of immigration to the United Kingdom are already staffed to assess applications for entry certificates. Every effort has been made to publicise the desirability of immigrants applying for certificates. If the hon. Member has it in mind that certificates should be made compulsory, I would refer him to what I said in the Expiring Laws Continuance debate on 13th November.
    Mr. Fisher: Surely it would be more efficient and more humane to test these applications at source than to keep a lot of people hanging about the ports and airports of this country and perhaps having to repatriate them at more expense, and disappointment to themselves, if their applications are not successful?
    Mr. Callaghan: On the surface that seems an attractive argument until one penetrates it further. There are many difficulties. I am not sure that it would be either to our advantage or to the advantage of those coming here. I repeat my previous suggestion that, as this is a detailed administrative matter, I should like a body, like the Select Committee which has been set up with the agreement of the House, to go into the question. I am not yet satisfied that administratively this would be an improvement. There is no issue of principle here, and if it could be proved to work I should certainly consider it.

    South Vietnamese N.L.F. Delegate (Visa)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's present policy towards granting permission for the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front representatives to attend the Easter meeting of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
    Mr. Callaghan: A United Kingdom visa will on application be granted for this purpose to Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, a member of the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front Delegation in Paris.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that many people will be extremely pleased by the statement which he has made, as many of us have felt that the exclusion of N.L.F. representatives from entering Britain was totally unjustifiable?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, I am aware that these views will be widely held. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House some time ago that anyone who is prepared to come here to make a positive contribution to peace in Vietnam would be encouraged, and I trust that this lady is coming for that purpose.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the Home Secretary recall that when previous applications for visas have been made by members of the N.L.F. or people from North Vietnam these have been refused by the Home Office? How has he arrived at this decision which, although very welcome, conflicts with those made on previous occasions?
    Mr. Callaghan: Because there has been a change of circumstances which may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman.

    State-owned Licensed Premises
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the profits of the State-owned licensed premises in Carlisle and Scotland have declined from £284,281 in 1963–64 to £186,896 in 1967–68; and what steps he is asking to reverse the trend.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Since 1963 there has been a progressive increase in costs, which, in pursuance of Government policy, have not been fully passed on to the consumer. There is constant search for improvement in the efficiency and profitability of State management.
    Mr. Baker: Does not the Minister agree that State-owned pubs are a very bad investment for the British taxpayer, since their profits go down while the profits of private brewers and pubs go up? From his answer, do I take it that the lucky citizens of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty are enjoying subsidised beer prices?
    Mr. Rees: What it means is that they get cheaper beer because they drink beer from State concerns.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the profits would have been much greater had not so much money been ploughed back in improving the State management schemes for hotels and pubs?
    Mr. Rees: Yes, a great deal of investment is taking place.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will sell the licensed premises owned by the State in Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: This suggestion does not commend itself either to my right hon. Friend or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister not recognise that State pubs are the last sacred red cows of Socialism, and would it not be better to sell them and spend the proceeds on better schools, hospitals and roads?
    Mr. Rees: Mr. David Lloyd George of the day would be very surprised to find himself cast as the progenitor of a Socialist red cow, but we think that they are a good investment and provide a good service.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Will not my lion. Friend confirm that all previous Tory Home Secretaries have refused to denationalise the State pubs, and is not this good evidence that they should continue as they are?
    Mr. Rees: One other factor to take into account is that there is little doubt that private enterprise would shut down the brewery at Carlisle, which would add to the unemployment problem.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main reason why the Conservative Party did not denationalise these pubs was that the local Conservative hon. Members represented to the Ministers involved that the likely increase in the cost of beer might lose them their seats?
    Mr. Rees: It is true that some politicians are two faced.
    Mr. Hogg—
    Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman raises what I think is his point of order now, he will prevent his right hon. and learned Friend intervening from the Front Bench.
    Mr. Hogg: While accepting from the Under-Secretary of State that the true progenitor of this scheme was Mr. David Lloyd George, will he not recognise that, quite apart from the question of private enterprise against public enterprise, the central Government are not necessarily the best controllers of a few localised pubs in a given district and that there are alternative ways in which they could be organised without prejudice to employment in Carlisle?
    Mr. Rees: I agree that public ownership has many forms.
    Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly Socialist doctrinaire Answers that those supplementary questions have received—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.
    Mr. Baker: I would beg leave to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter after the Conservatives have won the next General Election.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what the Chair says.

    Christmas Day
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the difficulties arising out of Christmas being celebrated in mid-week, as occurred last year, whether he will consult with the churches and other interested bodies on the possibility of Christmas being celebrated on the last Sunday in December.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have no reason to believe that there is any widespread opinion in favour of a change in the traditional date.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Home Secretary aware that, since I made the suggestion in the New Year that Christmas
    1556
    might be celebrated on a Sunday, there has been considerable support for the idea? Is he further aware that the Churches have no theological objection, since it is agreed that Christ was not born on 25th December? Is he further aware that a lot of people consider that it would be more orderly to make Christmas Day a Sunday and so avoid the muddle which arises when it occurs in the middle of the week?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is not a matter of orderliness and, whatever support the hon. Gentleman may have secured from outside, he has only 13 signatures to his Motion, which does not suggest that there is much demand in this House for a change. As for the Churches, I have had no initiatives coming from them and, in view of the length of time that it has taken to try to make a fixed Easter, I do not think that I want to embark on this one until we have settled that one.
    Mr. Tinn: Nevertheless, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind entirely to this suggestion because, if the idea were properly canvassed, there might be a good deal of support for it, not least amongst housewives.
    Mr. Callaghan: If I am to judge from what happens in my own household, a housewife counts the number of days for which she has to prepare without the shops being open. I do not know whether deciding on a fixed day would make much difference to that. I would not like to encourage any thought that we could embark upon this suggestion. Our experience in attempting to get a fixed Easter must make anyone chary of attempting to get this one through, too.

    Constitutional Commission
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise that the terms of reference of the Commission on the Constitution should include consideration of the possible reduction in the numbers of Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Callaghan: The terms of reference would not rule out a recommendation on this point as a consequence of other recommendations the Commission might make.
    Mr. Marten: In view of the developments which might take place in both

    1557
    regional and local government, does not the Home Secretary think that there is some merit in the proposition, particularly if regional governments could take some of the work load off Whitehall?
    Mr. Callaghan: As I said in my original Answer, if these recommendations were considered by the Commission, this point might arise when it was discussing any consequential alterations. As regard the hon. Gentleman's general point, I dare say that we could all think of hon. Members whom we would be better without.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that one of the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission will be to consider whether, as a great percentage of our legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland, it is desirable to have 12 hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies voting on matters which do not concern them?
    Mr. Callaghan: Having set up the Commission, I think that we should now allow it to get to work on the problems themselves, without expressing our views on the question, at any rate officially as a Government. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain O'Neill, has agreed to the establishment of a panel to consider the constitutional relationships between Northern Ireland and this country, and I have no doubt that the Commission will want to examine what he has to say on the matter.

    CS Smoke
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to issue to police forces fragmentation grenades, containing CS gas, designed to break into separate jet-propelled elements, which will slide along the ground at speed towards a crowd.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Good.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study his forensic department are making of the effect of CS gas on the old, the
    1558
    weak, the young, and the pregnant; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I would look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for scientific advice about the effect of CS smoke.
    Mr. Dalyell: In fact, might not this be counter-productive if used?
    Mr. Morgan: I am afraid that the subtlety of my hon. Friend's supplementary question escapes me. I should explain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence arranged some time ago for further laboratory tests to be carried out. The results have not yet been fully analysed, but I understand that their trend so far has not disclosed any grounds for disquiet about the use of CS smoke in the strictly limited circumstances contemplated by the police, to deal with armed beseiged criminals and violently insane persons.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Rather than considering gas or grenades for the police, would the hon. Gentleman consider bringing in regulations to implement their pay settlement which was fixed on 12th September and for which they have been waiting for three months?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of Questions.

    s.s. "Richard Montgomery" (Protection)
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the precautionary measures taken by his Department in investigating and frustrating a plan by students from a northern university or universities to interfere with the wreck of the s.s. "Richard Montgomery", off Sheerness; if he will call for reports from the relevant police authorities on the cost to public funds of the steps they took in the same matter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Home Office was not involved. The Chief Contable of Kent has informed me that the cost to public funds of the measures taken by his force will be about £125 it the overtime performed is all compensated by overtime pay rather than time off.
    Mr. Boston: Would my hon. Friend accept that this was a thoroughly

    1559
    irresponsible exploit which, including yesterday's Answers, has cost a total of over £750 as well as causing considerable inconvenience to the police and other bodies? Would he further accept that the police, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Defence and other bodies acted with commendable speed in dealing with this, and would he confirm that, so long as the extensive safety measures are observed and the wreck is not interfered with, there is no cause for anxiety?
    Mr. Morgan: I agree with those remarks. Since there may be anxiety on this question, I should explain that, from the time that the activities of this group of students became known, the wreck was under constant observation by radar, a patrol boat of the Medway Conservancy Board and a police launch. On 3rd January a team of naval divers from H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth, examined the wreck and reported that it had not been interferred with in any way.
    Mr. Braine: Is the hon Gentleman aware that, with over 1,400 tons of T.N.T. in its holds, this wreck constitutes a serious hazard not merely to Sheerness but to the community on the Essex side of the Thames? Is he further aware that over a year ago local authorities were told that the Government were examining the possibility of a scheme for putting down a protective barrier by means of block ships? Can we have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that he will co-ordinate the various Government Departments concerned to get some decision on this?
    Mr. Morgan: I will give that undertaking.

    St. Paul's Cathedral (Disturbances)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent recurrence of the disorders which occurred at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1969.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the City of London and the Cathedral authorities.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has the Home Office had conversations with these bodies about the disturbance which took place, which were manifestly against the public in-
    1560
    terest, and have steps been taken to prevent them occurring in the future?
    Mr. Morgan: No, Sir. This is not a matter for the Home Office. But a request was made by the Cathedral authorities to the City of London Police. If such a request were made again in the future, I am certain that it would be considered.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is there not something very wrong with a law which makes it illegal for one citizen to call another "Nigger" but quite in order to call him "Roman scum", which was, I think, the expression?
    Mr. Morgan: That is very much wider than the scope of the Question. Proceedings in this case were taken under Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, 1860, which is appropriate to cover the case.

    Foreign Missions (Protection)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking in view of the attack on South Africa House on 12th January to protect embassies and high commissions from violence.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is well aware of the duty under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, to protect foreign missions in this country and will take any action necessary for this purpose.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that Answer that the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that episodes similar to that mentioned in the Question will not be permitted in future?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the previous Questions and Answers that have been given on this matter.

    Drugs (Offences)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance arising out of the Report of the Committee on Cannabis under Lady Wootton of Abinger that he will not circularise magistrates advising on sentencing policy on drugs offences.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from that highly satisfactory Answer that Press statements to the effect that the courts would be expected to be guided by this Report are wholly unfounded?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am not fully cognisant of what the courts will take account, but I have no doubt that they will maintain their well-known independence on this as on other subjects.

    Cinemas (Usherettes)
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of usherettes is required by regulation to be present in cinemas; and when were the regulations last revised.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations require at least one attendant in the auditorium for every 250 people (or part of that number) present. In addition there must be at least one attendant on any floor or tier where up to 100 persons are present and two attendants on any floor or tier where more than 100 persons are present. The regulations relating to these matters were last revised in 1955.
    Mr. Silvester: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the changes taking place in the growth of multiple cinemas on the same site and as films are no longer inflammable, the time has come to review these regulations?
    Mr. Rees: We will certainly look into it, but safety comes before economy.

    Drugs
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he intends to take to warn young people of the dangers of drug dependence, particularly on soft drugs and cannabis.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Home Office has begun talks about this question with the Health Education Council which has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Serivces.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that, besides young people, parents, too, need guidance about the recognition of symptoms in young people who are on
    1562
    drugs, and will he take urgent steps to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Morgan: I will certainly bear that in mind. I should, however, say that publicity about drug dependence must be very carefully handled if it is not to be counter-productive.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to make sure that information is based on facts, not on pure romance?
    Mr. Morgan: Yes, I accept that.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As one who has seen young people recovering from the effects of cannabis and other soft drugs in remand homes, will the Under-Secretary make it clear to both parents and children that the effects flowing from these soft drugs are much longer-lasting than the effects, say, from alcohol.
    Mr. Morgan: The view put forward by the hon. Gentleman endorses what was said in the debate on cannabis in this House a fortnight ago.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet President de Gaulle to discuss Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit President de Gaulle.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 17th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 357.]
  Mr. Ridley: Will the Foreign Secretary ask the French whether economic weakness is still a bar to membership of the European Economic Community? If so, will he ask them whether they intend to continue as members?
  Mr. Stewart: The view to which the hon. Member refers has been expressed by the French Government. I do not

  1563
  know that they have said anything to retract it. But I do not think that making the riposte that the hon. Gentleman suggests would necessarily help matters.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make representations to General de Gaulle, when next they meet, about the havoc wrought by the French State in the national life and language of Brittany and about the torture of Breton Nationalists in French gaols? Will he urge the Prime Minister to cry from the steps of the Elysee "Breiz dishaul, Llydaw rydd, Bretogne libre"?
  Mr. Stewart: This advice is all very interesting, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Prime Minister's suggested journey is any longer necessary? Is it not obvious that we have abandoned the attempt to get into the Community through the front door and that we are now trying to get in through the tradesmen's entrance?
  Mr. Stewart: As has been made clear many times it is our determination, and the view of all parties in the House, that we should persist with our application for entry.
  Concerning the Prime Minister's suggested journey, the Answer to which I referred, which my right hon. Friend gave in December, was to the effect that he has no plans to make such a visit at present.
  Mr. Heath: Whilst we appreciate the Foreign Secretary answering Questions here today, may I ask whether he can tell the House why he is not in his rightful place taking part in discussions on European unity in Bonn?
  Mr. Stewart: Partly because I am here to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question.

  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in his discussions for a meeting with the President of the United States of America.
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if dates have now been finalised for his meeting with the President of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to seek an opportunity to discuss with the President of the United States of America the problems of world finance and world trade.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer to the answer my right hon. Friend gave on Tuesday to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).—[Vol. 777, c. 289–90.]
  Sir Knox Cunningham: While the whole country welcomes with real pleasure the visit of the President to this country, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he can say if it is true that at this stage a visit by the Prime Minister to Washington was not welcomed?
  Mr. Stewart: No. That seems a very silly statement by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he is pleased that President Nixon is coming here.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: I am very pleased.
  Mr. Stewart: It is nice to find that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about something.
  Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the feelings of many people in this country about the protracted negotiations in Paris to seek a peace solution in Vietnam, and will he offer his help? Will my right hon. Friend also draw the attention of the President of the United States to the deep feelings in this country about our apparently having to be compelled to associate ourselves with the vulgar régime in Greece?
  Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that Vietnam will be one of the subjects discussed and that we shall be discussing the problems of N.A.T.O. I think we are all concerned that the fastest progress should be made in the Paris talks and if at any time our position as co-Chairman enables us to help in this matter we shall certainly do so.
  Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister that any joint initiative such as suggested by the Atlantic Trade Study Group towards a solution of the world's trade and finance problems would meet with general support in the country?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall convey that view to the Prime Minister. These matters are a topic of continuing importance both for the United States and for ourselves, and we shall be glad to have an exchange of views with the new President.
  Mr. Boston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an excellent thing that this meeting is taking place so speedily? Does he also agree that the speech last week by President Nixon in favour of encouraging freer trade is very welcome indeed, and does not this lend support to the idea that more consideration should be given to alternatives such as the Atlantic free trade proposal?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not accept the implication at the end of my hon. Friend's question, but I am glad that he referred to President Nixon's recent speech, which has been welcomed everywhere.

  COMMON MARKET PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to visit the Prime Ministers of the Common Market countries.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend is at this moment in Germany for discussions with the Federal German Chancellor and he has no plans at present to visit other Heads of Government of Common Market countries.
  Mr. Marten: But, in the meantime, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be totally wrong for us to seek to isolate France by creating new institutions without her? Is not this virtually what the Government are trying to do by holding this meeting under Western European guise, from which France is being isolated?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It has never been our desire to isolate the French
  1566
  from any of these discussions, but we have had to take the view that we cannot abstain from any kind of co-operation in Europe solely because the French are not able to come with us.
  Mr. Henig: Accepting that there is no chance of Britain's entry into Europe without the agreement of France, should not a very high place now be given on his right hon. Friend's agenda to the highest possible level meeting with the French Government?
  Mr. Stewart: It is true that no nation can enter the E.E.C. without the agreement of all those who are already in. Although it is the French objection which blocks our entry, this is not a matter solely for bilateral discussions between the French and ourselves. This is something which affects the whole of Western Europe.
  Sir C. Osborne: As the French Government show no sign of withdrawing their opposition to our entering the Common Market, would not it be more dignified if we were to withdraw our application, and stop seeking to get in on our knees?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that that makes sense. The decision by this House to seek entry to the Common Market was taken after very full debate, and by an overwhelming majority of the House, and for solid reasons. Those reasons are still valid.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Would not it be more constructive to invite the Common Market Prime Ministers for a lengthy stay here, so that they and their camp followers can enjoy the advantage of lower food prices, and we can discuss here the need for a West German signature to the non-proliferation treaty?
  Mr. Stewart: There are a great many channels through which we can, and do, keep in touch with the Governments of all the Common Market countries, and, as I said, my right hon. Friend is at present in Germany discussing these matters and the ones to which my hon. Friend referred with the German Chancellor.
  Mr. Heath: On the question of political discussions, can the right hon. Gentleman clear up what the Prime Minister failed to elucidate last Tuesday, and that is the question of the real position about

  1567
  the discussion on the Middle East situation? Is it not a fact that this was on the agenda for ministerial discussion, but that no discussion took place? What were the British Government hoping to achieve by having it discussed at a lower level in London at a separate meeting which would obviously embarrass the French?
  Mr. Stewart: The matter was down for ministerial discussion at Luxembourg, and was discussed, but, as I said, in the Luxembourg discussions the time for discussing this matter was so limited that we felt there would be an advantage, in view of the forthcoming Four Power meeting, to have a fuller opportunity to consult our friends in Europe. I can see no reason why this should isolate the French. We would welcome their participation in this.

  EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COLLABORATION
  Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister what initiatives he intends to take in the next few months with Heads of Governments of European Economic Community countries concerning European scientific and technological collaboration.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing at present to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on this subject in reply to supplementary questions by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the 16th of December.—[Vol. 775, c. 861–2.]
  Mr. Moonman: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes absurd for hon. Members to say that we are either crawling, or jumping, into the front or back door of Europe, when the real issue is whether we can collaborate on research and development with other European countries to establish industries of innovation like oceanography, and a common procurement policy?
  Mr. Stewart: I think that that is so, and technology is one of the fields in which we can proceed with useful cooperation with European countries, as indeed we are doing.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Government reconcile their fine words about the importance of European scientific and technological discussions, with their discreditable actions in matters such as the future of E.L.D.O. and C.E.R.N., and give some indication of the willingness of the Government to discuss, perhaps through the Council, or a Committee of the Council, of Europe, the possibility of setting up a European Technological Institute?
  Mr. Stewart: Opportunities for that last suggestion may arise. As to E.L.D.O. and C.E.R.N., we made clear our reasons for this, that we do not believe it serves the interests of European technological co-operation to concentrate resources on projects which have not the viability or the justification, but we are concerned with practical forms of cooperation. We participate in the European Centre for Nuclear Research, and today we are signing the agreement setting up the European Molecular Policy Conference.

  AFRICA (CITIZENS OF ASIAN ORIGIN)
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister what proposals were made by him during the Commonwealth Conference to Presidents Obote, Kaunda and Nyerere in the matter of their policy regarding British citizens of Asian origin in these countries; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to the report my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the House on the 21st of January following the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Meeting.—[Vol. 776, c. 249–64.]
  Mr. King: Will the Government press our point of view in this matter, and use all possible diplomatic means—and there are many at our disposal—to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there was some discussion on this matter with a number of Governments at the time of, though not as part of the proceedings of, the

  1569
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It is now a matter for bilateral discussions, which are proceeding.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (CONVENTION)
Mr. ThorpeQ9. Mr. Thorpe asked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government now plans to ratify the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
I am glad to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have decided that the United Kingdom shall ratify this Convention. The Instrument of Ratification will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the very near future.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will give pleasure in many parts of the House, and will command widespread support? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act infringes Article 5 of the Convention which says that every State shall ensure the right of a national to return to his own country, and indeed his own right of nationality?
Mr. Stewart: We are satisfied that the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, both of them, do not infringe this Convention, and we shall make this point clear at the time of our ratification.
Mr. Whitaker: Does the ratification apply to territory of Rhodesia of which we are the legal Government, and what steps are the Government taking to see that it is correctly applied there?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend knows that this is part of the general Rhodesian problem. At present Rhodesia in in the hands of an unlawful régime. We are not in a position to establish the human rights that we would wish to maintain in that country.
Mr. Evelyn King: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many other Commonwealth countries have ratified or are ratifying this Convention?
Mr. Stewart: Not without notice.
Mr. Howie: Can we have an assurance that our ratification of this Convention will be binding on the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can give that assurance.
Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what effect ratification in these circumstances has? It does not make the Convention part of our domestic law. Does it make it part of anything else?
Mr. Stewart: The way these things work is as follows. In international gatherings, Conventions of this kind are drafted and argued about. They set up standards of conduct which some nations manage to attain while others are on their way. It is because these standards are set up that we and other countries then carefully examine our practices to see that we are in line with the civilised world. That is what it is all for.

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, 17TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.
Motions on Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Denmark, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain and Swaziland.
TUESDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY, and WEDNESDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—Further progress on the Committee stage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill and the Luton Corporation Bill for consideration.

1571
Prayer on the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, and a Motion on the Dawley New Town (Designation) Amendment (Telford) Order.
FRIDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill.
Mr. Heath: Last Thursday, the Leader of the House undertook to have discussions, through the usual channels, about the debate on the Government's White Paper on industrial relations. Can he now give us the firm assurance about the date for that debate? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the date of the publication of the Government's White Paper on Defence?
Mr. Peart: On defence, it will be the 20th February. As to industrial relations, I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said last week. I expect to include arrangements for a debate in my statement next week.
Mr. Winnick: In view of the continuing difficulties of one or two national newspapers, can my right hon. Friend hold out any promise of a general debate on the Press before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Peart: No, Sir.
Mr. Peyton: Can the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she would be good enough to make a statement to the House next week on the very serious situation developing in the steel industry?
Mr. Peart: This is a very important industrial matter. I will convey the views of the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend. If a statement is necessary, I am certain that it will be made.
Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he undertook last week to consult his colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about a debate on foreign policy, with particular reference to European developments, before Easter? Has he got anything further to report?
Mr. Peart: I did convey the views of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend. I always do when he puts a point to me, as I do with every hon. Member. But I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Dawley Order was the second Prayer on Wednesday evening? If so, at what time and for how long will it be debated?
Mr. Peart: I said Thursday, not Wednesday. It will come on late in the evening.
Mr. Milne: Two subjects of greater importance than anything that my right hon. Friend has outlined for next week are European unity and the date of the Second Reading of the Development of Tourism Bill. Can he give us some information?
Mr. Peart: I cannot. I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) earlier about the debate on foreign affairs, concerning European unity. This is a very important matter. I note what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot give a date for a debate on the Development of Tourism Bill.
Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect telling us that last Thursday he said that he would make a statement about the new Scottish Select Committee? Since he did not make it last Thursday, could he make it now?
Mr. Peart: I hope to have something on the Order Paper this evening.
Mr. Shinwell: Could my right hon. Friend say how many times he has conveyed the views of hon. Members to his right hon. Friends, and with what measure of success?
Mr. Peart: I always convey such views, and when my right hon. Friend intervenes such intervention lends strength to what I convey. This does not affect next week's business.
Sir R. Cary: Has the right hon. Gentleman any clue about the probable date of the Budget?
Mr. Peart: No, Sir.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to having a debate in the House on the question of the whole future of Select Committees?
Mr. Peart: I have noted this request. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard me speak not only the other day, but on a previous occasion, about it. I am anxious to see that the experiment should continue. There may be a debate, when we shall have to make an assessment.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he intends to provide time for a debate on item No. 33 of the remaining Orders on today's Order Paper?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations made by the Prime Minister at his Press Conference on 30th September, 1964, concerning which he promised a searching inquiry:
That the Committee do consist of fifteen Members:
That the Commitee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time to the House, and to report Minutes of Evidence to the House from time to time:
That Seven be the Quorum.]
This Motion concerns the appointment of a Select Committee into allegations made by the Prime Minister concerning which the Prime Minister promised a searching inquiry. Is that not a little overdue, as the pledge was given on 30th September, 1964?
Mr. Peart: I know that hon. Members are somewhat nostalgic but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 151?
[That this House, being mindful of the lamentable failure of the English political parties to do their duty towards the smaller nations of this island, notes with approval the strong growth in Wales and Scotland of national parties dedicated to secure the conditions of full nationhood in those countries; deplores the decision
1574
of the Government to use the device of a Constitutional Commission to obstruct the advance of the Scots and Welsh national parties, and so postpone national freedom for Scotland and Wales, and to assist the Government party in these countries in its efforts to hold some of its parliamentary seats there, but approves of the Government's long delay of seventeen weeks in publishing the names of the Commissioners; and urges it not to publish them at all but to drop the whole idea.]
Since this has dangerous implications for the future of the people of Scotland. Does he realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House would like an early opportunity to debate the implications of this policy decision, with its opposition to the setting up of a Constitutional Commission?
Mr. Peart: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said something on this today and I have nothing further to add.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Leader of the House provide time, at an early date, for a debate on the I.R.C., with particular reference to its take-over bid affecting employment in my constituency of Chelmsford?
Mr. Peart: I accept that this is an important matter—the whole place of I.R.C. But I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. C. Pannell: When the Leader of the House is considering the request made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), will he consider that the time is now over-ripe for the implementation of the Report on the future activities of the Committee of Privileges? Does he agree that if this was implemented it might save us from a great many future distasteful debates?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of this matter. I know that my right hon. Friend feels very deeply on the whole question of privilege, but there are different arguments. It may be that we should have a debate, but I would rather wait a bit.
Mr. Hastings: Further to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), will the

1575
right hon. Gentleman recognise that the present muddle in the steel unions is a very serous matter, in which the Government are deeply involved? Is he aware that it is not a question whether the Minister thinks that a statement is necessary? The House must have one.
Mr. Peart: I cannot go on repeating myself. I thought that the reply which I gave was accepted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I said that I would convey his views to my right hon. Friend and that, if necessary, a statement would be made.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the introduction of a new Bill on merchant shipping, which hon. Members are eagerly awaiting?
Mr. Peart: Not at the moment.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday there were over 100 Questions down to the President: of the Board of Trade and that for the first day when Questions may be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when that right hon. Gentleman is top of the list to answer Questions—70 Questions have been tabled, which means that it is virtually impossible for back benchers to question either Minister? Is it possible to arrange for these two Ministers to answer Questions more frequently?
Mr. Peart: Once one asks for special concessions to be made about certain Departments one also asks for other Departments to be affected. We discuss this matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Howie: Would my right hon. Friend consider suspending the 10 o'clock rule next Thursday to ensure that both the Greater London Council Bill and the Luton Corporation Bill may be fully discussed?
Mr. Peart: I will look into that suggestion.
Mr. Evelyn King: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen an important statement in the Press about the reorganisation of the prison service. Is it his intention, as I hope it is, that the Home Secretary will make a statement about this in the House, since this is a matter of great interest to a wide public and
1576
particularly to hon. Members who have prisons in their constituencies?
Mr. Peart: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on this important matter and I will convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. W. Baxter: When my right hon Friend replied to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) he seemed to suggest that a statement about the setting up of a Select Committee for Scotland would be made tonight. Would he elaborate on that, as I did not follow the nature of the procedure which he is proposing to adopt?
Mr. Peart: I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman that I would not be making a statement now. I then said that there might be something on the Order Paper. This is perfectly normal.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the Home Secretary be laying next week the necessary regulations to implement the police pay award which was made on 12th November and for which police forces throughout Britain have been waiting for over three months? Will he impress on his right hon. Friend the urgency of taking this step?
Mr. Peart: I will convey that point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I have nothing to say on the matter in connection with next week's business.
Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend elaborate further on what he said about the Scottish Select Committee? Does he intend to put on the Order Paper tonight the names of members of that Committee before other Scottish hon. Members have been consulted or even advised about it?
Mr. Peart: I cannot be drawn into this. If hon. Members press me on the subject, then I must say that I am responsible. But I advise my hon. Friend, if he wishes to question the Motion when it appears, that he has his opportunity.
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that my original question to the Leader of the House was to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman told the House last Thursday that he would be making a

1577
statement? That statement has not been made.
Mr. Speaker: That is a point between the Leader of the House and the hon. Gentleman, and not for the Chair.
Mr. Lubbock: As eight hours were spent yesterday discussing two Amendments to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and since demands have already been made today for time to be provided to discuss 18 issues of vital importance to the House, would the right hon. Gentleman consider laying a timetable Motion before the Bill is further proceeded with next Thursday?
Mr. Peart: No, I could not accept that; and if there was any delay yesterday, then I suggest that the hon. Gentleman made a rather strange contribution himself.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the assertion made by the Foreign Secretary, when he was answering Questions for the Prime Minister, earlier, that this House is still in favour of Britain's application to join the Common Market? If he cannot find time to debate this subject next week, will he find time for a debate during the week after next and arrange for a free vote?
Mr. Peart: I have noted with interest the demands that have been made on this subject. I will certainly convey such views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Walden: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—that he needed time to think about the Report of the Committee of Privilege—will he bear in mind that that Report came out in 1967 and that many hon. Members believe that the House could be spared continuing embarrassment if a decision were taken on the matter?
Mr. Peart: I am aware that the Report has been out a long time. If I were able to say that every hon. Member understood the Report, I would describe that as rather remarkable, since it is a difficult matter.
Mr. Russell Kerr: When may we expect the Government's reply to the last
1578
Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the control of the nationalised industries?
Mr. Peart: I have nothing to say on that issue in connection with next week's business, but I will convey the point to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Henig: When making representations or re-representations to the Foreign Secretary, will my right hon. Friend try to ascertain whether it would be possible, before the Easter Recess, for the House to have more than a one-day debate on foreign affairs so that hon. Members will not have only one day on which to conduct a debate covering the whole of the universe and Mars as well?
Mr. Peart: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. Many of my hon. Friends have made the same representation to me. I accept that if we are to have a debate on foreign affairs it would be far better to concentrate on one or two issues. I will do all I can in that direction.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: As there was an official and detailed statement and explanation of the Government's new economic plan in the Press yesterday, together with a statement that the House would not be officially informed on the subject until a fortnight's time, would my right hon. Friend arrange for this information to be presented to the House next Tuesday and, at the same time, enable us to debate why the Press was able to get this information before hon. Members?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Tuesday's business is not all that important, this matter is? If he cannot arrange for a debate next week, would he consider setting up a Select Committee to look into the matter?
Mr. Peart: I note with interest what my hon. Friend says, but I remind him that I am not responsible for Press speculation.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Despite what the Leader of the House said about being keen to limit the scope of debate on foreign affairs, how does he explain the fact that whenever we have a foreign affairs debate it is always worldwide?
Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite correct. I arranged

1579
a debate which enabled us to discuss Czechoslovakia and Biafra.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: In view of the reply which my right hon. Friend gave earlier about the Report of the Committee on Privileges would he confirm that that Report is written in the most lucid possible language and recommend all hon. Members to read it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Excellent though the Report may be, we cannot debate it now. The hon. and learned Gentleman may, however, ask for time for it to be discussed.
Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the speed with which the Foreign Secretary got through so many Questions to the Prime Minister, would the Leader of the House urge that right hon. Gentlemen to undertake this rôle rather more often, thus cutting out a lot of "flannel "?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the Leader of the House said that there might be "something on the Order Paper" about the Scottish Select Committee, is he not treating Scotland rather casually? Will he say whether or not there will be something on the Order Paper?
Mr. Peart: I ask my hon. Friend to wait—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?
Mr. Peart: I assure him that I am not treating Scotland casually. I thought that I had played a major part in this and that the establishment of a special Committee for Scotland would be welcome. I am surprised that my hon. Friend is being so churlish—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: But correct.
Mr. Peart:—about this. He must await my Motion and, while he is awaiting it, restrain himself.
In reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), about Prime Minister's Questions, I am surprised that he should have been so sensitive about effective supplementary questions and the effective answers given by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Lane: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the White Paper on Defence, which he said would be pub-
1580
lished next week, will be no less frank than a recent article in a German newspaper by the Secretary of State for Defence?
Mr. Peart: I cannot vouch for that. I hope that it will be a very good White Paper.
Mr. W. Baxter: On a point of order. Did I hear my right hon. Friend aright telling my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) not to be churlish but to be patient until the Leader of the House takes upon himself the responsibility of giving the House information to which every hon. Member is entitled and which has apparently been made available to the national Press? That is not treating this House with the greatest respect. May I seek your guidance on the matter, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may certainly seek my guidance, but in the way he sought it he was making a point of audition rather than a point of order.
Mr. Peart: Further to that point of order. The information I will give to the House will not be anything that has ever been disclosed before.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: May I press my right hon. Friend—in an entirely un-churlish manner—to find time as soon as possible for a debate on monopolies and mergers? Many of us are concerned about the implications of a recent merger.
Mr. Peart: I am aware of this important matter, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House undertake to convey the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Peart: I always convey views of hon. Members, but the hon. and learned Member is not being very clever today.
Mr. Orme: From my right hon. Friend's reply to the Leader of the Opposition on the Question of a debate on the White Paper "In Place of Strife", I assume that the debate will be in the week after next. Is it possible for us to have a two-day debate on this important subject, which

1581
concerns wide constitutional as well as industrial matters?
Mr. Peart: I will consider this but my hon. Friend should note that we are pressed for time in the House.

BACON MARKET SHARING UNDERSTANDING
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding.
Negotiations for a renewed Bacon Market Sharing Understanding have now been completed and the new Understanding will be signed shortly.
The basic aim of the renewed Understanding will be to provide for the orderly marketing of bacon in the United Kingdom and to preserve stable prices at levels reasonable to both producers and consumers.
There are two main changes. First, there is no longer a specific percentage share of the market laid down for the United Kingdom. Instead, the United Kingdom, after consultation with the Bacon Market Council, will determine each year not only the total quantity of bacon required on the United Kingdom market, but also the expected level of bacon production in the United Kingdom. The difference between these figures will be shared among the exporting countries.
Secondly, the Understanding has been strengthened to ensure in a more positive way than in the present Understanding that our suppliers market in an orderly and a regular manner, as our own industry will also be expected to do.
The new Understanding takes effect on 1st April this year and will run for a term of three years. The situation will then be further reviewed.
The total market requirement for the first 12 months is 639,000 tons and the expected level of bacon production in the United Kingdom is 233,600 tons, an increase of about 15,000 tons on this year's estimated level. I am making a complete list of the tonnages for 1969–70 available now in the library and I shall circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
1582
As soon as the Understanding has been signed, the full text, together with the letters continuing bilateral understandings with Denmark and the Irish Republic, will be published as a White Paper.
Mr. Godber: The flexibility which the Minister has just announced for the home producer is to be welcomed so long as it is flexibility to raise rather than to lower the home share. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions?
The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to consultation with the Bacon Market Council. Could he make clear that consultation will take place after the Price Review each year, not before, so that it will be upon a firm basis of understanding of the home producers' prospects?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this agreement can help the home producer only if an adequate incentive is given in the forthcoming Price Review?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman further agree that the figure for home production which he hopes to achieve in 1969–70 is only just about getting back to the figure for 1964–65 when we left office?
Mr. Hughes: I will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the Bacon Council's meeting following the Price Review.
On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, as he is aware, this is a matter for the Review, although it is worth remembering that this Government, through the bacon stabilisation arrangement, have already made a substantial contribution to the industry.
On the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the bacon curing industry is making substantial progress under the arrangement which the present Government have set afoot.
Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that if we are to have a larger share of the home market the housewife and the consumer must have high-quality bacon and that this means that the British curer and farmer have to produce not only the right sort of pig, but the right sort of bacon? Will he give every encouragement towards this end both in incentives to the farmer and

1583
the encouragement to the curer to see that the right sort of bacon is produced?
Mr. Hughes: I am anxious to encourage both the farmer and the bacon producer. There are producers who, as far as quality and price are concerned, are as good as anyone in the world, but I agree that the general standard needs to be raised.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the statement he has made in any way conflicts with the agricultural policy associated with the Common Market, in particular, his statement that the agreement, when ratified by the various parties to it, will last three years? Is there any possibility of revision so as to get into the Common Market?
Mr. Hughes: These are purely hypothetical matters that my right hon. Friend has raised. The Understanding, which, I hope, will be signed before the end of the month, is certainly not in conflict with any agreement to which this country is a party.
Mr. Hooson: While I generally welcome the agreement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has in mind a fixed percentage of increase for the home producer? Is it to be at the rate of 15,000 tons a year over three years, or is that expected to be the figure for the first year?
Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and learned Member will read carefully what I said, he will see that the basic difference is that under the old Understanding there was a British percentage share which could only be exceeded or changed under certain definite circumstances. Now, under the new Understanding, there will not be a United Kingdom percentage, but we will simply declare our estimated production. It is now up to the British curing industry.
Mr. Jopling: Regardless of specific incentives in this year's Price Review, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the trends for the future are from our home production sources? If next year's production from British farmers is to be a little less than 37 per cent. of the market, what sort of percentage does the right hon. Gentleman envisage in the years beyond?
Mr. Hughes: Under this Understanding there is no percentage at all for the British product. This is the basic new principle for the new Understanding. An estimate is made at the beginning of each year of the amount of bacon the British producer can produce. The British producer is free to produce what he can, but he must compete as to quality and price with imported supplies.
Mr. Peyton: Could the right hon. Gentleman go as far as this? Does he say that as a result of the new arrangement he announced today the British bacon producer, assuming that the curing industry can play its part, will have a larger share of the market than he has had to date?
Mr. Hughes: If he competes as to quality and price there is no reason why he should not get a progressively larger share of the market.

Following is the list of tonnages:

Tons

United Kingdom

…

…

233,600

Denmark

…

…

302,850

Poland

…

…

50,310

Irish Republic

…

…

28,180

Sweden

…

…

11,010

Netherlands

…

…

8,160

Hungary

…

…

2,380

Rumania

…

…

1,500*

Yugoslavia

…

…

1,010

Total

…

…

639,000

*If Rumania decides to participate.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Before I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power to make a personal statement which he has asked me to allow him to make, may I remind the House that the rule about personal statements is that the House will admit them provided that Mr. Speaker has been informed of what the hon. Member proposes to say, and has given leave, and that if another hon. Member is involved in the personal statement he is generally allowed to give his own views of the matter and to say whether he accepts it or not.
It would be convenient to the House if a Minister or hon. Member who wished to make personal statements would let Mr. Speaker have a copy of it early, because he needs time to consider it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if a copy of the statement was delayed. We did our best to get it to you in time.
With permission, I should like to make a short personal statement about a misunderstanding which arose during Question Time last Tuesday, when I may have appeared to have misled the House.
In reply to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I said that he was wrong in quoting 21 per cent. as the Central Electricity Generating Board's present plant margin. In fact, this figure had been given in a Written Answer by my right hon. Friend on 4th February.
The C.E.G.B.'s estimate of maximum demand in "average cold spell weather conditions" this winter was 36,700 megawatts, and this figure was used in the calculation of the 21 per cent. Subsequent information suggests, however, that a better estimate would be of 37,300 megawatts. On this later estimate the margin would be about 19 per cent.
At Question Time on Tuesday I was aware of the later estimate, but, of course, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury could not be. I apologise to him if he considered my reply to be discourteous.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY] considered.

  COMPULSORY CONTROL OF INCOMES
  Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of the debate may I announce that I have selected the Amendment standing in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that the attempt to control incomes by law has failed in its purpose, is causing grave damage to industrial relations and is frequently unjust in its application, urges Her Majesty's Government to repeal these objectionable statutory powers forthwith.
  From the very beginning, when these statutory powers were introduced in 1966, and repeatedly since then, we on this side of the House have warned that these statutory powers would not work, that they would fail in their purpose; and that is what has happened. We also said that, in so far as they did have effect, they would bite in such an arbitrary and uneven manner as to cause injustices and gross anomalies. That is what has happened. We also said that for little or no short-term economic gain they would do grave long-term damage to industrial relations; and they have.
  The evidence for all this has been accumulating steadily and is now overwhelming. I ask the House to consider the record for 1968. In 1968, basic weekly wages rates rose by 6–9 per cent. for all industries and services and by 8–8 per cent. for manufacturing industry alone. That was the largest increase in any year since the present index began in 1956.
  Basic hourly rates, as opposed to weekly rates, tell exactly the same sort of story. So does the increase in weekly earnings. Average weekly earnings for male manual workers over 21 between October, 1967, and October, 1968, rose by 7·6 per cent., markedly more than during the two previous years and well

  1587
  above the average for the previous 13 years. Similarly, average hourly earnings from October, 1967, to October, 1968, rose by 6·9 per cent., also considerably faster than over the previous two years.
  Thus we see in both wage rates and earnings that the increases in 1968 have been approximately double the 3½ per cent. ceiling set for 1968 and 1969 in last April's Prices and Incomes White Paper. The rates of increase of hourly earnings have returned to approximately the level that led up to the July, 1966, measures and the pay freeze.
  The record for 1968 surely proves not only our basic contention that the attempt to control wages by law would not work, but also our very important subsidiary contention that compulsion feeds on itself and that with each successive year of statutory control more and more compulsion, applied over a wider and wider field, would be needed to produce less and less effect. That is what has happened.
  We must also remember another feature of 1968. It was the year of the highest sustained level of unemployment since the war. Statutory incomes policy was originally advocated to the House as an alternative to higher unemployment. In fact, it has proved to be supplementary to it. So, in 1968, the Government achieved the highest levels of unemployment for nearly 30 years and the highest increase in wage rates for nearly 20 years, with the strongest-ever compulsory powers. One would have thought that such a combination of events would have been impossible. One must at least give credit for an achievement of perverted genius.
  And all this for no conceivably adequate compensating benefit in return. Productivity, people may say. I can almost hear the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity saying it already. Of course productivity has risen—and a fine state we should have been in if it had not. However, it is impossible, even on the most optimistic interpretation of recent trends, to claim that the underlying rate of increase in productivity has doubled over the past year. Yet that is what would be necessary to justify the extent to which the increase in incomes has exceeded the ceiling laid down under the policy.
  1588
  In any case, any argument about productivity is utterly disposed of by applying the Prime Minister's own chosen test, that which he laid down as an original justification for this policy when he addressed the House on 20th July. 1966, and used these words:
  "But the House will recognise that the whole operation stands or falls on the extent to which we can keep our costs and prices under control. In recent years money incomes have been increasing at a rate far faster than could be justified by increasing production; in 1965 we paid ourselves increases in money incomes of about £1,800 million compared with the previous year. About £1,300 million of this represented increases in wages and salaries. Over the same period we earned only £600 million by way of increased production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 635.]
  The same calculation, the same test as was chosen by the Prime Minister when applied to the latest available figures gives the following results. Between 1966 and 1967 money incomes rose by £1,500 million and production by £368 million. Between the third quarter of 1967 and the third quarter of 1968, the latest full 12-month period for which figures are available, money incomes rose by £1,566 million and production by £520 million.
  Therefore, on the basis of the Prime Minister's calculation, on the Prime Minister's own chosen test and justification for this policy, and despite all the compulsory powers, money incomes have still been rising three times as fast as production. If any further proof is needed, I think that the House will agree that it is provided by comparison with what was achieved by the Conservative Government with no statutory powers following the pay pause of 1961.
  When one compares the period following the pay pause of 1961 with the period following the pay freeze and the statutory powers of 1966 one finds that, in the earlier period, under Conservative Government with no statutory control, there were lower increases in earnings and prices and higher increases in productivity—all with lower levels of sustained unemployment.
  I stress once again that, in rejecting statutory incomes policy, on the clear basis of proof which those figures provide, we on this side are not irresponsibly throwing overboard the idea that the movement of incomes in relation to

  1589
  national production is a matter of very great importance. We have said before, and I say again, that any Government in present-day conditions must have a strong view about the movement in incomes and must try to influence it. The last Conservative Government did so and the next will also do so.
  What we reject is the attempt to control wages by law, because while it causes very damaging economic and social side effects it is bound to be ineffective, at least unless it is embarked on as a very strong and long-term policy, a permanent policy.
  Mr. John Mendelson: As the right hon. Gentleman does not want to control wages by law, how does he justify his party's proposals to put a legal straitjacket on trade unions and prevent them from properly organising their members and negotiating?
  Mr. Carr: That is quite a different question, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to reflect that perhaps even he will one day come to realise what his right hon. Friend is beginning to realise before him, that a condition for the return to freedom, to the real independence in the details of free collective bargaining, is the acceptance by management and unions alike of a somewhat closer, stricter framework of rules—
  Mr. Mendelson: A straitjacket.
  Mr. Carr:—than has been practised in this country before, but which has been the custom in every other industrial country for many years.
  So we reject the attempt to control wages by law. We also reject making incomes policy a major instrument of economic management, because in our view—a view which is now proved beyond argument by experience—to make it a major measure of economic management puts on it more weight than it can ever bear. So we say that much more success with far less damaging side effects can be obtained if one gets one's basic economic, fiscal and industrial policies right, which means very different from those of the present Government, and then uses voluntary means to influence incomes as a minor and supplementary rather than a major instrument of economic management. We say that the
  1590
  record now proves beyond argument that we are right and the Government have been wrong.
  So much for the fact that statutory control has failed in its purpose. I should now like to turn to another limb of our Motion, namely, that the policy has frequently been unjust in its application. The reasons for the unfairnesses and the gross anomalies are in many cases the same as the reasons why the policy has failed in its economic purpose. One could spend literally hours recounting the injustices and anomalies which the policy has brought about and is increasingly bringing about. I will put only a few examples before the House.
  First, the legal control under this policy applies generally only to settlements affecting more than 100 people. Approximately, no fewer than 25 per cent. of all employees in manufacturing industry work in establishments with fewer than 100 employees, so they are immediately outside the general application of the policy. That in itself is grossly unfair to those who are caught in the bigger establishments. This is not just a theoretical point. Anyone who goes around industry will know that it is a practical point.
  I will quote one example. The efforts of the Transport and General Workers' Union in relation to small road haulage companies in recent months, at least in the Midlands and parts of Yorkshire and East Anglia, have managed to obtain settlements far in excess of incomes policy. I make no judgment on whether those settlements are right or fair, but this is one concrete example of the policy leading to gross unfairness between one group of workers and another.
  The policy is also unfair because it is hopelessly inadequate in the way that it deals with settlements which do come under general control, because the machinery for vetting and supervising is hopelessly inadequate. The number of settlements over the year is far too great for them all to be vetted equally thoroughly, so it is largely a question of luck whether one "gets the works" or not. Again, anyone active in a union or in management knows that this is true.
  But, apart from whether the vetting machinery can cope with the vast number of settlements with which it should

  1591
  cope, it also lacks the expertise in the assessment of productivity agreements. It is very difficult, as anyone with experience knows, to spot a fake from a true productivity agreement, even in one's own company, with goodwill and all the detailed knowledge aided by tools, such as cost measurement and the like. It becomes virtually impossible for. a small body of civil servant in Whitehall to judge the merits of a productivity deal in relation to hundreds of different industries and thousands of different companies.
  Again, anyone who has worked in a company which has to submit one of these deals to the Department will know two things—the good faith, integrity and goodwill with which they attempt to deal with them, but also—I am sorry to say this—the inevitable underlying ignorance with which they are judged. This is not theoretical ignorance—I am not blaming those concerned—but the expertise cannot be there because it is so detailed and so specialised, not just in principle but in its application to each individual industry and factory.
  On top of that is the inadequate capacity of the Prices and Incomes Board. I hasten to add that it is inadequate only in relation to the task which the Government are trying to put upon it. When an agreement has gone through the vetting machinery, nothing more can happen unless it is referred to the Board, but the number of cases with which it can deal in a year is relatively very small. Therefore, the D.E.P. must allow to go through many agreements, even if they see them to be failing to meet the criteria, simply because the Board could not physically cope with going into them in detail.
  Again, I will give a concrete example. Last August, it was reported that the Midlands Brewers' Association's pay claim for 10,000 brewery workers was allowed to go through, even though the Department said that it was not justified—presumably because the P.I.B. was clogged up. I can think of no other reason. I am sure that that one example could be multiplied many times.
  Another cause of unfairness is the lack of adequate machinery for checking on how approved productivity deals work out in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) could
  1592
  tell the House more about this than most hon. Members. Any of us who look through HANSARD daily know the many tens, perhaps hundreds by now, of Questions which he asks on this point and the futility of the Answers. The truth is that one can get away with murder providing one can present one's first case glibly enough to get by.
  Yet another cause of injustice in the policy is the unfairness as between similar groups of workers. There are two well-known examples. The first is that of Scottish and English electricians, often having to work together on the same sites. The pay settlement for the Scottish electricians was frozen by the right hon. Lady. Thus, the Scottish electrician has had to work on the same site at a lower rate of pay than his English colleague.
  Secondly, there was the case of the municipal busmen. Those who toed the Government line in the summer have had less than those who refused to toe the Government line, because those who refused and had their increase frozen for 12 months got the full back payment for 12 months just before Christmas. Those who were responsible suffered and those who dug their toes in gained. That is only one of the many examples, of how the strong get away with it under the policy while the weak suffer.
  Let us look at the cases of the railway workers, the engineers, the tally clerks and the overseas telegraphists. The Government thought that the telegraphists were weak at first and only discovered later that they were strong. Wherever real strength is shown, the stringent testing—the Chancellor's own description—of achieved productivity which he promised in his Budget speech last year, goes out of the window. Compare these cases with the building workers and the municipal busmen, and one sees how the weaker get clobbered.
  One of the avowed objectives of the policy was to help the lower-paid workers, to strengthen their position and to make life fairer for them. But no one yet, either the Government or the P.I.B., has decided who are lower-paid workers. The agricultural workers are a classic example of them, but the Government decided that they were weak enough to have their case referred to the Prices

  1593
  and Incomes Board. We are glad about the way in which that case emerged. This great policy was designed to help the lower-paid workers, yet the Board had to say that the agricultural workers should really have their increase quashed, but that an exception might be made. The Government jumped at the chance and made an exception. They had to make an exception in the policy to help lower-paid workers.
  What about others affected? What about equal pay for women, which we hear so much about at times from the right hon. Lady? They are lower-paid workers yet, last summer, she rejected an Amendment to the Prices and Incomes Act which would have exempted from the operation of the statutory incomes policy any voluntary collective agreement which might breach it in order to promote greater equality of pay between men and women. Now she has the Ford women once again on her plate or in her teacup, or wherever it is she has them. I wonder what she will do.
  Let us look at workers in those companies where productivity is already very high. If it is already so high—and let us take an extreme case—that it cannot be made higher, these people have to suffer for their efficiency and for the efficiency of their managements by not qualifying for any increase. If one works for inefficient management in an inefficient way, almost the sky is the limit in extra productivity deals.
  Then take the position of those—and there are many—who depend principally on locally fixed piece work rates for a substantial part of their earnings. As we have pointed out, and as the Board has pointed out, this policy does not bite in any effective way on them. Good luck to them, but it is bad luck on those who do not get much or any of their pay under such agreements.
  There is the case, also, of the salary earners. The university teachers have just had their pay judged by the Board, which has said that comparability cannot be taken into account under the policy. Compare this with the doctors and dentists, whose recommended and accepted increase is based entirely on arguments of comparability. Where is the fairness or the justice in that?
  1594
  I could go on with endless examples showing that the weak and the responsible tend to suffer and that the strong and the irresponsible tend to gain. All this does grave long-term damage to industrial relations, and that is the third limb of the Motion. The effect of the damage is obvious in the 1968 strike record. But it is not only in that record. Anyone, whether on the management or union side, who goes about the country and knows these things, realises that, apart from the strike record, industrial relations are tense where they used to be relaxed. Where there used to be good relations there are worsening relations.
  I want to quote what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said as long ago as 1961 in relation to the Conservative Government's pay pause. He said:
  "What will all this achieve in the private sector? It will introduce friction between management and men where friction does not now exist. Even where industrial relations are good enough for management and workers to get on, because the Government have called upon management to act differently and management loyally does friction will be produced in industrial relations where hitherto there has been none."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July. 1961; Vol. 645, c. 620.]
  If the right hon. Gentleman feared that in relation to the voluntary, mild attempts to influence incomes in 1961, how much more true are his views—and we know that they are true—when applied to trying to control incomes by law? So it is not only in the strike record, but in the general climate of industrial relations that the greatest and most long-term damage is taking place.
  One of the worst of the effects is that it is clearly becoming more and more a paying proposition to wield the big stick. Look at the railways, the engineers and the overseas telegraphists. That last sorry business is a direct invitation to people to strike in future to get what they want. It is a direct example of how, if one cannot get it by a responsible approach, one should try direct action. Once that belief is more strongly established—and it was too prevalent before—it will be very difficult to get rid of it again. Under this policy, it too often happens that responsible collective bargaining does not pay.
  That classic case under this policy was the case which dragged on throughout

  1595
  last year, of the building workers. The House was denied a debate on that matter. If ever there was a case of union leaders and management trying to do the right thing, giving the Government a whole year's warning before they were to make their new agreement, this was it. The Government sat on it, did nothing for six months and when half the warning time had gone, referred it to the Prices and Incomes Board.
  When that report was delayed, the building workers unions and employers had to make an interim agreement in a hurry, because the old agreement was running out in a few days, and there was no news from the Government or the P.I.B. They made an interim agreement, reported it to the Minister who allowed them to bring it into operation, and then had it quashed after it was in operation. I can imagine no better way of undermining responsible approaches to collective bargaining by union leaders and management than the conduct of incomes policy over that claim.
  The attempt to control wages by law has, since 1966, progressively and seriously undermined the authority of responsible and official union leadership, while it has strengthened the influence of unofficial leaders.
  It has gravely damaged the chances of achieving a more responsible and more constructive development of collective bargaining. All responsible opinion, including the Donovan Commission, stresses the urgency of doing the exact opposite. Even the Government pay lip service to this, but as so often, they say one thing and do another, or do one thing with one hand and another thing with the other, cancelling each action out. There is no doubt that both the major symptoms of trouble in industrial relations, inflationary wage increases and the dangerously rising trend in a number of strikes, are evidence of the increasing failure of collective bargaining, particularly at company and plant level.
  We have either to give up free collective bargaining or set about in earnest trying to strengthen it and that is why we have kept on saying that the choice before the Government and the country is either to go on to more compulsion on a permanent basis, or to go back to freedom within a framework of reasonable discipline and order. [Interruption.] It is
  1596
  impossible to have freedom, except within a reasonable framework of order. That is exactly what the trade unions and their members have been finding out to their cost. It is what their colleagues in other countries found out long ago. If we go into factories, take opinion polls or make any test, we find that this is what the rank and file workers know, and their hon. Friends opposite have not yet woken up to this.
  What is required from the Government, above all, in legislative action is the introduction of a comprehensive new industrial relations Bill, and the repeal of the statutory incomes policy. Both are needed, together and quickly. The Government are now taking halting steps towards the first, but they are still making no commitment regarding the second Once more it is too little too late, and the worst of both worlds. Instead of policies which are mutually reinforcing, we are getting policies pulling in opposite directions. The incomes policy left hand of the right hon. Lady commits arson and fans the flames already alive. Her industrial relations right hand plays at being a fire brigade, and the one hand makes unnecessary work for the other.
  I am convinced that the terms of our Motion are proved to the hilt by the facts and the knowledge of people throughout the country. Legal compulsion has failed. It has caused frequent injustices, and it does great damage to industrial relations. Hon. Gentleman opposite know that as well as anyone. I am sure that on a free vote this Motion would be passed overwhelmingly by the House.
  Of course, we would not, did not, expect a free vote. But the Government appear determined not to allow a vote at all on the main issue. What an incredible display of confidence they have in the main plank of their policy! Can they no longer depend on a majority, even with a three-line Whip? I could understand it if vanity made it impossible for them to accept the opening part of our Motion, I could even understand it, if for the same reason, they found it impossible to refuse a commitment to repeal forthwith. But surely, at this stage, we could have had an Amendment from the Government which had some bearing on their intention, either to keep or remove the statutory incomes policy. No. They have dodged the issue altogether, and tabled

  1597
  a fatuous Amendment which gives the House no opportunity to express any view about continuing or ending statutory powers in the short or long run. Even though the Government have refused to face a commitment by way of a Motion, they must give the House today a firm statement about their future policy. What do they intend to do about the future?
  Meanwhile, they can play what word games they like on the Order Paper. We know that our Motion expresses the true feelings of the House and of the vast majority of the people in the country. If we are partisans we are proud of it, because we know that the vast majority of people are partisans, too. We also know that the direction pointed by this Motion is the only direction of hope for the future prosperity for the country.
  4.37 p.m.
  The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that Her Majesty's Opposition is more concerned with partisan criticism of Her Majesty's Government's productivity, prices and incomes policy than with the promotion of a constructive and socially just economic strategy'.
  This is an extremely fascinating Motion that we are debating. I suspected that the most interesting part of the Opposition's attack upon the Government will lie in its wording. After the lugubrious category of destructive detail that we have had from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), and the total lack of a positive philosophy or economic policy, I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman was the author of the Motion. He is an earnest and honest and painstaking man. His heart obviously was not in it. It is not in his character to be so devious.
  I suspect that this Motion is the brainchild of that consummate fisher of Parliamentary men, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who, in plotting it has been in no way inhibited by the fact that its purpose is to veil the unalluring nakedness of Conservative economic policy. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West, knows his politics. This is stark vote-catching and he hopes
  1598
  that it will reap him a dividend this afternoon.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady. Perhaps she will take it from me, as a personal assurance, that I did not draft the Motion, but that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) did.
  Mrs. Castle: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer of the honour I was heaping upon him. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Mitcham must have been sitting at his feet.
  The second interesting thing about the Motion is the signatories to it. Any Motion on prices and incomes policy which unites the right hon. Member for Enfield, West—who, a few days ago, told the National Federation of Building Trade Employers:
  "I cannot forecast a happy or long life for the Prices and Incomes Board under a Conservative Administration"—
  with the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—who is on record as a supporter of a prices and incomes policy—simply has to be negative.
  What about the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)? He delivered himself of a speech to the Young Conservatives' national conference the other day in which he managed, at one and the same time, to condemn what he called the "Socialist misery-go-round", and the present level of public expenditure and the Government's withdrawal from east of Suez. Therefore, it is not surprising that he is condeming the Government's failure to create misery among wage-earners; it is merely indecent.
  Incidentally, it is nicely ironic that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West should have chosen an audience of building trades employers in which to denounce the prices and incomes policy, because he is on a winner both ways. He can appear as the champion of the poor oppressed building worker, robbed of his penny by this cruel Government, while assuring the building trades employers that under the Conservatives they would never more have to suffer the inquisition of the Prices and Incomes Board which, in its Report on the pay claim, trounced them for the poor quality of their management, the excessive use of overtime due to poor site organization,

  1599
  and their failure to promote incentive bonus schemes effectively linked to increased productivity.
  Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that what is of far more concern to building workers' unions than the penny an hour is chaotic conditions of organisation and of wages structures in this industry as revealed by the Phelps Brown Report and the Reports of the Prices and Incomes Board. What the building workers' unions want is a chance to work out proper productivity schemes to replace the present farcical system of so-called incentive bonus schemes, which may cover only two-fifths of the workers in the industry, with authentic bonus schemes genuinely related to output. They want decent working conditions on the site, stronger trade union organisation, greater continuity of employment and a curb on the abuses of labour-only sub-contracting, which was a growing menace to trade union organisation and the national Exchequer long before the Selective Employment Tax appeared on the scene.
  It is these improvements which the work of the Prices and Incomes Board holds out to them. It is these improvements which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I have been discussing with them only in the last few days, pledging the Government's support in realising them and thus keeping my promise that once the argument about the interim settlement was out of the way we could work out together ways of giving building workers the chance of organised advancement for which they looked in vain under the Conservatives.
  My right hon. Friend and I have already set up a working party to pave the way for policy decisions on legislation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite should not show their total frivolity. When did they even sit down and study the problem of labour-only sub-contracting in this industry, let alone start preparing the legislation to solve the problem and deal with the self-employment in the industry? It is hoped that the unions will be joining in these discussions as from next week, followed soon, I hope, by the employers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is also reviewing his own contract procedures with a view to strengthening
  1600
  the provisions governing the use of labour-only sub-contracting on contracts let by his Department, thus taking the Government action which the Prices and Incomes Board Report urged.
  The building workers' claim, far from being a matter on which to accuse the Government, is a good starting point from which to discuss the purpose of a productivity, prices and incomes policy. What is the purpose which the Motion says the policy has failed to achieve? I would not expect Conservatives to grasp it; it is far too civilised a concept for them to understand. The purpose is not, as the Opposition argue outside the House, to make workers shoulder the whole burden of national economic recovery by holding down wages but letting prices and all other incomes rise. If that had been the purpose, we would indeed have failed. Is it this failure which we are asked to condemn by our vote tonight? If so, I plead guilty to it.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is there any significance in the fact that the Minister of Public Building and Works is not present to support the right hon. Lady in her optimistic statements?
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There is no significance at all. My right hon. Friend and I are working jointly and enthusiastically on improving conditions in the building industry.
  Hon. Members opposite, and particularly right hon. Members, are fond of talking with two voices. They accuse us in the country, but in the House their argument is totally different. The right hon. Member for Bexley, in the debate on the economic situation on 25th November, denounced us for a very different failure. Then he said:
  "Earnings are up by 8 per cent. and prices by 6 per cent. This is another condemnation of the failure of the Government's prices and incomes policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 36.]
  I hope that my hon. Friends have noted that. It is a very different failure from that for which the Opposition are trouncing us in the country, where they have actively encouraged the vast majority of people to believe that prices have risen and that wages have been kept down.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: Would the right hon. Lady care to ask her married women supporters whether prices have increased more than the wages of their husbands?
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman must not publicly contradict the leader of his party who, as I have just shown, accused us of letting wages rise far higher than prices. That accusation has been repeated by the right hon. Member for Mitcham today, who said that between October, 1967, and October, 1968, wage rates rose by 6·9 per cent. for all industries and services and by 8·8 per cent. in manufacturing—the biggest increase for 12 years. My first reaction is, some misery-go-round!
  The figures that he has quoted are of little value unless they are analysed in terms of the criteria, the ceiling and the purposes of the current phase of the productivity, prices and incomes policy. It is to the purpose of that policy and how we have succeeeded in achieving that purpose that I want to turn.
  The purpose of the policy is a simple and essential one. It is to keep increases in money incomes as closely as possible in line with increases in national output, and thus to act directly on industrial costs in order to maintain our international competitiveness. Do the Opposition agree with that, or are they merely saying that we have not succeeded? If we have not succeeded, incidentally, they can hardly blame us, since they have done everything possible during the last few months to wreck the policy.
  Let me give the right hon. Gentleman and the House figures that are more relevant, because they cover the period of the current policy. From March 1968, when the new phase of the policy was introduced, to December 1968, hourly wage rates rose by 4·2 per cent., earnings by 5·8 per cent. and prices by 4·7 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "By how much did dividends rise?"] Dividends rose by 3·2 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we had better face facts.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend now go on to tell us by how much profits rose during this period?
  Mrs. Castle: We are talking about incomes, not capital. What matters is not
  1602
  profitability, but how the profits are distributed. This is what this policy is concerned with. I will return in detail to the policy for dividends.
  Mr. John Biffen Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry) rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, I have accepted already half a dozen interventions.
  Why have wage rates risen above the ceiling of 3½ per cent.? Partly because of the engineering settlement, which produced a sharp rise in the index because of the large increase in minimum earning levels last December, an increase incidentally, which affected the figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.
  There are two points to note about this settlement. First, the effect on the wage rate index is misleading because the vast majority of engineering workers are already earning above the minimum. Secondly, the settlement is for the first time linked to productivity conditions of inestimable benefit to the industry, as the employers will be the first to admit because they negotiated it.
  If we leave out engineering, we find that between March and December, 1968 the weighted average size of settlement on a per annum basis was 3·7 per cent. in the private sector and 3·9 per cent. in the public sector. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is too high? Does he think we could have achieved it without the policy? He says that he objects to our type of control.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to control incomes when they were in power and the right hon. Gentleman has said that they will try to influence them again. To hear them talk, one would never believe that they operated the pay pause in 1961–63. Their way of doing it was to hold down the wages of public employees while just hoping that wages in private industry would follow suit. They are still hankering after it.
  Only last March, the Leader of the Opposition in the Budget debate said this:
  "Above all, the Government have the responsibility to ensure that the vast public sector which is now under their control does not grant wages which are more than productivity will justify."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 308.]

  1603
  The right hon. Gentleman was echoed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West in the same debate. He demanded:
  "'The Government should give a lead. They should be seen to be absolutely firm in their own negotiations. A stand by them…would do more good than any amount of exhortation' ".—[OFICIAL REPORT, 20th March. 1968; Vol. 761, c. 440.]
  Some policy, to get tough with nurses, policemen, teachers, industrial and non-industrial civil servants generally, regardless of what is happening to other wages and salaries! And they dare to talk about our policy being unjust in its application. The aim of our policy is to treat the private and public sectors equally, and the figures which I have quoted show that we have achieved broad success.
  As far as wage rates are concerned—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the building trade settlement those in private industry working on large contracts recouped their loss of Id. the following morning by various productivity agreements, and so on, but those who were working in the National Health Service, in local government maintenance and in the lower-paid sections of the building industry actually lost the Id. and it meant a great deal to these workers?
  Mrs. Castle: In so far as the Id. was recouped by genuine productivity agreements, I would be the first to welcome it. If my hon. Friend had been listening to the first part of my speech he would have heard me say that what matters to building workers and what they are asking for—and the other day I met all their unions—is the opportunity for genuine productivity agreements to be applied throughout the industry generally. It is this to which we are now giving attention and which was overlooked for all those years under the Conservatives.
  So far as wage rates are concerned, it is clear that they are broadly in line with the policy—
  Mr. Biffen Mr. Biffen rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, I have given way equally to both sides, and I am not giving way again.
  Mr. Biffen: If you do not give way you are running away.
  Mrs. Castle: Very well; the hon. Gentleman can have that on record in HANSARD.
  Prices also are in line with the policy. I hope that there is one accusation that Her Majesty's Opposition will now have the grace to retract; the accusation made by hon. Gentlemen opposite time and again in the Standing Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill when they claimed that the Government's aim was to push up prices as much as possible. They jeered when I said that we would vigorously resist unjustifiable price increases. The price index proves that we have kept our promise and have done so successfully.
  Our aim has been to contain price increases within the limits dictated by devaluation and the Budget, and we have achieved it as a result of the machinery of the present policy. If hon. Members doubt that, they should study the experience of other countries who devalued at the same time.
  What, then, about earnings, which is the figure that hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer to quote? The increase between last March and December was, as I have said, 5·8 per cent. Again, are hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that it was too high? If so, how would they have brought it down?
  What we are saying is that we have a simple test: has an increase of this size been earned? Has the country earned it by an improvement in our national economic position? Have the individuals concerned earned it by increased productivity? In so far as it has not been earned, the Government are bound to take corrective measures by other means.
  The answer to these questions is that we have partly earned it by increased output, which has been rising rapidly, increased exports, which are at an all-time high and still, I am glad to say, on a rising trend, and by increased productivity, which has been one of the marked successes of the policy: even the T.U.C. admits as much. [Interruption.] It has been accused of being critical. I suggest that if hon. Gentlemen read the Economic Review they will see that the T.U.C. admits that the policy has had a direct stimulus on productivity.
  Output per head has been rising at a rate of nearly 7 per cent. in the production industries over the last full year, and

  1605
  one of the contributory factors indisputably is the emphasis now being laid on productivity bargaining under the policy, as those firms and unions which increasingly are turning to our Manpower and Productivity Service for help would be the first to testify. We have always stressed the positive productivity element in the policy, and the results are proving that this was not just an empty phrase.
  It is true that we did not earn all this increase, which is one of the reasons why the Government have been compelled to take measures of restraint on consumption. But how much more stringent would those measures have had to be if we had not had a productivity, prices and incomes policy. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have admitted as much. In his speech last March, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Chancellor for not stamping down earlier on the spending spree. Presumably, he would have had a tough Budget even earlier; but it would not have been as socially equitable as the Chancellor's. According to Mr. David Wood, in The Times the other day, the next Tory Government will shift taxation from earnings to spending. That is hardly a charter for the lower paid.
  It was soon clear whose spending the right hon. Gentleman was most eager to cut—the Government's. He made it quite clear how he would do it. He would do it not by cutting defence expenditure, but by cutting agricultural and housing subsidies; in other words, by forcing up the price of food and rents for millions of workers whose interests they have been hypocritically peddling this afternoon. He added arrogantly that, if people on low incomes were particularly affected by any increase in the price of food, they can be helped through the social services. If the right hon. Gentlemen who drew up the Motion were honest, they would have added the following words to it:
  "… and calls on the Government drastically to reduce wage earners' standard of living by reducing public expenditure."
  We all know why they left out these words, but that is their alternative policy.
  What do the right hon. Gentleman's detailed complaints about our policy amount to? The Motion says and the
  1606
  right hon. Gentleman says that the prices and incomes policy is
  "causing grave damage to industrial relations."
  He made some play with the Post Office settlement. Let me say at once that I accept my share of responsibility for the situation which developed over that claim, and I will not pretend that it was particularly well handled at the beginning by the Government. But I do not apologise for the fact that we insisted on relating the claim to the criteria of our policy, especially on the productivity side. Is not that exactly what the Leader of the Opposition asked us to do? He called upon the Government to see that the public sector
  "… does not grant wages more than productivity will justify".
  It was because we were able to satisfy ourselves on this point that we were able to reach a settlement.
  As for the Motion's general reference to "grave damage to industrial relations", this is one of those unsubstantiated assertions of which the Opposition are so fond. Of course, industrial relations have been strained often over a wage claim. It has been a common occurrence throughout the whole history of collective bargaining. Are the Opposition saying that relations should never be strained over wages? If so, we might as well abandon the word "bargaining".
  The right hon. Gentleman just hinted at the figure in respect of the increase in strikes last year due to the policy. He did not quote it, but I will. Last year, 4½ million working days were lost through strikes. That is the highest figure since 1962. But he knows—and that is why he did not quote it—that the figure includes H million days lost as a result of the one-day engineering strike last March. It was part of their normal negotiating strategy—[Interruption] If the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite like, I will quote a year when the number of days lost reached 8 million because of engineering strikes when they were in office.
  If we leave the one-day engineering strike out, the figure is roughly comparable with 1965, and it could not hope to compete with the high levels achieved under right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably the 5¼ million days lost

  1607
  in 1959. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is nonsense. We all know that Canada and the United States have been losing roughly six times as many working days through strikes each year as Britain, and they have no statutory prices and incomes policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second complaint is that the policy is frequently unjust in its application. He contrasted the treatment of doctors and dentists by Kindersley with the treatment of university teachers in the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We recognise that there have been differing interpretations of the criteria by the various public bodies responsible for advising us an salaries in the public sector, and this is obviously a factor that we shall have to take into account in considering any future development of the policy.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to say that we should have brushed aside the Report of the Kindersley Review Body, set up in 1962 by his own Government, especially when it had taken the prices and incomes policy fully into account. Equally, I am sure that he would welcome the way in which, in its Report on the pay of university teachers, the National Board for Prices and Incomes draws attention to the difficulties caused by loose forms of comparability as the sole justification for increases in pay. I repeat, it is the Leader of the Opposition who has said that the Government should give a lead in the public sector in relating pay to productivity. Indeed, it was his Government which referred the pay of university staff to the National Incomes Commission in 1963. But it is true that, as a result, we have been left with some anomalies between the treatment of different groups in the public sector, and the issues involved are now under review by the Government. They are complex ones, and of course, we should have full consultation with all those concerned beforehand if any change were contemplated.
  It is essential that salaries, as well as wages, should be brought within the disciplines of the prices and incomes policy. That is why we have made a number of professional salary references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and have currently referred not only top
  1608
  salaries in the private sector and nationalised industries but the salaries of executives in the middle range of management. Before we assume that salary increases have got wildly out of line, I suggest that we wait for the evidence of these reports.
  The results of my Department's survey of salary earnings last October are not yet available, but a report by the Corn-market Careers Centre calculates that the median salaries of certain professional groups in 1968 increased by an average of 4·7 per cent., which is far less than the increase in hourly wages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is quite right to ask what has happened to dividends. I am glad to give him with exactitude the latest figures available, which are those to the end of September, 1968—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Listen, Mikardo.
  Mrs. Castle: They show that the real increase in dividends compared with the previous year was less than 3·2 per cent.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is it, Mikardo.
  Mrs. Castle: The figure was 3·2 per cent., but, in view of the increase in capital, the real figure works out at less than 3·2 per cent.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Castle: I refused to give way to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), and it would be very unfair to him if I gave way to my hon. and learned Friend. I would not like to be thought unfair, so I will give way to my hon. and learned Friend, and, after that, I shall have to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Paget: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that the people with real money have not been living on income for years? They have been living on capital gains, which are infinitely easier to get than dividends and bear much less tax.
  Mrs. Castle: Of course I appreciate that this is not the whole picture, but neither is the prices and incomes policy the whole of the picture. We have never claimed that it was. We have never claimed that it is the sole, nor even the major, element in an overall economic

  1609
  and fiscal strategy. This has never been the Government's case. The Government's case has been that we were taking measures, through this policy, to deal with wage and salary incomes, dividends, prices and rents, and that the other measures are appropriate, as the T.U.C. Economic Review points out, for achieving the Government's aim of social equity. This is not what we are claiming for the policy and it is not a point that falls to me to answer this afternoon.
  But on one thing I am sure we would all agree: that is, that the agricultural workers have not been unfairly treated under the policy. The right hon. Gentleman scoffed at us for having referred their claim to the Prices and Incomes Board at all. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain at one moment that the policy is inconsistent and the next object to its comprehensiveness. The simple fact is that we asked the Board to indicate how this claim ranked in the light of the criteria of the policy, both on grounds of productivity and of low pay. For reasons of which my hon. Friends will be aware, the Board said that this was an exceptional case and that it had been treating it exceptionally. I should think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would be welcoming this flexibility, not criticising it.
  Mr. R. Carr: Could the right hon. Lady explain why, if in order to get this comprehension it was right to refer the agricultural workers' claim, it was not also right and necessary to refer the tally clerks' claim?
  Mrs. Castle: The reason why the tally clerks' claim was not referred was because we did not wish to hold up the encouraging progress towards a comprehensive and radical productivity deal for the docks with which we are pressing ahead with all possible speed.
  The moral of these cases is that, if an incomes policy is to continue, we must progressively refine and improve the criteria. It is no part of my argument to claim that the Government have found the final solution to the complex problems of securing a more equitable and efficient system for distributing rewards. But what I do claim is that we have forced every one of us to face up to the moral and economic issues involved.
  1610
  As the T.U.C. says in its current Economic Review:
  "One useful by-product of the incomes policy is that it has at least directed more attention to this problem …"
  of the low paid. It also admits that, while Congress had continued to assert the need for action to improve the relative position of low-paid workers,
  "… it is doubtful whether collective bargaining alone is likely to achieve this in the short run."
  I doubt whether it will achieve it alone in the long run either, because we all know that one of the main aims of collective bargaining is to maintain existing differentials as sacrosanct.
  This is a challenging problem for all of us, and I hope that in our forthcoming discussions on what should follow the current legislation, when it expires at the end of this year, we will face up to it honestly and realistically with the help of the information that the Government have collected through their sample survey on the distribution of incomes within industries and on the causes of low pay and their study of the cost and implications of a minimum earnings guarantee. The report of this study will be published shortly.
  The implications of such a guarantee would be far reaching, and I ask the House to consider the report very seriously when it is published. Here again, I believe that they will show that one could not hope to improve the relative position of the low-paid except in the context of some incomes policy.
  Whether, in its next phase after 1969, it should be a statutory policy is something that we shall be discussing during the next few months. But I say to my hon. Friends that it will not be simple or easy to find a more comfortable, more efficient or more equitable way of achieving our social and economic aims. It is very easy to criticise, as we heard from the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, but to construct something positive is very different. Certainly hon. Gentlemen opposite, for all the deceptive wording of their Motion, do not offer any alternative that we could accept. Of course they do not support a productivity, prices and incomes policy, statutory or otherwise. The only policy that they ever had was an incomes policy pure and simple.

  1611
  For all the criticisms that have been, and will be, levelled against the Government this afternoon, let us remember that 1968 was an encouraging year in this important respect. We enjoyed an upsurge in growth—4 per cent.—associated with an improvement in the balance of payments—unlike our unhappy experience in the past when a high rate of growth has almost automatically meant that the balance of payments has deteriorated—and our standard of living has risen at the same time.
  No one on this side of the House would want to endanger that triple advance, still far too precarious for us to relax. Because I believe that the productivity, prices and incomes policy, for all its imperfections, has made a modest but vital contribution to our progress in the past year, I ask the House to reject the Motion.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I have seldom heard, certainly at the start of a speech, a weaker or a greater joke perpetrated on the House than the approach made by the right hon. Lady. To dismiss the Motion, as she did at the start of her speech, showed no understanding of the importance which so many people place upon the debate today
  I should like to take the right hon. Lady to the start of this debate. On Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill the right hon. Lady said:
  "The starting point must be devaluation. This was designed to enable us to turn our backs on deflationary policies…We are no longer asking the people to hold down wage increases as part of an overall reduction in the level of economic activity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 301.]
  I wonder whether the Under Secretary of State, in winding up the debate this evening, will tell us whether he is in agreement today with those statements which were made by the right hon. Lady when the prices and incomes legislation was introduced.
  Have the Government turned their back on a deflationary policy? Of course not. The whole approach since May, 1968, has had to be greater and greater deflation. Indeed, the demand that has been made by the right hon. Lady to ensure a limitation in wages by her controls has reduced, without any doubt, the overall increase in the level of economic expansion.
  1612
  Maladministration has become synonymous with Labour Government, and there is no Minister of which this is more true than the First Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. What a misnomer it was when she chose "Employment and Productivity" as the new title for the old respected and respectable Ministry of Labour. Surely it would be more true today to take a leaf from the title of the right hon. Lady's White Paper on trade unions, and rename the Department, "Department of Strife and Unemployment"?
  That is the situation which exists at the moment. The number of days lost because of strikes in industry is of major concern, especially when one compares our record with that of other nations in Europe. Ours is one of which no-one can be proud, and the percentage of that figure which is due to unofficial stoppages makes the situation even worse.
  When one comes to the level of unemployment when considering the overall position of the right hon. Lady's policy, one finds that it has been essential to have a high level of unemployment to ensure that the Government would be able to press forward with their policy. The figure of 500,000 unemployed this year has lasted for a longer time than ever before in modern times, and it must be remembered, of course, that this figure is somewhat misleading because it is lower than the comparative figures which were used prior to 1964. I say that because what most people do not realise is that the unemployment figures today do not include school leavers, and the figures for Northern Ireland have been excluded from the overall totals.
  The figures reveal that the policy for prices and incomes has, in many instances, been a policy of vacillation. The right hon. Lady has been willing to get tough with the moderates, with the reasonable people, with those who are unlikely to strike, and with those whose strike action would not hurt the economy, but she ensures that the Government give way to anybody who stands up to them.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is not the dilemma in which we find ourselves due to the fact that the right hon. Lady's actions in the past have been wrong, while the words in the latter part of her speech could not have been more right? Words and actions conflict.
  Mr. Emery: I was paying pretty close attention to many of the right hon. Lady's words during the whole of her speech. I did not find in them an analysis of our real problem, or a solution to it. What the right hon. Lady says and then does bears no relation to what we see happening in the country.
  When it comes to dealing with the tally clerks, with railway workers, and with post office workers, where there is considerable strength, the Government have been willing to give way. If the Government allow the incomes policy to be breached by workers for whom they are almost entirely responsible, how can, and why should, they expect industry to take their policy more seriously than they are doing themselves? Part of the right hon. Lady's speech was a condemnation of the Conservative Government who, she said, when holding to the pay pause were more stringent than the rest of industry. If the Government are to govern, they must set the example, and even with the right hon. Lady's own figures of adjusted increases one finds figures of 3·7 per cent. and 3·9 per cent., one in the private sector, and the other in the public sector. This only goes to point the moral that the Government expect industry to be tougher and more stringent with their workers than the Government are willing to be with those for whom they themselves are directly responsible.
  The right hon. Lady's motto might well be, "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day". That is what she has encouraged. Where she has been able to, she has forced her policy through, but where somebody has been prepared to stand up and fight, however much giving way may have meant breaching her policy, she has given way.
  The harm of statutory wage control can be summed up in four ways. First, nobody is in favour of it, not even the Prime Minister, and we do not have to go back over old quotations to discover that. Secondly, the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. believe that it is a major interference in industry. Thirdly, more often than not ways are found to get round it to ensure that the 3½ per cent. norm is exceeded. This is a major weakness of the policy. It is this which, to a greater extent than anything else, underlines the rightness of the Motion. The norm has been breached
  1614
  on an innumerable number of occasions. Fourthly, and perhaps most damaging of all, and something which has been ignored, is that the Government's policy is precipitating the largest wage bomb of pent-up, unsatisfied and unsatiated wage claims which awaits only the removal of statutory wage control to burst forth in cyclonic proportions to swamp industry. It will bring the largest increase in labour costs that this country has ever known. This is a desperate position, and one to which the right hon. Lady has shown no sign of finding a solution.
  The Labour Party has only one bankrupt solution to deal with the problem, yet another, the fourth, round of prices and incomes legislation, and with all this the fact that wages went up faster during the 12 months from October, 1967, to October, 1968, than ever before in the previous 12 years. How then can the Government suggest that it would be right to continue this kind of legislation?
  The right hon. Lady said that the difficulty about replacing the present statutory incomes policy was that "it would be difficult to find one more comfortable, more efficient, and more equitable". What a lot of nonsense that is, and it is because of the difficulties into which the Labour Party has got itself that I predict that it will be necessary to prolong the statutory wages control beyond the end of the year.
  This control is encouraging a lack of discipline within the trade union movement. We are seeing the unofficial strike grow, and the "Dash you, Jack. I'm ail right" element play a major part in our troubles. Strangely the Left-wing Amendment. We are seeing the unofficial strike gest an immediate attempt to return to free market conditions. This is a strange view coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite, rather like anarchists at the London School of Economics petitioning for more gates to be erected before they will agree to co-operate.
  One factor has been neglected entirely The upper limit of 3½ per cent. has been set, but nearly every settlement which has not been referred to the Board or to the right hon. Lady has been based on a minimum of that figure. In other words, the norm has been accepted as the bottom level for wage increases, and many ways

  1615
  have been found to get round it, by backdating, by pseudo productivity agreements, and so on. The hon. Lady has claimed with much vigour that she wants to see justifiable productivity arrangements brought in. But one of the major problems of any settlement all of us must realise is that a productivity bargain agreement should not receive payment until it has actually started to work. One of the difficulties is that settlements have been made with productivity bargains included, but the bargains have been very limited during the next 12 months. The wages have been paid, but the return to the industrialist or the Government in increased productivity has been negligible.
  I turn now to the limitation on prices. The right hon. Lady seemed proud of her achievement, and boasted of it. But, from October, 1964, to December, 1968, there was a 19-plus percentage increase in the index of retail prices. Food prices rose by over 16 per cent. If an average family—and this was the yardstick taken—was spending £19 10s. a week in 1964, it would need to spend today £23 4s., an extra £3 14s., to buy the same amount. When she refers to the work of the nationalised industries, it is as well to point out that their prices have risen by over 25 per cent. since 1964. Is she proud of that?
  The whole of her speech was an example of what is so often wrong with the Government. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have personally, by their continued statements guised to mislead the British people, done much to undermine public confidence in Parliament and politicians to a point lower than at any time since the days of Machiavelli.
  Let us consider the record. On 30th October, just before the Bassetlaw by-election, the right hon. Lady said that no economic freeze was on the way. A few days later, when hire-purchase restrictions were brought to the same crisis level as in 1966, she dismissed that with the phrase "Just a touch on the tiller". But less than three weeks later, the November emergency Budget was brought in, bringing an extra £250 million of taxation, with 5d. on petrol and cigarettes, a 10 per cent. increase in Purchase Tax by means of the regulator—a form of taxation which was roundly condemned by hon. Members opposite when
  1616
  a Conservative Government introduced it—a squeeze on bank lending and an import deposits scheme, all at a moment's notice. Was this just "a touch on the tiller "? The right hon. Lady must be either criminally out of touch or culpabably incompetent in understanding how the economy should be managed.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I cannot understand this single, double or triple somersault which the Opposition seem to be performing. Are they saying that it is wrong that wages should rise and the cost of living should be controlled or that, if they were in power, they would reduce wage levels and allow prices to rise? Is it not a fact that, under this Government, although there is a norm under the prices and incomes policy, which I support, there are exceptions to the 3½ per cent. which allow for the rise in wages and therefore for the rise in the standard of living of the great majority of people?
  Mr. Emery: That raises about five other points; let me deal with the two main ones. First, we condemn the Government for their set policy, which they have propounded in this House and the country because it has failed absolutely—
  Mr. Lomas: Where?
  Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman should look at some of his supporters behind him—
  Mr. Lomas: Where has it failed?
  Mr. Emery: If the hon. Gentleman needs to be lectured on every single position—
  Mr. Lomas: Where?
  Mr. Emery: Let us say, the tally clerks. Was it right that their claim should be allowed when the municipal busmen were nearly double-crossed over their claim? Was it right that the Post Office and railway workers should have received the special treatment which university lecturers were refused? Let us just take those illustrations—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not like my answers, he must just accept them and try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye himself later.
  The whole of the Government's policy is bound to fail. Once they set forward

  1617
  on using the compulsory power of this House to control wage negotiations, they are bound to the slippery slope of failure, unless they use more and more compulsion. This is what we condemn and it is for these reasons that the Conservative Motion should be supported.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pursued his case in his normal highly rhetorical fashion. I do not intend to run away from him, but I do not need to pursue him down the corridors of what he termed "the Department of Strife and Unemployment". On the surface, at least, there is much in the Motion with which I can agree but I am a little nauseated with the hypocrisy of leaders of the Opposition in putting it down. One can see their reasons in the Motion and they were made clear by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).
  The Motion says
  "… the attempt to control incomes…has failed in its purpose …"
  In other words, wages have not been held down rigidly enough. Their policy, of course, would rely on market forces, buttressed by the policy outlined in their document "A Fair Deal at Work", which would bind the trade unions to a rigid code of law.
  For workpeople in the factories, the docks, the mines and the workshops to accept the Tory Party's policy in place of the Government's policy is merely a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
  Mr. John Page: Just for clarification, I believe that my right hon. Friend's Motion, when it says that the law has failed in its purpose, means that it has failed in the purpose which the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman's friends had in mind, and not on the basis of what we on this side believe.
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend can answer that for herself.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite are worried lest the Government's incomes policy has what one might term a quiet burial. They intend to stir things up to the very end. They know that the Labour movement is decidedly split over this policy. Trade
  1618
  unionists are worried about their cherished right of free bargaining, something for which they fought over the years and, to a large extent, won.
  It is noticeable that in Fascist countries like Franco's Spain and pre-war Hitlerite Germany one of the first acts was to attack the freedom of the trade union movement. I am not so much against an incomes policy: I have been opposed to the fact that the Government's incomes policy has tended to be operated in a vacuum.
  An incomes policy is part of what one might call a Socialist conception of society, but the Government have failed in that they have not had the courage to introduce the accompanying Socialist props like realistic price control, selective economic controls, policies designed to narrow and not widen the gap between the rich and the poor, a major expansion of public ownership, more cuts in defence expenditure and cuts in the costly featherbedding of B.A.O.R.
  The Government's incomes policy has been the cornerstone of their economic policy, but it has been operated without these essential props and therefore, far from stumbling into Socialism—a phrase once used by an articulate member of the Government to describe the policy—the Labour Party and the Government have been stumbling to disaster. We have lost control of almost every major local authority and many safe Labour Parliamentary seats into the bargain. As my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has repeatedly maintained, the Government should not have gone into this field and, having gone in, they should get out of it now. Considering the essentially capitalist nature of our society, this analysis of the situation is probably justified.
  Mr. Lomas: How can my hon. Friend argue on the one hand that we have done so much wrong and, on the other, accept that wages have risen more than the cost of living and that the Government have kept prices down more than they have wages, and in so doing have recognised that trade unions not only have rights but responsibilities? Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 8 million pensioners in Britain who must be considered along with everybody else?
  Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will reply to those very points.
  The accent all along should have been on productivity. I welcome the Government's conversion in the last year or so to this point of view. The very change in the name of the Department to include the words "employment" and "productivity" is an indication of the changed feeling in the Government. The whole conception of productivity being the answer was not so much accepted by the Government 18 months or two years ago, and I have never believed that wages are a basic cause of our economic ills. Indeed, it could be said that low wages have contributed to many of our economic difficulties because they have given companies no incentive to modernise their equipment and thereby increase productivity. Wages in countries which are our principal competitors have been rising faster than wages in Britain, yet the Government, despite all these obvious factors, have still insisted on their incomes policy being the cornerstone of their economic policy.
  Has this policy been justified? The answer was provided in July of last year with the publication of the Third General Report of the Prices and Incomes Board. It said that the average annual increase in earnings in recent years had been just under 1 per cent. less than it otherwise would have been. Could any other observation on this policy be more revealing? If all the Ministerial effort, Parliamentary time and trade union activity which have gone into imposing or resisting the policy could instead have gone into increased productivity, does anyone seriously doubt that the productivity so increased would have been greater than just under 1 per cent.?
  One need only think of all the strikes that have taken place because of the policy, not least the disastrous seamen's strike. Consider the morale of many good Labour supporters in the factories and workshops. Consider the parsimonious treatment of the busmen's £, which was freely negotiated, the builders' penny, and the ineptitude in dealing with the Post Office telegraphists. There are many other examples one could cite.
  I hope that the incomes policy will be buried at the end of its term towards the
  1620
  end of the year and that "R.I.P." will be written above it. Our Amendment—it is worth noting that it represents the decision of the Labour Party Conference last October and a Motion originally placed on the Agenda of that Conference by my union, the T. & G. W.U.—states:
  "recognising the extent to which legislation restricting wage and salary movements has hindered both legitimate trade union activity and economic expansion, calls for the repeal of this legislation, and also rejects any further legislation the aim of which would be to curtail basic trade union rights …"
  The Under-Secretary does not believe that we should take very much note of annual conference decisions. I, on the other hand, believe that the sooner we get back to the fundamentals of the Labour Movement the better. Some Members of the Government would be well advised to study past conference resolutions.
  At the October conference my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee), who is a member of the Government, was able to point out in her chairman's address that 9 per cent. of Britain's population control over 80 per cent. of personal wealth. She wondered how, in this situation, trade unionists could be expected to adhere to an incomes policy. This maldistribution of wealth must be tackled and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary should study with care the concluding chapter in the T.U.C.'s economic review entitled "Capital Growth and Equality". My right hon. Friend made some carefully selected references to this important document. I say "carefully selected" because she did not refer, for example, to the passage in the review which sets out how more and more wealth in this country is being accumulated in fewer and fewer hands. It sets out how the balance could be redressed by a capital wealth tax. This is what the Government should be tackling instead of pursuing trade unionists and this policy which is a will o' the wisp.
  5.50 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: Apart from the moment when the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) described his reactions to our Motion as being nauseating, unlike his right hon. Friend, who said that she was fascinated, I found myself in agreement with a great deal of what he said, although I do not

  1621
  go the whole way with him on the matter of a wealth tax.
  The hon. Member appeared to be complaining about us stirring things up in connection with the Government's incomes policy, but I do not think he should criticise us on that. If we feel that something is basically wrong, basically un-British and bad for the country, it is right that we should stir it up to the greatest extremes.
  One cannot comment on the Government's particular brand of incomes policy without examining their justification for having such a policy. With the wisdom of hindsight such an examination is very revealing, and what it reveals is fairly horrifying. There are few items of Labour Party policy which testify quite so eloquently to the ruination of our country which is taking place. Having inherited what was a temporarily mediocre economic situation, of perfectly soluble proportions, the actions of the then Chancellor, now Home Secretary, succeeded in making matters infinitely worse.
  Since then, the change to a new Chancellor, who was a slave to the same philosophy, has merely and predictably compounded our state of grief. All the time, in the background, there has been the real architect of disaster, the Prime Minister himself, a man who has exposed himself as being plainly dedicated more to the promotion of Socialism than to the well-being of our population. He is the real villain of the piece, the creator of the state of perpetual crisis which gives him the necessary pretext for running a system which involves State control of the private pocket in the individual. That is what this control of incomes is.
  The right hon. Gentleman is the master-mind who has brought our country so far along the road towards economic ruin. I further charge him with having done this deliberately. Because the whole justification for having such tyrannical control over the individual is our economic plight, it is important that we should be absolutely clear how we have arrived in such a state. If we are to find the quickest way of getting out of it we must know how we arrived there.
  The charge I make it a grave one and I shall seek to substantiate it. No one
  1622
  would question that the Prime Minister is a clever man. He has available to him the best economic advice which one could find anywhere. It is stretching the imagination too far to suppose that we have sunk to the present depths by accident or incompetence. It is all part of the purpose of the "gritty and purposeful government" which he promised us. We know now that a little more oil might have been more appropriate than grit, but that is a minor matter compared with what is involved in the general purpose aspect. This purpose is becoming all the more plain to those not too naive to see it. It is the pursuit of Socialism at all costs and to hell with the rest.
  What is the evidence for saying this? First, we have the contracting out of our world rôle—the betrayal of our friends, allies and dependants whose combined strength was the shield of the Western nations and the free world. So, having at the start of his reign determined to turn his back on the world on the ground that we could not afford it, he has taken every step to try to ensure that we cannot afford it. Secondly, there is the deliberate creation of crisis after crisis in recognition of the fact that only when we are in dire straits are the people prepared to swallow almost any remedy that is served to them. With every remedy consisting of a further dose of Socialism and a further shift to the Left, he achieves his ruinous purpose. Why else should he look so cock-a-hoop, when the nation is crumbling around his ankles, when any normal man would be grovelling in abject apology? I was glad to hear the right hon. Lady, for the first time for many months, saying she regretted she did something wrong.
  Mr. John Page: The right hon. Lady did not say that she did anything wrong. She said that her right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) did it wrong when he was the Minister.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I think that my hon. Friend is correct, but at least it was a Government admission that they did something wrong.
  That is something very rare. Unless we have more admissions of that kind, I fear that the last remaining respect which people have for Parliament will fast disappear.

  1623
  Reverting to my theme it is precisely what the Prime Minister intended should happen, relying on his gullible cohorts to come along year after year and month after month contentedly believing the story of jam tomorrow, or the next day. Here they are, always turning up and supporting him.
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
  1624
  Earl of Dalkeith: I do not want to give way, as I wish to make my speech as quickly as possible so as not to take up the time of the House, and think I may be able to anticipate the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  But has the Prime Minister, at last, made the mistake of thinking that by controlling the pockets of the population he can also control their minds. Never before in peace or war have we had a Government who have advanced so far along the road towards dictatorial suppression of freedom. Never before was the phrase "in the national interest" so over-worked and abused. Never before has the average Briton been so brainwashed by constant squeeze and freeze into accepting it as the norm, like the man who grows to enjoy ill-health.
  There are signs that we are resigning ourselves to the worst with a shrug instead of challenging each new outrage as it comes. Perhaps our climate teaches us to accept what cannot be changed, but because we have grown accustomed to enjoying bad weather there is no reason for enjoying bad government and all that this means in terms of the compulsory freeze. Tacit acceptance of this policy of strangulation by the trade unions is perhaps the most surprising thing of all.
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
  Earl of Dalkeith: I am sure that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make a speech on that very point.
  Of course, we need to have restraint in wages and to match wages to productivity, but what a way to set about it. With all I he emphasis back to front, it was doomed to failure from the start. It is only natural that the more money one takes out of a man's pocket to squander on an ideological notion the more he will ask for. The more one enforces restriction to reduce produc-
  1624
  tion the more one increases the unit cost of production. The more men there are drawing the dole the harder it is to secure agreement for one man with a machine to do the work of five.
  And quite apart from the inhumanity of it all, can anyone suggest a more extravagant way of running the economy than by paying thousands of men vast sums of money for doing precisely nothing, as the Government have done by creating a vast pool of unemployed?
  Some foreigners may think that as a country we have "had it". So long as we continue with this Government, they will be very nearly right. But I believe that there is still one hope. We are short of natural resources, and in relation to our over-population this is a very dangerous situation. However, we have one great national asset; we have a vast reservoir of latent skill, talent and brawn just waiting to be released by the right kind of leadership and incentives. This is our one natural resource, and with it I think that we could once again astonish the world with our ability to recover and prosper.
  Stop-go was bad enough, but stop-stop is a prescription for disaster. As an expansionist by nature, I believe that we simply must have expansion and a let-up from this suppression from which we are suffering before we come to a complete standstill. It is just possible that we could justify permanent stop and restriction if it took control over inflation. The fact is that, although we have been suffering from the superhuman controls which the Government have applied, inflation has been worse during these last four years than in the six previous years. The cost-of-living figure has risen on average 4½ per cent. a year over the last four years, as compared with 2½ per cent. over the preceding six years. This proves that this policy has not succeeded in controlling inflation.
  When I talk about expansion, I do not mean the sort of synthetic boom which the Government are doubtless planning to coincide with the next General Election, followed by more squeeze and freeze as before. No one believes the promises of politicians any more, but at least there are some sane members of the community who remember that for 13 relatively golden years Conservative methods did work in practice, to the advantage of

  1625
  the whole population in terms of prosperity, a rising quality of life, and, above all, freedom from the disastrous controls which we are condemning today.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: I understand that the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) represents the Scottish aristocracy. I am certain that he does not represent workers' opinion in Scotland. I am sure that he will understand if I do not follow him into the byways of the ideas which he has attempted to propound but, instead, comment on some of the wider aspects that have been raised by hon. Members opposite.
  As a result of neither the noble Lord's speech, nor of any other speech, are we any nearer to an understanding of the Opposition's policy. Why are they complaining? We have gathered that their opposition to the prices and incomes policy is because wages have risen too high. That is their basic complaint.
  One hon. Member opposite said that the Motion had been tabled because the policy had failed from a Labour Party point of view, not from a Tory point of view. There are some problems opposite. There is some difference of opinion as to why this Motion was tabled. It does not require much imagination to understand the circumstances in which it was tabled. It is no secret that the Shadow Cabinet listened last week to an organ performance by the Leader of the Opposition; at the time he was playing the "Enigma Variations" and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, I suspect, "That is it. That is what we ought to do—the 'Enigma Variations'. Let us table a Motion on prices and incomes".
  Although it may be true that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West did not write the Motion, it was his suggestion and, therefore, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) wrote out the Motion and it is now on the Order Paper. There may have been some discussion about this, because hon. Members opposite could have stolen the clothes of the Labour Party; they could have quoted accurately from the Labour Party conference debate and put that quotation on the Order Paper. But they said, "That would be too dishonest. It would
  1626
  be too hypocritical. We had better not do that. Let us stick to the bare bones. We will try to make the case accordingly".
  So the Motion appears. The intention behind it, with all the ingenuity of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, was, "If we table it in these terms, there may be some division among ourselves, but one thing which we can certainly do is divide the Government benches. We can recruit some support on the Government side to defeat the Government's policy".
  There is a lack of understanding here of the whole purpose of the wage argument. The fact is that most hon. Members opposite, unlike the noble Scottish Lord, who represents the aristocracy, represent the employers. They collectively speak on behalf of the employers* associations, while we on this side of the House try to put forward the trade union point of view. It is, therefore, impossible to subscribe to the hope expressed by the right hon. Member for Mitcham that both sides of the House—both employer opinion and trade union opinion—could combine to defeat the Government's policy. This is impossible because, if the Government were defeated under those circumstances, the employers' point of view would be bound to prevail in the end.
  Therefore, the Left on this side of the House could never join the Tories in such an operation, because by doing so they would be promoting the employers' point of view; and the whole purpose of our political and trade union activity is to defeat that point of view. Therefore, the hope or theory expressed by the right hon. Member for Mitcham is a non-starter.
  Hon. Members opposite have said that the problem is that wages have risen too fast. They have obviously made out the case, and are still doing so on behalf of employers, that wages have exceeded those which prevailed during their period of government. This is borne out by the figures produced this week by the Departments concerned. During the four years of Tory Government from 1960 to 1964, real wages for manual workers rose by 10·3 per cent. From 1964 to 1968, according to Government figures, they have risen by 11·8 per cent. Manual workers have fared better during

  1627
  four years of Labour government than they did under four years of employers' government.
  The Opposition still say that the policy has failed. We on this side say that it has failed for totally different reasons. The arguments which have been advanced to support the employers' view that wages must be held back have led them to advocate wages' contracts—in other words, contract law. That is the restriction which the Tories would like to be placed upon wages. They want to take wage negotiation away from the methods used so far and place it under the restriction of contract law. Such a scheme has all the problems which are attendant upon the scheme in operation in the United States.
  Why could not the Government have spelled out in some detail support for their own policies in the Amendment? Why is there this nebulous arrangement of words? The answer is that the Government realise that there is no support in the country for their incomes policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] It is borne out by the overwhelming majorities recorded by the whole Labour movement against the policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the annual conference of the Labour Party that while the Government could not take an instruction from conference they would accept that its vote was a warning. We have seen the result of that warning on the Order Paper. The Government have heeded the words spoken at the conference, and they cannot spell out in detail support for their policy because they have accepted that warning.
  My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has said that the options are open on the future of the policy. She repeated that this afternoon, and said that a great deal of thought was being given to finding a successor to the policy. No final decisions have been taken. Therefore, the options are still as wide open as they were at the beginning. For that reason alone it was impossible to put down any detail on the Order Paper.
  If the Government are now saying that the policy has not achieved what it
  1628
  set out to achieve, and since opinion is demanding that the policy be ended, it obviously cannot be put on the Order Paper and voted on. Those are further reasons for not spelling this out in detail.
  Sir Edward Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he understood his right hon. Friend to say in her speech that she is contemplating change in the prices and incomes policy, in other words, doing away with the third prices and incomes policy when the present one ends in 1969? Hon. Members on this side understood clearly that the Minister was saying that she would have to introduce another one.
  Mr. Atkinson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not present then.
  Sir E. Brown: I was here all the time.
  Mr. Atkinson: If the hon. Gentleman was he would have heard as clearly as I did that the Government were now thinking about the policy to succeed that now being followed. Our function on this side of the House is to try to influence Government thinking to the maximum, to try to get the kind of policy we believe will give the maximum benefit to the workers we represent.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Surely the point is that it is not a matter of changing the policy of having a controlled wage-price level, but perhaps finding an alternative means by which this control can be exercised?
  Mr. Atkinson: Quite, and that is no doubt part of the consideration now being given to the problem.
  One of my fundamental concerns is that the second part of the policy described in "In Place of Strife" will be the successor to the present prices and incomes policy. It looks dangerously like that. Further disaster lies in that direction if the Government have such ideas. It could well be the basis of a future incomes policy, because the Government's predominant fear is of wage drift. It also preoccupied right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the long years they were in office. They also would have very much liked to design a kind of compulsory intervention along the lines suggested in the White Paper.

  1629
  I heard some odd remarks earlier about the title of "In Place of Strife". It was suggested that it was a twist of "In Place of Fear", the title of a book written by our good friend Aneurin Bevan. That is not so. It came as a result of the Prime Minister's idea that Galsworthy's "Strife" was very apt. It is in place of the class struggle. If my right hon. Friend were here she would confirm this.
  Mr. Lomas: I am rather puzzled. Can my hon. Friend tell me any right that is taken away from the trade union movement in the document "In Place of Strife"? On the prices and incomes policy, does not he agree that there is a need to try to get away from a free-for-all society in which only the strong and the militants shall win and the weak and the poor shall go to the wall?
  Mr. Atkinson: I shall come to the free-for-all question shortly. But I shall rapidly clear up my hon. Friend's point about trade union rights that have been taken away. Plenty are taken away by this policy. The "In Place of Strife" policy suggests that workers should not have the right to withdraw their labour under certain circumstances.
  Mr. Lomas Mr. Lomas indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend shakes his head. Rather than allow my speech to become like a series of interventions on my part, I shall come to the three or four points I want to make
  I have summed up my criticism of the Government and explained why they could not spell out in detail in the Amendment the support for their policy statement on prices and incomes, and have therefore had to leave it to other people. The point is that there is a further Amendment on behalf of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. It did not ask for the Amendment to be tabled, but we are constitutional members of the Labour Party, and it is our function as members to translate conference decisions into some form of activity here, and ensure that our rank and file can make their opinions known inside the House.
  Therefore, on behalf of the National Executive Committee we put down as an Amendment the words used in a motion
  1630
  moved by Mr. Frank Cousins, of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, at the annual conference of the Labour Party where it was overwhelmingly carried. I regret that Mr. Speaker was unable to select the Amendment, but it is on the Order Paper, to give our rank and file members the chance to express themselves in this way. Therefore, it is there on behalf of the National Executive Committee.
  In passing, I might say that it was unable to table the Amendment itself because of the ridiculous situation that 11 members of the Government are on the National Executive, and because of the articles of faith they adopt when they go into the Government they are not allowed to subscribe to such Amendments whilst remaining members of the Government. That is why we have done it on their behalf.
  Sir C. Osborne: Is it not acknowledged by the Labour Party as a whole that conference resolutions are not binding on the Labour Cabinet? Is not that fundamental? The Government have to govern, not according to instructions from the conference.
  Mr. Atkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is absolutely true, and I thought that I had put that fairly plainly when I made the point that the Executive and conference are not allowed to instruct the Government. But the Prime Minister accepted the warning. He said so himself. It is not an instruction, but a warning. I do not want to go over the Laski argument with an earlier Prime Minister once again. I think that the House accepts what the position is.
  The only title I can find for the Liberal Amendment is "In Place of Progress". It is a sort of anarchist's charter. The Liberals have had to look around to the other areas on which they thought they could get something on the Order Paper, and they have come up with this. They are saying that there should be a complete abolition of national negotiations or industry-wide negotiations and therefore wages could be negotiated only at a plant level. If that has any part in the Government's thinking, it supports some of our fears that Part 2 of "In Place of Strife" could

  1631
  be a successor to the present policy. I hope that does not come about. I hope that the Liberals are not having much influence on the Government in suggesting total abolition of national negotiations.
  One of the biggest problems of the motor car industry is the absence of industry-wide negotiations. If large employers like Vauxhall, Ford, B.L.M.C. and the rest wrote into their contracts with suppliers of components a fair wages clause which was agreed throughout the industry, we would eliminate many of the problems.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: One might eliminate the problems, but at what price?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: At the price of saving industrial strife.
  Mr. Atkinson: What we want is some degree of industrial harmony. We want to do away with the periodic industrial upheavals that bedevil the motor industry. I have said that one way is for an assembly company to write a fair wages clause into its agreements with suppliers of components. At the moment, the parent company, as it were, which assembles the components, is responsible only for specification of materials, questions of quantity, inspection limits, etc. It is not concerned in wage agreements in the component suppliers' factories. I believe that this is one way in which we could help solve the motor industry's troubles.
  The Liberals say, "Abolish the lot. We do not want industry-wide negotiations". Imagine such a situation in a nationalised industry, such as electricity supply. Negotiations would be at individual power stations. Some might offer 8s. 6d. an hour to supply 240 volts while others offered 10s. 6d. It would be an anarchic situation.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham said that wages had risen too much during the period of the Labour Government.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. That is not what I said. Our case is that wages have risen under this policy in relation to the cost of living and productivity, contrary to the Govern-
  1632
  ment's prices and incomes policy, which is a different matter.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confusing the matter a little further. What is he now saying? Is he saying that wages have not gone up too high in his opinion?
  Sir C. Osborne: He is saying that the policy has failed.
  Mr. Atkinson: Has it failed because the workers have had too much? Or has it failed because they have had a bad deal? This is the question the right hon. Gentleman must answer.
  Mr. R. Carr: It has failed from all these points of view, including the worker's point of view. I suspect that when, earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman gave figures about real increases in earnings under the Labour Government as compared with the Conservative Government, he was leaving out of account the very important and large effects of increases in taxation under this Government. The real take-home, keep-in-your-pocket pay has not gone up.
  Mr. Atkinson: We are now on to the real basis.
  I want to finish on this theme of how the workers have failed to get a fail deal within capitalist society. This is, after all, part of the purpose of our political activity. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that capitalism has failed to solve the problems of the workers. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it all ways. What have we had in the post-war years? We have had a succession of Chancellors from both sides blaming wages for our economic problems. They all said that wages were too high. Not one has failed to make that comment.
  We had a long succession of policies put up by right hon. Members opposite. Most of those present opposite were in the House when those policies were being designed. The policies included the pay pause and the plateau. Mr. Harold Macmillan clung desperately to some sort of plateau. He said that high wages were ruining the country's economy. There were the "three wise men" and the N.I.C.—better known as "Nicky". We have had all sorts of delightful titles, but now we are on prices and incomes. It is the end of a long line of policies

  1633
  exclusively designed to restrict wage-earners' rights.
  All our Governments, from both sides, have accused the wage earners of getting too much out of the economy, or taking something to which they were not entitled, and it is utter nonsense. But because the idea has been propagated for so long, we are living in a low-wage economy, and this is our problem. It should be the job of every hon. Member to shout as loud as he can that the solution to our problems is in higher wages. These difficulties have been with us so long because we have always tried to argue that wages are far too high.
  Let us take this situation in Fords as an example. In the headlines this week the new settlement has been described as the most magnificent since the war. Much Press praise has been given to it. The settlement was made by Mr. Blakeman, who is now to become a Government employee. But is it such a magnificent achievement? Let us examine the position. The skilled worker at Fords in 1939 was earning 2s. 5d. an hour, or £5 16s. a week. At that time, Fords believed in a high-wage philosophy. That was the basis of the firm's ideas. Indeed, it paid wages higher than in most other industries at the time.
  Under the so-called magnificent new agreement the new rate is £25 6s. 8d. a week. But the index of retail prices shows that the Ford workers should be £5 better off in order to maintain the 1939 standard. No one can challenge the fact that a man earning £5 16s. before the war could have a higher living standard than a man earning £25 6s. 8d. now. None of us can challenge it.
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: My hon. Friend has not mentioned the women at Fords. Does not he agree that they at least are better off under the new agreement?
  Mr. Atkinson: It is difficult to make comparisons in their case, because so few of them are eligible to claim equal pay. There are not so many doing manual work and, therefore, equal jobs. Before the war, there were even fewer. There is no real comparison. However, the agreement is a magnificent step forward for them and I congratulate those who negotiated equal pay. I would like to
  1634
  see equal pay brought in throughout the country, which can afford it and should do it.
  The point I am making is that we have not improved the lot of the workers over those 30 years of capitalism. All these wages policies have failed. A London busman, earning £4 10s. a week before the war and living in a council house, is now worse off after 30 years of capitalism. We reject this intervention in the whole process of wage agreements. It has failed. There is no such thing as a free-for-all. There is no employer standing at the factory gate handing out bonus packets to workers. Wages have to be fought for, and in the case of 10 million workers in this country they have to be earned by piecework conditions. Their wages are measured by their individual output and there is no free-for-all.
  Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman asked someone to contradict him on his claim that the Ford workers now are not better off than they were in 1939. He gave £5 15s. as the wage then and £25 as the wage today. What he did not give was the purchasing power of the £ in those two years. The internal purchasing power of the £ today is about one-third of what it was in 1939. On that basis alone, the worker today is far better off than he was in 1939. Further, the social benefits that he now draws are incomparably higher than they were in 1939. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument is not true.
  Mr. Atkinson: The point I am making is that the index of retail prices over a 30-year comparison shows that the £ is now worth 5s. 5d.
  Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member shakes his head, but the Government disclosed these figures a fortnight ago. If we take the 1938 basis, the £ today is worth 5s. 5d. If the hon. Member looks it up in HANSARD, he will see that I am correct. I am sorry to take so long, but I seem to provoke so many comments.
  As to the change that is taking place, of course there is an increase in the social wage; of course the Labour Party and the Labour Government have done an

  1635
  enormous amount to increase the social wage. The family wage has gone up, but the fact is that if wives were not working there would be a wage revolution. It is the wages of working wives who augment the wages of their husbands that enable this situation to continue. That is the point. These 30 years of capitalism, these wage policies, have singularly failed. It is our job to support the workers at last, and to pay no attention to the voices opposite, but to try to do all we can to change the policy of the Government.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: Connossieurs of incomes policy may well have felt that they had been summoned to a requiem this afternoon when they saw the terms of this Motion, because there was a widespread expectation—and that eternal optimist the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) certainly felt that there was some indication of it—that the Government would make an announcement that we were seeing the withering; away of the statutory obligations which now attend the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  That certainly was not my understanding. I turned up at a wake expecting to find the widow in her weeds, wailing and saying, "Yet it was a great policy while it lasted." But there has been none of that; she is unrepentant. Admittedly, the policy is yet again to be evolved when the present legislation comes to an end, but the Minister was more disposed to apply the kiss of life than to wail at its passing.
  So now we move to a new situation. What did the right hon. Lady say? I made a very careful note. She said that the policy had made a modest but vital—and that is the key word—contribution to the Government's economic strategy. That other eternal optimist, the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), concentrated on the modesty, and said that even Aubrey Jones had said that it only made a modest difference in one of his many Prices and Incomes reports. "Vital", was the word used by the right hon. Lady. It reminded me of Browning's lines:
  "Oh, the little more, and how much it is! And the little less, and what worlds away!"
  There is no doubt what is the psychology of the Government in the
  1636
  highest places on this matter. The office has transformed the holder. Whatever scepticism the right hon. Lady may have had about the ability of the Government to intervene in industrial processes before she went to the Department, she is now as enthusiastic an advocate of prices and incomes policy, as we understand that term, as was her predecessor. It was Talleyrand who said, "Pas trop de zéle," and it is the sheer enthusiasm of the right hon. Lady which begins to worry me, an enthusiasm particularly evident when she waxes about productivity.
  That is a five-syllable word, almost invented for the politician. It has that ring of solemnity and dignity which so appeals to the Privy Councillors. According to the Prime Minister, such productivity agreements must be "copper-bottomed", "stringently tested", says the Chancellor, "genuine", says the White Paper, Cmnd. 3590, under which we now operate the policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) was kind enough to refer to the digging and delving I do by way of Parliamentary Questions to find out a little about these productivity agreements. I take one instance only, which refers to a pay settlement affecting the 600 fitters employed by Swan Hunter and Tyne Shipbuildiers. I will not weary the House with the full quotation, but there were Questions on 19th December, 31st January, and 7th February, to establish exactly by what amount earnings had gone up as a result of the productivity agreement and by what amount productivity had gone up by that agreement.
  I was told, on asking on Friday, 31st January,
  "What have been the percentage increases in rates, earnings and productivity over the past two years",
  that the
  "settlement superseded a variety of rates and earnings in five different yards. Information in the form requested is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 391.]
  Then, in all innnocence, I asked on what criteria the Minister determined whether or not the recent pay settlement affecting the 600 fitters employed by Swan Hunter and Tyne Shipbuilders fell within the incomes policy in view of the fact that information indicating the estimated percentage increase in rates, earnings, and

  1637
  productivity arising from the settlement was not available? "Ah," says the Under-Secretary:
  "This settlement has been examined in the light of the criteria set out in the White Paper,…(Cmnd. 3590), and the company has supplied my Department with sufficient information for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 206.]
  But not sufficient is available for the House to be told. Not sufficient information for us to know by what percentage the increase had been. I was prepared, being reasonably good-natured, to let that pass, to say no more. These things happen, I am sure. There was probably a very good example, and tradition in this part of the world and in this company, of increasing productivity and we could take it for granted and give the benefit of the doubt to the Department. But only a few days later I saw a Financial Times headline which said "Fears that Tyne shipyards productivity deal is misfiring." This was referring to other workers than the 600 fitters to whom I have referred, but it is the same area of employment, the same group of employment.
  I quote briefly from that article. It says:
  "The pay and productivity deal recently agreed for 3,000 boilermakers, shipwrights and blacksmiths "—
  I am not now talking about 600 fitters, but people in different employment working in the same area—
  "in the Tyne Shipbuilding Consortium and described as heralding a new era on the river is said to be misfiring. Nine weeks of operation have shown that while most of the men are receiving higher wages under the agreement they have not increased their production in line with this. … Sir John Hunter has revealed himself as unhappy about this state of affairs. He warned that unless productivity increased in line with higher wages a 'hopeless future' faced the yards."
  I make no comment on that, only to say that when a Minister acts with the enthusiasm and certainty with which the right hon. Lady acts I am somewhat puzzled when these situations come to light.
  I pass to the second point, which very much flows from the first. There is a little bit of sleight of hand going on and the House should be forewarned. We should apply our own early-warning system to what I suspect the Department
  1638
  of Employment and Productivity is up to concerning the pay of the chairmen of nationalised industries.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Biffen: I am glad to have the substantial support of the hon. Gentleman.
  Some may remember that a while ago the pay of Mr. Jocelyn Hambro excited a degree of comment, mostly from hon. Members opposite. As a result, it was announced that the National Board for Prices and Incomes—that repository of knowledge, dignity and discernment—was to carry out a wide-ranging investigation. We thought, "Perhaps now we shall know a bit more about what goes to make the pay of the successful entrepreneurs, managers and executives in the private sector." But there is now a widespread expectation that this report is to be used as an excuse or pretext for a substantial increase in the pay of chairmen of nationalised industries. I am not entering into the muddy arguments about whether they are being paid too much or not enough. I am merely concerned at this point to try to alert the House to what is happening.
  I am immensely suspicious about what the Secretary of State said this afternoon. Again, I noted the words. She talked about "loose comparability" and her anxiety to ensure that the public sector was treated no less favourably than the private sector. This could be open to very interesting interpretations. For instance, it could be said that the right hon. Lady is anxious to ensure that the public sector chairmen of nationalised industries are treated no less favourably than their counterparts in the private sector. That is an interpretation which will increasingly be put on her words.
  Having decided that the pay increase for the chairmen of nationalised industries should proceed to bring them in line with their private enterprise counterparts under the term of "loose comparability", we shall be interested to know at what speed it will prevail. May we be assured, even this evening, that it will be at a speed no more than the permitted ceiling of 3½ per cent. per annum? Make no mistake: that was the rule which was applied to the workers at Glasgow Airport.
  I wish to verify that by quoting from HANSARD an Answer given to me by the

  1639
  Under-Secretary of State concerning the pay of staff at Glasgow Airport. I will not quote it entirely, but the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker), referring to the claim which had been made by the staff at Glasgow Airport, said:
  "The Government were informed that the claim for British Airports Authority rate"—
  which was what the Glasgow staff were asking for—
  "was based on comparability, and as such increases are limited by the ceiling to an annual rate of 3½ per cent. it was not consistent with incomes policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 61.]
  Three and a half per cent. was the rule for the staff at Glasgow Airport. There will be a widespread expectation that the same rule will apply to Lord Robens.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I assume that comparability will go further down the scale. I assume that the deputy chairman and all the officials and staff will also ask for comparability and that then all the workers in similar industries will ask for comparability. I assume that the Minister will give exactly the same treatment to them.
  Mr. Biffen: That undoubtedly hostile question was more intended for the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench than for me.
  I should like to touch on another aspect of the policy which clearly increasingly occupies our mind when we talk about the next stage. What I say may not entirely please all of my hon. Friends. I refer to the belief that, somehow or other, there can be a voluntary incomes policy which is sub-contracted to some outside agencies and bodies, and that, in particular, the T.U.C.—one might say, quoting the right hon. Lady, "even the T.U.C."—is conceived as possibly having a rôle. With that zeal and enthusiasm of which I have already spoken, she has told the House that she is having consultations with the T.U.C. about what rôle it might have, presumably as some kind of supervisor of a voluntary incomes policy.
  The assumption that non-unionised members will be subject to the same restraints as unionised members I leave on one side, because that is an argument which hon. Members opposite will be par-
  1640
  ticularly keen to deploy. I ask the House to consider the willingness of unions to accept T.U.C. supervision. This debate could not have happened at a more apt time in this respect. We have just seen the T.U.C. trying to arbitrate in the very delicate situation in the steel industry between blue collar unions and the A.S.T.M.S. and the C.A.W.U. It would be indelicate to quote what Mr. Clive Jenkins has had to say in reaction to the finding of the T.U.C.
  I should like to go back a little further to the annual conference of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, in March, 1967, when Mr. David Currie, the president of that union, discussed the possibility of the T.U.C. having some rôle as supervisor in a so-called voluntary incomes policy. I quote from the Financial Times:
  "Referring to the T.U.C.'s proposals to run its own incomes policy, Mr. Currie said: 'We cannot say that Congress will succeed in applying such a policy. We do not know if it has the skill, the knowledge and the authority to make it work.'"
  The report goes on:
  "Mr. Currie pointed out that the T.U.C. entered this field with substantial weaknesses. It represented only about one in three of employed people and about one in five non-manual workers."
  The situation which exercised the mind of the president of the C.A.W.U. back in the spring of 1967 has been exacerbated considerably by the dispute which is proceeding in the steel industry.
  We must, therefore, realise the ineffective sanctions which we can expect from the T.U.C. in applying such a policy. The idea that we can have a voluntary incomes policy is an illusion. It would be a farce. To be told that it would be a subsidiary rôle in economic policy is relegating it to being a mini-farce—and it is not much the better on that account.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a very interesting point of view. Apparently, he is opposed to the prices and incomes policy adumbrated by the Government. He has observed that a voluntary policy supervised by the T.U.C. would be of no value. What does he want? Does he want a free-for-all? Does he want the workers to place a higher, and reasonable, value on their labour before they hire it out?

  1641
  I would accept that, but does the hon. Gentleman want it?
  Mr. Biffen: I will—as the next part of my speech was headed—"Reality".
  I want the Government to confine themselves to what I believe to be their prime and indispensable economic rôle. The most important function which they can discharge in this respect is in relation to the money supply. We come back to an argument which might have been dismissed out of hand by those who were brought up and whose arteries were formed in Keynesian days—dare I say such provocative words to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman that those who argue that economic policy and Government control of economic policy should proceed primarily through the money supply and balancing aggregate demand of the resources available, are receiving not merely considerable encouragement from current economic trends and thinking, but that the Government are reluctant captive converts to much of this as a result of the tutelage which they now receive from the International Monetary Fund.
  To those like the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who imagine that this is a policy which is socially regressive, and like the right hon. Lady, who was brash enough to talk about her policy as oriented towards social justice, let me say that the policy today with its heavy emphasis on inflation that we have experienced over the last few years, has not benefited the workers in this country.
  Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Biffen: No, I will deal with this.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) can shake his head, but I call in the ample reinforcement of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on this point. It has been the rentier class which has benefited most from inflation. A study of the Financial Times index will prove that all the increases in prices or in wages or salaries about which we have talked today have been outstripped by the rise in that index. It is the rentier class which is the major beneficiary of inflation. If the hon. Gentleman really is dedicated to social justice he
  1642
  should be arguing on the side of those like myself, who claim that the prime responsibility of the Government is to control inflation by controlling it at the very source—
  Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Mr. Biffen: I am coming to the conclusion of my speech.
  Mr. Bence: As a toolmaker, in 1932, 1 worked for a company in the Midlands which provided bicycle racks for its workers. In the same plant, in 1951 those racks had gone, for a car park.
  An Hon. Member: Their wives are working.
  Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to learn this from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East but I cannot understand its immediate relevance. If it is the argument of the hon. Member that only inflation provides rising living standards for the working population, then he is denying to his eyes the evidence of the progress of other countries which have had similar rises in living standards not accompanied by inflation.
  Mr. Mendelson: Just before the hon. Gentleman returns to his peroration, I want to welcome his appeal that we should all return to reality. He has just done so by disclosing that he fully agrees with the kind of policy that the International Monetary Fund might try to impose. In speaking of the salaries of chairmen of nationalised industries he mentioned muddy waters, but he did not tell the House that it was his hon. and right hon. Friends who pressed the Prime Minister to put up the salaries by several thousand pounds.
  Mr. Biffen: I made the specific point that I was not seeking to judge whether or not the salaries should go up; I was merely saying that the Government, having landed themselves with this policy, and to be consistent with their policy, were pledged to behave in a certain fashion. It was no more than a deliberate attempt to acquaint the House of that. Those of my hon. Friends who see cause to object to the policy are perfectly entitled so to argue, as I would. However, I will not be deflected from my peroration, because I accept that the advice that has been offered by the International Monetary Fund is some

  1643
  of the best economic advice that any Government have had to listen to during the post-war period.
  Our success in turning that good advice to reality and achievement depends on the willingness with which the Government are prepared to abandon their present concepts, to accept price and profit as major determinates in a market-oriented economy and to relegate prices and incomes legislation to the medieval dustbin from which it should never have emerged.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) made a very interesting and entertaining speech. I concede that he has a certain ability to spot the sensitive areas of hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not know whether it is a natural ability or whether it is something which he has acquired, but he is not bad at it.
  I will address myself to points which are of concern to this side of the House. The argument about prices, incomes and productivity is taking place on this side of the House, by which I mean within the Labour and trade union movement. Hon. Members opposite have nothing to contribute since they are not genuinely interested in solving the problems of the workers and there is nothing wrong in admitting this.
  I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend here. At the risk of damaging my reputation as a dark horse, I hope that she will take note that I intend to support her. I say that deliberately. This has been a bad time for me. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) described me as Right-wing, and he has called me "safe". I am a little perturbed at being labelled safe; it might be misconstrued as having something to do with supporting family planning. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) suggested that anybody on this side who dared to try to understand what the Government were trying to do was just a gullible cohort of the Prime Minister.
  We on this side have some hard thinking to do. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that there is no support for, not necessarily the Government's prices
  1644
  and incomes policy, but no support for an attempt to find a satisfactory prices and incomes policy. There is a difference here.
  I say that notwithstanding conference decisions. I am not unduly influenced by Labour Party conference decisions. This is probably because I have never been in a majority in their decisions in the past, and have never been able to argue from a position of strength knowing that I have a party conference decision behind me. Usually I am more concerned in case someone in party circles expects me to toe the line, since I do not agree with so many decisions which have been made. I am surprised at some of my colleagues who use the argument that at last we have a party conference decision with which we can agree as if it were the be all and end all of everything in the Labour movement.
  Unlike so many other problems associated with prices and incomes, psychology plays a bigger part in our attempt to understand the criticisms than the logical analysis that we delude ourselves we are making.
  I say that because of the very frustrations and difficulties involved in finding the right economic policy, as one who is attempting to understand what the movement is about. Such people as the gnomes of Zurich, the I.M.F. and other vague figures behind the scenes who seem to be able to make decisions over which we have little or no control, help create those difficulties and frustrations, causing comrades in the labour and trade union movement to fasten on to something which they can understand, namely, "Let us get a conference decision in our favour". Some of my hon. Friends make more out of getting a conference decision than of facing up to our economic problems and the difficulty of finding the right solutions, and I want to look at the psychology which arises from it.
  I am sure that all hon. Members accept that wages have risen faster than prices. However, people outside this House do not, and wage earners do not. I am not condemning the Government for that. I merely say that there is something wrong somewhere with the thinking and approach of many people in the Labour and trade union movement. They do not accept the facts. They work on impressions,

  1645
  on what they want to believe, and this is the responsibility of some of the critics on this side of the House who are not encouraging people outside to make a critical analysis of what is happening. They are not asking them to examine the facts. Instead, they are playing on their misunderstandings and impressions in an effort to gain support. I suppose that we are all guilty of this from time to time, but it is beginning to get out of hand.
  Mr. Heffer: I hope that my hon. Friend will be careful about what he is saying.
  Mr. Brown: I am usually quite careful.
  I will give another example of what I mean. It arises at any conference in a housing estate where people are concerned about their rents. The impression one gains is not that the National Board for Prices and Incomes reported that rents in Scotland should not be increased by more than 7s. 6d. a week unless there were exceptional circumstances. The argument put up by the tenants is that the Government have said that rents have to go up by 7s. 6d. every year. In other words, there has been a failure to get across what the Government have done and what the National Board for Prices and Incomes has said.
  Another example is transport. The attitude of people on housing estates such as those in my constituency is that transport workers have had a raw deal because wage increases have been the subject of difficulty. I have not time now to go into the complications or arguments involved. But those who argue that we should have done something to help transport workers are the very people who are most vocal in their criticism when fares have to go up to pay for wage increases. They cannot have it both ways. I am not objecting to wage increases, because I think that the rates of pay in the transport industry are a disgrace and are one of the reasons why we have poor services.
  Some of my colleagues have a tremendous responsibility for not turning the minds of our own supporters to the problems which we are trying to solve. I concentrate on my colleagues, because I am not concerned with that lot opposite or about what they say.
  1646
  To give another example, recently I attended a teach-in on productivity organised by the Post Office Engineering Union. I regard that union as a first-class body. It is well organised and operates in an industry which offers every opportunity for arriving at good productivity agreements. The union had just negotiated a substantial increase at a time when the Post Office had also announced increases in telephone rental charges and television licence fees, and I was surprised to hear a member bitterly condemning the increase in gas prices following a wage award in the gas industry. It is that sort of inconsistence which perturbs me, and it raises problems which it is for the Labour and trade union movement to find solution. No contribution can be made by hon. Members opposite.
  I ask those who have signed the critical Amendment, how they would protect the unorganised workers. How, for example, do they propose to deal with the civil servants? There is something in this criticism. Those responsible for the Amendment are skilful, in exploiting the divisions on our side of the House. But what is the logic of the development taking place? Is it that we should encourage civil servants to be more militant and indulge in industrial action? Is it that we should encourage bank employees to do the same? That is the logic of the policy which too many comrades are pursuing at the moment, and I think that it is dangerous.
  It is the kind of policy which many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want the trade union movement to adopt, so that a climate can be created where they can make their attacks on the movement if and when they ever get back to power. There are warnings for us all in this situation.
  Let us look at the attitude which lies behind the critical Amendment supported by a number of my hon. Friends. It refers to the extent to which legislation restricting wage and salary movements has hindered both legitimate trade union activity and economic expansion. I am addressing these questions as much to myself as to some of my colleagues, because I do not know the answers. Equally, I am sure that it is not good enough for trade unionists and their leaders merely to repeat that collective

  1647
  bargaining means free collective bargaining and that, no matter what the effect on anyone else, if they can get an agreement out of an employer, no one has the right to interfere. I do not accept that. It is time that more active trade unionists faced up to their responsibilities and said that they do not accept it, either.
  Does it follow that, because one has strength, because one can win a wage award, one has no responsibility if it means putting a company out of the export market? Does it mean that one has no responsibility to feed back some of the extra in productivity to the consumer? Surely it is time that someone said, following a wage agreement, "What about the social services that have to be provided? How do we provide for them?". These are matters which concern us all.
  Finally, who is to determine the rewards to which people are entitled? Who determines the relative importance of the doctor, the university teacher, the joiner, or the civil servant? Has anyone worked out a way to answer those questions? I recognise that the contribution of the man who sweeps the streets, in some cases, is greater than that of some professional people. But we need to rethink our attitude on what constitutes a contribution to the community. Is it to be measured simply in terms of the length of apprenticeship that we serve or the academic skills that we have? These are all problems for us, but they are all linked with trying to find out what is a just prices and incomes policy.
  Mr. Heffer: Marx explained it long ago.
  Mr. Brown: I do not know what Marx would have said in 1969. I am concerned about what my comrades are saying in 1969. If they bring Marx up to date we might get more constructive thinking.
  I am perturbed about the psychology of our present situation, because of the attempt that seems to be made to direct this hostility against the Government. I want to discuss it and thrash it out.
  I took down some of my right hon. Friend's words, as no doubt did hon. Members opposite. However, I am not trying to be mischievous; I am genuinely
  1648
  trying to be helpful in the interests of my party and the people that I represent. I thought that my right hon. Friend said that we must look to the future and decide whether we need a statutory policy. If it is any comfort, I share her dilemma. I do not say this in any critical sense, but I should almost like to pray. I have never believed that it did any good, but I pray that we can find some way of uniting the Labour and trade union movement. I think my right hon. Friend is desperately anxious to do this. But it is not helped by the assumption made by many outside and inside the House that the Government are hell bent on being bloody minded with our supporters. I do not think that they are doing it deliberately. It may be that some members of the Government almost enjoy doing it—that is a different matter—but I do not think that it is being done deliberately.
  We have plenty to sort out. We need to do something about salaries and dividends. We get a lot of fun from the funny men opposite about the salaries of chairmen of nationalised industries. I think that this will be difficult, but we must do something.
  We need to be seen to be doing something about the William Hickey society. It should not always appear as though we are trying ot placate the C.B.I, for the sake of getting some agreements. We are living in a class society. We cannot always get agreements, so why should we be so anxious to get agreements? Usually when that happens we are being jockeyed into a position in which we should not find ourselves.
  I should like to encourage the workers to be more militant. It is ridiculous in this age that the workers should have no say about the salaries paid to management or the fees paid to directors. Directors and management can take their half days off to play golf, have their works outing, or have their cars run for them. They can do many things. I should like to see the trade unionists in the factories demanding that these things be made public and having the right to express their views on what should go on, not just as it affects them directly, but within the orbit of the factory or the company employing them.
  Finally, concerning "In Place of Strife". If we can find ways and means

  1649
  of dropping some of the offending things and convince our comrades in the movement that we are genuinely trying to seek a solution in the interests of all and if we can link it with ideas which might come out of the Budget, then, in the words of the Amendment, I think we can look forward to an economic policy which contains
  "…the promotion of a constructive and socially just economic strategy."
  I hope that those are not just words which have been stuck on the Order Paper. In my innocence, perhaps, I genuinely believe that there is a willingness on the part of the Government to come up with some of the answers to the difficult problems with which we have been faced for so long.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). Coming from an industrial conurbation myself, I share his feeling that the Government have failed lamentably to get across their prices and incomes policy to the industrial workers of this country.
  My diagnosis of the Government's failure to have their policy understood may be different from that of the hon. Gentleman. First, I think that it is due to the humbug in the Government's policy about prices. If they had come clean from the start—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to his credit, has several times done in this House—and admitted that there must be substantial price rises, there would have been less disappointment by the public about the operation of the policy.
  Secondly, I agree with the newly-appointed Professor of Industrial Relations at the University of Leeds, who says:
  "… it seems quite certain that it will never be possible to 'sell' an incomes policy to the labour market participants as a balance of payments instrument alone, or even primarily: the connection between the balance of payment and the shop floor is altogether too remote; nobody eats the exchange reserves after all, and if we do believe an incomes policy can help the balance of payments, we need to find some much more positive functions for it as well."
  Having regard to the barren mutual petulance of both the Motion and the Government's Amendment, and whilst
  1650
  bowing entirely to the total discretion of the Chair, I and my Liberal friends feel that the public interest would have been better served if the debate today could have been on the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and his hon. Friends and the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and other Liberal Members. As it is, the Motion and the Government Amendment—the substance of today's debate—are, in my view, a prime cause of the boredom, and, in many cases, the despair which people in this country feel about the conduct of public affairs at present; namely, that we spend our time here in an idle ping-pong political match ignoring the real issues which give the ordinary people so much concern.
  I admit that the Conservatives have been open to considerable temptation, because the state of equity in pay and conditions of work has never been in such confusion since the memorable time when my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) first established himself in his constituency. At that time, as is well remembered, the Conservative Government flexed their muscles at the nurses, but trembled at the knees in face of many male workers receiving comparatively prosperous incomes. Now we have a Labour Government flexing their muscles at certain teachers and the builders, but trembling in the face of the doctors and certain other pressing claimants. Indeed, for many an Englishman who is the victim of the unfair part of the policy, his mortgage is now his castle.
  The deficiencies in the Motion, I think, divide into two parts. First, there is a total lack of any constructive proposals whatever to take the place of the Measures which are so petulantly condemned. The reason is not far to seek. I will quote two Members of Parliament, although I have here a sheaf of evidence from other Conservatives which I will spare the House.
  The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), writing in the Spectator on 13th September last about what he described as the "dilemmas of opposition", stated:
  "The classic example of this, of course, is the incomes policy. I cannot myself see any

  1651
  possibility of devising a meaningful statement which will command the simultaneous endorsement of, let us say, Mr. Maudling and Sir Edward Boyle, on the one hand, and Sir Keith Joseph and Mr. Powell, on the other. So why try?"
  They have not tried.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who commands such great respect on all sides of the House for his robust independence, writing in a Conservative document, "Conservative and Economic Planning" published by the Conservatives in January, 1966, said
  "I just cannot believe on the evidence available that a slightly lower level of demand in the economy as a whole will of itself solve the problem of rising wage costs. And here I note wish paricular interest the views of the American President's Council of Economic Advisers, when they say in their 1965 Report that 'Powerful unions can and sometimes do obtain wage increases that outrun productivity, even when the labour supply is relatively abundant'."
  He concludes:
  "I think there is also a danger in feeling that because no incomes policy can ever be anything like 100 per cent. effective, therefore it is not worth persevering with it at all."
  Those who were present when the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) opened the debate will recall that practically the whole of his speech was devoted to showing, which is such a facile task, that the incomes policy has not been 100 per cent. effective, or 100 per cent. fair. This in itself is to us not the real criticism of the policy.
  The other aspect of Tory policy to which I should like briefly to draw attention is that all the remedies which they advocate when they are in a semi-constructive mood, which is as far as they ever get, are ones from which economic results can scarcely be expected within less than four years of attaining power. If they were in a political position, in the opinion polls, when they thought power was a long way off, it would be legitimate to regale this House week after week with the consequences which will flow from eventually reforming the trade unions, and eventually persuading the Inland Revenue that they have time to administer a new tax system and all the other vague Tory promises, all of which would take years to mature, even if they could work at all.
  But the Conservative Party does not take the line that power is a long way
  1652
  off. The Chairman of the Conservative Party, his heart bleeding for the workers of Altrincham and Sale under the incomes policy, rallies the allegiance of Conservative lady canvassers, saying that it is time they got on their working-class hats, and got out canvassing for the election which the right hon. Gentleman says may be imminent. If the Conservatives believe that they are about to take power, they should compliment the House, they should treat the House with sufficient respect, to produce measures and suggestions which are capable of yielding some results within at least 18 months. I include within this condemnation of all measures which will take a long time to fructify the much more interesting, more stimulating proposals of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). His suggestions are more original than those which come from the Tory Front Bench, but they are certainly not instant remedies. In my part of the world Tory policy is dismissed as being very much like some Italian woollens—pretty to some tastes, but liable to fall apart in one's hands.
  Our criticism of the Government's policy has been repeated from this bench time and again during the debates on the annual festival of incomes legislation to which the Government treats us, and I do not want to repeat at length what has been said from this bench on so many occasions. Our criticism remains, that in the incomes pool in which we believe any Government have to fish, this Government have been fishing with a series of rods, instead of with lines and nets. They have been looking at and interfering with, items here and there. They have been picking on small specific cases in this instance or that, rather than facing the real challenge, which is the challenge of the outdated nation-wide or industry-wide pay agreements.
  We think that this is bad strategy, because they are not facing the real dangers to the economy, and also bad tactics, because time has proved that fishing with a rod, looking into these relatively small-scale applications for pay rises and agreements for productivity, is just impracticable, and cannot be successfully done.
  What we want to see is bargaining at the plant. This is where the matter can really be dealt with. I think it was Carlyle who said that when an oak tree falls the whole forest reverberates, but

  1653
  that 10,000 acorns are sown in silence on the breeze. How true that is of pay bargains. It is in the day-to-day, in many cases hour-to-hour, bargains at the place of work that the significant pay increases take place, and the trouble about the nation-wide agreements which the Government persist in tolerating is that they create an unnaturally high floor, on top of which the plant bargaining then takes place as an aggravating factor.
  We should like to ban nation-wide agreements—we use the word "outlawed ". One method which occurs to us is that the relevant part of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act which now excludes the trade unions might well be repealed, or re-enacted in a looser form. In the meantime, we should like to see teeth given to the new Commission for Industrial Relations so that it will have legal sanctions for something more than just obtaining information, which is the only sanction we understand it is likely to have. We should like to see it given power to intervene where it feels that important plants are not developing their plant bargaining arrangements. Secondly, we should like to see early legislation to secure the independence of the shop steward, who in future will be the key figure in operating a sensible and modern system of plant bargaining.
  We do not altogether distrust the right hon. Lady's intentions. No doubt she recalls that before the Bill, which is now the Act, was given its Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and I went to see her. We put to her our points about the dangers of persisting with nation-wide agreements. I am not quoting the right hon. Lady exactly, but the impression that she gave us was that she was in sympathy with our point of view, but that she must allow one more round of national agreements. We all know from our experience as parents that it is when our children ask for one more lollipop, or another quarter of an hour before going to bed, that that is the moment when the sensible person resists. But there is a further reply which is often given and which is even more dangerous than just giving in. That is when the parent says, 'You will have to go and ask your Dad". What has often happened in recent weeks is that people have been
  1654
  sent to ask Dad in Downing Street, and they have got practically all they wanted, very often to the public disadvantage.
  We believe, too, that early legislation to make works councils compulsory, and to give them certain powers in bargaining, is required. We are not altogether unhopeful that we shall see this from the Government, although nothing of the kind matured during the period of Tory power. In the meantime, so long as the present policy is so obviously failing to work, the victims for whom we are most concerned, are, first, the pensioners, who have no redress from the results of inflated pay claims based on the monopoly power of certain unions which at present goes unchecked, and those who are low paid.
  The people in my constituency who understand the incomes policy, and who were delighted when I joined my hon. Friends in supporting the Government against certain wrecking Amendments tabled to the Bill during the summer, are those who are weakly organised, badly organised, especially the women workers, who realise that, unchecked, the big unions will get away with it, and the weakly organised will suffer. It is a fact, backed up by fairly respectable research, that something over 20 per cent. of our working population are at present sinking into relative poverty because they are not getting their fair share of pay increases.
  As I said in opening, as a result of the selection of the Amendment for this debate, we feel that we are witnessing an empty charade. While that charade is carried on, as it presumably will be, in both Lobbies, I shall have no hesitation, having heard all the debate so far, in recommending my right hand hon. Friends to remain firmly in their places.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had not intended to deal with the Liberal Amendment, but I must make one or two comments on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright). He and his party must learn something about industrial relations. I hope that he does not think that I am being pompous. In some industries a national agreement is essential, but in others it is not, and, there, plant bargaining is probably the best way. But if this were applied

  1655
  as a blanket across industry, the situation would be chaotic.
  For example, would the hon. Gentleman suggest that the nurses in every hospital should negotiate within their own hospital and not have a nationally worked-out policy for pay and conditions? The question only has to be asked to provide the answer. Even in relation to the general principle of a national agreement in certain industries, does he not know that, in each industry, even where there is a national agreement, there are regional and local variations? The workers in a certain industry with a national agreement do not necessarily get precisely the same wage. An engineer working on Merseyside might not get the same as an engineer in Glasgow or Birmingham.
  I therefore appeal to the hon. Member not to suggest that the panacea of all our problems and the answer to the prices and incomes policy is the blanket substitution of local plant bargaining for national agreements.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I do not think the hon. Gentleman in the least pompous. I would point out that I represent a constituency which is 99·5 per cent. industrial, with some very large plants as well as some very small ones, and, incidentally, a large plant in the automotive industry, to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) referred. I believe, as a Liberal, that there is practically no limit to the possibility of plant bargaining and I look forward to a society, perhaps in my children's time, in which nurses in each hospital will do their own negotiating. I do not think that I said anything to the contrary. Naturally, the training of a sufficient number of plant negotiators is a long-term business. I do not suggest for a moment that the matter can be attended to tomorrow.
  Mr. Heffer: I hope that no other hon. Member who intervenes will take up that much time, since it will mean that I will not be able to make my speech and that other hon. Members who want to speak will not have a cat in hell's chance of being called.
  The hon. Member referred in his speech to the unorganised women in factories in his constituency. Without a
  1656
  national agreement, those women have little chance of improving their conditions if they are, first, unorganised, and, second, bound to rely on the fact that they have no strength in their plant. I will leave that, because there is nothing else to be said about the Liberal Amendment.
  I suppose that, without examining the Opposition Amendment closely, and taking my point of view, one might vote for it. But when one looks at the words closely and then listens to hon. Members, one realises that one would not be seen dead in the same Lobby with them, certainly not on this Motion. It reads:
  "… noting that the attempt to control incomes by law has failed in its purpose…"
  I assume that that means that, if the attempt had not failed, they would be very happy with the policy of my right hon. Friends and that their objection is that it has failed—in other words, that incomes have gone beyond the criteria of my right hon. Friends.
  This is really the argument. I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) and came to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is quite right—they are speaking with two voices. Immediately following this point about the Government's policy having failed, he said, "But look at what we did. Look at our policy following the 1961 pay pause. That did not fail; it did keep wages down." So the point is that it is all right keeping the workers' wages down, provided that laws are not used and one relies on the other traditional method, which is that the employer should resist every wage claim and allow protracted negotiations and arguments. Therefore, the right hon. Member's case does not commend itself to me.
  I am in a curious situation regarding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have a sort of love-hate relationship with her—not in a personal but in a political sense. There is no doubt that, today, she argued a very bad case extremely brilliantly. She is a good Minister—probably one of the best Ministers that the Government have. I have always believed this. When she took her present job, I asked her, "Do you really believe in this policy?" She said that she did, and she does. That is the great tragedy. She passionately believes that the policy

  1657
  of incomes control and the prices and incomes policy generally is the right one for the Labour Party.
  My right hon. Friend has the enthusiasm of the new converts to the Church, who are always more dangerous than those who were born into it. They proselytise with much greater vigour and sometimes with much more disastrous results than those who accepted it as natural from the very beginning.
  Although my right hon. Friend argued cogently, she dealt in a peremptory fashion with certain points. I particularly have in mind the position of building workers. I accept that these workers want all the things she said they want. After all, conditions in the building industry have up to now been appalling. The "labour only" contracting system is pernicious and dangerous and we must try to control it if we cannot eliminate it altogether. I trust that as a result of the activities of the working party, which is now looking into this matter, this system will be eliminated.
  It is true that the building workers want proper productivity agreements throughout the industry. It should be remembered that the payment by results system was first introduced in to the building industry by the Labour Party, by the Government of 1945–50, and that it was George Isaacs who appealed to my colleagues in the building industry to accept the payment by results concept.
  The trouble has been that this concept applies, even now, to only about 30 per cent. of all building operatives. Thus, only a small percentage of those in the building industry are able to enjoy the national working rule agreement. When the building workers found that the Id. an hour increase which had been agreed had to be rejected—hon. Members will recall the last ditch stand which they put up; it lasted only for a few minutes, so to speak, but at least they made a battle of it—they decided to turn their attention to an extension of productivity agreements with the idea of forcing such agreements on all employers in the industry.
  I urge my right hon. Friend not to believe that simply because trade unions leaders in the building industry are totally loyal to the Labour Party and
  1658
  the Government they were not prepared to force a strike, and that all is well in the industry. Although a strike did not occur, mainly because of their loyalty, a residue of bitterness has been left in the industry which will take a long time to eliminate. This feeling of bitterness is particularly felt by workers who are not enjoying the ability to earn productivity bonuses based on the national working rule agreement.
  The bitterness in my trade union branch must be experienced to be believed. When I receive letters from branches of the bricklayers' unions, my union and others, saying that their members are considering whether to continue to be affiliated to the Labour Party, it is obvious that the Government must note this trend, particularly since this bitterness has developed as a result of the unfair application of the prices and incomes policy.
  In considering the agricultural workers, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the P.I.B. said that there was to be an exception. However, everybody knew that the pay of agricultural workers was lagging far behind that of other workers. Why was the matter referred to the Board in the first place? It was not the best sort of agreement the agricultural workers could have got, but they accepted what they were given and it is obvious that it should have been given to them in the first place, without argument. When I read in The Landworker about a branch of the union saying that its members are considering the whole question of their affiliation to the Labour Party. I am driven to urge my right hon. Friend to take note of this trend because this is the grass roots of the Labour Party speaking.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the Economic Review of the T.U.C. I draw her attention to this comment on page 30 of that document:
  "The General Council are satisfied that trade unionists will respond to a positive challenge, but a negative and restrictive attitude on the part of the Government, expressed in and dependent for its enforcement on the legislative control of wages and salaries, to which the Trade Union Movement is opposed, is no way to win that response."
  My right hon. Friend did not refer to that passage. I do not blame her. If I had been arguing her case I would have

  1659
  ignored it, too. I quote it because it puts the matter in perspective.
  Again, the T.U.C. says on page 34 of its Review:
  "Experience of the Government's incursions into the field of wage determination in recent years have made trade unionists wary of accepting Government participation in any form of incomes policy. There is genuine apprehension among trade unionists that any such Government participation would inevitably lead to the imposition of statutory limitations, rot only on voluntary collective bargaining but on trade union activities generally."
  That is the authoritative voice of the T.U.C.
  What is the attitude of the T.U.C. towards the prices and incomes policy? I do no: agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who suggested that we want a free for all. That is not the view of the Trade Union movement. I do not agree that a voluntary system cannot operate, even within the context of the miserable, lousy, rotten capitalist system in which we live. The T.U.C. has consistently argued for a voluntary system and has opposed, all the way along the line, the use of statutory powers in this matter by the Government.
  The T.U.C. set up a vetting system and even unions which were opposed to the Government's prices and incomes policy trotted along to the T.U.C. to have their claims vetted. The building workers did precisely that. They put their claim to the vetting committee and the T.U.C. said, in effect, "This is a fair claim, but we think that you should spread it over a longer period". The building workers replied, "If that is the view of the T.U.C, that is precisely what we will do". Thus, their claim was submitted on the basis of advice given by the T.U.C.; and the interim settlement for building workers was framed within the prices and incomes policy.
  I accept that a minority of T.U.C. member unions have not wanted anything to do with voluntary agreements. However, the majority of unions affiliated to the T.U.C. have, all the way through, been prepared to accept such agreements. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has left the Chamber. I hope that she will come back in a few minutes.
  I want to deal with one or two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member
  1660
  for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). He made an excellent speech, but I did not agree with all of it. It was a speech that we have to take note of and to answer because it was the only challenge made to my hon. Friends and me this afternoon. He wanted to know why we were so dedicated to the Labour Party conference resolution, which appears almost word for word on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. I make clear that we are not bowing to a great fetish. This resolution is included in the Amendment not because we honour all conference resolutions. Like my hon. Friends, during most of my life in the Labour Party I have found myself in opposition to most conference resolutions.
  This resolution was on the agenda of the Labour Party conference because it had been passed overwhelmingly by the Trades Union Congress. We put it on the Order Paper of the House because it is the expression of the trade union and Labour movement throughout the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nine-tenths."] An overwhelming majority. That is why we believe the authentic voice of the Labour Party and the trade unions should be expressed in this House this afternoon. That is why we have put down the resolution and are supporting it.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we want bank employees, civil servants, Post Office workers and others to be militant. I have never complained about workers being militant. I have always complained when they are not militant because they are more likely to get things when they are militant than when they acquiesce and lie down. We said that if this policy went through the workers would become more militant. Certain sections who have never been involved in industrial struggle would become militant as a result of this policy. This is what we warned about.
  My hon. Friends appeared to suggest that it was because we were critical of the policy the workers reacted in this way. Ever since I have been in this House, since 1964, we have argued on Government policy on Vietnam. We were critical from 1964 to 1966, but we did not lose a vote because of criticism of the Front Bench on the Vietnam war. The average

  1661
  worker considered that that was some-think in the realm of international politics which he did not know much about.
  Now we have had the House of Commons putting Order after Order against trade unions getting increases in wages and only a handful of Orders on the question of prices.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will the hon. Member tell us what Order on prices has ever been made?
  Mr. Heffer: There was one on laundry prices. I said at the time that it was like closing the door when the horse had bolted.
  The workers have understood this well. The policy that the Government have pursued has led to revolt by the workers. It has not been the criticisms which my hon. Friends and I have made of this policy. My hon. Friend asked how we determine the price, or the benefit to society, or the money that will be paid to an individual because of the particular job he does. I commented that Marx had worked this out a long time ago and my hon. Friend said that we should bring Marx up to date.
  I do not want to go into Marxist economics, except to say that he pointed out that labour, like any other commodity, had a value attached to it and that the value was determined by the socially necessary labour time taken to produce that commodity. If one is a teacher or a doctor the socially necessary time to produce a teacher or a doctor is more than that necessary to train a joiner or a roadsweeper. That basically determines the value of the commodity, that is, the doctor, or whoever the commodity is. I say this in passing because it is sometimes essential to bear in mind that other people studied this problem a long time ago. So long as we have the capitalist system, unfortunately, that is the way in which the value of the commodity has to be determined.
  The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), which has not been called, is quite right. It says that this policy
  "has hindered both legitimate trade union activity and economic expansion,"
  and
  "calls for the repeal of this legislation …"
  1662
  Obviously, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not repeal it, but I put this to the Government. I hope that there are no silly ideas floating about that once the Prices and Incomes Act has come to an end another will follow it, for that is the recipe for disaster. That would be the end of the line. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, "If that is the idea you have, forget it. Forget it now and take note of the attitude of the Labour Movement".
  Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. Friend says that he hopes his right hon. and hon. Friends will not pursue this policy. I think it extremely significant that they have not even had the courage to explain the Amendment on the Order Paper. That is an indication that it would be wrong for them to pursue this policy further.
  Mr. Heffer: I was much encouraged by the fact that the Government were not prepared to defend their policy, except verbally and not by a written Amendment.
  We do not want further legislation which would curtail basic trade union rights. Much of the White Paper is very valuable indeed. It is valuable because the trade union movement has been demanding that many of those things should be put into operation. But there are certain features of the White Paper—the conciliation pause or cooling-off period the question of interference in internal union affairs and forcing unions to have ballots, the attachment of fines to workers' wages—which the trade union movement will not tolerate nor accept.
  That would be going in the direction in which hon. Members opposite want us to go. Immediately the White Paper came out they said that this was a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. They spelled out what they want. They spelled it out in—another misnomer—" Fair Deal at Work ". They spelled out the whole policy of how the trade unions would be legally hog-tied with a battery of lawyers on every occasion when required. We are not having that. We have seen the experience in the United States. When there is an 80-day cooling-off period what happens? Dockers in New York have been on strike officially for more hours than our dockers have ever been on strike unofficially. Would

  1663
  it improve industrial relations? I do not think so. The dockers of London stopped work for another half day merely because some of their colleagues were suspended. Imagine what they would do if their wages were attached. That is no way to improve industrial relations.
  The Government should drop the prices and incomes policy as it now applies and allow the Trades Union Congress to operate a voluntary system. If the Government drop these provisions in the White Paper, the Labour Party will once more be a united party and will go to the country united and determined to carry though the programme of Socialism upon which the movement was founded
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: In the part of his speech just before his peroration the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about what will happen at the end of this prices and incomes policy. He sounded like the song—
  "I'll never say 'never again' again".
  they have to. Again and again the hon. Member and his hon. Friends said that they would not stand any further impositions of incomes policy, but again and again they marched into the Lobbies and supported the Government on it.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said something with which I fundamentally disagree, namely, that we on this side speak for employers and he and his hon. Friends speak for trade unions. He said that, because of this, it would be impossible for there ever to be agreement on industrial relations between the two sides of the House. This is fundamentally wrong. I do not speak for employers. I speak for the people of Harrow, West and for what I believe is the good of the country as a whole. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not blinkered only to think of a trade union attitude.
  I also think that the hon. Gentleman perhaps forgot his experiences during the years before he entered the House, because surely the partnership between employer, employee and trade unions in businesses and companies is the normal thing. It is disputes which are abnormal. There are discussions and disagreements, but there is a partnership and there could prove to be an even stronger part-
  1664
  nership. The hon. Gentleman was unwise to make that point as strongly as he did.
  Hon. Members opposite have been in a terrible state in the debate. No two hon. Members have been able to present the same approach to the Motion, or to the first Government Amendment, or to the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). The Government say that the policy is successful because it works and makes a vital contribution. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), in a longish speech if all his interventions are added together, said that the policy is successful because it does not work. The signatories to the second Amendment, led by the hon. Member for Poplar, say that the policy is unsuccessful because it does work.
  In a very good and touching speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) genuinely showed the attitude of a Labour Member who wanted to find a way to support the Government. His was the first speech on those lines that I have heard for many years. He said that the policy is unsuccessful because it is not properly understood. On many occasions I had to defend unpopular, and not necessarily always totally right, policies of my party when it was in power. One says, "The policy is not understood. The public relations are bad". However bad the turbot is on British Railways, public relations will never make it into a good dish. However hard the Government try with their public relations, they could not make their prices and incomes policy successful.
  Many rude things have been said about the Motion. I rather like the hon. Member for Poplar's Amendment and, had it been on the Order Paper earlier, I would probably have signed it. I am totally in agreement with it. The only thing I would have like to have had explained is what is meant by "basic trade union rights". If the basic trade union rights are to fight for the long-term security of their members, free collective bargaining, a higher long-term standard of living, and the right to strike in accordance with contracts of employment, which is what I think the legitimate basic trade union rights are, I should be happy to add my name to the other 39 names.

  1665
  We must be grateful to the Government for one aspect of their prices and incomes policy, because it has shown for ever that statutory control of incomes is totally ineffective and will never work. It means that no other Government for the next 50 years need even bother to think about it; it has been tried; it has been given a tremendous run by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who has gone into the selling of it to her party and to the country with enormous gusto, but it has been a total and abject failure.
  I believe that we are a low-wage, low-production society. Wages should be higher. Production should be higher. We are dogged by high taxation and economic unreality caused by Government interference in people's everyday lives. The most interfering aspect is probably this policy.
  I want to examine why the policy has failed and what would have happened if there had not been this policy. The most depressing thing for the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and other members of his Department must have been this sentence in Mr. Aubrey Jones's Third Report:
  "It would seem to indicate that the average annual increase in earnings in recent years may have been just under 1 per cent. less than otherwise it would have been."
  So Mr. Aubrey Jones, who has studied this question as closely as anybody could, believes that if we had not gone through the whole paraphernalia of this policy incomes might have been 1 per cent. higher. That, I believe, would be a good thing, too.
  Mr. Aubrey Jones did not speak about the industrial disputes which have been caused and generated by this policy. Nor did he mention, as the hon. Member for Walton mentioned, the dangerous loss of good will in industry which has occurred ever since this policy has been operated. Another reason why it has failed and why I, as a simple businessman, believe that there was the 7 per cent. increase last year, is that after a lot of argument, television appearances, threatened industrial disputes and possibly cups of tea in St. James's Square, a national agreement of 3½ per cent. is reached. A few weeks later the same discussions go on at the plant or in the company, but with
  1666
  less publicity, and after less discussion a further 3½ per cent. is agreed. That makes the 7 per cent.
  If the right hon. Lady were to say that that is not how it works, I can say that it is. A business friend of mine told me the other day that in a situation such as I have outlined, he told the union official and shop stewards, "There has already been a national increase of 3½ per cent. The Minister says you cannot have any more". They replied, "It is not she who pays it. It is you. Give it to us." And he did.
  I shall give the detailed reasons why I think that the machinery has failed. Paragraph 48 of the latest White Paper on prices and incomes and productivity says that where 100 workers are involved, or a smaller number if it would influence a larger total—but in general where fewer than 100 workers are involved—the increase does not have to be reported to the Ministry.
  In the 1958 industrial census figures, which are the latest we have to go on, it is reported that 21 per cent. of employees in productive industry work for firms employing under 100 people. I do not believe that the employer or the unions in such a plant will say, "Perhaps we might have an influence on other companies in the same industry." They will go ahead and make their agreements. In the larger firms another 20 per cent. work in units of under 100 people, so in productive industry we have 40 per cent. excluded from those who report wage negotiations and agreements above 3½ per cent.
  There are also the service, farming, catering industries, and so on. A figure is not available there, so my guess is as good as the Minister's. Let us take a figure of another 40 per cent. Therefore, I would say that about 40 per cent. of the total working population of 24 million are in units where it is unlikely that a wage increase of more than 3½ per cent. will be reported.
  The policy has failed. How can we prove that, apart from the fact that the norm is nil, the ceiling 3½ per cent., and the actual increase 7 per cent.? The best proof was when the post offices in London, including that in the House, and in our cities were closed about three weeks ago. On the same day, 12,000 members of the National Union of

  1667
  Bank Employees were queuing up outside the House to see their Members. The fact that the post offices were closed, and bank employees were up in arms and militant because of the Government's incomes policy, shows the depth of the failure of good will that their policies have led to.
  The bank employees were not particularly happy to hear, though they had sympathy with the case, that Aubrey Jones's Report about the farm workers had been thrown out of the window while they were rendezvousing outside at half-past two that afternoon. Nor would the ordinary users of the post office services, who found themselves greatly inconvenienced, have been happy had they realised, as we in the House realised, that the Government said, "You can have 7 per cent.", but would not give the Post Office workers 5 per cent. and talk about the rest.
  The strike was because the Government offered 7 per cent., but would not give 5 per cent., and would not talk. Of course, the next day it was settled, and now we discover that the whole of this great and damaging strike was justified only by a saving of, I think, £50,000 on what was originally requested by the employees and was originally acceptable to the Postmaster-General.
  What is most significant in the debate, and the whole question of the policy, is what is to happen at the end of the year when the present legislation runs out. We are told that discussions are going on, and then perhaps in the autumn there will be legislation on the new White Paper "In Place of Strife", a helpful and useful step towards "Fair Deal at Work". We are happy that the Government have started to learn something.
  But it would be totally against the interests of the country for the Government to feel that they must justify their past actions and relegislate for a fourth term of the prices and incomes policy. I hope that they will realise that that if they do this, and even if their supporters in the House go docilely into the Lobby with them, as they no doubt will tonight, this final dose will be the death-knell for the Government in the minds of thinking people in industry—trade unionists and employers alike.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Having sat through this debate I am shocked at some of the ideas that the public must get of hon. Member's views on political economy. Speech after speech of hon. Members opposite seemed to suggest that workers from top to bottom in industry have an inalienable right to an annual increase in their wages or salaries.
  The idea that, irrespective of whether we produce more or become more efficient, there must be an annual increase in our dividend, profit, salary, wage or professional fee, is the great disease from which we have suffered for many years. I am an engineer by profession, but to anyone who knows anything about political economy this is nonsense. There is no inalienable right to an increase in one's real income every year. It must be earned by society as a whole, by every man in whatever profession he happens to be. Speech after speech by hon. Members opposite has suggested that the incomes policy has failed, from some points of view because the workers have had too big an increase, and from others because they have not had enough.
  What should determine everyone's increase in income and prosperity is what the individual produces and the energy that the group expend, in increasing productivity, whether it is a company or anything else. I wish that in our debates on economic matters more Members on both sides would bring home to the people that it is not Governments that create prosperity but those on the factory floor and the directors and managers of businesses. They create real prosperity, though Governments can help to create a climate for it and to see that there is social justice.
  When I read the Motion, I was reminded of William Cobbett, an early 19th century Tory. His bitter complaint in "Rural Rides" was that, in this country, everyone was concerned and acclaimed success only with the planting of seeds from which they themselves collected the crops. No one was interested in planting trees which the next generation could enjoy.
  The Motion says that, after three years, the incomes policy has failed. I could

  1669
  understand criticism of the shortcomings of the policy and the suggestion of an alternative. But to say simply that after three years it has failed is hardly giving it a chance. Three years in the life of a nation is nothing. Cobbett, in his essay, attacked that section of society which was concerned only with the immediate crop. I am surprised that the followers of Disraeli and Cobbett are now expanding this doctrine of, "Grab what you can and never mind the seed corn". Yet this is what the Tory Party is telling our people. Indeed, our seed corn was being consumed from 1959 to 1963, and we know the cost. But the Opposition still advocate it.
  The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) always makes interesting speeches. Although we do not always agree with him, we all enjoy his speeches. He wants to reduce taxation. I certainly hope that a Government will be able to cut Income Tax by 4s. in the £ one day before I die. But hon. Members opposite also want to increase defence. They want more roads and more schools. They think that doctors and teachers are underpaid. If, therefore, they are to reduce taxation, the only way in which they can get all the money which they want to spend is by creating it or borrowing it from the monetary system. Do they want to increase the monetary supply?
  Mr. Richard Body: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bence: I thought that they wanted to lessen the money supply.
  Mr. Body: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear" to both. The party opposite does not know where it is. Hon. Members opposite are confounded and confused by modern economy. They do not know whether Disraeli, Cobbett or Gladstone was right. They are the most confused ideological party ever to sit in opposition. The Motion shows it.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) was enjoyable and an excellent contribution, as always. He said that the statutory control of wages was unjust and would not work. What is the policy of the Opposition? If they get back into power, they will abolish statutory control over
  1670
  wages but will introduce legislation to stop workers doing anything to try and get more money. They should make up their minds. First, they say that they are against statutory control of incomes; then they say that, if returned, they will pass legislation to prohibit groups of workers who feel unjustly treated from taking the necessary action to get justice in their wages.
  Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where, in any Conservative Party proposal for trade union reform, there is any provision that would have the extraordinary effect he claims?
  Mr. Bence: I have read reports of the Tory Party Conferences. The Opposition want binding contracts on wages and, presumably, conditions, and to strike against a contract would be an offence.
  Mr. Anthony Barber: It would be a breach of contract.
  Mr. Bence: In other words, it would be an offence. Surely a breach of contract is an offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well. I will withdraw the word "offence" and will merely say that it will be a breach of contract. Supposing workers find a contract unjust. Under the Conservative proposals, they will be debarred by law from taking action to renegotiate it. But I suspect that the employer who suddenly gets a letter from his bank saying that his overdraft is £750,000 and that it must be reduced to £500,000 quickly will find every reason for breaking the contract and making 200 people redundant. I do not see how that sort of legislation is going to work.
  I support the Government's prices and incomes policy for many reasons. I do not say that it is an absolute success. I am not a perfectionist. I do not expect the Government or management or the trade unions to be successful completely. But they improve. We all learn. We British are wonderful people for experimenting. We are liberals—with a small "1". There are very few Liberals with a capital "L" left. I believe that the character of our people is such that we will experiment and go forward carefully. The Government have been careful in going forward with their policy. I remind the House that the previous Government made several attempts to establish an incomes policy and, indeed, had some success.

  1671
  Of course, the mechanics of the thing are difficult. There has been an incomes policy for many years, including under the last Government, but the present Government have devised mechanism to give it a chance. Let us see how it works. I was apprenticed in the engineering industry in 1917, which is a long time ago. I quickly discovered that 80 per cent. of what I produced was consumed by the investing section of the community and the higher income group.
  In those days when industrial action was taken it was not to obtain higher wages, but to stop the owners pushing our wages down. Nevertheless, 80 per cent. of what we produced went to the high income group. When we tried to get a bigger income for our labour, we were getting it out of people with vastly higher incomes than ourselves. What is the position today? In every industry 80 per cent. of production is consumed by the next-door neighbour. We are a mass production society. One of my hon. Friends said that the standards of the workers have not improved. When I was an apprentice toolmaker I earned half a crown a week, began work at 6 o'clock in the morning and finished at half past five at night. I was working for Is. 8d. an hour in 1932 and could just afford a bicycle and four cigarettes a day.
  When anyone tells me that the working people are not better off than they were in the 'thirties then I say that they are not living in this world.
  Mr. Atkinson: I must make the point clear. What I was saying was that the Ford workers' standards of living have not shifted dramatically from 1939. Thirty years of capitalism has not brought about a great improvement.
  Mr. Bence: When I finished my apprenticeship I was canvassed by the Ford people who were then at the Trafford Park. We were offered jobs as toolmakers at wages of 1s. 4d. an hour. In 1939 the National Defence contribution was introduced. The country was crying out for toolmakers. All over Europe there was the demand, in Germany and France as well as Britain. Wages went from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 8d. My hon. Friend quoted the very year when there was a great drive in this
  1672
  country because we knew that our existence was threatened by Hitler.
  Mr. Atkinson: My point is that 2s. 8d. an hour in 1939 would have given the hon. Member a higher standard of living than the rate he can now get in the motor industry.
  Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend is wrong. I went to a rally in Wolverhampton in 1964 and the divisional organiser asked me if I was fed up with politics. I said:
  "No, not on your life, we will win this election."
  He said that he would get me a job as a jig-borer—I was a jig-borer all through the war—at £42 a week in the Midlands. Let us not have any nonsense about this. Before the war the boat from Broomielaw to Rothesay was packed. It is not packed today, all those people are at the airports flying off to Majorca and Canada. The working people of this country have done well since 1939.
  I would not go all the way with Mr. Macmillan who said that we have never had it so good, but we have had a fair deal in the last 20 years. As a Britisher and a Member of Parliament I will not stand by and hear people say that our standard of living has not been improved when it has improved considerably. Today we are producing washing machines, food mixers and all sorts of consumer durables, and when we push our wages up, we are asking our next-door neighbours to pay more, not just the rich. We are exploiting our fellow citizens.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: Does my hon. Friend remember what happened to workers when the works closed down? How much did they get when they left?
  Mr. Bence: Nothing, or, when they went for another job, that firm made an inquiry to find out why they had lost their first job There was no redundancy pay and very little sympathy from anyone when a man lost his job, not even from his wife, because money was short. Very few workers in the 'thirties had £200 or £300 in the bank.
  I was talking with a bunch of workers in the local where I live, and they were playing the devil with me because of this campaign to increase motor taxation. One said to me:
  "I am paying enough now."

  1673
  I asked him what his job was, and he told me that he delivered milk. Let us have a bit of reason in this. People are better off than they have ever been. This is a campaign to kid people that they are not. They are being kidded by the party opposite, and by my hon. Friend, although not seriously.
  Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend must face the facts, he would agree that in 1939, skilled Ford workers were receiving £5 16s. a week. The equivalent today, under the new agreement suggested, is that the same workers should get £25 6s. 8d. I am suggesting that those two figures are about equivalent. As for the 30 years of capitalism, they have not helped the British worker.
  Mr. Bence: Of course they have. There has been reference to 1939. But why start at 1939? Let us start at 1930.
  My hon. Friend said that the Government should introduce a new policy. We do not want a new policy. I want a planned economy. I want the resources of this country to be planned. That is what I always wanted. We want to get rid of economic anarchy—this competitive jungle system. At that time, the Conservative Party also wanted to get rid of economic anarchy, of laissez-faire Liberalism. This was the argument between the Liberals and the Tories. The Tories wanted protectionism. They did not want free trade and economic competition. They wanted a regulated, controlled economy. So do we. The argument between us is about the best way of achieving it.
  But the Conservative Party is so schizophrenic and divided in its views that it does not know where it is. It is courting the Liberals. It has even started to court our supporters. I warn those in my party not to be courted by the Conservatives. If they do, they will be in some trouble. I would not go so far as to say that they would get into the same trouble as the pals of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). But they should be careful about being wooed by the Tory Party. If these people were to get full range, and if some of the ideas expressed by hon. Members opposite were to be implemented, it would be a tragedy, not only for working people, but for small busi-
  1674
  nessmen. If the hon. Member for Oswestry had his way, not only would there be over 1 million unemployed, but many small businessmen would be in the bankruptcy courts.
  When there is a request to curb the supply of money, the Government write to the joint stock banks asking them to do that. The banks reply, "Mind your own business". The Tory Party is telling the Government to curb the supply of money. But the merchant banks say, "Why should we? It would smash little businessmen". We must be careful about the language we use when we discuss these matters.
  The point has been made several times that any attempt to put a statutory control on incomes has failed and must fail That is fantastic. All my life lawyers and solicitors have had statutory fees for property conveyance, and so on. They used to charge 7s. 6d. for writing a will. All their income is laid down by statute. There is a whole range of people—civil servants, nurses, doctors, teachers—whose incomes are statutorily controlled because they are employees of Government agencies.
  Fancy the Black Watch and its officers having a meeting in Perth and deciding to send a deputation to the Secretary of State for Defence saying, "We are the famous Black Watch. We want another 10s. a week." Fancy the Royal Marines at Chatham sending a deputation saying, "We are the Royal Marines of the Chatham division. We have the best marines' band in Europe. We want another £1 a week". There would be civil war in the Army or in the Navy. These propositions are stupid. They are not worthy of the junior common room of the newest university. I have never since my school days heard such inept and controversial ideas as those put forward from the benches opposite tonight.
  This is a new experiment; it has not been tried since the Middle Ages under the feudal system. It is the first attempt to bring some regulation into the distribution of incomes, which is the distribution of the product. That is what the distribution of incomes means: it means getting the product away, getting people to consume it and the regulation of its consumption. It is a new idea, and I congratulate the Government on tackling it. Of course it is unpleasant to those

  1675
  who have been brought up in the tradition of free bargaining. I can accept it easily, because most of my free bargaining with the employers was not free bargaining to increase my wages but to bring them down or to save the war bonus of the First World War. Young fellows in industry today do not know what it is to have the threat of reduced wages hanging over them; they have got used to their annual increment.
  I have much sympathy with skilled men in industry, pattern makers, machine tool fitters, turners, who have to serve an apprenticeship. They see fellows going into offices and getting regular annual increments. I know that there is resentment about this. There was resentment in the motor plant in which I worked that everyone except those who worked on the shop floor received an annual increment. We began to look for the annual increment, and if we did not get it we fought for it. It is not right for politicians to kid the people that there is no need for an incomes policy and at the same time to say that there is an inalienable right in their hands to get an annual increment.
  The argument from the other side is that productivity cannot be measured. Of course it can. Increased productivity can be achieved in a factory at a given point, and the men at that point may be paid more for increased productivity but, because of bad organisation, bad management and the bad movement of materials, the benefit of that increased productivity may be completely lost before the product gets to the gate of the factory. Nevertheless, it is difficult to measure productivity overall.
  I compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister and I compliment the Government on undertaking a difficult task. I admire the way in which they have stuck to their guns notwithstanding the opposition in the country, and I wish them every success.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Keith Speed: One of the more unfortunate trends that has run through the debate is the constant assertion by hon. Members opposite that they are the sole guardians of the rights of working people. This I reject, since I think that I represent more trade unionists and industrial workers than anyone else who has spoken.
  1676
  In speaking of the increase in the standard of living of workers, we do well to remember that what counts is the real personal after-tax income. On real personal after-tax incomes, the record is quite clear; they rose twice as fast under the previous Conservative Government, and this was without a statutory incomes policy, as under the present Socialist Government. This is what the whole argument is about.
  The right hon. Lady, in her opening speech, did not lay too great stress on productivity, and this perhaps is just as well. The planning paper which, apparently, was leaked to the Financial Times in December, 1968—and as far as I am aware this leak has never been repudiated by the Government—made it clear that there was no justification for projecting forward a higher rate of growth and productivity than that which took place between 1961 and 1966. If the paper is correct, that was an annual average increase of about 3·1 per cent.
  In addition, we are told that the economic growth for this year will be about 3 per cent. Therefore, if one had a substantial increase in productivity with an increase in production of only 3 per cent., this would argue that unemployment will rise substantially. It is already high, and I do not think that anyone wants to see it go higher.
  What is more important is to ask what has been achieved. In its Third Report, the National Board for Prices and Incomes said that the average annual increase in earnings in recent years may have been just under 1 per cent. less than otherwise it would have been. The Under Secretary said last summer that that represented a reduction in demand of about £100 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said, it seems to be an extraordinary exercise, the tearing apart of and a traumatic experience for the Labour Party and a harmful effect on industrial relations, to achieve a reduction in demand of £100 million a year.
  I would put it to the Under Secretary that very probably the pre-Budget boom, a year ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the tough Budget that we were to have and which did not come, was far in excess of £100 million worth of extra demand in the economy

  1677
  and certainly outweighed the advantages of a statutory incomes policy.
  We want to look further. I would be interested to know the effect upon the balance of payments of the statutory incomes policy. I have never seen it quantified. My guess is that, in the short term, the effect is minimal.
  The right hon. Lady spoke about the wonderful position of the balance of payments last year. However, the balance of trade deficit last year was over £600 million, in a period when we had a statutory incomes policy. Looking purely at trade—and the incomes policy has an effect on the balance of trade rather than capital—I question the effect that it has had, and I think that hon. Members should be told.
  I would put it to the hon. Gentleman that any beneficial effects that the statutory incomes policy has had are more than offset by the ban on the sale of arms to South Africa, or, if that is not to the liking of some hon. Members, our buying of American military aircraft or having to pay cancellation charges on the Fill. I contend that the foreign exchange payments in those transactions are in excess of any savings which we might have got from a statutory incomes policy.
  We are also paying the price for the freeze introduced by the Prime Minister in July, 1966. Looking at the effects of that freeze of incomes and prices, and everything else that occurred, the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Policy, Command 3235, said in March, 1967:
  "Internally, the measures have eliminated the excess pressure of demand, have freed resources for export production and other essential purposes, and have slowed down the rise in prices and incomes."
  The Third Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, published towards the end of last year, talking about the freeze, says:
  "The most likely explanation of what occurred in 1967 is the deferment into that year of wage increases which would have taken place in 1966, a deferment to a greater degree than took place after the pay pauses of 1948–49 and of 1962; the net increase in earnings in the two years of 1966 and 1967 could none the less be lower than it otherwise might have been. It is possible indeed that the more frequently a 'freeze' is imposed the greater is the subsequent militancy in claims. A 'freeze' of necessity does not
  1678
  affect all wages and salaries equally; it can therefore add to anomalies and thus to later militancy. This later militancy can itself in turn aggravate the inflationary problem and thus invite a return to the very state of affairs from which escape had been sought."
  This is one occasion when I agree with Mr. Aubrey Jones and the N.B.P.I. I am sure that this is one reason why the statutory incomes policy has been framed from that original decision of the Prime Minister in July, 1966 to introduce the freeze.
  One point which should be gone into—perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to give an answer to this matter when he winds up—is where the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes into the picture. In January last year the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Unless firm restraint in increases in all forms of incomes becomes a reality, I shall be forced to take away the excess increases by extra taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1790.]
  Last year we had about £1,200 million worth of extra taxation, so I suppose that the Chancellor was keeping his word. What about the figures revealed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), figures known to all Members? Is this forecast a prelude to what we are to expect in the Budget in eight to 10 weeks' time? If the Chancellor is still standing by his statement of January last year, as night follows day, there must be many hundreds of millions of pounds to be taken out of the economy and out of the consumer demand in the Budget which he will be presenting in the near future. Either that, or he has gone back on that original statement, having done his job, as it were, in 1968, and now we can move forward and he is not prepared to soak up this increase in the forms of taxation of excess incomes. It would be interesting if the Government could clear people's minds on this matter.
  My right hon. Friend referred to one matter on which there has been a crashing silence from the other side. I hope that the Under Secretary will be able to answer this point, because I have a personal interest. I refer to equal pay for equal work and the Ford agreement, to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) earlier referred.
  I had the honour and pleasure of moving an Amendment on Report stage

  1679
  of the Prices and Incomes Bill last year which sought to exclude from the Bill advances towards equal pay for equal work such as is now proposed in the Ford agreement. The Amendment was eventually defeated, but only after the right hon. Lady had promised that there would be consultation and that she was envisaging a seven-year timetable towards equal pay for equal work. The Government might have been in a happier position had my Amendment been accepted then. What I, the House and, indeed, the country want to know is how the Government view the equal pay provision in the Ford agreement. What criteria does it satisfy under the prices and incomes policy?
  I understand that it is not a question of the men getting a smaller increase in wages; it is a clear equal pay for equal work agreement. Jolly good luck to the women. I am in favour of the agreement. But what criteria is it satisfying and will the Government give it their endorsement? If they do not endorse this agreement, which is a good one, it means that many of the statements of the right hon. Lady about equal pay for equal work must be suspect.
  I remind the Government that they now have: six years and four months left to the end of this seven-year timetable when there should be full implementation of equal pay for equal work throughout the country. The Ford agreement is important in this matter. It depends very much on good will, not only by the people concerned at Fords, the unions and all the rest, but certainly on the backing of the Government. I shall be interested to see under what criteria of the prices and incomes policy they allow this agreement to be implemented.
  What has been the price of this nonsensical self-delusion? I believe that is what the present statutory prices and incomes policy amounts to. First, we had the tragic and bitter experience of industrial relations last year. It was no good the right hon. Lady saying, "We have lost 4½ million working days or thereabouts ". These are provisional figures. As the Under-Secretary told me when I tabled a Written Question in January—I think that I am correct, but I know that he will put me right if I am wrong—provisional figures are nearly always up-dated. It may turn out that
  1680
  nearly 5 million working days were lost, but I will not argue about half a million. It is no argument for the right hon. Lady to say that as part of the normal practical process under a Labour Government a strike involving 1½ million working days is natural.
  Much more interesting in this context is the number of strikes started last year. If we exclude coal mining and quarrying we find that over 2,100 strikes were started, which, if my researches, are correct, is an all-time record in our history. This is the peak of a rising trend that has been accelerating over the last two or three years.
  I do not pretend that the statutory prices and incomes policy is the sole reason for this, but it plays a major part in souring industrial relations and making many hitherto moderate and responsible unions, who have fought sensibly on behalf of their members, increasingly militant. Another factor that has not been mentioned is that when union officials are elected in this sort of atmosphere the more militant ones are successful. The responsible ones are going. All this is happening at a time when most people and most Members want to see some form of industrial relations reform.
  The Government's proposals do not go nearly far enough. They are woefully lacking in many respects. We welcome the first faltering steps of the Government to implement this reform but we shall have to implement a much more comprehensive industrial relations reform. It is not a good time to do it when the whole field has been soured by non-senses of this sort.
  Then there is the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). The disillusion of the electorate and the fact that the House, Parliament and politicians stand in low esteem is due to many reasons, one of them being that for domestic political purposes undue emphasis has been placed on the prices part of the prices and incomes policy. That was mentioned again by the right hon. Lady. When one examines the facts and figures one sees that increases in taxation by the Government have put up the cost of living by 6½ per cent. since they came to power and the charges made by the nationalised industries have risen by 25½ per cent.—much more than is normal in

  1681
  other sectors—in the index of retail prices. The nationalised industries and taxation do things for which the Government are directly responsible. Both taxation and prices in the nationalised industries have risen much faster and have helped to push up the spiralling cost of living that we all face.
  It is no good pretending that the prices, productivity and incomes policy has kept down prices. Anybody who is married and has to do the housekeeping knows that that is not so. Our people are, therefore, rightly sceptical about the promises made for this policy. We know the excuses that are made. We debated them many times in Committee last year, when the Bill was going through. It is one more of the things that has added to the disillusion of politicians and the contempt of the Government.
  Many people—voluntarily or involuntarily—are now probably breaking the law. I understood from the Under-Secretary of State that all firms with 100 workpeople and above should notify all the agreements they arrive at to the Department of Employment and Productivity. Sometimes up to 20,000 agreements are negotiated in one day. I wonder whether this notification has been going on or whether, all too often, a nod and a wink has been given and people have not bothered to notify the Department. I am sure that that is so.
  There are many more constructive and sensible policies which would help to solve this problem, but time does not allow me to go into them. The incomes policy is the one piece of credit that the Government have left with the international bankers, to whom we owe so much money. That is why the Government are clinging to it like a fading actress clings to her rouge and false eyelashes. The sooner the curtain falls on this Act, the better it will be for all of us.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Barber: The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State made some extraordinary observations about the parentage of the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr). Of course it is common form these days for Ministers to put up Aunt Sallies and
  1682
  then knock them down, but the right hon. Lady this afternoon achieved the rather unusual feat of not merely putting up an Aunt Sally but then getting herself knocked down by it as a result of the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Macleod).
  I think that this has been—I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree—a very useful debate. The arguments for and against the control of incomes by statute have been deployed many times, and, from the very beginning, the Conservative Party has been resolutely and consistently opposed to it. We opposed the introduction of compulsory powers under Part IV of the 1966 Act, the implementation of Part IV in October of that year, the 1967 Act and the third Act, passed last year. On the other hand, the Government, with the support of the majority of their back benchers, have with equal consistency, voted again and again to hold wages down by law, which is the purpose of the legislation—
  Mr. John Fraser Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Barber: I will quote something said by senior Ministers in a few moments to justify what I say.
  The fact is that the longer the Labour Government cling to these powers, the more apparent it becomes that their exercise is not only grossly unfair but also largely ineffective.
  No one who has held any responsibility in an economic Department can doubt the importance of the maintenance of a proper balance between the rise in incomes and the rise in output. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said about this. Furthermore, so far as I know, there is not an industrialised country anywhere in the world where the Government does not concern itself with this balance. It does so because there is hardly any greater social injustice than runaway inflation. So I start by saying that to pretend that the trend of incomes is no concern of the government is naive and superficial economic nonsense.
  I will mention just one example to justify what I believe. It is of course ridiculous to pretend that any Chancellor can ignore the likely trend of incomes

  1683
  when framing his Budget, but of course an incomes policy can take a variety of forms. It can take the form which has been devised by the present Labour Government, of legal compulsion. It can take the form which exists in the United States of voluntary guidelines, or it can take the form of a policy of increasing competitive processes or changing the structure of collective bargaining. I agree with some of my hon. Friends who have congratulated the right hon. Lady on the steps which she intends to take in industrial relations in due course. We do not believe that they go far enough, but she should have credit for her courage in going that far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) referred to the Prime Minister in the context of this debate and was right to do so. Over the years, successive Conservative Governments pursued an incomes policy, but it was unthinkable that we should ever introduce legislation of the kind now on the Statute Book, for reasons which were stated with such typical candour by the present Prime Minister when he said—I quote these well-known words again because they are highly germane to the argument—
  "Once you have the law prescribing wages I think you are on a very slippery slope. It would be repugnant to all parties in this country."
  Those were the words of the present Prime Minister and he was, of course, absolutely right. But that was said during the last General Election and four months later he did precisely what he had promised that he would not do.
  We have said many times that the great mistake of this Government is in elevating their incomes policy to the dominant—indeed, to listen to some of the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members in support of Government policy one would think that it was almost the only—factor of economic policy. The result of this over-reliance on incomes policy has been that, when it has failed, it has failed with a vengeance, with all the problems flowing from that failure.
  The facts speak for themselves. The Government first decided to hold down wages by law—I use that phrase advisedly—in the summer of 1966, 14 weeks after the General Election and after the Prime Minister had said on television what I
  1684
  have just quoted. They did this because between April, 1965, and April, 1966, hourly earnings had risen by 9·6 per cent., the steepest rise for 14 years. In other words, the one factor which the Government had placed foremost in their economic thinking had failed disastrously. So the Prime Minister changed his tack and started on what only four months previously he had picturesquely described as the very slippery slope which was repugnant to all parties. We are still on that slope, thanks to the support which he has been given time and again by Labour Party back-benchers in the House of Commons.
  For reasons which I shall give, a statutory incomes policy was not only, in the Prime Minister's words, repugnant to the British people, but doomed to failure from the beginning.
  I have said before in an economics debate that the economic aims of any Government are four: economic growth, price stability, full employment and a satisfactory balance of payments. That was the aim of the Conservative Government. It is the aim and objective of the present Government. But this Government is the first ever to have achieved the remarkable distinction of failing in all four objectives at the same time. One might almost call it "the uneconomic miracle ", but that is by the way. In the pursuit of these objectives, the trend of incomes is only one factor, although, I agree, a very important factor. But the Government's aim should be, by their overall management of the economy, to create conditions under which the rise in incomes is broadly in line with the rise in output.
  The first reason why we believe that the Government should abandon these compulsory powers is that they have manifestly failed. What has been the Government's objective in the past 12 months? In the now classic words of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs—I am not surprised that he does not listen to these debates any more; he used to speak in them—he told the House in March last year, when no doubt the right hon. Lady agreed with him, and I assume that she agrees with him now:
  "… it follows that personal consumption will need to fall…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 616.]

  1685
  I can be even more specific. I quote the Department of Economic Affairs' Progress Report for April last year:
  "The measures contained in the Budget aim to cut back personal consumption by about 1 per cent. a year below the level in the second half of 1967—or by about 2 per cent. in all from the level that it might otherwise have reached".
  That is the Government's policy. That is what they set out to do. They were to use the statutory control of incomes to achieve it. That is the first point which we must bear in mind.
  The principal weapon for achieving the objective of cutting back people's standard of living was, under penalty of law, to hold down wages so that people would be worse off. The sentence which I have quoted from the "Economic Bulletin" can mean nothing else. But thanks to the ingenuity of British managers and trade unionists, and, if I may say so, to the incompetence of the right hon. Lady and her fellow Ministers, the Socialist Government have failed even in this unique venture.
  What has been the outcome of all the ill-feeling and trouble which has been engendered by the policy the right hon. Lady has been pursuing? The right hon. Lady gave us some figures this afternoon of wage rates from March to December, 1968. I wonder why she chose March to December. That happened, of course, to suit her case very well. She was trying to show that the rise had not been as great as all that in wage rates, but why start in March? We have had the incomes policy controlled by Statute for getting on for three years now. Why not take the whole of last year, the figures which practically every economic and financial commentator has been using in the serious articles they have been writing to try to get to the bottom of the troubles with which we are dealing?
  Last year basic weekly wage rates went up by 6·9 per cent., the largest increase since the index began 12 years ago; in manufacturing industry by 8·8 per cent., the largest increase since the present index began 12 years ago; and hourly wage rates went up by 7·1 per cent. and were again the largest increase for 12 years. All the bureaucratic paraphernalia which the right hon. Lady has operated with such panache has failed.
  1686
  The increase in wage rates last year was double the 3½ per cent. ceiling on which the Government set such store.
  I quote again the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. In last year's Budget debate, he said:
  "…3½ per cent. is …"
  I hope the right hon. Lady will listen because this is particularly important and relevant—
  " the maximum figure for settlements which in our view is consistent with fully maintaining the competitive advantage of devaluation."
  This was not the right hon. Lady's tale this afternoon. She said—I took down her words—" It is not the purpose of our policy to hold down wages while prices rise "—which is absolute nonsense. She said that this is not the policy of her right hon. Friends, but in March last year the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said:
  "It is …a necessary condition of the economic adjustment which we have to make that incomes should rise more slowly than the cost of living over the next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 621–22.]
  Who is right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Does she not accept what her right hon. Friend said? It is the direct contrary of what she told the House this afternoon. One does not expect two senior members of a Cabinet to take diametrically opposed views on something as important as this. May I give a little advice to her? This is why she gets into so much trouble with a section of her party. They know that one of them is not telling the truth. They do not know who to rely on. But that is for her to sort out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in a typically pungent, incisive and admirable speech, reminded us that the right hon. Lady had said that this policy was a vital part of the economic strategy. She may argue that the situation would have been far worse if she had not had these powers and, if that were true, I suppose it would have been an argument for retaining the legislation once again this autumn.
  But even that argument does not hold water. As the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) pointed

  1687
  out, even the Prices and Incomes Board has concluded that the effect on earnings of the Government's statutory control of incomes has been less than 1 per cent. My hon. Friend gave some figures which seemed to show that this would have had a very minor effect, or a comparatively minor effect, on the balance of payments.
  Throughout the past year the right hon Lady and her friends have plodded doggedly on down what the Prime Minister called "the slippery slope" and what the right hon. Lady calls, rather more attractively, "socialisation of the wages sector." But what has she achieved? As my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and Meriden have pointed out, she has achieved a loss of good will and engendered bitterness in the trade union movement and a massive increase in the number of days lost in strikes—last year of 4,692,000, twice as many as in 1964. Even this figures takes no account of the number of days lost through the shortage of supplies as a result of strikes.
  I saw the right hon. Lady laughing then. I am not surprised that she was laughing, because I think she may have been rather amused recollecting something that she said off the cuff in her opening speech, which I want to refer to. Talking about this great increase in the number of days lost through strikes last year, she gave what I think must surely become a classic excuse to all trade unionists to go on strike. She said that the figure, of 4½ million days lost in strikes was misleading because it included 1½ million days lost as a result of the engineers' strike "as part of their negotiating strategy ". Now we know, and so will every trade unionist in the future, that it should not be included in the statistics if it is part of the negotiating strategy.
  Mr. Atkinson: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right on the question of the 1½ million days. The engineering employers were dragging their feet and refusing to talk realistically about wages to engineers for 18 months. It was the employers who forced the trade unionists to take one-day action to make the employers talk realistically about wages. If anyone was to blame for that 1½ million lost days, it was the employers.
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on that occasion the employers were doing their best to conform with the policy laid down by the Labour Government.
  If hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), believe that the statutory control of wages has been successful, they must recognise that it is failing now. All the indications are that the incomes policy is breaking down. Those are not my words. They are taken from a serious article in Monday's Financial Times. Those words are true, and it is failing because the right hon. Lady is caving in all along the line and, by so doing, making a mockery of the legal powers which she is purporting to operate.
  Consider the Post Office settlement, as to which the right hon. Lady made the ridiculous claim that it was related to productivity. Apart from the incredible inter-departmental bungling, one thing is absolutely clear—that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Lady had allowed the Postmaster-General at the outset of the negotiations to offer the terms which were finally offered the strike would never have taken place. We know what happened. The Government thought that they could bluff their way through it. They thought that they could rely on the traditional loyalty of the Post Office workers. But their bluff was called, and so they capitulated. One day's strike and they capitulated; and every trade union leader knows that the settlement was way outside the incomes policy.
  Then there was the case of the farm workers, who got an increase well above the 3½ per cent., which the Prices and Incomes Board found to be quite unjustified by the rules. She can laugh. So will every trade unionist throughout the country. They know perfectly well that one has only to be tough, one has only to threaten, and the right hon. Lady or her Cabinet colleagues cave in. Everybody knows that that is what they will do.
  What about the doctors and dentists? I am delighted that the Government are to pay them a substantial increase. They fully deserve it. Maybe we can now encourage a few more of them to stay in this country. But anyone who pretends that the doctors' rise is consistent with the Government's incomes policy should see a psychiatrist. The increase blatantly

  1689
  ignores the incomes policy. If the right hon. Lady thinks that this is just some Tory observation, let me read her the headline in Friday's Daily Mirror on an article by Mr. Alan Law, its industrial correspondent. Under the headline:
  "No Freeze On Pay Rise For Doctors"
  the article says:
  "Although the increases blatantly ignore the incomes policy, the Prime Minister declared yesterday that the Government was ready to make an early start on talks aimed at putting them into effect."
  Later it says:
  '' They "—
  other union leaders—
  "will clearly be outraged at the Government's inconsistency."
  Of course they will be.
  I have given only a sprinkling of illustrations of where the Government, for political reasons, to curry favour or to avoid trouble, have driven a coach and horses through the incomes policy criteria which were to be enforced with the full panoply of the law. But the Government will never take on the big battalions. As we have seen, it is only the small fry who always get the stick.
  If the Government have driven a coach and horses through their own criteria, this is nothing compared with the extent to which those criteria are being flouted with impugnity throughout the length and breadth of Britain. If the employers of millions of men and women want to pay more than 3½ per cent., there is not the slightest problem about their doing it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pointed out that any union prepared to hold the country to ransom will always force the Government to abandon their criteria. I have mentioned the Post Office settlement. One can also refer to the railway settlement and to the London Docks tally clerks, who had a 15 per cent. increase on basic rates. The right hon. Lady made a very interesting comment on that settlement. She said that she did not refer it to the Prices and Incomes Board because, "We did not wish to prejudice the general progress in the docks." What a reason! That was right outside the policy. That means not only that if one goes on strike as part of one's strategy it does not count, but that anyone who is to take the right hon. Lady at her word can in future pay
  1690
  more than 3½ per cent. as long as it is done because one does not wish to prejudice the general progress in one's industry.
  A source of much greater inequity arises from the widespread evasion of the Government's statutorily backed policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West reminded us that the right hon. Lady has laid down that normally no claim or award need be notified unless it affects more than 100 workers. I do not know how many such firms there are, but there are certainly at least 50,000, and probably more than 100,000. Such companies can ignore with impugnity the ceiling of 3½ per cent. that the right hon. Lady has laid down, and many are doing just that. It is going on all over the country all the time. The right hon. Lady and her horde of officials have not the remotest idea of what is happening, and the employers and union representatives concerned have nothing to fear.
  Then there is the farce of back-dating. I shall not go into the details, because we had a very good example with the municipal busmen. They were told three times that their claim was postponed at the behest of the right hon. Lady or her predecessor—I cannot remember which—and then after a year it was back-dated. Just after Christmas 19 local authorities gave to the municipal busmen—77,000 of them—a year's back pay of between £80 and £100 each. What nonsense this all is. It is not surprising that Mr. Larry Smith, the National Bus Officer of the T. and G.W.U. commented:
  "This drives a tank right through the prices and incomes policy. It vindicates the attitude the union national officers have taken over the standstill, and indicates the stupidity of the Government's action in stopping the rises in the first place."
  So one could go on. There is what the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs described as the "hole in the ceiling" for productivity cases. Some hole! As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton explained, there is in practice not the slightest difficulty in some small company cooking up a "phoney" productivity bargain—and this is what they do.
  The right hon. Lady referred specifically to building workers and told us that she has set up a working party. Does she have any idea as to how she may be able to enforce her ridiculous

  1691
  legal criteria on the small builder who, in order to keep his men, pays them over the odds? Everyone knows that there is absolutely nothing she can do about it because no one tells her and she cannot find out. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—I am sorry I did not hear the whole of his speech—pointed out that, in the private building industry, there is not the slightest difficulty in getting round the 3½ per cent.
  The Under-Secretary of State told us in May last year that this policy was of great importance. The Chancellor six months later said that the policy was of central and crucial importance. Yet these Ministers, who pose as honest men, in their mid-term manifesto made not a single even passing reference to the key question of wages policy. Yet it is supposed to be central to their economic policy.
  Is it that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have such contempt for the intelligence of their own party workers that they thought that the omission would go unnoticed? If the right hon. Lady thinks that to oppose the holding down of wages by law is, in the terms of the Amendment, "partisan criticism", does that also go for the opposition of the Labour Party conference by 5 million votes to 1 million? My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton referred to the T.U.C. conference and I think that the right hon. Lady said, 'even the T.U.C. "at one moment. Was it" partisan criticism "for the T.U.C. conference to oppose her policy by nearly 8 million votes to 1 million?
  Bearing in mind that the trade union movement now opposes her policy by an overwhelming majority, does she still stand by her words, spoken only 14 weeks before the T.U.C. gave its verdict? She told the House:
  "… we all recognise—and the Government recognise—that an incomes policy cannot work if the whole concept is repugnant to the trade union movement and if it has to be imposed by the use of compulsory powers."
  Does she still stand by those words? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If her words have any meaning, does she still think that the policy will not work in those conditions? If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to reply, perhaps
  1692
  the Under-Secretary of State will. He himself used even stronger words in the same debate, when he said:
  '' It cannot and will not work unless we have the overwhelming, general, voluntary support of the trade union movement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol., 760, c. 306–417.]
  We are entitled to know the answer.
  The Government also ask their supporters in the Amendment to vote for what they call their
  "…constructive and socially just economic strategy."
  This is the strategy which has saddled the nation with £3,000 million additional overseas debt; this is the strategy which has led to the devaluation of the £; this is the strategy which led last year to the largest trade deficit for 23 years and to the highest summer unemployment for 28 years. In addition to this misery, this economic strategy which they ask their hon. Friends to approve, led last year to the largest increase in taxation in our history. If that is what hon. Gentlemen want let them vote for it. We are against it.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I begin by answering the two questions which the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) put to me in tones which might have led some of his hon. Friends to believe that they were questions difficult to answer. First, he asked whether we stand by what my right hon. Friend and I, and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and many others have said about the essentially voluntary nature of the prices and incomes policy. Of course we do. If the policy was rejected physically and positively by the trade unions and the country it could not survive.
  I take an example. If the agreement concerning the building industry, of which my right hon. Friend is properly proud, had been rejected by the building trade unions, that agreement in its amended form could not have gone forward. By definition, if the time arrives when the sanctions of the policy have to be used on an immense scale, when the criteria of the policy can only be supported with the backing of sanctions, when the powers become something

  1693
  which are not used in exceptional circumstances, but need to be used invariably, then the policy cannot work. That is what we always said and will continue to say about the policy's essentially voluntary nature.
  The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about the supposed mystery of the 3½ per cent. ceiling and the relationship between prices and earnings during the last year. It is a mystery which he and his right hon. Friends have tried to probe before. I will not weary him or embarrass myself with a long quotation from a speech I made on this subject in April of last year. I will remind him of what the Prime Minister said on 23rd May on exactly this point. [Interruption.] I am sorry if this is about to bore right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Perhaps they might care to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman knew about the Prime Minister's explanation, and chose not to give it to the House, or whether his researchers into HANSARD have not been sufficiently thorough to turn the point up.
  What the Prime Minister said on 23rd May was in response to a question suggesting that the conflict drawn to the House's attention tonight was a real conflict. The Prime Minister made the point very clear and definite. He said:
  "Given an even minimal increase in productivity … a very substantial increase in living standards is possible this year, but it is dependent on productivity…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 862.]
  What my right hon. Friends have said consistently is that were all wage negotiations conducted on an across-the-board basis, unrelated to productivity criteria, undoubtedly during the last year there would have been a fall in real living standards. If, on the other hand, a substantial number of productivity bargains were negotiated, then there could be a real increase in living standards.
  It is the second and more happy alternative which has been the case. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen who were here earlier will remember that my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was complaining about that very statistical point.
  1694
  The second alternative has turned out to be the case, and it is that alternative which I shall use as a justification and a substantiation of my certainty that the incomes policy has been a success, and will continue throughout the year to be a success.
  Throughout the day we have been asked to measure the success of our policy against yardsticks manufactured by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to follow all the hares that they have set off. I will not pursue allegations of our having broken promises which we never made, of failing to reach targets which we never set and falling short of estimates which we never gave.
  Let me give two examples of what I mean; what the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) described as our policy towards the lowest paid was quite wrong. Further, his general description of what the prices and incomes policy is intended to achieve was equally wrong. I take those two examples to explain, at any rate to my hon. Friends, how the Motion and the way in which it has been argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite is misconceived.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham said that the avowed purpose of the policy was to help the lowest-paid worker strengthen his position. We have never said anything half as total as that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear with me for a moment I will quote to them what we have said. We said that we intend—and we have always intended this—that the more rigorous application of the policy should be spared the lowest paid.
  I mention with some embarrassment what I said on the Report stage of the Measure. I said that the lowest paid would be insulated from an admittedly hard policy. I said that that was the sum of what we were claiming. In other words, it was not the avowed purpose to help the lowest paid as such but to insulate the lowest paid from the rigours of the policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] The difference is that under the policy we are making sure that the lowest paid—negotiating wage increases through the normal processes and receiving wage increases as the result of those means, or receiving Agricultural Wages Board awards—automatically

  1695
  receive an increase up to the ceiling of the criteria simply because they are the lowest paid. That is, in itself, a justification. It is, in itself, an exception to the policy. That is what we always said we would do and that is what we have done.
  Indeed, we have done more than that. My right hon. Friend said many times during the early stages of the proceedings on the Prices and Incomes Act that one of our hopes is that, as part of any general settlement, the lowest paid in an industrial group would be given priority and that within the ceiling a general increase would be so constructed that the lowest-paid recipients would get rather more than the 3½ per cent.
  That, too, has happened. I take as an example the engineering agreement, where the increase in the minimum rate is substantially greater than 3½ per cent., yet the overall agreement was within the policy. The only conclusion one can draw is that those engineering employees who are the lowest paid and who are on the minimum are benefiting by a larger proportion than the higher paid in that industry. That was the intention of our policy. It is the intention, and it is being carried out.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: As the hon. Gentleman is commending the prices and incomes policy, and is saying that it is working well, does he mean that he will renew it in the autumn?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is a more reasonable question than the one posed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), who asked me to make the Chancellor's Budget statement during my reply to the debate.
  Mr. Barber: Since the hon. Gentleman has made that point, would he say that he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that when the new legislation ran out it would need to be a voluntary policy? His right hon. Friend went on to say that he knew the trade union movement too well to believe that it could be otherwise. He added that by the autumn of 1969, when the current powers expired, we would have had legislation concerned with wages for 3½ years and that that was long enough. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that, and, if so, is that Government policy?
  Mr. Hattersley: I know that quotation well. It occupied two days discussion in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience he will find that, before the end of my speech, I will talk about the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I hope that that is some consolation to him.
  What I am saying concerns the lowest-paid workers. When the Bill passed into law, we asked for the right to subject wage claims concerning the lowest-paid workers to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to ensure that those proposed increases were genuinely for that category of worker. We promised that when that proof was obtained the wage increases for the lowest paid workers would go through. Both promises have been fulfilled. That is why 27 Wages Councils Orders have gone through during the life of the Act. That is why we rightly allowed the full award of the Agricultural Wages Board to be paid.
  Since right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been so anxious to criticise that award, let me put some points to them about it. According to the criteria accepted by he House, and which form the general policy for prices and incomes, there is a 3½ per cent. ceiling A 17s. increase for the agricultural workers was an apparent breach of it. In those circumstances, the Government could have done three things. They could have rigidly applied the letter of the policy. We know what right hon. Members opposite would have said about that. Because of our sympathy for the agricultural workers, we could have simply capriciously and unilaterally set the policy aside. We know what right hon. Members opposite would have said about that.
  Our third possible course, which we took, was to examine the application of general policy to this very special case. The confirmation that it was a very special case resulted in the response which I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends would have expected of us, namely, the payment of the full amount because of the exceptional circumstances which make the workers in that industry, not only the lowest paid, but outstandingly the lowest paid. If there needs to be or should be a vindication of the social aspect of the policy, it is surely that.

  1697
  I remember very well that during the Committee stage of the Bill some of my hon. Friends, supporting our proposals on the lowest paid, said that they could not and would not believe that the Labour Government would turn down an increase for agricultural workers. I remember that when that increase was first announced a few of my hon. Friends wondered whether their hopes at the time of the Committee stage had been misplaced. As we subsequently proved, their hopes were not misplaced. Their faith was justified. It remains the major and substantial vindication of the lowest-paid worker criteria in the Act.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in cases in which he has given way to claims from the higher-paid workers he has automatically increased the cost-of-living burdens on the lowest-paid workers?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do. I agree that whenever one has given way, if given way is the phrase—it is not a phrase which I like—or whenever a wage increase goes through, one is making a contribution to all sorts of unfortunate economic factors if it is not related to productivity. But, as I hope to show, we must face the realities of the policy rather than its theories.
  One of the realities of the policy which I hope right hon. and hon. Members opposite will begin to get to grips with is that it was never intended to hold down wages while prices rose. It was certainly never intended to do that with the maximum use of legal sanctions. The real achievement of the policy has been encouraging wage increases based on productivity and more effective working practices. The real achievement of the policy has been to shift the basis of wage negotiations from damaging general increases to increases based on productivity objectives without using legal powers and legal sanctions.
  The Leader of the Opposition will very often hear references to what he said on 25th November, 1968. His complaint then was that earnings had gone up by 8 per cent. and that prices had risen by only 6 per cent. He described it as another condemnation of the prices and incomes policy. If our objectives—
  Mr. Barber Mr. Barber rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: That quotation has been made several times today. My right hon. Friend referred to it. None of the Leader of the Opposition's right hon. Friends thought it necessary to correct what my right hon. Friend said—I suspect because it was in all ways an accurate quotation.
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his construction of the quotation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was pointing out that the object of the exercise was to make sure that incomes should rise more slowly than the cost of living. Those were the words of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. It was to that that my right hon. Friend was referring, and he was right and justified in doing so.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the right hon. Gentleman asked me to give way to correct the quotation, he ought to correct it rather that argue about it. The words which his right hon. Friend used were exactly those that I used. I now intend to comment on them.
  Had it been our intention simply to hold down wages, the accusation of the Leader of the Opposition would have been an appropriate one. In fact, there was a time when the incomes policy was intended to hold down wages. That was during the standstill and the period of severe restraint. During that time, we did it rather well. We held down wages to an increase of about 2·1 per cent., and we held down prices to hardly more than that. But the new phase of the policy—certainly that presided over by my right hon. Friend—has always contained the possibility of substantial and continual wage increases so long as they are related to improvements in productivity.
  Since the right hon. Member for Mitcham originally made the comparison, it is interesting in this context to compare the full 2½ years of our policy with the 2½ years which began with a previous July when what was called the Selwyn Lloyd pay pause began—[Interruption.]
  Sir Douglas Glover: We are not debating that.
  Mr. Hattersley: One hon. Member groans, and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) says, "We are not

  1699
  debating that". The comparison was made originally by their right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham.
  The right hon. Member for Altrincham asked why figures were not supplied for the full period of the prices and incomes policy. I shall do that and compare it with another 2½ years of a prices and incomes policy.
  Certainly, during our 2½ years, earnings have risen rather faster than during the previous period. Certainly, during our 2½ years, prices have risen slightly faster than during the previous period. But the important factor, or the first of the two important factors, is the relationship of those two to each other—the relationship of annual price rises to annual wage rises. During the 2½ years following the Selwyn Lloyd pay pause, earnings increased about 1·8 per cent. faster than prices. During the 2½ years which began with 20th July, 1966, wages increased 2·5 per cent. faster than prices. Comparing the two periods, the real increases in wealth have been almost 50 per cent. greater per annum in terms of prices versus wage increases.
  Mr. Heffer: I hope that my hon. Friend will not bother too much arguing against right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but will concentrate more on answering some of the points raised by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  Mr. Hattersley: I suppose that my hon. Friend thinks that I have special obligations to him because he is one of my supporters—[Laughter.]
  I wanted to go on to say that the only criterion which can be used to judge the effectiveness of the 2½ years which followed the Selwyn Lloyd pay pause was its ability to hold down wages, because that was the only object of the policy. The criteria which must be used in part to judge the result of the 2½ years that followed our policy is its ability and success in promoting productivity.
  Let us look at those figures. In the most recent year for which figures are available, gross domestic product per head under our policy has improved by 4·8 per cent. For a corresponding year under right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, it increased by about a quarter of that level. Those two figures, 1·1 per cent. versus 4·8 per cent., are the vindication of my right hon. Friend's contention
  1700
  that as long as productivity increases, wage increases go ahead proportionately.
  Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  Having said that, I do not for a moment minimise the part that the policy has to, and must, play in minimising costs and limiting demand. We have heard constant references today to the figure of 1 per cent. estimated in the summer by the National Board for Prices and Incomes as the figure by which effective demand is reduced as a result of the policy. I am open to correction, but I believe that was first invented by the right hon. Member for Mitcham, who said that that was the maximum figure for which we could hope, and his estimate was that it would be a considerably smaller amount.
  I make no comment whether that 1 per cent. is accurate. But I say that the Opposition are wrong to minimise the importance of a 1 per cent. reduction. A cut from effective demand of £100 million in a year is a substantial contribution to our economic strategy. Certainly, by my standards, cutting it from effective demand by an incomes policy is an infinitely more palatable way than other methods which might be put forward. It is certainly better than cutting it from public spending and certainly better—and I suspect that right hon. and hon. Members opposite agree—than putting it on taxation.
  When right hon. and hon. Members opposite consider not only the merits of the policy, but the desirability of it, they must also decide the desirability of any alternative which may be put in its place.
  Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  Many accusations have been made against the Government this afternoon. I will deal with only three more before I say a word about the future of the policy. First, to conjure up from the air some general theory that because of the incomes policy industrial relations have deteriorated is a very unscientific estimate.
  Mr. Emery: It is true.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) says that it is true.

  1701
  Hardly anybody has any figure relevant to such a contention, a contention which it is almost impossible to prove or disprove.
  About the best figure which can be produced to give an answer one way or the other is the percentage of disputes in any one year resulting from wage claims. Presumably it is wage claims that the prices and incomes policy affects and presumably it is in that area where it has soured industrial relations.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I am sure, be relieved to know that last year the average number of disputes arising from wage claims, as a proportion of the total number of disputes, was about average. The year before it was substantially below average, and the year before that it was also substantially below average. An examination of any figures that can be produced, inaccurate as they are, though the best figures which can be created, suggests and, indeed, confirms that the incomes policy has in no way injured or soured industrial relations.
  Finally—
  Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: Finally—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Mr. Hattersley.
  Mr. Hattersley: Finally, I turn to the question of the future. Before turning to that question—[Interruption.] The question of the future of the Government is easy. There is a question of the future for right hon. Gentlemen to answer. We know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would abolish the statutory powers and we understand that they would abolish the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We know that they believe in some general regulation of incomes policy. What we must ask them is whether those creative things which have been the result of the policy, those things which have come from the Board irrespective of wage limitation—I refer to things like "Guidelines for Productivity Bargains", proposals to local authority manual workers and how improvements can be made in local authority efficiency and pay without extra burdens
  1702
  on the ratepayer—would be done by a board set up by them.
  For us, the answer can be very clear. A year ago the Prime Minister laid down the criteria according to which the prices and incomes policy in its statutory form might or might not be abandoned, and I say again this evening that the decision about the future of the prices and incomes policy must be taken in the light of the necessities at the end of this year. Clearly, the Government cannot, and will not, at this stage undertake to abandon a policy which might be necessary in the interests of the nation. Any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who assumed from the wording of the Amendment that this was the beginning of our intention is mistaking what we have in mind.
  The wording of the Amendment is intended to convey our contempt for the rather shoddy political manoeuvre into which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have entered this afternoon, and my hon. Friends should assume nothing but contempt for it. Our point of view is clear and perfectly specified. The need for a prices and incomes policy in a statutory form will be assessed towards the end of the year. If some powers remain necessary, it would be irresponsible of us not to take those powers, but I say again that, for my part, there is no doctrinal wish to see a continuation of the statutory powers. I do not in any way see them as a virtue in themselves. I see them as a hard necessity in a difficult situation, and the assurance which I can give the House this evening is that we shall face the hard necessity if required.
  I can assure the House that, while, if we accept nothing else we accept that there is a substantial element of unpopularity in the operation of the policy, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, we shall not regard that as an appropriate criterion of whether it should go on or not. The criterion is whether the economy and the country need it. Obviously, our hope is that they do not, but if the country and the economy need it it must be renewed, and that is the only promise and the only undertaking that I can enter into about the future.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Sir Harmar Nicholls—[Interruption.]
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is clear, from the noise, that the House can see through the double talk of the hon. Gentleman. He came here to sooth his back benches, but admits that the policy will be renewed in the autumn. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sir Harmar Nicholls.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to find out why the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) is addressing me. Mr. Roebuck—[Interruption.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 230.

  Division No. 69.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Andereon, Donald

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Archer, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Eadle, Alex

  Hynd, John

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Edeiman, Maurice

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Baxter, William

  Ellis, John

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bence, Cyril

  English, Michael

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ennals, David

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

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Evans, Albert (Isilngton, S. W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

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

  Binns, John

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bishop, E. S. Blackburn, F.

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Finch, Harold

  Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Booth, Albert

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Judd, Frank

  Boston, Terence

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Boyden, James

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Lawson, George

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ford, Ben

  Ledger, Ron

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Brown, Bob (N 'c'tie-upon-Tyne, w.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lee, John (Reading)

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

  Gardner, Tony

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, W.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cant, R. B.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Carmichael, Neil

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Luard, Evan

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mabon, D. J. Dickson

  Coe, Denis

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McBride, Neil

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McCann, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamling, William

  MacColl, James

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Harman, William

  MacDermot, Niall

  Cawshaw, Richard

  Harper, Joseph

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackie, John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hattersley, Roy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hazell, Bert

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Heffer, Eric s.

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Henig, Stanley

  Manuel, Archie

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Siretford)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mapp, Charles

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hobden, Dennis

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  de Freitas, Rt Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hooley, Frank

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Delargy, Hugh

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Maxwell, Robert

  Dell, Edmund

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Dempsey, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, John

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Howie, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dickens, James

  Hoy, James

  Millan, Bruce

  Dobson, Ray

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Taverne, Dick

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

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Molloy, Will am

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Moonman, Eric

  Probert, Arthur

  Thornton, Ernest

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Randall, Harry

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Rankin, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Urwin, T. W.

  Moyle, Roland

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederickz

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Murray, Albert

  Richard, Ivor

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Newens, Stan

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Wallace, George

  Oakes, Gordon

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Ogden, Eric

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor:

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Weitzman, David

  Oram, Albert E.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Orbach, Maurice

  Roebuck, Roy

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Whitaker, Ben

  Oswald, Thomas

  Rowlands, E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

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

  Sheldon, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Padley, Walter

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Paget, R. T.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Silverman, Julius

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Park, Trevor

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Slater, Joseph

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Small, William

  Winnick, David

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Snow, Julian

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonsh re, W.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr. Charles Grey.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barksion Ash)

  Crouch, David

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Astor, John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hastings, Stephen

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Dance, James

  Hawkins, Paul

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Bainiel, Lord

  Dean, Paul

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Doughty, Charles

  Hiley, Joseph

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  HiIl, J. E. B.

  Biffen, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Eden, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornby, Richard

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Hunt, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Fortescue, Tim

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Braine, Bernard

  Foster, Sir John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Brewls, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bromley-Daven port, Lt.-Col. SirWalter

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bryan, Paul

  Glover, Sir Douglas

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

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bullus, Sir Erlc

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B,

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kimball, Marcus

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrn)

  Gower, Raymond

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grant, Anthony

  Kirk, Peter

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Grieve, Percy

  Lane, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Cordle, John

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Lartgstone)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Peel, John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Percival, Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Peyton, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson. Patrick

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Pounder, Rafton

  Temple, John M.

  Marten, Neill

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tilney, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Pym, Francis

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Quennell, Mies J. M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Waddington, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Monro, Hector

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wall, Patrick

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Murton, Oscar

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Royle, Anthony

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Neave, Airey

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Nott, John

  Sharples, Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Silvester, Frederick

  Wylie, N. R.

  Orr, Capt. I. P. S.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Younger, Hn. George

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

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

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stodart, Author y

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289. Noes 230.

  Division No. 70.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Coleman, Donald

  Foley, Maurice

  Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Archer, Peter

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ford, Ben

  Ashley, Jack

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Forrester, John

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Fowler, Gerry

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bugter, Gordon A. T.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Freeson, Reginald

  Barnett, Joel

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Gardner, Tony

  Baxter, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Ginsburg, David

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn Anthony

  Binns, John

  Delargy, Hugh

  Gregory, Arnold

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dell, Edmund

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Blackburn, F.

  Dempsey, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dewar, Donald

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Booth. Albert

  Dickens, James

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Boston, Terence

  Dobson, Ray

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Hamling, William

  Boyden, James

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harper, Joseph

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Brooks, Edwin

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hattersley, Roy

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hazell, Bert

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Healey, Rt Hn Denis

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, John

  Henig, Stanley

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

  English, Michael

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ennals, David

  Hilton, W. S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Hobden, Dennis

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fernyhough, E.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Finch, Harold

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Chapman, Donald

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

  Howie, W.

  Coe, Denis

  Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

  Hoy, James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Roebuck, Roy

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Mendelson, John

  Rowlands, E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sheldon, Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr. M. 8.

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

  Hynd, John

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Molloy, William

  Silverman, Julius

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Slater, Joseph

  Jeger, George (Coole)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

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

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Snow, Julian

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Murray, Albert

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Newens, Stan

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Summerskilll, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Judd, Frank

  Ogden, Eric

  Taverne, Dick

  Kelley, Richard

  O'Malley, Brian

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Oram, Albert E.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Orme, Stanley

  Thornton, Ernest

  Lawson, George

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tinn, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Ledger, Ron

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (newton)

  Padley, Walter

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walden Brian (All Saints)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Chartes

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Park, Trevor

  Wallace, George

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N,)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Weitzman, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Loughlin, Charles

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Luard, Evan

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Whitlock, William

  McBride, Neil

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McCann, John

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mac Coll, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Randall, Harry

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mackie, John

  Rees, Merlyn

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Winnick, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Richard, Ivor

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woof, Robert

  Manuel, Archie

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Mapp, Charles

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Marquand, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Mr. Charles Grey.

  Maxwell, Robert

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. SirWalter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Astor, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dance, James

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bryan, Paul

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

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

  Dean, Paul

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Balniel, Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Doughty, Charles

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Drayson, G. B.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bitten, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Eden, Sir John

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Blaker, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Farr, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Fisher, Nigel

  Body, Richard

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Corfield, F. V.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Foster, Sir John

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Braine, Bernard

  Crouch, David

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Brewis, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Loveys, W. H.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Goodhew, Victor

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Grant, Anthony

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Grant-Ferris, B.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Royle, Anthony

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maomillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilson. Patrick

  Scott, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmund")

  Maddan, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gurden, Harold

  Marples, Rt Hn, Emest

  Sharples, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marten, Neil

  Silvester, Frederick

  Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

  Speed, Keith

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Hay, John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tilney, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  van Stranlienzee, W. R.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Neave, Airey

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hordern, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Waddington, David

  Hornby, Richard

  Nott, John

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hunt, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wall, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Walters, Dennis

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Page, John (Harrow W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Peel, John

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Jopling, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Peyton, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wylie, N. R.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Younger, Hn. George

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Kirk, Peter

  Prior, J. M. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pym, Francis

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Lane, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Resolved,
  That this House notes that Her Majesty's Opposition is more concerned with partisan criticism of Her Majesty's Government's productivity, prices and incomes policy than with the promotion of a constructive and socially just economic strategy.

  Mr. John Smith to be a Member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.—[Mr. O'Malley]

  ADULT NON-VOCATIONAL CLASSES (CHESHIRE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  10.24 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of adult non-vocational classes. I am particularly concerned with the arrangements for cuts about to be made by the Cheshire county education authority, but it is a matter of more than purely local importance, which has implications for us all. I am also glad to have the opportunity of bringing forward on the Adjournment a subject in which you, Mr. Speaker, have great personal interest and of which you have extensive professional knowledge.
  We are concerned with the proposed cuts by the Cheshire County Education Authority but it would be right to go through the history of the matter briefly and refer to the cuts made by the Government and announced by the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968. He referred to a cut of £100 million in education expenditure over a period of two years. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State may say that this is not really a cut and that the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), referred to a "planned reduction" in the rate of growth. Nevertheless, to those on the receiving end, it seems to be a cut.
  It is right to make clear that all the blame, if blame there is, does not necessarily lie on the Cheshire authority. In the area, the population growth has averaged about 7 per cent. per annum. The school population has doubled since the war. The present arrangements for rate support grant are very far from being helpful, so the authority has its special problems.
  I am constantly pressing the authority on various matters, such as primary schools with classes approaching 60 pupils, or with outside sanitation, and so forth, and it would be irresponsible of me not to recognise that, in the context of having to make cuts in planned ex-
  1714
  penditure, the authority has some difficulty in deciding where to place the burden. Nevertheless, in proposing these cuts, it is surely asking adult education to bear a disproportionate share.
  However, the Government have much responsibility for the situation and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence with his colleagues to do something to ensure that the economic cuts will be moved away from education to certain other sectors of the economy which could bear them better. As Minister for Sport, and with Cup Final tickets at his disposal, he will have some influence with his colleagues. I hope that he will use it.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are much more to blame than the Cheshire authority and that, having studied what it could do to meet the Government's requirements, it appears to be meeting them by the best method it can find? That is not to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman altogether. I agree with him that the Government must accept responsibility for the cuts.
  Dr. Winstanley: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The total cuts add up to just over £1 million and consist of cuts in various educational activities. But £600,000—more than half—is to be cut from adult non-vocational education. This is not a proper division. It is wholly disproportionate.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to some Ministerial responsibility.
  Dr. Winstanley: I will do so closely and rapidly. On 13th January, the authority published Circular No. 69/6, in which it outlined the cuts it would make in response to the requests made by the Department of Education and Science. These were to fall into various sections but in particular I am concerned with items 29, 30, 31 and 32.
  Item 29 says:
  "Cessation for one year of all non-vocational evening institute classes."
  True, it is followed by a note which says that it is suggested that where a group of students, not less than 16 in number, combine together and are prepared to pay

  1715
  the full cost—it says a payment of not less than £9 paid in advance—it might be possible for the classes to continue.
  Item 30 says:
  "Savings by cancellation of courses and other means in the seven colleges of further education."
  Item 31 says:
  "Cancellation of issue of permits to Cheshire residents to attend part time day and evening non-vocational courses provided at colleges not maintained by the Cheshire authority."
  Item 32 says:
  "Suspension of grant to W.E.A. and University extra-mural classes."
  Mr. Trevor Park: I agree with the stricture the hon. Gentleman is making about the decision of the Cheshire authority. Would he not also agree that where the entire future of the W.E A. provision is being threatened by the attitude of a local authority, it lies within the power of the Minister to put the matter right by increasing his Departmental grant to W.E.A. districts? Would he put that point to the Minister?
  Dr. Winstanley: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the opportunity to say that he will do something of this kind, or at least he will do something equivalent. These items of savings amount to £158,000, £240,000, £190,000 and £4,750, making a total of nearly £600,000 out of total cuts of just over £1 million.
  They were not final proposals. They were being considered, but they caused alarm and despondency among the people who attend these classes or teach in them. Following that I had a letter from the Director of Education, Mr. Armitage, and I should like to pay tribute to him. Since he has taken over as Director he has worked as hard as he can to meet the very special difficulties which Cheshire has. He has a particular difficulty here, and I hope that he will meet it in a better way than it has so far been met.
  He sent me a letter to say that they were proposals. Now they have been agreed, at a meeting on 27th January. I was sent another letter on 6th February, and then another which I understand has been distributed among hon. Members and a copy sent to the Minister, on 10th February, explaining
  1716
  that it might not be necessary to suspend these non-vocational adult educational classes but that it might be possible to continue them if people were willing to pay, and adding that a working party was sitting.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This Adjournment debate has had some effect, and I have personal experience because my wife is attending a non-vocational course which was suspended, and which has since been reinstated. We owe the hon. Gentleman congratulations for the endeavours he has made.
  Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful. It is true that it seems that the attitude of the county council has shifted recently.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. After all, it is the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Carlisle: May I make the point that it was said to me last week by the Director of Education in Cheshire that these plans were being considered long before the hon. Gentleman was concerned.
  Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Member must know that I raised this matter a fortnight ago, and the notice I referred to is one which came out some weeks ago. Surely we are concerned in doing what we can to ensure that some kind of adult non-vocational educational classes continue on a basis acceptable to those who take part, rather than in scoring cheap party political points. I am astonished at the hon. Member for choosing to make one.
  It is my view that if the original decision to suspend these classes were carried out it would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the 1944 Education Act, Section 41 of which says:
  "… it shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education, that is to say:—

  (b) leisure-time occupation, in such organized cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose."

  Surely to suspend classes completely must be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The education authority would not then

  1717
  be discharging its duties. The point is arguable, I agree, if the county education authority arranges for classes to be held on the basis that those who attend pay the full cost or, in some cases, in excess of the cost so that they are providing the county education authority with a profit, but I cannot see how that can be in accordance not merely with the spirit but with the letter of the Act.
  If it transpires that the education authority is not able to continue these classes, I hope that the Minister will address himself to the question whether the authority would be in breach of the 1944 Act. If there is merely a reduction in the facilities provided, I hope that he will ensure that it is not a major reduction. I suggest that even a small reduction would be in many ways extremely inadvisable.
  These classes serve many functions, including very important social functions. I have received scores of letters, as I am sure have other hon. Members, from people who rely on these courses, for example old-age pensioners who write to me to say that at one time they felt that they were out of the community and that it was only through attending such classes that they were brought back into the community. I have letters from people recently arrived in the district who felt that they did not belong to the district until they attended the adult non-vocational education classes, which brought them into the life of the community. Many people who have been sick, suffering from nervous conditions, have found that attending these classes restored them to useful life.
  In my professional experience in practice I have found that I have been able to do more good for many patients by getting them to take part in these activities than by pushing out bottles of medicine and tablets. I was telephoned a short time ago by a Miss Evison, not from my constituency but from Mossley, who said, "I left school when I was 12 years of age. I have had practically nothing by way of education out of the State, for I went straight to work in a cotton mill. Now I am 64 and I go to these classes." At last she is getting some benefit from our provision of education. Is she not entitled to it?
  1718
  This is a matter of great importance. In this connection I would remind hon. Members of an interesting quotation from a letter written by Sir Winston Churchill to Sir Vincent Tewson when the latter was Secretary of the T.U.C. Sir Winston wrote:
  "… There is, perhaps, no branch of our vast educational system which should more attract within its particular sphere the aid and encouragement of the State than adult education."
  I do not think that it is attracting very much aid and encouragement at the moment in the County of Cheshire. Sir Winston continued:
  "How many must there be in Britain, after the disturbance of two destructive wars, who thirst in later life to learn about the humanities, the history of their country, the philosophies of the human race, and the arts and letters which sustain and are borne forward by the ever-conquering English language? This ranks in my opinion far above science and technical instruction, which are well sustained and not without their rewards in our present system."
  Sir Winston said that education of this kind
  "demands the highest measures which our hard-pressed finances can sustain".
  This is a point of view which I support and which I hope all hon. Members support.
  I am not unmindful of the difficulties of Cheshire County Council, but I believe that in saying that non-vocational classes should virtually be closed down, they are placing a disproportionate burden on adult education. I remind the Minister that once these classes are stopped, the teachers will have gone, and we shall not get them back again. I also remind him of what is happening in my constituency which borders other contiguous education authorities. People are going into Manchester to get accommodation addresses in order to enter courses in another authority's area. The saving may, therefore, not be as great as it seems. Indeed, will there be a significant saving? The vocational classes have to continue, so that there will still be lighting and heating and a caretaker to provide in the schools. The saving may not be as great as is supposed.
  I am astonished to find in some districts that the number of people taking part in these courses is 20 per cent. of the community; in other words, as high as one in five in certain districts. This

  1719
  is not a minority interest. It is of great educational and social importance. Therefore, I implore the Minister to do what he can to enable Cheshire to keep this service going as fully as it possibly can.
  10.40 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I will detain the House for only two minutes on this subject.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on one point. I have constantly said in this House that education has suffered disproportionately from the Government's economy measures during the past year. I repeat that this evening.
  I am sure that we ought to remember the acute problems caused for local education authorities by the restrictions on the rate support grant. This is something much more severe than many imagine. It has caused problems for Cheshire, Kent, and many of the best authorities in the country.
  None the less, I am sure that many in this House feel anxious for two reasons. First, because of the part that adult education plays in providing a second chance for many of our citizens, not least those who came, as it were, before the Robbins Report. We are not just talking about courses; we are talking about people.
  I must admit a special interest. I am a National Vice-President of the W.E.A., which has been mentioned this evening. I believe that in present circumstances, with the great problems that face local authorities financially, it is inevitable that authorities should take steps to make a number of courses more self-supporting. I think that Government supporters are unrealistic if they do not recognise that this is the consequence of their policies. I should be very sorry if there had to be any large-scale total suspension of a number of courses. I am sure that many Members in all parts of the House feel that, too.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn is right. Cheshire is aware of the conflicting considerations. I hope that it may be possible, partly as a result of this debate, to have more courses made more self-supporting, but not the total suspension which may originally have been planned.
  10.42 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) not only for raising this issue in the interests of Cheshire, but in the interests of adult education generally throughout the country. That is the view that we take.
  My reply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and to the hon. Member for Cheadle concerning some of their comments about Government economic policy—I obviously cannot deal with all the points in the 10 minutes or so available to me—is that there are 168 education authorities in this country, and the overwhelming number do not find that they have to make proposals such as this. This is a matter of which we must take account.
  I was pleased that the announcement I made the other day about the setting up of a new Committee under Sir Lionel Russell to look into the future of adult education was welcomed on all sides in the House. One reason why we have established that Committee is because the Government want to take this opportunity of reaffirming their faith in adult education as a service within the totality of education in this country.
  The facts given by the hon. Member for Cheadle are true. I do not want to reiterate them, but they are causing concern everywhere. The National Institute of Adult Education, knowing that this Adjournment debate was on tonight, rushed round a letter to me by hand in which it said that it supported the protest that was to be made.
  It is true that the total cuts that Cheshire proposes amount to over £592,000, or 60 per cent. of the cuts in the whole of its education service. I do not want to beat about the bush. My view of the proposals is that they are unbalanced, harsh and deplorable, and certainly contrary to the spirit of the Education Act, 1944.
  In pursuance of the judgment that the Secretary of State has to form on these matters in future, we should like to know a lot more about the practicality, for example, of such ideas that one man wishing to take a course has to find

  1721
  another 15 people, each of whom is prepared to pay £9 in advance to make it a valid course. By that proposal alone Cheshire is proposing to increase the cost of adult education by 450 per cent. in one year, which I do not believe people can sustain.
  I want, now, to come to the financial arrangements. The House will know that there used to be a percentage grant, until 1958 I think, when we then introduced the general grant. When the general grant was established, it included a calculation by the Government for the provision of a further education service, including adult education, and a youth service. There was a calculation from the start of the general grant for an adult education service.
  When we discussed next year's grant, for 1969–70, although the amount of increase that we wanted for local government as a whole was 3 per cent. in real terms, the increase for education which was allowed in the general grant was 3¾ per cent., and the increase for further education in real terms was 5 per cent. We have therefore expressed the Government's intention, and my right hon. Friend's intention, that further education should receive a measure of priority. What this means in practice is that Cheshire is receiving grant aid for adult education, but is proposing to spend its money elsewhere. Under the general grant arrangements the county is entitled to do this, but the morality of it being done is a matter which must be left to the electors and to the ratepayers of Cheshire.
  Mr. Carlisle Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Howell: There is not enough time left for me to give way.
  I turn now to Cheshire's own arrangements, and this is important. Cheshire has to get its priorities right within education, and also education within the whole of its local government provision. I understand that the general rate of expansion in Cheshire for next year, 1969–70, in money terms, not real terms, is 11·7 per cent. for the whole of its local government spending. The total figure which Cheshire is proposing for education is 11·6 per cent., just about the average, but I am interested in the figure which shows that the county's in-
  1722
  crease in expenditure next year for roads is 20·3 per cent.
  It is not: for me to determine whether Cheshire has got its priorities right, across the board of local government expenditure, or whether it has got it right in respect of education as a whole, but I cannot escape the thought that any reasonable assessment of these figures leads one to wonder whether a more modest roads programme nearer to the county's average growth for the whole of its services might not enable the county to carry on the adult education service reasonably intact. This is a reasonable point to make at this stage of the debate.
  I turn now to the legal position, which is extremely important. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, quite rightly, section 41 of the 1944 Act, and this establishes the spirit of the Act. It is clear that it places on local education authorities a duty to run an adult education service and a further education service, but there is a proviso at the end of the section which says that under Section 42—the next section—a scheme of education has to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Cheshire submitted its scheme of education, and this was approved in December, 1954.
  The law is an involved matter which deserves continuing study, which I hope it will be given—in fact I am certain it will be—by hon. Members. The law is that Cheshire cannot carry out any adult education service not in the scheme of education, but once my right hon. Friend has approved it he has no power to insist that the county carries out all the things in the scheme that he has approved.
  I was asked about sanctions, and what could be done. Never since 1944 have these sanctions been brought into play against any authority. This is one of the great difficulties, although I agree that it is a new situation. Certain sanctions are open to my hon. Friend at the end of the day under Section 99 of the 1944 Act and Section 4(1)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1966. They are as follows. He cannot anticipate a default in the service but he can take note of it when it has occurred. Second, in deciding whether an authority is in default, he

  1723
  must have regard to the standards maintained by other authorities. In other words, in deciding whether the standard in Cheshire is good enough, he must have regard to all the 168 authorities, and he clearly cannot do that until he knows their proposals for 1969–70. He can use some sanctions. He can impose a duty on them by direction and Regulation and Parliament has the final sanction. By affirmative Order, it can withhold rate support grant if it is so pleased.
  No-one can support many of these proposals, many of them in fields other than education—
  Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I have no time. The hon. Gentleman should have sought an Adjournment debate himself if he is concerned about the position—
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: But the Under-Secretary is making charges.
  Mr. Howell: No, I am not making charges against the hon. Gentleman, or I would of course give way.
  The position as we see it is that Cheshire intends to call a halt to virtually the whole of its adult education service and I do not believe that any hon. Gentleman would support that proposal—
  Mr. Carlisle: Where does one make the cuts?
  Mr. Howell: I have already answered that question. Although it is a matter for Cheshire to decide for itself and in which local democracy must be heard, I have already expressed my view, that they have not balanced their economies in education as a whole. It is impossible to maintain that they have when they
  1724
  are making a major cessation in one activity—or a reduction compared with other local government services. We must take this into account.
  Also, they have acted unilaterally and without consultation with the universities, the colleges and the W.E.A.s This also, in a day and age when we are used to so much consultation in education, is something which we must all regret. In respect of their proposal to cut down on grants to people who might get places—or are in the process of getting places—in colleges of further education and so on it could be a serious matter, affecting people's future careers. Therefore, to chop £60,000 off future grants to such students unilaterally will affect not only the students but, almost certainly, the finances and arrangements of the colleges themselves. I am sure that the right hon. Member, for Handsworth will agree that that is not the way in which we usually order our financial affairs in education.
  All this is to be deplored. I greatly regret this situation. I hope that, even at this late hour, this debate, with its remarkable attendance for an Adjournment debate, and the expressions of concern on both sides will lead the authority to think again and reconsider these decisions so as to produce a more balanced solution to its problems. It goes without saying that my right hon. Friend and I will continue to watch the situation very carefully—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (East Africa)
  United Kingdom Passport Holders (East Africa)
  Television Research Committee
  Television Research Committee
  Animals (Research)
  Animals (Research)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Severely Disturbed Children (Care and Treatment)
  Severely Disturbed Children (Care and Treatment)
  Taxicabs (London)
  Taxicabs (London)
  Constitutional Commission
  Constitutional Commission
  Children's Departments (Field Staff)
  Children's Departments (Field Staff)
  Littlewood Committee's Report
  Littlewood Committee's Report
  Sabotage (Compensation)
  Sabotage (Compensation)
  Civil Defence and Auxiliary Fire Service Equipment
  Civil Defence and Auxiliary Fire Service Equipment
  Northern Ireland Government (Discussions)
  Northern Ireland Government (Discussions)
  Demonstrators (Arrests and Convictions)
  Demonstrators (Arrests and Convictions)
  Legal Aid (Appeal Against Refusal)
  Legal Aid (Appeal Against Refusal)
  Risley Remand Centre (Suicides)
  Risley Remand Centre (Suicides)
  False Arrests (Derbyshire)
  False Arrests (Derbyshire)
  Police, Derbyshire (Strength)
  Police, Derbyshire (Strength)
  Fireworks Accidents
  Fireworks Accidents
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
  Paraffin Oil Delivery Vehicles
  Paraffin Oil Delivery Vehicles
  Smash-and-grab Raids
  Smash-and-grab Raids
  Drugs (Penalties)
  Drugs (Penalties)
  Members (Replies to Letters)
  Members (Replies to Letters)
  Women Remand Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Women Remand Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Police, Stockport (Alleged Assault)
  Police, Stockport (Alleged Assault)
  Stamp Committee (Report)
  Stamp Committee (Report)
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Persons in Custody (Professional Interviews)
  Persons in Custody (Professional Interviews)
  Crowd Behaviour
  Crowd Behaviour
  Cruelty to Children (Convictions)
  Cruelty to Children (Convictions)
  Borstal Boys (Wormwood Scrubs)
  Borstal Boys (Wormwood Scrubs)
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Breathalyser Tests
  Breathalyser Tests
  C.S. Smoke (Police Use)
  C.S. Smoke (Police Use)
  South Vietnamese N.L.F. Delegate (Visa)
  South Vietnamese N.L.F. Delegate (Visa)
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Mr. Fahrner (Entry Permit)
  Mr. Fahrner (Entry Permit)
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Police-controlled Security Corps
  Police-controlled Security Corps
  Police (Complaint)
  Police (Complaint)
  Police (Services to Motorists)
  Police (Services to Motorists)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Vandalism)
  Kiosks (Vandalism)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Low-Power Broadcasting Stations (Frequency)
  Low-Power Broadcasting Stations (Frequency)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Delays (Members' Letter)
  Postal Delays (Members' Letter)
  Post Office Dispute (Revenue Loss)
  Post Office Dispute (Revenue Loss)
  River Dolais, Radnorshire (Reservoir)
  River Dolais, Radnorshire (Reservoir)
WALES
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Alcoholism and Drug Addiction (Research Foundations)
  Alcoholism and Drug Addiction (Research Foundations)
HOSPITALS
  Royal Gwent Hospital
  Royal Gwent Hospital
  Road Casualties (Treatment)
  Road Casualties (Treatment)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Low-Flying Aircraft (Representations)
  Low-Flying Aircraft (Representations)
  C.S. Smoke (Analysis)
  C.S. Smoke (Analysis)
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  TATE GALLERY
  TATE GALLERY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Industrial Fishing
  Industrial Fishing
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Council for Education in World Citizenship
  Council for Education in World Citizenship
  Resources of the Biosphere (Intergovernmental Conference)
  Resources of the Biosphere (Intergovernmental Conference)
  Awards to Students
  Awards to Students
  Universities and Further Education (Expenditure)
  Universities and Further Education (Expenditure)
  Student Unrest
  Student Unrest
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Bakery Employees, Scotland (Wages)
  Bakery Employees, Scotland (Wages)
  Welsh Development Area (Unemployment)
  Welsh Development Area (Unemployment)
  Gateshead (Training Grants)
  Gateshead (Training Grants)
  Gateshead, Felling and Tyneside (Unemployment)
  Gateshead, Felling and Tyneside (Unemployment)
GAS
  Natural Gas (Supplies)
  Natural Gas (Supplies)
ELECTRICITY
  Electricity Boards (Deposits)
  Electricity Boards (Deposits)
  Generating Capacity and Demand
  Generating Capacity and Demand
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Petroleum Products (Revised Surcharge)
  Petroleum Products (Revised Surcharge)
BOARD OF TRADE
  British Industry (United States Investment)
  British Industry (United States Investment)
SCOTLAND
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Teachers (Default Orders)
  Teachers (Default Orders)
ROADS
  Stonehenge (Electricity Supply Line)
  Stonehenge (Electricity Supply Line)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Overseas Expenditure and Receipts (Statistics)
  Overseas Expenditure and Receipts (Statistics)
  Sterling Reserves (Guarantee)
  Sterling Reserves (Guarantee)

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

CHILDREN'S ANORAK CORDS
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, despite the information as to children's deaths resulting from the use of anoraks, and the request of the Home Office, as indicated in this House, on July 9 last, that garments produced thereafter should have "certain safety modifications", a national Sunday newspaper has alleged that there were recent sales of dangerous garments at one store in Weymouth and three in Colchester which they are prepared to name; and what further action the Home Office is taking in this matter.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I understand that the anoraks offered for sale in Weymouth were a small number from old stock. In the Colchester case we are pursuing the matter with the suppliers. We propose to remind the trade of the recommendations concerning children's anoraks which were issued last year.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his valuable Answer. Following on the excellent action taken last year, after several children had died, can the noble Lord inform the House what firm action is being taken by the Home Office to deal with this matter, and why it must be left to the People newspaper to maintain an agitation? Further, may I ask whether he is aware that since this Question was put down a firm of the mail order type has issued a catalogue with the same dangerous anoraks pictured in them?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are very grateful to the People newspaper for the public-spirited attitude shown in this matter, and for bringing these exceptional—I think very exceptional—cases to light. With regard to the action that we have taken, the firm at Weymouth, Woolworth's, have said that as soon as the Home Office recommendations were issued they asked their suppliers to discontinue the use of draw-cords in the hoods of these anoraks. Apparently they continued to sell some stock, but since this question was raised some pile fabric coats having these hoods have been withdrawn from sale. There was one firm at Colchester which, in fact, ordered the right kind and had them delivered, but subsequently the suppliers sent the wrong type, and we are taking the matter up with the suppliers so that this does not occur again. With regard to the mail order firm, this was an old catalogue issued in August last year before they had our instructions. Their new catalogue contains only anoraks with hoods of the correct and safe type.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is not the same principle to be found in the construction of Peers' robes?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords; but Peers are not in the habit of sliding down those little children's chutes which causes the draw-cords to catch them by the throat.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Peers' robes have toggles on them?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of course that is another point: Peers' robes have neither toggles nor acorns.

GATWICK AIRPORT: PROPOSED RUNWAY EXTENSIONS
3.8 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: 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 what progress the British Airports Authority has made in—
1. Building a second runway at Gatwick;
2. Extending the existing runway so that this Airport can handle the DC8s in the summer season of 1969.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand from the British Airports Authority that these developments are under consideration but that they have, as yet, taken no decision on whether or not to seek planning permission for either project. Neither project can come into operation this summer.
LORD MACPHERSON 0F DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in their Annual Report for 1967–68 the British Airports Authority stressed the need for a second runway? I would also ask the Minister whether it is the intention that Stansted be used for these large DC.8 aircraft during the coming year, and is it the Government's intention to give permission for these huge aircraft to operate during the night?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to the first of the three questions is, Yes; I did know that it was in the Report. As to the second question, if it is possible for the British Airports Authority to use the facilities now available at Stansted, then obviously they will do so before committing themselves to the expenditure necessary for the second runway at Gatwick.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether there is a priority list for these airports? Have they remembered Turnhouse?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, is it not the case that an additional runway at Gatwick will not result in doubling the capacity of that airport? Is it not the case that the topographical restrictions on the construction of a second runway will result only in some 15 or 20 per cent. increase in traffic there?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is the case that if there were a second runway at Gatwick it would not double the capacity of the airport. It is also the case that the British Airports Authority have made provision for the necessary expenditure
574
on a second runway within the next five years. All that I have said before—I know what the noble Lord is getting at—is that the British Airports Authority have made their calculations on the basis of a second runway at Gatwick.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm whether a public inquiry will be necessary before a second runway is built?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, planning permission will have to be obtained in the usual way.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord also confirm that the second runway is already in the development plan of the Surrey County Council, and therefore planning permission would not necessarily be required?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said already: that if there is to be a second runway at Gatwick, planning permission will be required.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, could the Minister kindly answer my second point? That is, whether permission will be given for these DC.8 aircraft use Stansted during the night time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as of now there is no embargo on night flying at Stansted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, were not all the calculations with regard to the time when a third London Airport would be required based on the assumption that long before then there would be a second runway at Gatwick? What is holding up the development of the second runway? The noble Lord said that the British Airports Authority have the matter under consideration. But surely it should be proceeded with if there is a real need for further airport access.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; as the noble and learned Viscount has said, the calculations to which we referred in the discussions we have had on this problem took into account the traffic which would be possible at Gatwick if there were a second runway. But at the

575
moment there are assets under-used at Stansted, and nothing has been said in this House, or in any other House, which suggests that those assets should not reasonably be used while they are there. But that does not mean to say that within the five-year programme a start would not be made on the construction of the second runway at Gatwick, if it is necessary.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is the intention of the British Airports Authority to extend the hours of operation at Stansted this summer to continue right through the night, as happened last summer? I believe that at the moment it shuts at 11 o'clock at night.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will find out the answer and let the noble Lord know.

STANSTED AIRPORT TRAFFIC
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the number of air transport movements and the number of passengers handled at Stansted during the last six months of 1968 and similar figures for the last six months of 1967.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there were 2,332 air transport movements at Stansted in the last six months of 1968, and 234 in the last six months of 1967. The numbers of passengers were 111,135 and 9,005 respectively.

DISPOSAL OF SEIZED ENEMY PROPERTY
3.15 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: 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 was the total value of assets taken over and lodged with the Custodian of Enemy Property during the Second World War; from which countries it was taken over; what
576
part of the total was handed back to those countries or their nationals after the War, and what part still remains in the hands of the Custodian.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the Custodian of Enemy Property was concerned with the assets of both belligerent and technical enemies. After the war the assets of the former were passed over to Administrators of Enemy Property established under the Treaty of Peace Orders or similar British legislation. The amount involved for all these Administrators was about £34 million. Assets of technical enemies were returned to them either directly or through Money and Property Agreements with the countries concerned. The assets of technical enemies still held amount to about £7½ million.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. Unless I missed what he said, I think that he left out one point on which I required an answer, as to the total taken from the technical enemies. He helpfully subdivided it, but I should like to know what in fact was the total taken from the technical enemies.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, these may seem the sort of figures which should be easily produced, but I am sure noble Lords will realise in relation to these accounts that there has been a constant flow through of funds right from the beginning. Although it would be possible to produce a figure for a single large country, if that were desired, to produce figures for all the countries concerned would be an extremely arduous job. It would also probably require some further definition of phrases like "taken over", "lodged" or "handed back". This subject is a good deal more complex than perhaps the noble Lord realises.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in the case of the assets of so-called technical enemies, can my noble friend say whether it is intended to offset them against claims by British nationals for property in the possession of these particular Powers?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this is the normal procedure in respect of some groups of countries where large counterclaims have not been easily realised. The noble Lord will realise that this has taken

577
place with regard to certain Baltic countries in the last year or so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the assets of some technical enemies were returned to them. Could the noble Lord indicate on what principles that was done, and also could he indicate who were the technical enemies who had their property returned to them?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the technical enemies were, for example, the Channel Islands, France, Belgium and countries which were not directly in conflict with us at all. The procedure of returning funds to them varied considerably, but many of these funds were returned simply on the basis of application and proof that the persons applying had legal entitlement to the funds which were held by us.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, leaving on one side for the moment the Baltic States and the ceded territories, can the noble Lord give any case where the assets of a technical enemy have been devoted to meeting other people's claims?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should need notice of that question. The question whether they have been used in compensation against claims by others is, I should think, likely to arise, but I should need notice in regard to a list of any specific cases.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that the property still retained amounted to about £7½million. Could he say whether that relates to the technical enemies, or to the real enemies whose funds were dealt with through administrators, or both? Could he break down the figure?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the £7½ million is made up largely of Baltic assets. The figure for these Baltic assets has already been given in a Written Answer in Hansard. It amounts to £6½million. The remainder, therefore, is £1million, and this applies to a fairly substantial range of countries and, of course, embodies fairly small amounts.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want to be over-persistent in this matter, since I appreciate that the noble
578
Lord is trying to help, but I cannot understand—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD ST. OSWALD: Perhaps the noble Lord will explain to me whether or not what he calls the through-flow of these assets was not cut off at 1945. Therefore I am asking whether since 1945 the through-flow could possibly have continued. Is the noble Lord not able to deduct the £34 million from the total assets held by, or vested in, the Custodian and thereby arrive at the assets once taken over from technical enemies?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that this is a much more complicated issue than he imagines, as I myself discovered this morning when I had a discussion with the Comptroller. If it will help the noble Lord, I can certainly arrange for him to meet the official concerned, so that he nay go deeply into the matter.

BACON MARKET SHARING UNDERSTANDING
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three I shall be making a Statement on the renewed Bacon Market Sharing Understanding.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
LEVER PARK BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: 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.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Agreements for sharing church buildings]:
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("() Where a see is vacant, or the bishop of the diocese is unable because of illness or absence to give his consent under subsection (4) of this section, the archbishop of the province may appoint by an instrument under his hand a suffragan or assistant bishop or an archdeacon of the diocese to act in place of the bishop under the said subsection for a period specified in the instrument; and in the event of a vacancy in the see of an archbishop or his illness or absence, an appointment under this subsection, either in respect of the see of the archbishop or another see in the province, may be made by the other archbishop.")
The most reverend Primate said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for what may happen at the time when a see is vacant and the problem of the sharing of a church building needs urgently to be proceeded with. The Amendment provides that in those circumstances the Archbishop of the Province may appoint a suffragan or assistant bishop or an archdeacon of the diocese to act in place of the Bishop for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Extent]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 8, after the second("such") insert ("exceptions, adaptations or")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been requested by the authorities in the Isle of Man in order that the subsection may use the customary formula of exceptions and adaptations, as well as modifications, when referring to the application of an Act of Parliament in the Isle of Man. I beg to move.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for moving this Amendment, which is an improvement of the Bill. I want to express my appreciation of his great interest and helpfulness.
On Questions, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Churches and their appropriate Authorities]:
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved Amendment No. 3.
Page 14, line 32, at end insert—

("Any Congregation of the Association of Churches of Christ in Great Britain and Ireland.

As respects section 1(3) and (4), the Annual Conference of the Association of Churches of Christ acting with the concurrence of the duly constituted Church meeting.

As respects section 1(7), the Annual Conference of the Association of Churches of Christ.")

The most reverend Primate said: The purpose of this Amendment is to add another Church to the list of those covered by the provisions of the Bill. When the Bill has been passed, it will be possible by a very easy procedure for other Churches to bring themselves within its operation, but already, before the Bill has passed, this particular Christian body —the Association of Churches of Christ in Great Britain and Ireland—has expressed a wish to be covered by the Bill. That is the reason for my Amendment, which provides for the inclusion of this

581
Church within the Bill and which also states clearly the authorities entitled to act for it. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sure we are all glad to see a seventh denomination joining the six which took part in the framing of this legislation, but I think I am right in saying that there are a considerable further number of Churches—the Salvation Army, the Lutherans, the Greek Orthodox—who are all represented on the British Council of Churches. This fact prompts me to ask whether we are to infer that this Church—the Association of Churches of Christ—is the only one which at the moment feels it wants to join in this scheme. Or are we to infer that there are a considerable number of other denominations who are considering joining this scheme but have not yet decided what they are going to do?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord's phrase "joining this scheme" is a little misleading. The text of the Bill covers all Churches who are members of the British Council of Churches, which is a very large number of Churches in this country, and Churches not in that category can make a special application subsequently. The list in this Schedule is limited, because these were the Churches which took part in the negotiations for the actual construction of the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that there will be no difficulty whatever in other Churches enjoying with us the provisions of this Bill. I can also assure him of the fact that this Bill is widely known among all the Churches in the country.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): 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 Chalfont.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of power to deal with property of Baltic States and ceded territories]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("or ceded territory").
The noble Viscount said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, as I think this Committee stage has come on a little earlier than was expected, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name and mine. This Amendment raises the question of whether the powers given to the Board of Trade and to the Custodian, about which I shall have something to say, should extend to the disposal or other dealing with "former property of" a ceded territory. I ask your Lordships to note that the words in the Bill are "former property" of such a territory, and the words "former property" are defined in Clause 3 as meaning:
"any property which on any of the relevant dates belonged to or was held or managed on behalf of an individual resident or carrying on business"
in any ceded territory; any property which, within a specified period, belonged to a body corporate or unincorporate; and also
"any gold, securities, or credit balance at a bank with respect to which a direction was given"
under the Defence (Finance) Regulations.
We are thus dealing with what was—and I do not think there can be any dispute about this—the property of individuals and bodies corporate and unincorporate, not with the property belonging to any State. This was, I think, frankly admitted by the Under-Secretary in another place when he spoke on November 19. So this clause purports to deal with the former property of these persons, and the first question to which I hope to get a clear and specific answer—and I am very glad to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here—is: when did it cease to be their property?
Your Lordships will note that there is a discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum and subsection (1). The Explanatory Memorandum says:
"This Bill makes provision…for the disposal of…property…of persons formerly resident or carrying on business in one of the Baltic States"
or a ceded territory. It does not say, "for the disposal of property which was formerly the property of persons" so resident, and so on, but specifically treats the property as still belonging to those persons. Indeed, the Government appear to recognise that this is the position, for I put down a Question for Written Answer asking Her Majesty's Government:
"The appropriate value of the property of persons formerly resident or carrying on business in"
these territories
"now vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 /2/69, col. 411.]
Your Lordships will notice that the language of that Question was in accordance with that of the Explanatory Memorandum.
In his Written Answer the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not say that such persons no longer had any such property; he did not say that their "former property" was worth so much; he apparently accepted that the property in the hands of the Custodian was still their property. Really, before we proceed much further with this Bill I suggest that we ought to be told in clear terms whether those persons have any rights at all to what was admittedly their property originally. If they still have some rights, then is the effect of the Bill to deprive them of those rights, and so is the Bill itself confiscatory? If, on the other hand, they have ceased to have any rights in respect of these assets, as the language of the Bill itself suggests, we ought to be told how and in what manner that came about. Of course, while this Amendment deals only with the property of people who were resident in the ceded territories, the same question arises with regard to the Baltic assets.
I assume that the assets in relation to the residents of the ceded territories, which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, stated amounted to about £35,000, reached the hands of the Custodian of Enemy
584
Property as a result of an Order under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939. Section 7 of that Act gave the Board of Trade power:
"With a view to preventing payment of money to enemies and of preserving enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace…"
to appoint Custodians and by Order to require the payment of money to them, and power to vest in the Custodian any such enemy property as might be prescribed. It also gave the Board of Trade power by Order to
"confer…such rights, powers, duties and liabilities as may be prescribed as respects…property…so vested,…"
But I can find nothing in that Act which explicitly deprives, or gives power to deprive, the owners of such property of all their rights. It would seem that vesting in the Custodian operated merely to suspend until the termination of the war what were their clear rights.
Under that Act, the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order 1939 was made, and under that Order certain powers were given to the Custodian with regard to the property which became vested in him. Paragraph 2(iii) of the Order says that a vesting Order made by the Board of Trade:
"shall be of the like purport and effect as a vesting order…made by the High Court under the Trustee Act 1925…"
But there is nothing explicit in that Order, so far as I can see, to deprive the owners of the property of all their rights with regard to it. Their right to have their property under their control is clearly suspended; the property has to go to the Custodian, and he has to hold it subject to any directions from the Board of Trade. Paragraph 3(i) of the Order says that, subject to such directions, he shall hold the property vested in him until the termination of the war,
"and shall thereafter deal with the same in such manner as the Board of Trade shall direct".
Paragraph 3(ii) is not unimportant. It gives the Custodian power, under directions of the Board of Trade, to transfer property vested in him
"to or for the benefit of the person who would have been entitled thereto but for the operation of the Act or any Order…"
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has told us, in answer to a Question, that assets have been returned to technical enemies

585
of this country since the termination of the war (and of course, in considering this Bill, and the assets which are the subject of this Bill, we are considering the assets of those who were technical enemies of this country), but he was unable to give a single instance where this Government had taken hold of those technical assets, had not endeavoured to return them to their former owners and had distributed them to meet British claims. The noble Lord, Lord Brown—I asked him only a few moments ago, as Members of the Committee will recollect—was unable to give a single instance of that; but that is what this Bill proposes to do.
I mention that Order in some detail because it appears to me that under this Order the Board of Trade have the power to direct the Custodian to dispose of the property vested in him, and indeed to return it to those who would have been entitled to it but for the operation of the Act. I put this question. If those are the existing powers, why then do we have Clause 1(1) in this Bill at all? If, as would appear, the Board of Trade under the Order can direct the Custodian to dispose of property vested in him to any person, why is it necessary to have this legislation with this provision? I must confess that I do not understand it. It is true to say that there is a positive jungle of Orders made under the Act of 1939, and I may have missed something—I should not be in the least surprised if that were so. But as I see it, in the light of such investigations as I have been able to make, all this subsection seeks to do in relation to property vested in the Custodian which belongs or belonged to individuals or bodies corporate or unincorporate, resident or carrying on business in the ceded territories, can be done under existing powers.
I therefore suspect that the real object of this Part of the Bill is to get Parliament to agree to the permanent extinction of the rights of the owners of this property and to agree to its being used to give to other persons; or, alternatively, that the Foreign Office are uncertain as to the position. There is not one word that I can see in the Act of 1939 or the Orders made under it to which I have referred which permanently extinguishes the rights of the owners. The Foreign
586
Office and the Government may feel that if this Bill is enacted in its present form confiscatory though its effect may be, they are safe from criticism.
As I have said, Paragraph 3(2) of the Order obviously contemplates that property vested in the Custodian may be returned to the persons who would have been entitled to it but for the vesting Order. Here I want to ask this question. Have the Board of Trade given any directions in relation to these assets under the Order? If so, could we see them or be told what they are? The assets that we are dealing with in this particular Amendment are valued at only £35,000; but has any consideration been given to the return of any part of that sum to those technical enemies who would have been entitled to it but for the vesting in the Custodian? May there not be persons who were not in fact enemies of this country and who were treated as enemies only by virtue of the definition in the Act of 1939, as a result of these territories being overrun by the Germans, and who would now be in a position to establish their entitlement to some part of that £35,000?
If that is the case—and I shall be interested to know whether it has been found that it is not—if they can establish entitlement to any part of the £35,000, should not their claims be met first, before any of the money is used to meet in some part the claims of those who lost as a result of expropriation by the Soviet Union? I ask this question: ought not an opportunity to be given to persons to come forward to claim the property which formerly at least belonged to them? Perhaps such an opportunity has been given. If it has, nothing has been said about it in the debate on the Second Reading in this House or in the debates in another place.
If within a stipulated time no claims are preferred, then I myself can see no objection to the distribution of the unclaimed assets, or the assets to which no claim is established, to meet British creditors, British persons who have suffered as a result of Soviet expropriation. It may be that there will be no claims; that there are no persons or heirs who can prove entitlement to any of the assets. But surely, before disposing of them to meet claims arising out of the actions of the U.S.S.R., the original owners or their heirs should be given the opportunity

587
of claiming. This Amendment deals only with the property of former residents and persons carrying on business in the ceded territories, but what I have said seems to me to apply, with at least equal force, in relation to the Baltic assets.
The next question that I should like to raise is about the distribution of the unclaimed assets. I myself would not object to the unclaimed part of the £35,000 being used to meet claims by those who lost in consequence of Soviet action in the ceded territories; but I cannot see that it is equitable or fair that those who lost on account of Soviet action in the Baltic States should have their prospects of compensation diminished because those who had chosen to invest in other countries under different conditions had also lost money. I have put a number of questions to the noble Lord. I hope that he or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give me clear and satisfactory answers to them. I beg to move.
3.47 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: The noble and learned Viscount referred to the "jungle" of Orders. I have spent a great deal of my time in the jungle and I must confess that I should infinitely prefer to be there than to argue points of law with the noble and learned Viscount. Indeed, I shall make no attempt to do so. The points of law that he has mentioned will in due course be dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, either in the debate on this particular Amendment or at some later stage. That will be for the noble and learned Viscount to influence to a very large extent. What I should like to do is to deal with the specific point of this Amendment, which is to leave out the words "or ceded territory". As the noble and learned Viscount has said, that is really the effect of this particular Amendment. I think he will agree that there are further Amendments on the Marshalled List which are consequential upon it. They are Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14: and if the noble and learned Viscount agrees I propose to suggest that the arguments that I shall deploy in answering the moving of this Amendment should apply to those as well.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I agree that the
588
other Amendments are entirely consequential upon the fate of this one. If this Amendment is carried I apprehend that the Government will accept all the other consequential Amendments; if it is not carried or not accepted then those other Amendments will fall.
LORD CHALFONT: I am indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for that very clear exposition of the situation. This Amendment, then, would have the effect, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, of omitting the assets of persons formerly resident or carrying on business in the ceded territories from the assets to be distributed. I assume that the intention of the Amendment is also that the Order in Council to be made under Clause 2(2) of this Bill should, in consequence, be drawn (if the Bill becomes law) correspondingly so as to exclude claims in respect of the ceded territories.
I should like to address myself simply to this suggestion that the ceded territories should be left out in the distribution of these assets. I must confess that I cannot see any justification at all for the departure from the principle of a common pool which the Government have proposed, throughout this procedure, to follow. The assets, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, have separate territorial origins, but those origins are not now represented by separate Sovereign States. We recognise the Soviet Government as the de facto Government of the former Baltic States and the de jure Government of all the other territories with which we are concerned.
As I explained on the Second Reading of this Bill, we agreed in 1959 to negotiate with the Soviet Union simultaneously on all the claims, together with the Soviet Union's counter-claims on the Soviet assets held in this country, whatever their origin. The Registration Order of 1959 provided for the registration of claims in respect of the ceded territories, and registered ceded territories claims were formally presented to the Soviet Government. The settlement that we reached with the Soviet Union was, as I said on Second Reading, a global one. The essence of it was that each side agreed not to pursue its claims against the other, although neither side recognised the title of the other to any of the assets which it held. The important point I have to make to the Committee is that

589
any agreement on a narrower territorial basis would have been unobtainable.
Her Majesty's Government have now to decide what is the best method of compensating all the different categories of claimants out of the assets which the Soviet Union no longer claims. It is the actions by the Soviet Government, actions not confined to the Baltic States, that we are seeking to redress. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is suggesting that there should be a separate fund for each and every territory. If he is, there is equally, it seems to me, no justification for lumping in all the three Baltic States together. But I cannot really believe that the noble and learned Viscount, or any noble Lord, would suggest that we should have a separate pool for each of the three of them.
The Government's view is that these Amendments are defective, since, as at present drafted, their effect is simply to exclude the ceded territories from the Bill without making any alternative provision for compensation of the ceded territories' claimants. These people registered their claims from 1959 onwards, knowing that they would then be put to the Soviet side in the course of the negotiations—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before the noble Lord gets on to that matter, I wonder whether he will deal with one other thing. He referred to the ceded territories and said that we should have to distinguish between the Baltic States if we treated every fund separately. We recognise that territories have been ceded to Russia, do we not? Do we not recognise that in relation to the ceded territories the Russians are the de jure Government, and not de facto?
LORD CHALFONT: As I said earlier, we recognise the Soviet Union as the de jure Government in the case of the ceded territories and the de facto Government in the case of the Baltic States. As I have suggested, we think that this Amendment is defective because if it were accepted the people from the ceded territories would not be included in the distribution, although they registered their claims from 1959 onwards knowing that they would then be put to the Soviet side in the negotiations that we were having; and expecting, naturally, that they would
590
benefit from any settlement reached as a result of the negotiations. This means that this Amendment, if accepted, would leave these British subjects with no immediate prospect of any compensation whatsoever, and I cannot believe that that is what noble Lords wish to achieve.
It has also been suggested that we ought to give an opportunity for people to come forward and claim their assets within a stipulated time; I think that that was the drift of one of the suggestions made by the noble and learned Viscount. The Soviet Union has put forward such claims as it considered it had in respect of Soviet nationals and has now, as part of the settlement which I mentioned on Second Reading, the settlement which we reached in February, 1967, undertaken not to pursue those claims against the United Kingdom. But individuals who apply for the release of property would have the benefit of this Bill. In fact, they would benefit from Clause 1(3)(b) and (c), and since the Agreement of January 5, 1968, applications for releases have been met under existing powers in all cases that were considered to merit it. I realise that in this reply I have not dealt with the legal points that the noble and learned Viscount raised. I think it would be wrong of me to attempt to do so. I have merely put to the Committee why I believe that this particular Amendment and those that flow from it are defective, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: For the purpose of hearing the Statement on bacon I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BACON MARKET SHARING UNDERSTANDING
3.56 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: Negotiations for a renewed Bacon Market Sharing Understanding have now been completed and the new Understanding will be signed shortly. The basic aim of the renewed Understanding will be to provide for the orderly marketing of bacon in the United Kingdom and to preserve stable prices at levels reasonable to both producers and consumers.

591
There are two main changes. First, there is no longer a specific percentage share of the market laid down for the United Kingdom. Instead, the United Kingdom, after consultation with the Bacon Market Council, will determine each year not only the total quantity of bacon required on the United Kingdom market but also the expected level of bacon production in the United Kingdom. The difference between these figures will be shared among the exporting countries. Secondly, the Understanding has been strengthened in order to ensure in a more positive way than in the present Understanding that our suppliers' market in an orderly and a regular manner, as our own industry will also be expected to do.
The new Understanding takes effect on 1st April this year and will run for a term of three years. The situation will then be further reviewed. The total market requirement for the first twelve months is 639,000 tons and the expected level of bacon production in the United Kingdom is 233,600 tons, an increase of about 15,000 tons on this year's estimated level. I am making a complete list of the tonnages for 1969–70 available now in the Library and I shall circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As soon as the Understanding has been signed, the full text, together with the letters continuing bilateral understanding with Denmark and the Irish Republic, will be published as a White Paper.
Following is the list referred to in the Statement:

Total

639,000 tons

United Kingdom

233,600 tons

Denmark

302,850 tons

Poland

50,310 tons

Ireland

28,180 tons

Sweden

11,010 tons

Netherlands

8,160 tons

Hungary

2,380 tons

Rumania

1,500 tons

Yugoslavia

1,010 tons

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us this Statement, and may I ask him two questions? First, will this new Agreement enable Her Majesty's Government to give greater consideration than in the past to British farmers' capacity to supply the home market with bacon? Secondly, as quality decides the housewives' choice and therefore the strength of demand, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Meat and
592
Livestock Commission have the necessary resources and powers to encourage our farmers to increase the proportion of their total production which makes top quality bacon?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, There is a necessity to increase top quality production, and of course the Commission will be expected to do all possible to improve both the quality of marketing and the quantity produced. The Understanding will provide for an increased proportion next year, if we can meet that increased proportion. At the same time I should draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that we have this bilateral understanding both with Denmark and with Ireland and we shall, of course, honour the Agreement with those two countries.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I elucidate one point on my first question? Will this new Agreement enable Her Majesty's Government to give greater consideration to the home producers in filling the needs of the home market for bacon?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, it will enable them to do that. What I was trying to emphasise was that to a large extent this is a matter for the producers and the curing industry. They have never yet been up against a ceiling, and an effort is required from them as well.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we welcome this Statement. The two changes seem sensible. I also welcome the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has given to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that in so far as the producers are capable of taking an increased share of production, this new Agreement enables them to do so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any calculation has been made of the effect on the balance of payments of this new Agreement? Will it make it more adverse or more in favour?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in so far as we produce more bacon in this country, it will help the balance of payments.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept the fact, despite what he said, that probably the farming industry and also the curers will be looking with some consternation at the forthcoming Price Review?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that I had better stick to the Statement I have just made.

FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
4.2 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for not wanting to get involved in legal points, but I wish to raise with him now not a legal point but a point of fact. My noble friend Lord Dilhorne suggested that surely it was our moral duty to try to return to the rightful owners the assets that had become the property of the Custodian of Enemy Property and are held in this country. My noble friend asked the Minister whether any attempt had been made to find the rightful owners and, if so, could the noble Lord please tell us. Surely, if it is possible to return the money or assets, we should do so. This is not a legal point and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give a reply to it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I could make the question a little more specific. As I understand it, the situation in relation to the ceded territories—because although this Amendment relates only to them, the same applies to the Baltic States—is that registrations of claims made under the 1959 Order (No. 1968) were to be registered by British, Dominion and Commonwealth nationals in relation to expropriations of property in the ceded territories. Under this Bill it is now proposed that they should rank pro tanto with other claims on the fund which has been released, or is going to be released, under the Bill and which includes £35,000 of the money which belongs to people formally resident in the ceded territories and who are not necessarily the same people who are registering claims under the 1959 Order.
594
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, and rightly, that so far as people who are now inside the Soviet Union are concerned, whether they live in the ceded territories or anywhere else in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union has renounced any claims they may have on the £35,000 which we hold in this country, but probably there are people who are not nationals of or within the control of the Soviet Union who have claims on that £35,000. Some of them may be, here and some may be spread over the rest of the world.
The noble Lord has also said that under Clause 1(3)(b) and (c) there is power in the Treasury to direct that the Foreign Compensation Commission shall pay people who come forward with proper claims and who are not Soviet citizens but who are outside the Soviet Union, and they have done so. Is it the policy of the Government that anybody who produces a proper justifiable claim against this money shall be paid out of this fund of £35,000 or, if the moneys are going to be lumped together, put of the whole amount, before anybody else who registered their claims under the 1959 Order is paid? And if they are going to direct that, are they going to direct that those people who can make these justifiable claims be paid in full, notwithstanding that those who register under the Order may have to accept a partial payment of their claim because the fund is not large enough? If we could have an answer to this question, it would be extremely helpful and we should know to some extent where we are.
LORD CHALFONT: The position, as I understand it, and as the noble Viscount has said, is that the Soviet Union have now undertaken not to pursue claims against the United Kingdom and, so far as they are able to do so, they will discourage their nationals from pursuing such claims. Of course, as the noble Viscount has said, it is possible that others may come forward with claims and they would have the benefit of Clause 1(3) of this Bill. What we have tried to do here is to produce a Bill which will give some sort of finality to all these claims.
What has been happening over a great number of years, and what is likely to

595
happen if this process goes on, is that people who have been waiting, in some cases for thirty years, for their claims to be made good, may have to wait for another thirty years. Some of them, indeed, will be dead by the time this issue is settled. So what we are trying to do is to produce a Bill which will lump all the assets together—surely this is the only sensible way of approaching this question—irrespective of whether they are the assets of people who formerly lived in the ceded territories or in the Baltic States, and claims will be settled from the whole of the assets. I think the noble Viscount will agree that the question of whether a person making a claim was formerly resident in one of the Baltic States or ceded territories is an historic accident and that we should not suggest that, because the assets relating to the ceded territories are only £35,000, while the rest belonged to the Baltic States, therefore the restitution should be made pro rata.
To answer the noble Viscount's specific question, we have not sought to find all the owners of this property, who may be scattered all over the world. I think he will agree that the onus is upon those concerned to come forward with their claims and not on the British Government to find them. After all, they have already had 19 years in which to do so. Some of them are coming forward and, as the noble Viscount suggested, they will get their share of the assets, which will include the £35,000 which are the assets relating to the ceded territories.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, the noble Lord has not really answered either of my questions. May I take him up first on the last thing he said. If claims are put forward—I will come back to the question of whether the onus is on the owners or the British Government—is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that upon making a proper claim and having it recognised against some part of this £35,000, the claimant shall be paid that claim in full? Or are they to rank so that they receive only the same proportion of that claim as others claiming against this fund, whether they claim as the original owners or as people whose property has been expropriated? That is the first question. I want to know why they are going to get paid in full if other
596
people are going to be paid only in part —because, after all, ex hypothesi they will have established that it was their money that they are claiming.
The other point is this. I wonder whether the noble Lord would explain to the Committee a little further why the onus is upon the owners and not upon the Custodian to find out who they are. This money was vested in the Custodian, as I understand it, because it belonged to technical enemies, and in the case of Rumania to actual enemies—I cannot remember the exact dates, and it may be that they were only technical enemies. That money was invested because it belonged to specific people. Therefore, the Custodian must know to whom it originally belonged. Moreover, as I understand the Order under which he is holding it, he is holding it in a position which is akin to that of a trustee. I do not believe it accords with the normal way in which trustees deal with their property that they should say: "Although I know, or I have a strong suspicion, who this money belongs to, I am perfectly prepared to give it away to somebody else unless fairly soon the person to whom it belongs comes and puts in a specific claim to me." I do not think that this is the way that one normally deals with things as trustees, and I do not believe that this is the way that we should deal with things when we are acting as international trustees. I challenge the noble Lord about the onus, as to who it is who has to show that the people are entitled. I should like the noble Lord to answer those two points.
LORD CHALFONT: So far as the second part of the noble Viscount's remarks is concerned, this is, as he has made quite clear, a matter of opinion. He has said that in his opinion this is not the right way to conduct the affairs of the Custodian in the case of this particular property. I can only say that the Government's view is that the onus is indeed upon those who have a claim on this property to come forward and make it. That is our view. The noble Viscount may disagree with it, but this is not a matter of fact, or indeed a matter of law; and, as I say, it is our view that the onus is upon them. The answer to the first question, more specifically, is that if these people come forward and make a proper claim, which is authenticated, they

597
will get the property standing in their name; that is to say, they will get it in full and not by way of dividend.
LORD HANKEY: As I was connected with these questions for some years—admittedly, it was some years ago—I hope that I may be allowed to intervene briefly in this debate. I do not see how the Government can be expected to find the owners of property, who may be anywhere in the world, and some of whom may be dead. But I suggest that the time has come when the Government ought to fix a date beyond which claims will not be accepted—or perhaps they have already done this; and, if so, I apologise for my ignorance.
I think the time has come to consider the rights of our own people in this matter, who have had very legitimate commercial and private claims against the Soviet Union and against the Baltic States, which have gone unanswered for years and years. All this time this money has been in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property, steadily depreciating, as money unfortunately does, and we have watched the rights of our people and their claims get smaller and smaller and smaller. After years (and heaven knows how long it has taken!) we have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union. It has required patience, persistence and an enormous amount of diplomacy, but at last we have reached agreement about the way in which this should be handled. I think that the rights of our own people ought now to be considered. There is no other way in which their claims can be met, and I think this represents a reasonable way of doing it.
I think that if the ceded territories were to be excluded, then all sorts of anomalies would result, and it would be most unfair to a number of people with very varied claims affecting the parts of the countries concerned which were ceded in full de jure to the Soviet Union. I feel that the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Government would come in for great criticism if they settled one lot of claims without settling the other lot of claims. Therefore it seems to me better, both in practice and in equity, that all these claims should be taken together and settled as is now proposed. I venture
598
to suggest that it would be desirable not to press this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: There is one point that puzzles me very much, particularly after the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, in which he mentioned claims against the Soviet Union. I understand what he says, but what puzzles me so much about the ceded territories is why we separate them from the rest of the Soviet Union. I can quite understand the proposition that we have to legislate specifically for the Baltic States, because of the difficulty of there being nobody whom we recognise as de jure entitled to speak for them; but in the case of these ceded territories we recognise Russia as entitled de jure to speak for them. So I cannot quite understand the legal basis of this complete separation of the ceded territories from the rest of Russia.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I was rather staggered by the legal arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he said that the onus should be upon the Government to go out and seek the claims, rather than that the claimants should put forward their claims to the Government. This all seemed to me to be contrary to what many of us who are ordinary, non-legal citizens encounter in our everyday lives. We see in our newspapers advertisements, inserted by solicitors, which say: "We are the administrators of Mr. Smith's estate. Will all people having claims against the estate of Mr. Smith please send details of their claims immediately to Brown, Brown and Jones, Solicitors? "Surely, that is completely in keeping with the line which Her Majesty's Government are now taking.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord a question. This is getting very difficult legally, but this is a lay question of practical incidence which may clear up some things. Before the war my company used to ship cotton to cotton spinners all over Europe. Many of these cotton spinners were in Eastern Europe, and I have no doubt that some of them were "gobbled up" by the Russians. I am no longer connected with the firm, but I have no doubt that they have debts. Suppose we were owed £100,000 by spinner A, and spinner A

599
had a balance in London of £5,000 with the Custodian of Enemy Property; and suppose we were also owed £100,000 by spinner B, who had no such balance in London, should we go to the Custodian and get our £5,000 in full, or would the two claims be put together, and should we get a dividend out of the £5,000 based on the £200,000 claim?
4.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have listened carefully to the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to the questions raised in this debate. I should like to say, first of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that I am the last person to wish that those who suffer losses as a result of Soviet action should not get some compensation for those losses. But that is a quite separate question from consideration of whether it really is right to use the moneys and property which formerly belonged to other persons to meet those particular claims, and to use that money without giving the former owners the opportunity of establishing their entitlement to it and the return of it.
As I said in moving this Amendment, I can see no objection to the distribution of the unclaimed balances, or of the balances which arise—because, although there are claims, they have not been established—among certain creditors. So, really, one of the questions here is as to that: the rights of the people to whom this property belonged. In that connection the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has, I think, with great respect, rather confused them with the people who are claiming in respect of losses. He said two different things, too. He said that these former owners would be able to claim and would get their share of the assets. Then he said a little later that if they established their claim they would get that claim paid in full.
May we have it from him quite clearly (I may have misunderstood him) first of all whether he would agree that nothing has been done so far to invite former owners to come forward and claim? Secondly, would he agree—I am not suggesting (I do not go so far as my noble friend) that the Custodian can trace all these people—that some opportunity should be given to them now, and
600
announced, so that they can come forward and claim? As I said in moving this Amendment, if they do not claim within a stipulated period, then I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, all that is left can be treated as unclaimed and distributed.
Before we leave this Amendment, I hope that I shall get an answer from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the legal points I raised, which are very relevant to this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that if this Amendment was carried the claimants in relation to property in the ceded territories would not be included in the distribution and would be left with no prospect of compensation. I think those were his words. As I see the position, this particular provision, as I said, is wholly superfluous. If I understand the 1939 Order all right, the powers are already there for the Board of Trade to give directions to the Custodian to dispose of the property vested in him as the Board of Trade directs. That is one of the questions I want answered. Why are we making this provision? There can be a question of a difference of opinion—I recognise that—as to whether all the assets we have in our possession should be pooled, whether they arise from the ceded territories or from the Baltic States together, to meet the claims of claimants.
Another possibility is to say that the claimants in respect of the ceded territories can claim on what has been collected in respect of those territories; namely, £35,000. But I do not think that the noble Lord's position is really tenable in the light of what my noble friend, Lord Conesford, has said. Why distinguish between the claimants in relation to property in the ceded territories, over which we recognise the Soviet Union has de jure rights, and why distinguish them from claims from other persons in relation to other parts of the Soviet Union? It seems to me that the Baltic assets—what I might call the Baltic creditors—constitute quite a different class. I should have thought that it was morally right to treat that class as a separate class and not to lump all the ceded territories with the Baltic territories and, at the same time, leave out all the creditors in relation to other parts of Russia.

601
That is one point on which, I agree, opinions may differ. But what I suggest is that there is no moral right to any distribution unless the former owners are given the opportunity of claiming and unless it is clear that their claims will be met in full before any distribution takes place. But I ask that I should get an answer, I hope from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to the legal questions that I asked in moving this Amendment, because they are very pertinent, not only to the consideration of this Amendment but to our later consideration of other clauses of and other Amendments to the Bill. In the hope that we shall now receive an answer on those points, will stop talking.
4.25 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, may I ask him how his argument is affected by the fact that Article 4 of the Agreement in the White Paper under reference provides for
"a settlement, along with other claims, of claims by the holders of unredeemed notes issued by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the British Joint Stock Companies, the Tetiuhe Mining Corporation and Lena Goldfields Limited of London irrespective of the nationality of such holders"?
Does not that mean that claims against other parts of the Soviet Union are partly covered?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, I certainly do not think it means that; and that is certainly quite a distinct and separate question, which is subject to a separate Amendment. We shall be discussing that in due course.
There is one other point I wanted to mention and the noble Lord's intervention has reminded me of it. It is this. There has been a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about claims by persons residing in the Soviet Union —persons who were former owners and who are now in the Soviet Union. Surely they are bound by the words of Article 2 of the Agreement, whereby
"The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will neither on its own behalf nor on behalf of its physical and juridical persons pursue"
these claims. If that be so, the claims in relation to persons now in territory over which the Soviet Union rule de jure would surely be debarred completely.
602
But with regard to the others who are not in that position, I suggest that we really have no right to dispose of what was their property without first giving them an opportunity, which I gather they have not had at present, of establishing their entitlement to it.
LORD CHALFONT: I will try to deal with the points that various noble Lords have brought up, not necessarily in the order in which they were brought up but in the order which enables me logically to try to point out to the Committee that what we are doing is not only necessary—the noble and learned Viscount has suggested that it is unnecessary —but right. Various noble Lords have suggested that it is wrong. First of all, the 1939 Act, to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, conferred powers for a specific purpose or for a series of specific purposes. The noble and learned Viscount will, I know, appreciate this if he refers to Section 7 of the Act. What we are doing now is not one of those purposes. Therefore, I think the noble Viscount is wrong in arguing that the Board of Trade already have adequate powers to deal with this situation. That is why we have felt it necessary to draft and introduce this Bill, in order to confer those powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, asked why other parts of the Soviet Union are not included in the Bill if the ceded territories over which the Soviet Government have a de jure authority are included. I think the point here is that all the post-1939 claims against the Soviet Union arose in connection with the Baltic States and the ceded territories—everything since 1939. In 1959 the then Government agreed to leave on one side all pre-1939 claims, and these were the ones that related to the revolutionary period and covered the rest of the Soviet Union.
May I now come to the vexed question of giving people the opportunity to come forward and make their claims for property which originally belonged to them? The Custodian, of course, knows (perhaps I had not made this sufficiently clear, although it may be clear to other noble Lords) to whom the property originally belonged, but if these people are in the Soviet Union, then, as the noble and learned Viscount has just pointed out, the Soviet Government has withdrawn its claim on their behalf. If they are

603
not in the Soviet Union, who knows where they are? They have left the Soviet Union, they are somewhere else, and I do not believe noble Lords would suggest that the onus is upon Her Majesty's Government to go round the world finding them. The onus must be upon them to come forward and make a claim.
In answer to a point made by the noble Viscount, I repeat—and if I misled the Committee I apologise—that if they do come forward to make a proper, authenticated claim they will get the property standing in their name in full —not a dividend. We have not set a date for coming forward; Clause 1(3)(b) is open-ended. But eventually the fund will be exhausted. However, we want to hold something back from this fund to the very end for such claims, and we will consider setting a time limit when the end of this process is in sight. I think that the people concerned have had an opportunity to come forward and make these claims. I contest the assertion of the noble and learned Viscount that they have not had a chance to do so. They have had a chance and they have had a long time to do it. Some have done so, and some have not.
I come back to the point I made on Second Reading and made earlier in the Committee, the point made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, which is that we must now as a Government look to the claims and rights of our own people in this matter. This has been going on for a long time. If we do not now produce an effective Act of Parliament in pursuance of the Agreement which after long and patient diplomacy we reached with the Soviet Union, these people who have been waiting for their money, or some part of it, for many, many years, will continue to wait for many more years. I believe it is the duty of the Government now to see that there is some finality in these claims.
I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has some very cogent points of law to argue here, and I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will deal with those in due course. I would simply urge upon the Committee the need for common sense in this whole affair. We are dealing here in the first Amendment with the question of whether we include people
604
from the ceded territories in the provisions of this Bill. I believe that we should. I believe that the historical accident that they used to live on one side of a border or another is not sufficient reason for dealing with them in a different way. I believe that the sensible and humane and right thing to do is to lump all these assets together and to make payments to people, whether they come from the Baltic States or the ceded territories. May I answer a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. It was a hypothetical question and I realise, better than anyone else, the difficulty of answering such questions, but in this case I think the answer is that the person would get a dividend as a United Kingdom claimant on both elements of the claim the noble Lord mentioned. That is what I am advised.
We are obviously going to have a great deal of argument, but I believe that the arguments are perhaps more substantial on later clauses and later Amendments than upon this one. I urge upon your Lordships the common sense of including in the provisions of this Bill the ceded territories as well as the Baltic States, and I very much hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I had hoped that we should hear the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on the points I raised. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his first reply and has said again that we should hear his noble and learned friend on legal points. I raised several legal points in moving this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his last reply has touched on a legal point in saying this: that it was necessary to put in this particular subsection because the provisions of Section 7 of the 1939 Act, to which I referred in my speech, do not cover this particular object That seems to me to be a fallacious argument and a fallacious reason for the inclusion of this subsection. No one suggests—at least, I do not—that the vesting order was not properly made at the time it was made. Section 7 gives power to make an Order that the property should be vested in the Custodian, and that was done under the objects that then existed. There is no need to add to the objects of Section 7 for that.

605
Now we are concerned with getting the money out of the hands of the Custodian. What I suggest, in all seriousness, to the noble Lord—and I raised it in moving the Amendment—is that under the Order which is in existence, the Custodian of Enemy Property Order, the Board of Trade can now give directions to the Custodian which he is bound to obey. And I put this question: if that be so (and it appears to me to be so) what is the point of having subsection (1)? To that we have had no answer. I should like to have an answer to that from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before we pass from this clause.
I should like to have an answer also to the question, which is vital, of the right of property. I raised it on Second Reading and I raised it in moving this Amendment. I repeat it again. Were these people deprived of their property, of their rights to this property, or were their rights merely suspended when the property was vested in the Custodian? Or is it this Bill which is demolishing and destroying all such rights as they might have in what was admittedly theirs at one time? I think, and I hope I have the Committee with me, that we should have an answer to these questions before we proceed to consider other Amendments, because I think they are vital. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his difficulties. I have found the subject very difficult to understand, and I am quite prepared to be told I have not got it right. But I should like to be told, and I think that before I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment we really should be told. I do not wish to press this Amendment to a Division, but I do want to get that information now, because it might affect the course of later debates on these Amendments.
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): I have been consulted throughout this Bill about Clause 2(4), and your Lordships may remember that I spoke on that on Second Reading. I have not considered the law in relation to any other clause. Indeed, I could not have guaranteed to say exactly what the Bill said; I have not had occasion to read the rest of it until yesterday, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that he would like me to deal with his Amendments—not
606
the one we are now discussing, but Amendments Nos. 2 and 10, which are on Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(6). So, since last night, and subject to engagements which I could not avoid this morning, I have done my best to explore the situation, which is indeed an extremely complicated one.
Before one considers the law, one has of course to bear in mind the basic facts; and since the chronology is extremely long and involved it would take some considerable time to state. One starts, I suppose, from 1920, when the Government of Russia recognised the complete independence and integrity of the Baltic States. There were subsequent usual non-aggression treaties. The five points which it is desirable to bear in mind are these. First, in June, 1940, the Russians invaded the Baltic States and ordered the Dissolution of their Parliaments. Elections were held which resulted in Communists being returned to power. Secondly, those Parliaments pissed a large number of nationalisation measures expressed in general words— for example, "All transport undertakings are nationalised": just like that. The legislation purported to extend to all assets of the nationalised bodies, including assets situated in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, on August 3, 5 and 6, 1940, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were incorporated into the Soviet Union as Soviet Socialist Republics. Further nationalisation measures were enacted which to some extent duplicated the pre-incorporation measures; for example, the measure relating to transport undertakings was supplemented by one in relation to the shipping undertakings. Subsequently, People's Commissions went to each shipping company's office and physically took over the business. The assets of the former companies were transferred to Soviet State trading agencies—for example, the Estonian State Steamship Line.
Fourthly, in the Summer of 1941, the German armies overran the Baltic States which thereupon became enemy territory. As a result., the assets in the United Kingdom of individuals resident and companies carrying on business in those States became subject to the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939. And fifthly, on December 29, 1945, Her Majesty's Government first announced their recognition, de facto, but not de fore,

607
of the three incorporations into the Soviet Union. This was done by a certificate given to the High Court in the Vapper case. The Court held that Her Majesty's Government's recognition was retroactive to at least August 6, 1940. There is a similar story involving far fewer assets from Memel and the ceded territories. Memel, being German territory, became subject to the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 on the outbreak of war on September 3, 1939.
On these facts it would appear to me that the first thing one has to consider is: who owned these things before the German occupation? Clearly it could not have been the Custodian of Enemy Property. When I say "things", we are dealing, of course, primarily with gold formerly belonging to the Baltic central banks, but also with jewellery, share certificates and various other things. As a matter of English law, if I understand it aright, the nationalisation legislation had the following impact upon the assets in this country. A nationalisation decree is effective only with regard to property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Legislature making the decree. So one then has to see in relation to these things where the situs was. Under our rules of law, a chattel is situated where it lies; a debt is situated in the country where the debtor resides a negotiable instrument is situated where the paper representing the security is itself to be found; and shares in a company are situated where they can be effectively dealt with according to the law under which the company is incorporated, which is usually the place where the share register is.
So far as assets which are situated in accordance with these rules in the United Kingdom are concerned, I apprehend (I do not regard it as certain, but I would regard it as strongly probable) that our courts would not hold that the nationalisation decrees transferred the assets to the Soviet State trading enterprises. This of course, was the Russian claim. From this, it follows that since the former companies have ceased to exist, such of their assets as are situated in the United Kingdom would seem to be bona vacantia, that is to say the property of the Crown. Subject therefore to what I say later, I regard it as a matter of
608
some doubt whether the assets did or did not vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property. O course, if they are bona vacantia, the claim of the Crown would be liable to be defeated by a winding-up Order under Section 400 of the Companies Act.
The position, therefore, during the period between June, 1940, and the time of the German invasion in 1941 would seem to me to be that the assets in this country of the nationalised Baltic companies were vested in the Crown as bona vacantia, and therefore probably did not become enemy property. The Crown, of course, has no intention of claiming the money for itself. It is naturally prepared, in accordance with the Anglo-Soviet Agreement, to make these things available for claimants; and the main object of Clause 1(2) is to perfect the title in the Custodian of Enemy Property so that there can be no question of this power to deal with this matter. The main object of Clause 1(6) is to prevent the filing of petitions for the winding up of companies; and the noble and learned Viscount has, I hope, observed that that is retrospective to January 5 of this year, which was the date of the introduction of the Bill.
Those are the objects of those two clauses. But all that, I should add, is subject to this: that the gold, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, was deposited with the Custodian subject to the directions of the Board of Trade. The then Government, on February 16, 1951, made an Order purporting to vest the gold in the Custodian, with power to sell. As I understand it, the reason why they did that was this. The Baltic gold was held under Defence Regulation 2A until 1951 when the Government were pressing to remove the Defence Regulations. The gold was then vested under trading with the enemy legislation. The gold was, however, subject to trading with the enemy control from the time the Germans overran the Baltic States. But as the Defence Regulation effectively prevented movement, it was considered unnecessary to take vesting action until the Defence Regulation was no longer in force. That is why nothing was done until February, 1951, when an Order was made purporting to vest the gold in the Custodian with power to sell.

609
It is therefore, I think, a matter of some doubt whether the Custodian was entitled to sell the gold when he sold it. At all events I regard it as arguable. It may be that the position had not been as fully considered as it should have been; but I have been asked to say what I think, and this is what I think. The object of Clause 1(2)—highly desirable from the point of view of all the claimants—is to make quite sure of the Custodian's position. But this may be unnecessary, for this reason: that the then Government in 1953, appreciating, I think, that in many cases, owing to difficulties of one sort or another, the Custodian might have done things his legal title to do which may have been in doubt, in Section 3(1) of the Enemy Property Act 1953 validated (if that is the right expression) whatever the Custodian had done up to that date. The position therefore, I think, what with one thing and another, is extremely obscure, and if claimants want their share of what there is, the Committee would be well advised to agree to Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(6) which will put the Custodian's position beyond doubt.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the exposition that he has given, which in fact has gone on (I make no complaint about it) beyond the particular subsection with which we have been dealing, because he has referred to Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(6). I found his observations in relation to both of them most helpful.
The noble and learned Lord began his speech by referring to the short time that he had had to consider these points. I think it is only fair to say that I wrote to him last week. Although it is true that I mentioned particular subsections, my recollection is that I specifically mentioned that I would be raising this question of when, or if, the right of property changed. He has told me of the difficulties in relation to that, and I must admit that I am still finding it as difficult to determine whether the effect of an Order under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 operates to destroy rights of property or whether it does not. I still find that point unanswered. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, it may be that there were considerable doubts
610
whether some of this property came within the definition of "enemy property". I think that was all cured by the 1953 Act, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but I still have not got an answer—I do not know that I need press for it now—as to whether the effect of vesting in the Custodian is so destroy the rights of ownership or not. If it does not destroy the rights of ownership, then the effect of what we are now doing under this Bill, if we pass it, will destroy them. I think we have spent quite enough time on this Amendment—perhaps too much, although I hope not. Certainly what has been said has helped me, and I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 2 were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 3.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I can do this much more shortly in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said, and I hope that he will correct me if I misunderstood him. He dealt fairly rapidly with a very intricate situation. As I understand it, this power to make an Order is required to prevent a previous Order of the Board of Trade in relation to certain of this property being challenged. If that be right—I have no objection to it happening that way; this is ex abundanti cautela because of the 1953 Act—I should have thought that subsection (2) ought to have provided that the Order already made should be treated as valid, and you would not want to take a power to make an entirely fresh Order. That is perhaps a somewhat minor point. However, I must say to the noble and learned Lord that when I read this Bill and read this subsection it gave me a lot of worry to try to find out what it meant and what its purpose was, because nothing wises said about it, so far as I can recollect, in another place.
One point I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to confirm is this, if he would. As I see it, under this subsection as it stands, it would give power to the Board of Trade to make a new Order vesting in the Custodian property of someone who was formerly within the definition of an enemy but who, of course, has ceased to be so as we are no longer in a state of war; to bring in, as one might say, fresh property into the hands of the Custodian. I think the power given by this subsection would be wide enough to make such an Order. I take it from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said—and I hope he will confirm it—that there is in fact no such intention, and that this power is merely wanted to validate beyond all doubt action that has already been taken. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I do not think that that is so. I think this subsection will give power to vest whatever the property is legally in the Custodian of Enemy Property. Indeed, it is desirable that that should be so. Under Clause 1(3)(b) and (c) it would be perfectly proper, of course, to allow a claim which may be made, even though it is not sustainable in law. But one must reflect here that there might be claims against the gold, or whatever may be here, by Baltic companies. All we have at the moment is an agreement with the Soviet Union that they will not let them claim, but I suppose if they did the agreement would not be an answer in law. We must also consider things which may belong to foreigners.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am afraid that I cannot have made myself clear to the noble and learned Lord. I am not objecting to an Order being made validating what has been done. This property has been vested. I should have thought that it could have been done in a more simple form by saying that the Orders which had been made were not capable of challenge. I am not trying to draft. I am not quarrelling with that, but the wording of this subsection seems to me to be so wide that a fresh Order could be made bringing into the hands of the Custodian property which he has not already got. I only wanted an assurance that there was no intention of using
612
this subsection for that purpose despite the width of its language.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, vesting Orders may be made but they will relate only to what the Custodian already has physical possession of.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: in view of that assurance, which I find entirely satisfactory, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("Articles 1 and 4") and insert ("Article 1").
The noble and learned Viscount said: I apologise for the late tabling of this Amendment which was by mistake omitted from the list I handed in. If this Amendment is accepted or carried, the effect will be that the Custodian could not pay out money, the property of residents or persons who carried on business in Baltic States and ceded territories, for the purpose of meeting claims by the holders of unredeemed notes issued by the Soviet Union to Lena Goldfields and the Tetiuhe Mining Corporation. That the Goverment have agreed to do, and we are, I think, entitled to ask why they have done it and what justification there is for taking over this liability of the Soviet Union.
The Committee will recollect that in an arbitration the Lena Goldfields were awarded £30 million. The Soviet Union did not accept the award and later agreed to pay £3 million and issued notes for that sum. Then when we refused to admit their claims to the Baltic gold, they retaliated by stopping payment of these notes. Mr. Whitlock, the Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office said in another place that £2·2 million was then outstanding. So only £800,000 of the £3 million the Russians agreed to pay has been paid by them, and we have now relieved them of the obligation to pay the balance. Even if we were wrong to reject their claim to the gold, that did not entitle them to dishonour the notes they had issued, and issued not only to British but to foreign persons. There can be no justification for their repudiation of their debts.
Now we have agreed to settle the claims on these notes with foreign and British holders, and to relieve the Russians of their obligation as if we were wrong in rejecting their claim to the gold. Mr. Whitlock described these notes as "deferred and inadequate compensation from the Soviet Government" and said:
"It is only just that the note-holders should be compensated, irrespective of nationality, since they all alike suffered loss as a result of the Soviet retaliation for the British action in blocking the Baltic gold in defence of British interests. That is the justification for Article 4."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 7/ 11 /68, col. 1101.]
If we were right in rejecting the Soviet claim to the gold, this is no justification at all for our relieving them of their obligation, just as there can be no justification for their action in repudiating their liability to the noteholders. I ask: why on earth did the Government agree to this? I think we should have a full explanation, but I cannot think that an explanation is likely to justify this extraordinary provision in this Agreement. Not only have we agreed to relieve the Russians of their liability, but we have also agreed to meet the claims of all the noteholders out of the Baltic assets and assets of the ceded territories, and no one can suggest that the noteholders have any claim at all on those assets.
We shall be discussing the payment of the £500,000 on a later Amendment. It is said that if we had not agreed to that, there would have been no Agreement. Was this the reason for taking over the Soviet liability? This is not all. We have also abandoned our claim for shipping services amounting to £1·2 million under the Ships Expenses and Freights Agreement with the Soviet Union of 1944. So, if my mathematics are correct, this Agreement, which the Foreign Secretary of the day said was very good business, is worth £4·1 million to the Soviet Government.
It was said in another place that the £500,000 tip was worth paying to get agreement. We have in fact agreed to pay that, and have paid it, and have agreed to relieve them of liability for £3·6 million—and for what? Just the assurance that they will not pursue their claims, claims which no Government has accepted and which, I suggest. do not bear examination. Surely, the right course would have been to say to the Russians,
614
"If you have any honest belief in your claim, let us go to arbitration about it and settle it that way". But this Government did no such thing. They chose to buy the Russian signature by paying a price out of assets which have never belonged to this country and by charging those assets with liabilities of the Russians.
They endeavour to sweeten the pill by saying that the £500,000 will be spent on consumer goods in this territory, and, when pressed about it, they say: "If we had not agreed, the Russians would have retaliated if we had distributed these assets which were in our hands". The instance given is that they might have retaliated by repudiating a trade agreement under which the last instalment fell to be paid in 1963. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to that. Are we to be deterred from doing what is right by fears and threats that other people will break their contracts? If the situation were to occur again, are we really not to block the Baltic gold because of the fear that the Russians would repudiate their liability on their notes? This argument about retaliation by breach of agreement seems to me to be no justification for entering into an agreement of this sort. I must say that this seems to me to be a lamentable transaction which should be both condemned and exposed. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary of the day said that it was very good business to get this Agreement. If that is what this Government regard as good business, I am not surprised at the state of the country at present.
The Foreign Secretary then said that the Agreement would be subject to the approval of Parliament. He signed it on January 5, and immediately above his signature appears Article 7, which reads as follows:
"The present agreement shall enter into force on the date of signature."
The Foreign Secretary cannot have failed to know that that Agreement did not require ratification. How came it, then, that on January 23 in another place he said that that Agreement was subject to the approval of Parliament? Signed on the 5th, the £500,000 was paid on the 12th, and the Agreement was not laid before Parliament until the 18th; and on the 23rd the Agreement was said to be

615
subject to the approval of Parliament. The Foreign Secretary went on to say:
"If Parliament turns it down, that will be that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/1/68; col. 210.]
I referred to this statement on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his reply spoke about ratification, and when I directed his attention to this matter he said that he could not answer it then. I ask him to deal with it now and either to say that the Foreign Secretary was wrong, in which case he misled Parliament, or to justify that statement. If—and I do not think it is the case—the Agreement is subject to Parliamentary approval, I should have no hesitation in inviting your Lordships to support me in the Lobby so as to ensure that the Soviet Union are not relieved of their liability to pay the amount due on the notes on which they have defaulted, and to ensure that their obligations do not become a charge on the Baltic assets. I should like to be told whether, having relieved the Soviet Union of the liability of £1·2 million under the Shipping Agreement, the Government are making, or will make, a claim for that on the assets.
Despite the Foreign Secretary's statement, I think that nothing that we can do will alter or affect the Agreement. If that be right, the only course open to us is to condemn the Government for their action, and I hope that noble Lords will join with me in doing so. It is all very well to take pride—and pride was taken in another place—in continuing to deny Soviet claims to the gold, but that has a hollow ring when the Government's conduct appears justifiable only on the basis that we were wrong to hold the Baltic gold; and it is only on that basis, it seems to me, that our taking over the Soviet liability on these notes can possibly be justified. I beg to move.
5.7 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: The noble Viscount in moving the Amendment spent a good deal of time attacking the Agreement and attacking the Government for coming to that Agreement with the Soviet Union. Therefore I think it logical that before I come to deal with the Amendment itself I should say a word, as he has asked me to do, about the status of the Agreement. He is, of course, right
616
in saying that this Agreement is not subject to the approval of Parliament; it was never intended to be subject to such ratification. Both sides in the negotiations approached the Agreement in the belief that it was right to have an Agreement which was not subject to ratification. As I mentioned on Second Reading, one reason that Her Majesty's Government believed that it was wise to do this was a fear that the Soviet Government, perhaps for some reason or another, would think it unwise to ratify and we should then be back where we started. I know that noble Lords have criticised this approach, but I now merely wish, for the benefit of the Committee, to put the record absolutely straight.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Lord is going to do that, I hope that he will explain the then Foreign Secretary's statement.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, I shall hope to satisfy the Committee about the apparent discrepancy between the statement of the then Foreign Secretary and the actual situation as it is now. On January 23, 1968, as the noble Viscount has said, the then Foreign Secretary, I think in answer to a Question in another place, said:
"The Agreement will be subject in due course to Parliamentary approval".—["OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. 23/1/68; col. 210.]
I promised last week during the Second Reading debate to say something about it at a later stage in the Bill. I have refreshed my memory about this subject. The position then, I think, was that when my right honourable friend made that remark the Agreement had already been signed some three weeks earlier and it had been laid before the House some days earlier—in fact, to be precise, on January 18. Whatever my right honourable friend said at the time, it was obvious from the context of the Agreement itself that it was not subject to Parliamentary approval.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Well—
LORD CHALFONT: If the noble Viscount will allow me to finish, I think that he may conceivably be satisfied with what I have to say. I think that it was obvious from the context that it was not subject to Parliamentary approval. I believe that what my right honourable

617
friend meant, and what it was evident he meant—it is apparent from the Preamble to this Bill—is that, as a result of the Agreement, legislation would be needed to authorise the distribution of the assets envisaged as a result of the Agreement. What he said may not have been that, but that is what he meant.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord will admit that, whatever he may have meant, he said quite specifically that the Agreement would be subject to the approval of Parliament.
LORD CHALFONT: Indeed, one only has to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT to see that that is so. I can only suggest that what my right honourable friend said on that occasion and what he meant were not entirely congruent.
May I now move on to the Amendment itself? When we approached the negotiations to this Agreement—and whether noble Lords believe this to be a good Agreement or not I can only say that Her Majesty's Government believe it to be a good one (and I might point out, in passing, that of course this is not a matter of the Government's gaining anything or engaging in some kind of tournament with the Soviet Union, about who can get the most out of a negotiation or Agreement of this kind)—the object was that the people making these claims could have them satisfied. And nothing would achieve that but Soviet renunciation of the claims against us, and a similar renunciation of our claims against them so that the assets could be realised and distributed. When we approached these negotiations it was on this basis, and on the basis, too, that the Government would submit all outstanding claims against the Soviet Union which arose after January 1, 1939.
Now in 1959, the two Governments agreed to include within the negotiations the question of the Soviet default on the Lena and Tetiuhe State Notes. The question of these outstanding Notes was discussed with the Soviet Union during the course of the detailed talks which we held between 1965 and 1967—the talks that ended in the Agreement. Article 4 of the Agreement of January 5, 1968, contains an undertaking that in settling the claims which they presented Her Majesty's Government will from the assets make a settlement of the claims of the Note
618
holders. Whether the noble and learned Viscount believes this Agreement was a good one or not, the Agreement was made; it was not subject to ratification, and the Government undertook in that Agreement to settle from the assets the claims of the Note holders. The assets are those to which the Soviet Government renounced its claims in Article 2 of the Agreement.
That did not mean, of course, that the Notes would be settled in full; the holders would receive the same dividend as other claimants. These Notes were issued to two British companies and they were redeemable at intervals extending to 1949, in one case, and to 1954 in the other. They were redeemed regularly up to 1940, and as the noble and learned Viscount is well aware, in 1940 the Soviet Government stopped payment in retaliation for our action in blocking the Baltic gold. This was action which we took, as I have tried to convince the house, in defence of British interests generally. But there is every reason to suppose that had we not taken this action, the Notes would have been redeemed in full many years ago.
To sum up, then, the reasons why I am opposed to this Amendment are as follows. First, the Notes formed part of the negotiations with the Soviet Union and therefore helped to swell the size of our claim. Secondly, as I have said, they are the subject of an express provision in the Agreement of January 5 which we signed with the Soviet Union. Thirdly, although they represent—and I admit this to the noble and learned Viscount—a direct Soviet obligation, the fact remains that their default on this obligation occurred as a result of our blocking of the Baltic gold—an action which we took, as we believed, and still believe, in our: own interests. For all those reasons, then, we believe it right that the assets in this country which become available for distribution following on the Agreement, should be used to compensate not only the British claimants against the Baltic States and ceded territories, but also the Note holders. I hope that in the light of this explanation, the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: May I express astonishment at one fact which I believe to be very important? The Foreign Secretary in another place made a state-

619
mend of the greatest importance which was completely wrong. May I say at once that of course I acquit him of any bad faith. Ministers in both Houses, and of both Parties, from time to time make important mistakes in answer to questions. But I am quite certain—at least I hope I am right in this—that the very efficient Department, the Foreign Office, for which the noble Lord is a spokesman, noticed that mistake and informed the Foreign Secretary of it and of its importance when he returned to the office. I thought that the universal custom in such a case was that the Minister came down to the House on the following day and said, "Inadvertently. I am afraid I made a blunder yesterday and misled the House and then made the correction. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, once doing this and saying that he had inadvertently make a mistake (I think in interpreting a Statute), and, of course the House at once accepted what he said. The Rules of our House say that one cannot even thank him for it; but the Minister comes and makes that statement and that ends the matter. That would have been the way to treat this case.
It seems to me quite appalling that on a matter of this importance the Foreign Secretary should, however inadvertently, have misled the House and then not sought an opportunity of putting matters right. It is all the more important because, as I endeavoured to show on Second Reading—I am now expressing only my own view—had this Agreement ever been submitted to either House of our Parliament for ratification, I do not believe it would have received ratification. I must say that for some years I listened with great respect (although I was in the opposite Party) to the late Ernest Bevin representing the Foreign Office and valiantly fighting, according to his lights, for British interests. What he would have thought of this Agreement almost passes one's imagination. I wish to confine myself to that single point. I think it is quite astonishing that the Foreign Secretary did not come to the House of Commons and correct his gross mistake.
LORD CHALFONT: Of course I take note of what the noble Lord has said. But I am sure the Committee will forgive
620
me if I do not comment in any substance upon what occurred, or did not occur, in another place on that particular occasion. Perhaps I might, however, make one comment on the simple facts of the case, which are that whether my right honourable friend actually said what he meant to say on that occasion is one matter. But whether he actually misled anybody, in the serious way the noble Lord has suggested, I venture to contest, for the simple reason that, as I have said, when he made this remark the Agreement had already been signed and laid before Parliament, and it was clear for anyone who could read to see that the Agreement was not subject to the ratification of Parliament. Therefore, whatever may have been the mistake that was made, whatever noble Lords opposite may think about the failure to correct it formally, I suggest that it is a gross exaggeration to say that Parliament or anyone else was misled. The facts of the case were there for anyone to read.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord has done his best and I do not think he had too easy a task. But may I say this to him, before we leave the matter of this answer to a supplementary question? I cannot agree with him that Members of another House may not have been misled. I say that because this particular answer of the Foreign Secretary was referred to many times in the course of the debates on this Bill in another place. There was never any correction. There was never any explanation such as the noble Lord has given. I know that in another place—it does not matter to what Party a Foreign Secretary belongs—people pay great attention to his words, and one expects Foreign Secretaries to use words with great care, as they usually do. It may be that I would not have been misled. I might have thought that there was something which I did not understand when the Foreign Secretary came down and said something of that kind about that Agreement. But I must say that I think it was most unfortunate that all through the discussions on this Bill in another place the explanation which the noble Lord has given to the Committee to-day was not made. I thank him for that explanation to-day. I accept it, and I do not propose to pursue the matter.

621
With regard to payment to the noteholders, I must say that the noble Lord's explanation of why that was agreed to does not seem to me to amount to the least justification for it. In moving this Amendment, I said that as I thought we could not affect the Agreement if we carried the Amendment it would mean that we were preventing the Government from implementing something that they had agreed to, however wrong it was of them to agree to it. If, of course, the Foreign Secretary's statement had been taken at its face value, that would have been a different matter. As my noble friend Lord Conesford has said—and I agree with him—I do not think either House of Parliament would have ratified this Agreement if it had been subject to ratification. But as it is there, I certainly do not think that it would be right for me to press this Amendment to delete this provision, however bad I think it is that we should relieve the Soviet Union of the liability which they have on the notes that they issued. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or other similar claims")
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, again, is one which I can move, I hope, very shortly. It is a probing Amendment. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the purpose of the Bill is to make provision in order principally to enable compensation to be paid in respect of claims covered by Articles 1 and 4 of the Agreement. The inclusion of these words, "or other similar claims", means that the Baltic assets can be used to meet claims not covered by but similar to those covered by the Agreement. That is as I understand it. I ask this question: is it really thought that the Agreement is not comprehensive? And in the context here, how does one interpret the words "similar to" having regard to the variety of claims covered by the Agreement—the claims in respect of the Lena notes, the claims for shipping services and the claims in relation to property rights and banking, commercial and financial interests? One thing at least which is
622
clear is that the inclusion of these words widens the Bill very considerably, and we have not heard a word so far about the reason for their inclusion.
Of course, the more claims there are which are included the less there viii be for each claimant. We know that the assets amount to £6,535,000. From that has to be deducted all the Custodian's costs, and—perhaps I may have the noble Lords' attention; I know he is having a little difficulty—we know that 13ritish claims amount to £15 million. We have been told by the noble Lord that those claims may be inflated, but we have been told of part of them which certainly, I should think, could not have been inflated. There is £2,200,000 due on the Lena notes, £2·75 million due on the external bonds, and:£1·3 million claimed by Her Majesty's Government. Surely that is not inflated. Could we b told what it is for? It is not for the shipping services, I hope, in respect of which we have relieved the Soviet Union of liability. Then, £1·25 million for commercial debts and hank balances, and £.7·5 million for nationalised properly and shareholding. That was the make-up of the £15 million as revealed in debates in another place.
If all the claimants are to be treated equally, it does not seem very likely that they are going to get a very large proportion of their claims. But by the inclusion of these words, "or other similar claims", it seems to me that the Treasury is given power to enlarge the number of claimants very considerably, and that will further reduce the share of the claimants who are covered by the Agreement. I do not know why those words are there, and I ask the noble Lord to explain. I beg to move.
LORD CHALFONT: Before I come to the question of this particular Amendment, I wonder whether I might revert. as I think it is an important matter that has been raised, to what the noble and learned Viscount said in his last few words before he withdrew the last Amendment. which meant that I therefore did not have an opportunity to intervene. He suggested, I think, that at no time during the debates on this Bill in another place was the disparity between what my right honourable friend said and what he meant referred to and made clear. I would

623
refer him to a statement made by my honourable friend Mr. Whitlock in the course of the debate which appears in column 1130 of the Official Report of that debate.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Which day?
LORD CHALFONT: On November 7, during the Second Reading of the Bill. If the noble Viscount will look at the second paragraph of column 1130 of the Official Report for that day, I think he will see that my honourable friend in fact referred to this disparity and explained to the honourable and gallant Member who had asked the supplementary question what he thought my right honourable friend had meant. I think it right to point out that this was referred to in the course of that debate, and was not ignored quite as comprehensively as the noble Viscount has suggested.
Perhaps I might now explain the underlying reasons for the phrase "or other similar claims "which the noble and learned Viscount has asked me to do—and I am glad to have an opportunity to do this. We know that there exist a few claims that were not registered under the Foreign Compensation Order of 1959. As noble Lords will recall the 1959 Order was closed for applications in 1964, but subsequently, and before settlement was reached with the Soviet Union, some additional claims were reported to us. These claims, it seems, could have been registered under the Order of 1959 if there had been more time. It was decided not to present any of these late claims to the Soviet Government, and they were not therefore the subject of negotiation. But the amount involved is not great—certainly not great enough to have affected the terms of the Agreement with the Soviet Union. As my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place on November 7, it is the Government's intention to bring these late claimants within the terms of the distribution order; that is to say, everybody who could have registered a claim but failed to do so. That is the meaning of the words "or other similar claims", and in the light of that explanation I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I take it from what the noble Lord has said that the
624
"other similar claims" are all claims which have been received already, too late for admission before, and that there will not be any new class of claims which will be covered by these words.
LORD CHALFONT: That indeed is the position as I understand it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I regard that as satisfactory, and I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Viscount said: I am afraid I am moving a lot of Amendments to-day, but this, I think, is one of the more important. The subsection which this Amendment proposes to leave out is that which provides for repayment to the Treasury of the £500,000 which has been variously described as a tip" or "bribe" paid to the Russians. I should like to remind the Committee shortly of the history in relation to that. After Mr. Kosygin's visit in 1967 a communiqué was issued in which it was announced, with something of a flourish of trumpets, that a final settlement would be reached of these matters and that £500,000 would be paid out of the Baltic assets to the Soviet Union. It was almost a year later that the Agreement was signed and it was provided by Article 5 that the Government of the United Kingdom should from the Baltic assets—and I stress those words—pay the sum on January 12. The Government paid the sum to the Soviet Union, not out of the Baltic assets but from the Contingency Fund. So in fact the Government did not strictly adhere to the Agreement they had signed. Of course the Russians did not object to that because they got the money.
The Government duly paid the money on January 12; and it was paid, I think, without that payment being revealed at all to Parliament at the time. The first mention of it that I can find was on January 17 when, in a Written Answer to a Question—and, of course, Written Answers do not always attract attention—-the Government revealed what had been done. As the noble Lord has said, the Agreement was presented to Parliament on January 18. Curiously, the print of

625
it does not contain the date on which it was presented. One wonders why. It contained the month; but it contained no full date. Why was that? The item was included in the Supplementary Estimates passed in another place. That is all the past history. Now we are asked to agree to the payment of £500,000 out of these assets—not to the Russians, because they have already been paid—to the Treasury.
I must say that the way in which the Government have handled this matter seems to me to show a contempt for Parliament. I think that through what is called the "pay-roll vote" they may think that they can get anything rubber-stamped in another place. Be that as it may, their course of conduct in relation to this matter seems to me to indicate a certain feeling of discomfort and disquietude about it. Without this payment they might not have had the Agreement. Be it so, it would have been much better not to have got an Agreement than to have agreed to pay this money out of assets to which the Soviet Union had no claim.
Mr. Whitlock the Under-Secretary, stated on the Second Reading in another place:
"Neither this nor any other British Government could have handed the assets over to the Soviet Union. I am sure that both sides of the House would have rejected such a solution as completely intolerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 7/11/68, col. 1132.]
I agree with him that to hand over the assets would be completely intolerable. But I find it equally intolerable that we should hand over £500,000 of these assets to the Soviet Union and so diminish the fund available to those who have suffered losses as a result of expropriation by the Soviet Union.
What can we do about it? It is perfectly clear that we cannot alter the agreement; but we can delete this subsection. If the Minister had been a member of a local authority which had behaved in such a way presumably they might be surcharged. That cannot happen. If we take out this clause we shall not be breaking any agreement with the Russians, but we shall be showing our disapproval in the only way we can; and we shall also give another place another opportunity of considering this matter. I feel at this moment that this is the course we should take. I hope
626
your Lordships will agree with me and thus record our condemnation. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have little to add to what my noble and learned friend has said. I wholeheartedly support what he has said and I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby if we are not given satisfaction on this point. There is a further matter in relation to this subject to which I would call your Lordships' attention which makes it really even worse; that is, that a full month elapsed between the time the money was paid and the time when the payment was revealed in the Supplementary Estimates. This seems to me to be an extraordinary way to behave. The whole of this Bill seems to be regrettable in the extreme. I hope that noble Lords will support the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that we show, in this House at least, our strongest disapproval of this sort of behaviour. We were not given the opportunity to do anything about it earlier. There was nothing we could do about this Agreement. I am quite certa n that it would have been strongly opposed had the opportunity been there to oppose it. Here seems to be an opportunity, at least for us in this House, to show how strongly we disapprove of the way Her Majesty's Government have behaved. I should like to say how wholeheartedly I support the Amendment of my noble and learned friend.
5.37 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Together with others, I support this Amendment partly in order to reverse an insult to Parliament. It is painful and deplorable, but I am afraid by no means untypical today, that the insult should be delivered by Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. There are, as has been pointed out, two offences contained in this subsection. The more obvious to the world at large is the payment itself: half a million pounds of somebody else's money, paid over as a "bribe" to the very felon who has robbed the victim of everything else that he possessed in the world, The second offence is that this act was carried out not simply without the approval of Parliament but without its knowledge. I am referring now directly to the £500,000 paid to the Soviet Union but slightly less directly to the realisation of

627
the Baltic assets, the sale of gold, from which we are being asked to legalise the payment to the Russians that has already been made. My noble and learned friends Lord Dilhorne and Lord Conesford have stigmatised the Government on this point already. I think it pertinent to mention it as they did and that the Government should be reminded of it again in this context.
One of the qualities of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which I think—perhaps I am wrong—is sometimes overlooked is that he is or can be a "comic" of some distinction. He is the rarest, or among the rarest, in that particular vocation. He is a "deadpan" comic. He can stand up and say, as he did last week at the Dispatch Box:
"A good deal of concern, and indeed some violent criticism, was expressed of the fact that this Agreement was reached without being subject to ratification. Perhaps at the outset I should say that neither side in the negotiations wanted to make this Agreement of 1968 subject to ratification".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/2/69, col. 69.]
He also said—and he has repeated this to-day:
"I can only say that it was never the intention during these negotiations to have an Agreement subject to ratification" (col. 70).
It seems to me to be bad luck on the noble Lord that this did not, as it deserved—when he said it here last week and when he repeated it to-day—bring the House down. Indeed, neither side in the negotiations wanted to make the Agreement subject to ratification—but for quite different reasons. Mr. Kosygin knew that in his country ratification was a formality and a waste of time Mr. Wilson knew that in his country—in our country—had Parliament been given the chance before ratification or implementation, there was a lively possibility that Parliament would have chucked it out. In an axiomatic sense, Mr. Wilson's contempt of Parliament in this instance sprang from a respect for Parliament, in knowing what Parliament is likely to do if given the chance.
There was another aspect in which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, exercised his comic genius. He went through the performance of taking umbrage at expressions such as "tip" and "bribe" in describing this half a million pounds. He said at another point [col. 65] in answer
628
to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye:
"If you wish to say we 'bought' an Agreement, the fact is that we agreed with the Soviet Union that in return for this small and modest sum"—
everything would be "hunky-dory". That is not the expression he used, but mine is briefer and more descriptive.
It is interesting that in the calculation of the present Government half a million pounds is a small and modest sum when it belongs to somebody else. It could go some way to explaining the exuberant borrowing which Her Majesty's Government have done in their five eccentric years of office. The noble Lord said that the use of emotional and exaggerated terms such as "tip" and "bribe" and so on was "all good political knockabout '"—very fair and friendly of him. But a second or two later he said, and I quote directly:
"I do not believe that £500,000 was too great a price to pay for the advantages of an Agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/2/69; col. 64.]
If that does not describe a tip or a bribe I wonder what it does describe. It is the noble Lord himself who is a master of knockabout, and in that guise we can raise our hats to him.
There was something else in his speech which could have been classified, I suppose, as humour in a Rabelaisian sense, but which I found far less to my taste in the context of this series of debates. He said:
"I was taken to task by one noble Lord for expressing the fate of the Baltic States in terms which he clearly thought were understated and objective…had t turned aside to deal one way or the other with the morals of this or that particular course of international action twenty, thirty or more years ago. I might indeed have kept your Lordships here until well into the night."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/2/69; col. 59.]
I do not know what the half-life of a moral principle may be in the calculations of the present Government, but the remaining part seems to have diminished pretty rapidly since 1964. We did not demand that the noble Lord should keep us well into the night, but to ignore the immorality of the Soviet action some 24 years ago, and to profit by it two years ago, was something he could not expect this House to allow to pass without comment and rebuke.

629
The subsequent words which he quoted did nothing very much to exonerate him. It is true enough that in the course of his Second Reading speech the noble Lord expressed sympathy and compassion repeatedly, but not for the true victims of what he again and again called "this wretched history". It is because we think that the most wretched passage of this whole wretched history is being written now, at the dictation of Her Majesty's Government, that these Amendments are being moved.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said with feeling, on that earlier occasion, that the interest of the claimants is what is at stake here. In what way is Soviet Russia, who has been given first call on payment—advance call on payment—a claimant in this sense? He spoke of the legitimate preoccupation of the claimants. What was the legitimate preoccupation of Soviet Russia? In the next Amendment we shall be pleading the case of other claimants, equally deserving to those embraced by the noble Lord's compassion but which the Bill seeks to exclude. We shall come to that. Because it seems to us immoral and intolerable that the despoiler of those potential claimants should be rewarded eventually out of the money which belongs to them explains a certain ardour in my approach and the conviction with which I shall follow my noble and learned friend into the Lobby if he chooses to divide.
5.45 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: I had thought, wrongly, that we were going to conduct this debate on a certain level of objectivity. I began to have doubts about that when I saw the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, enter the Chamber. He has indeed succeeded in lowering the debate to his normal level of pugnacity and personalities. I shall not attempt to refute any of the references he has made to my character or to my performance. I can only say that if he holds me in high esteem as a comic, I can think of no better judge.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is burlesque.
LORD CHALFONT: I pass from this rather unsavoury exchange of personalities to deal with the Amendment which I understand the noble Lord was supporting. May I first explain to the noble and learned Viscount the apparent delay
630
over the announcement of the payment of the £500,000 to the Soviet Union? It could not have been announced to Parliament on January 12 because Parliament was then in Recess. The earliest date at which a Written Answer could be laid was January 17, the date upon which that Written Answer was actually given. I mention this point merely to clear up the apparent delay in the announcement of this payment.
As to the question of the payment itself, I fear that my reply to the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is bound to be a very brief one, and bound to be, in essence, a repetition of what I said on Second Reading. I suggest to the Committee that we shall get no further by referring to this payment as a "tip" or a "bribe" or in any other emotive and contentious way. We did pay to the Soviet Union the sum of half a million pounds. We could not have got the Agreement, which we think is essential to the claimants, had we not paid that money over. If noble Lords wish to call that a tip, a bribe, a consideration, a payment, a price or anything else, I invite them to consult Roget and use any term that they like to use. I can only say that we thought it essential to get this Agreement and we believed it right to make this payment in order to get it.
There is another aspect which is different from the question whether or not the Government were right do this, and that is the suggestion that in some way there has been a contempt for Parliament by the way in which it was done. I reject utterly the suggestion that the Government held Parliament in contempt in making this payment. The arrangement made with the Soviet Union was that the money should be paid over one week after signature of the Agreement. Noble Lords have attacked the Agreement and I have listened with great care to the terms in which they have attacked it. Nevertheless, the Agreement was made, and it was made not subject to ratification, because, as I said, both sides were anxious to resolve this long-standing question once and for all.
The Agreement included an undertaking to hand the money over to the Soviet Union one week after signature. We therefore did so in pursuance of the Agreement. It was not practicable at the

631
time to make the payment direct out of the assets. Therefore the payment was made initially from the Civil Contingencies Fund and, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, in March, 1968, a Supplementary Estimate in respect of it was approved in another place. Subsection (5) of Clause 1, which the Amendment seeks to leave out, enables the Exchequer to be recouped from the assets. In effect the money was only lent by the Exchequer and it has now to be repaid.
I cannot really believe that noble Lords opposite, who have expressed such indignation—sometimes in what one might call almost theatrical terms—against this Agreement are moving this Amendment in order to suggest that this sum of half a million pounds paid to the Soviet Union should remain with the Exchequer rather than be paid out of the assets. That would seem to me an extremely perverse way of asking this Committee to register its disapproval of the Agreement; because what that would be doing would be saying that the small sum—and I repeat "small sum"—we paid to the Soviet Union in consideration of this Agreement should now be paid by the British taxpayer rather than by the claimants to the assets which we have realised. I cannot believe that that is the object of this Amendment, and I very much hope that, having expressed his indignation in suitable and measured terms, the noble and learned Viscount will not press it.
5.50 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word or two, having listened to this debate, I hope in a rather more objective way than noble Lords opposite. I find it very difficult to understand how noble Lords opposite can lash themselves into this state of white-hot indignation looking back on the way they behaved when they were in charge of the business of this country over a period of something like fifteen years.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Thirteen years.
LORD CHORLEY: Thirteen years, if you like, but you did nothing to help these people during the whole of this time. Now, just because you dislike bargaining with the U.S.S.R. you whip yourselves up into this state of violent indignation
632
about something you ought to have done yourselves. Very often in a situation of this kind it is impossible to negotiate without paying something. What does negotiation mean except doing one's best in a situation which is often a difficult one? Obviously in this case it was not an easy one. I think that anyone looking at this situation would say, "It is high time these people were no longer kept out of their money." Do noble Lords opposite want to go on keeping them out of their money for ever just for the purpose of spiting the U.S.S.R.? It is really ridiculous.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has shown his complete misapprehension of the case. He regards it as absolutely essential that we should get a Russian signature to a piece of paper before we can distribute assets which are in this country. The Government have also taken that view.
LORD CHORLEY: What did the noble Viscount do about distributing this money when he was a member of the previous Administration?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord, I dare say, is fully in favour of distributing other people's property without any regard to who was the owner of it. The whole case for the Government depends upon the essentiality of getting agreement with the Russians before the distribution of any of these assets. That we challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says that it was worth paying £500,000 out of the Baltic assets to get the Russians' signature, because otherwise there might have been retaliation. They might have repudiated their obligation under an earlier agreement. Are we really to be deterred from taking a proper course by that kind of threat? Ought we not to have said that, if they want to persist in these claims, arbitrate about them and we will meet them in arbitration and thresh it out that way? But the Government did not do that. They said that they will not distribute until they have an agreement with the Russians that they agree to their dealing with this money which has been in their hands. They pay that price for it.
I am not going back over the whole field, but I share the view of Mr. Whitlock that both sides of this House would find it intolerable to pay over all these Baltic

633
assets to the Soviet Union. And I find it intolerable that this Government should have agreed to pay over £500,000 of those assets as the price of getting a Russian signature to a piece of paper. We have known that the notes issued by the Russians for the Lena goldfields have been repudiated, but obviously the Government attach a great deal of importance to that signature. I am afraid that I cannot attach the same importance to it. I think that this is a very sorry story. The Agreement cannot be disturbed by anything we can do in your
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a probing Amendment, and I am seeking to find out precisely what this subsection is intended to do. The Under-Secretary, Mr. Whitlock, in the Standing
Lordships' House, but we can mark our condemnation of this course of conduct by our Vote to-night, and I invite my noble friends to support me in cutting out this particular provision from this Bill.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ebbisham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Auckland, L.

Egremont, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Audley, Bs.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Clwyd, L.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller]

Craigavon, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Cromartie, E.

Headford, M.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Windlesham, L.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wolverton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L. [Teller]

Kennet, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Latham, L.

Shannon, E.

Carron, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wise, L.

Committee in another place on November 19, gave an explanation which I must confess I find it somewhat difficult to relate to the terms of the subsection. The subsection purports to amend subsections (4) and (5) of the Enemy Property Act 1953. The Title of that Act says:
"An Act to make provision as respects things done, in relation to enemy property or property treated as enemy property, in excess of the powers conferred by the law relating to trading with the enemy…"

635
That is part of the Long Title. That was, if I may summarise it, an Act to validate certain doubtful transactions under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and that, as we now understand it, is the purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 1.
Having done that, Parliament, in its wisdom, by Section 3(4) of that Act, provided that if at the time of the dealing the property was not in fact enemy property—if it did not come within the definition of "enemy property" under the Trading with the Enemy Act—the owner of that property could still recover it. But subsection (3) is limited in its scope by Section 1. Section 1 says that Section 2 and Section 3 relate only to transactions or dealings (as they are called) which took place within the period beginning September 3, 1939, and ended with the passing of the Act on November 29, 1953. So, as I understand it, if I have read it aright, under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Enemy Property Act, if those sections were not amended, and the dealings took place between those dates and the owner of the property could show that it was not really enemy property within the definition, then the owner of the property, whoever he might be, if he could trace the property into anyone's hands, could recover it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that that was the effect, putting it shortly, of subsections (3) and (4) of Section 3 of the Enemy Property Act.
It is against that background that one has to consider the terms of this subsection. So far as I can see, this subsection does two things. It says that these particular subsections of that 1953 Act,
"shall not operate so as to authorise the recovery after 5th January 1968 of any former property of a Baltic State or ceded territory, except property which on any of the relevant dates belonged to or was held or managed on behalf of an individual, or of any proceeds of such property…."
I will stop there. It seems to me that the effect, so far, of this subsection is to cut down the right to recover property which was wrongly treated as enemy property to property which was owned by individuals. I can quite see that, in this Bill or somewhere, you want to make it quite clear that the property with
636
which we are dealing is to be treated as enemy property. But I cannot for the life of me see why, if you do that, you want to do anything affecting subsections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the 1953 Act, because those subsections (and indeed, that section of the Act) apply only to dealings—and "dealings" means by the Custodian and others—in the period which I have mentioned.
The Under-Secretary, in the course of ate debate, said some things about this which I found very curious. He said:
"Subsection (6) relates to assets which were covered by Soviet claims and, therefore, by the Soviet undertaking in Article 2 of the Agreement. It does not relate to the privately owned assets of individuals, because the Soviet Government's claims were to businesses, partnerships, companies et cetera and not to privately owned assets."
Pausing there for a moment, is this particular subsection to be interpreted, when it talks about "property of an individual", as excluding any assets he holds in a partnership, or any assets he holds in the shares of a company? It would seem so from what the Under-Secretary said. He went on to say:
"Subsection (6) would prevent a Soviet State trading enterprise into which a former Baltic company's business had been taken from claiming the return of the company's property in this country, and also prevent a creditor of such a company from recovering the property. The subsection is completely justified by the terms of Article 2 of the Agreement."
I should have thought that that was certainly not the case, because Article 2 of the Agreement says in terms that the Soviet Union
"will neither on its own behalf nor on behalf of its physical or juridical persons pursue with the…United Kingdom or support claims arising after 1 January 1939."
and so on. Is it the case that the Government are not prepared to rely upon the signature of the Soviet Union to that undertaking and think it is necessary to bolster up the position by restricting the right to recover property to individuals, and only property in relation to dealings taking place within that area? Because if this Agreement means what it says as to the Russian obligation, it would seem quite impossible that you would have a claim to any of this property by a Soviet State trading enterprise, because that would be contrary to the Agreement signed by the Soviet Union.
I must say that I find the inclusion of this particular provision very puzzling; and I find the final words of this subsection even more puzzling, where it says:
"…any such property or proceeds (except as aforesaid) recovered by virtue of those subsections between that date and the passing of this Act shall be re-transferred or repaid, as the case may require."
That appears to me to mean that if anyone has recovered into his possession assets which were held by the Custodian under subsections (3) or (4) of the Enemy Property Act 1953, and he had only recovered on the basis that they were not really enemy property at all, then, if I understand these final words correctly, although he has succeeded in getting his property back into his own possession, they seem to me to re-transfer this property back to the Custodian. I find that very astonishing. I cannot believe really that I have interpreted it correctly, and that is why I say that this is a probing Amendment. But if it be the case that these final words are put in to deprive people again of property of which they were deprived, which they got back, and they are now to be deprived of it again, then at a later stage I certainly think we should have an Amendment to cut out those words, and I certainly should like to have an explanation in regard to the earlier words on the points that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
6.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble and learned Viscount has said about this subsection is, broadly speaking, correct, subject to the following. The subsection relates to assets which were covered by Soviet claims and therefore by the Soviet undertaking in Article 2 of the Agreement. It does not relate to the privately owned assets of individuals because the Soviet Government's claims were to businesses—partnerships, companies, et cetera, and not in general to privately owned assets. The subsection has the effect of preventing two possible types of action designed to recover assets. First, it would prevent a Soviet State trading enterprise from seeking the recovery of property standing in the name of a former Baltic firm which was nationalised under legislation passed in the Baltic States before they became enemy territory. This type of action is thought to
638
be unlikely in view of the Soviet Government's undertaking, but it is thought right to provide for it. The second possibility is that a creditor of a nationalised Baltic firm might take proceedings for a winding-up. It is to deal with those two cases.
As I said very clearly when I was dealing with a previous subsection, it is retrospective to January 5, 1968, which I think I inadvertently described as the date of the introduction of the Bill: it is of course the date of the Angle-Soviet Agreement. It is intended to be retrospective to that date.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or indeed his noble friend Lord Chalfont, could explain just a little more about this. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne spoke about the assets of a partnership. I do not know whether or not those would be covered by the expression "held or managed on behalf of the individual". Equally, of course, I do not know what the assets are—and who were their owners—that are still in the hands of the Custodian in relation to either the Baltic States or the ceded territories. That is one point that has not been answered and I think it ought to be; because I cannot see any reason why the partnership should not claim, and it does not come within the definition of the type at claims what we have already heard are being put forward, or were being put forward, and have now been abandoned by the Soviet Union under Article 2 of the Agreement. That is one point that is not clear.
The other is this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not deal with the last words. It is simply a matter of fact. Has any money been transferred since January last year or has it not? If it has not, then I suppose there is no harm in these words because they do not mean anything and never will mean anything. If, however, any money has been transferred—I appreciate that it does not cover the case of individuals; it covers only the case of companies—is this a case that has already happened whereby the Soviet Union has been in breach of Article 2? Because that must be the type of case that is being envisaged in this particular part of the subsection; and if so I think the Committee ought to know about it. If the Soviet Union, as I suspect, has put forward no

639
claim in contradiction of Article 2 of their Agreement, what is the point of these words?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This does not really apply to individuals at all. It is really intended to apply only to Baltic companies and firms. It does not apply to individuals because the Agreement with the Soviet Union does not relate to privately owned assets of individuals at all—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Or partnerships?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —and all this is dealing with, really, is the possible claim in winding up a company. This has not in fact happened.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I add just this? If an individual has a right of action which is preserved by the 1953 Act, Sections 3(4) or 3(5), that right will remain unaffected by Clause 1(6) of this Bill; and accordingly he can still bring his action if he wishes, instead of claiming under Clause 1(3), though he can claim under Clause 1(3) if he wants to do so. I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I thought I had got it fairly right with regard to the first part of this subsection, but he has not said anything that satisfies me with regard to the last part. I refer to the words in subsection (6), beginning at line 4 of page 3 of the Bill:
"and any such property or proceeds (except as aforesaid) recovered by virtue of those subsections between that date"—
which I take to be January 5, 1968—
"and the passing of this Act shall be re-transferred or repaid, as the case may require."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the moment there is not any.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If there has been none which has been recovered the chances of its being recovered before the passing of this Act, I would think, despite anything I may say, would be very slight indeed. I do not think that any action could proceed to judgment in the
640
time that I shall be speaking. I doubt the necessity for having those words. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could look again at that point. I do not propose to press the matter, but those words certainly puzzled me a great deal, and what the noble Lord has said about it—I will not trouble him further about it—is not from my recollection quite in accord with what was said in another place about those final words. I do not think there ought to be any confusion about it. I will not press this point now. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at those final words again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendments of Foreign Compensation Act 1950]:
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) There shall be inserted at the commencement of section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 'An appeal shall lie by way of case stated to the Court of Appeal whose decision shall be final, on a question of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Commission but save as aforesaid '.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. We had a very considerable discussion on this subject at the Second Reading. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on it. There is, of course, no Party interest in this matter, and, as he rightly pointed out, no Government interest in it. The whole question is whether there should in certain circumstances which I will refer to in a moment be an appeal from a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission. May I say straight away that I would agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and anyone else who takes that view, that the decisions of the Foreign Compensation Commission on matters which are within the sphere entrusted to them, within their jurisdiction, should be final and unchallengable; and that, I believe, was always the intention of Parliament. Indeed, from the time that the Foreign Compensation

641
Act was passed there have been, I understand, only two challenges of their decisions, one on the ground that they had acted contrary to natural justice—there had been some slip up, but I do not know the facts of the case—and that was admitted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my interrupting, that was certainly not admitted. The claimant's claim was first disallowed at the preliminary hearing. On review it was allowed, though presumably for less than the claimant wanted, and he went to the court saying that he had not been allowed to call his evidence. The Commission said that that was absolutely untrue; they intended to file an affidavit and fight the case to the House of Lords. Then they realised that the effect on the other claimants would be years of delay, and accordingly it was arranged that there should be a statement in court that there had been misunderstanding and they would review the case.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am glad the noble and learned Lord intervened and corrected any misapprehension under which I was speaking. I am not seeking to blame the Foreign Compensation Commission. In any event, I think I am right in saying that there have been only two cases which have come before the courts since the Commission were created in 1950. One was the case to which the noble and learned Lord referred and the other the recent case. I do not know how many claims there have been, but the first thing that occurs to me is that if in all these years there have been only two claims going to the courts, is there any real need at all for a provision such as this subsection. Up till now, the noble and learned Lord will agree, the Commission could be taken to the courts on the grounds of breach of natural justice, or on the grounds that they had acted in excess of their jurisdiction, and that has happened only once.
I think it is right that it should be possible to take that action to the courts when the question is whether they have acted outside the sphere entrusted to them by Parliament. I do not think that Parliament ever intended to entrust to them the final determination of the limits of their jurisdiction. I am quite
642
sure that Parliament meant that within their jurisdiction their decisions should be completely final. I think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will agree that up till now, unlit this provision is enacted, one could bring this question of jurisdiction before the courts. The case for doing so seems to me to be slight if there has beer only one case in all these years. But, at any rate, it could be done.
I understand it is the intention to prevent that in future. The argument put forward is a powerful one and it is this, as I understand it: that any litigation in the courts delays the claims of all the other claimants. That is true, but there are countervailing arguments. It claims are admitted which are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, the amount available to the other claimants will be correspondingly reduced, and it surely is wrong if someone is refused because someone else is dealt with at that way. The answer to this difficulty seems to me to be to try to devise some procedure whereby where there is a question of jurisdiction there can be one appeal—one speedy and final appeal. That is why I have provided by this Amendment an appeal by way of case stated to the Court of Appeal, whose decision shall be final. I believe that would be satisfactory and would not involve undue delay, because an application to the Court of Appeal to have the hearing expedited, when they knew that their decision would affect a large number of claims, I should expect to be sympathetically listened to.
This Amendment may be criticised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the ground that it is not complete, that it is defective in certain respects. I shall not seek to repudiate that. It does not quite meet all that I should like to see in it, and I will tell your Lordships why. I was not certain whether the appeal should lie from the provisional determination of the Foreign Compensation Commission or from the final review. I am rather inclined to think that it should run from the former, but that is a matter which is an expert matter; I should not mind which it ran from so long as it ran from one or the other. Secondly, I think there should be a time limit. If there is an appeal at all from the provisional review or the final review, whichever it be, notice of appeal

643
must be given within a short period of time or the right to appeal must be completely lost. That could be dealt with, perhaps not under the section of the Foreign Compensation Act as it stands, but by rules of procedure.
I know that this Amendment is defective, perhaps, in not dealing with those two matters, but it states the principle which I should like to see embodied in the Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who regrets that he has had to leave us, has told me that he completely supports this particular proposal. I commend it to the Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would deal with this, that the Government still have an open mind and that they want to know what everybody thinks about it. I hope I have left no doubt what I think about it. I beg to move.
6.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government have carefully reconsidered this matter, but they are not at the moment disposed to accept the Amendment. They still want to know what everybody thinks. I agree that it is a non-Party political question, a matter of opinion, but what has impressed the Government to some extent is that not one single person who is a layman, either in the Second Reading debate or when I looked round now in Committee, supports this Amendment. Lawyers, quite naturally, want everything to go to the courts. The sole support has been the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Denning, but not a single layman.
May I shortly recapitulate what I said before? This actual clause does not do anything. All it does is to enable an order to be made at a future time. It is in no way retrospective; it does not apply to the case that went to the House of Lords or any of the Egyptian cases. This is simply looking to the future and enables an order to be made in the future. I should have thought that the best time to oppose it was when the order was made and not now. The sole question at issue is what the claimants would prefer. I should have thought that laymen were better qualified than
644
the lawyers to judge what the claimants would prefer.
I reminded the House last time that ordinarily when a Government has certain money to distribute there is no legal claim on the money by the claimants, even when, as in the case in which China was concerned in the last century, we found out what the claims all came to, which was 3 million dollars, and we got 3 million dollars from the Government. There was a delay apparently in distributing that among the claimants, so somebody took proceedings. The courts said, "There is no legal claim to this. Of course there is a moral obligation on the Government who have got this money for distribution to claimants to make some fair distribution of it; but they are responsible only to Parliament; they do not hold the money as trustees."
For a hundred years or more this was always done by the Civil Service or the Foreign Office. Then, in 1950, it became too much for them, so this board of three lawyers was set up in effect to do it for them. But, of course, there could be no appeal from the Civil Service. So when this matter came before Parliament in 1950, Parliament put in this special clause saying that there should be no appeal to the courts. In your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, speaking for the Opposition, said:
"Those who are in any way concerned with these claims view with great relief the idea that the share in regard to each claim compared with the global total is to be decided in England and according to English legal procedure. Everybody will be very content with that. I think we can agree with the Lord Chancellor to leave the matter in the hands of the Tribunal, and in this case not to ask for appeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/6/50; col. 1117.]
Then the matter came before Parliament again, after the Franks Committee Report in 1958, because there were at that time a number of clauses in different Statutes saying, with regard to various kinds of tribunals, "No appeal to the courts". The Franks Committee did not approve of this; and so, in 1958, in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act those clauses were removed, including the clause in the 1950 Act with regard to the Foreign Compensation Commission. But the Government, on review, thought that that was wrong, and so there was a Government Amendment to make a

645
special exception for the British Nationality Act and the Foreign Compensation Commission: The actual Amendment was:
"Nothing in this section"—
that was the section that was going to remove most of these clauses which ousted the jurisdiction of the courts—
"shall affect Section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948, or apply to any Order or determination of a court of law or the Foreign Compensation Commission…"
Mr. Renton (as he then was), on behalf of the Government—and I notice that in Committee (because he made an observation at the same time) the then learned Attorney General, now the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was there—said:
"I wish to refer to the position of the Foreign Compensation Commission. We are expressly providing here that it should not be possible for people to go to the High Court in order to get an order for certiorari or mandamus against the Foreign Compensation Commission. In taking those steps it is right that we should explain why we are doing so, and I hope that the Committee will feel that there is a valid reason for doing so. The Foreign Compensation Commission is concerned mainly with making ex gratia distributions to British subjects of such sums of money as the Foreign Office manages to obtain from foreign Governments for distribution among British subjects as compensation for the loss of their property in such foreign countries. When the total sum has been received from the foreign Government, British subjects are invited to make their claims, and sometimes substantial claims are made. Then the Foreign Compensation Commission makes an award which is an ex gratia award. I am sure that it will be seen that the very fact that it is an ex gratia award is a reason for not having an appeal to the High Court on certiorari or mandamus, and secondly, the fact that this is a running operation arithmetically means that the Foreign Compensation Commission from time to time needs to know how much is left of the cake for it to distribute in order that it may make these ex gratia awards. If the exercise is held up by substantial claims being taken to the High Court for certiorari it will be very difficult for this money ever to be distributed in reasonable time. For that reason we felt that we had to make an exception."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15/7/58; col. 95.]
That exception was duly made in another place. When the Commons Amendment came to this House, with the support of the noble and learned Viscount the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, it was accepted by this House.
This is what the reason has always been: that if you are going to have lawyers, from the claimant's point of view he
646
does not mind what kind of lawyer it is. Questions of construction are, in fact, from the layman's point of view always extremely "dicey". If your Lordships recollect the House of Lords case which arose under the Act, you will recall that eight judges of superior courts considered the question of construction; five of them made one answer and three made the other, but the three won because they were in the House of Lords. The other five were a unanimous Court of Appeal and two noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords. But, of course, that was not enough against three none and learned Lords in the House of Lords. It shows what a great "toss up" construction really is from a layman's point of view.
The curious thing is, that if the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount had been the position in that case, the opposite answer would have been given, since the Court of Appeal always said that they were not at all satisfied that the construction of the Commission was wrong. So I am really thinking of the people. I would quote two letters:
"I am 76 years old and I believe you could help me by giving me some part of my claim. I have no old-age pension because my late husband got ill in 1948. He wily paid six months' National Health Insurance stamps; therefore, I am not entitled as a widow or as an old age pensioner."
And again:
"I am a British war refugee. In 1939 I had to run for my life and abandon my property in Poland (Russian occupied). I lost houses, furniture and personal belongings, including income from rent. In 1963 I had coronary thrombosis, and since 1967 I am unemployed due to cataract. I had an operation nine weeks ago but unable to work. According to the enclosed documents it was up to the Russians to settle claims, but now it is up to the British Government only. Please, for the sake of justice to hundreds of victims as myself, vote in favour of the Bill".
These people have waited about thirty years. Those who are still alive are pretty old. What they really want is that somebody should make a determination and that they should get their money. Of course the Government have no interest in this, or no axe of any kind to grind and are simply doing what they think best for the claimants. But they find themselves in agreement with the Labour Government of 1950 and the Conservative Government of 1958, and they think

647
that what is best in the interests of the claimant is not to bring in the lawyers but for the lawyers on the Commission to make a speedy determination of the claims so that they can get their money. It is on those grounds that I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment.
6.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has chided laymen for not having taken part in this discussion I shall risk sticking out my neck. On Second Reading I told your Lordships that as a layman I viewed this proposal with a considerable degree of anxiety. I also told your Lordships that I had read the observations of Professor Wade, and of the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar and the President of the Law Society, and that I was impressed both by their arguments and by their eminence. I went on to say that I realised that legal luminaries sometimes disagree. This is what is happening this evening. I told your Lordships that I proposed to listen to all the arguments and would then make up my own mind. I have now done so, and without any doubt whatsoever I wish to say to your Lordships, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that I shall support the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.
I personally regret that it does not include in it something to ensure expedition, but I understand that this can be achieved through a sympathetic attitude of mind. I do not know whether this is enough in itself, but I think I must just read again the words used by Professor Wade, in view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, has said—rather appealing, I thought, to our emotions. I understand that; I know that the noble and learned Lord is concerned with the feelings of the claimants, old people, who have had to wait a long time. This is the sort of thing that would appeal to my heart, but at the same time I think I must find myself in the strange position of being in disagreement with the noble and learned Lord on a point of law. Professor Wade wrote:
"The law's delay, like its uncertainty and expense, is a tempting reason for sacrificing justice to speed".
648
I suggest that here the noble and learned Lord is inviting us to sacrifice justice to speed, and I would not wish to be a party to this. If it were possible to devise an Amendment along the lines that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has suggested, and somehow or other ensure that there is not unnecessary delay, I feel that this would be the right thing to do. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has invited the opinion of a layman, and I have given it. Meanwhile, I shall support the Amendment of my noble and learned friend, and hope that perhaps something may be done to improve it in this one particular respect.
6.43 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I want to add only a few words, few because I speak as a lawyer rather than as a layman, and also because the main reasons for supporting something on the lines of this Amendment were already explained by me on the Second Reading. The alternatives before us are very narrow and very easy to state. The first alternative, which is the Government's alternative, is this. The moment this Bill is passed, and an Order in Council is made under it—and your Lordships know that such an Order cannot be amended when it is laid before the House— the whole thing will be handed over to the Foreign Compensation Commission for determination: a body which does not have to give reasons for its decisions, and whatever it does there is no recourse whatever to any court of law. That is one alternative.
The alternative which the Amendment would propose is that the whole matter should be left to the Foreign Compensation Commission—decisions on fact, decisions on construction—subject only to this: that the Judiciary, the Court of Appeal, as proposed, is to have the power to see that the guidelines laid down by Parliament when discussing this Bill are respected. That those guidelines are of importance is surely shown by this debate. Why otherwise have the House of Commons, and this House, spent a considerable time discussing the details of what is to go into the Bill, the ceded territories and all the other details, unless these are matters of importance which the Legislature desires to see carried out?

649
The only question of principle is whether, should the Commission depart from those guidelines, somebody is to have the right to say so. If one may take a homely metaphor, which I hope is not too crude, it is as if you said to eleven people: "Right; you may go on to this field; you may play Association Football. You may appoint your own referee; you may have your own offside rules. You do the whole thing exactly as you like and nobody will interfere, but if somebody picks up the ball and runs with it, that is not Association Football and we have the right to stop you." That is the sort of area in which we are discussing this subject matter; the distinction between the fundamental guidelines and the matter of detail.
There are just two points in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that I should like to take up. The first is this very important question of delay, which I imagine is the point to which he read out the letters that he had in his hand. That, as I said, and as everybody agrees, is very important, and it is a point to which the layman attaches the greatest importance. But it is necessary to put that in the right perspective. May I give the Committee a few figures which I think can be easily followed and which will show, I hope, that the fact that the case before your Lordships' Judicial Committee, the Anisminic case, did come before the Court, and ultimately here, did not in any way prejudice the distribution of the Fund with which it was concerned; namely, the Egyptian Fund? I have taken these facts from the reports of the Foreign Compensation Commission. The Anisminic case was determined by the Commission in May, 1963. Of course, the Commission had had it before then; they knew the claim as it was pending. But as at March 31, 1963—that is, before the determination by the Commission—they had distributed no less than £17 million out of the Egyptian Fund, which was basically £27 million plus some further money added by Parliament. That is the first figure.
The second figure is this. Up to March 31, 1968 (which was during the pendency of the appeal to your Lordships' House but before its determination), the Foreign Compensation Commission had distributed out of the
650
Egyptian Fund over £29 million, which is more than the original £27 million allotted, and by all standards a very considerable sum. Not only that, but there were still 800 cases undisposed of. So while one has the greatest possible sympathy with the delay argument in principle, it does not seem from the Record as if the fact that the courts interfered in this one Anisminic case has had a very great effect or, one might say, any effect on the distribution of the money by the Commission. For that reason I warmly endorse what the noble Marquess said about the question of delay: that one should not pay for acceleration at the price of the rule of law.
There is one other point which the noble and learned Lord made: that until 1950—and indeed for about a hundred years—the whole of this matter had been handled by civil servants, and nobody had ever complained about that. They distributed it in their discretion. Why, therefore, when the Foreign Compensation Act is passed in 1950, and a Commission is set up, is provision for appeals allowed? My answer to that is this: that if you depart from a discretionary field to one of law, then you must get your legal process right. The fact that before that you operated under a different system is not a reason for operating a mutilated legal system. It is as if you have a factory which has been worked by men, by manpower, and you decide to go over to automation. That is not a reason for allowing the machines to operate without supervision. That is all that is suggested here; that there should be just this residuary final element of supervision by the courts over what the Parliament has laid down.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer. The reasons have been very well explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and I simply wish to add my support for something on the lines of the Amendment, though with any necessary changes to get the machinery right and, if possible, to introduce a time limit.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can speak only as a layman, and only with great trepidation on this matter, but the point about the delay seems to me to be an exceedingly important one. What I cannot quite follow in the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is how it comes to be that,

651
although the law is very well represented on the Foreign Compensation Commission, other lawyers, or lawyers generally, are not willing to consider that those eminent lawyers should be any more right, or any more wrong, than any other lawyers. Why should it be that those lawyers cannot themselves be regarded as the legal representation which is required so as to avoid the possibility, at any rate, of delay, even in a few odd cases that may happen when the matter has to go to appeal?
LORD CONESFORD: I agree so completely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has said, that I should like to mention only two points. It is very bad for any tribunal to know that there is no appeal from it, no matter how much it exceeds its jurisdiction or indulges in what the law calls a nullity. That is not to make an adverse comment on a particular tribunal but applies to every tribunal of every kind.
I should like to pay my tribute to the complete respectability of the intentions of the Government in putting forward this clause—a clause which, nevertheless, I think to be wrong—since they desire speed, which is a proper desire. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said something which is tempting to say but which, nevertheless, is wrong. He said that Parliament in 1950 intended that the view of this Commission should be final. I know that it is most tempting to read the words and to think that, but we ought to resist the temptation. There is at least a possibility that Parliament intended the law to be precisely what the supreme tribunal has decided that it is. Parliament may well have intended that on most points the view of the Commission should be final, but that if it went quite outside its jurisdiction—supposing the Order in Council said that there were four conditions which had to be satisfied and the tribunal itself said, "We require satisfaction on six conditions"—that would require correction. The point I am making was taken by my learned friend Sir John Foster in another place. I do not think we ought to say that, because a layman reading a section of the Act of 1950 thought that the determination should be final in every case, that really was the intention of Parliament.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have listened with the greatest care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If this Amendment is carried, I suppose the chances are about a thousand to one, probably more, against a case being brought to the courts, and it is a very narrow point. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the vast mass of the decisions of this Commission should be final and unappealable. The only issue is as to whether questions as to its jurisdiction should be subject to an appeal. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison said, "If they are all lawyers, why not leave it entirely to them." If we adopted that principle in the administration of justice, we could dispense with the House of Lords in its judicial capacity—not reform it—and could dispense with the Court of Appeal, and would have a mass of conflicting decision.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that is rather an exaggeration. This is a matter involving the Foreign Compensation Commission dealing with specific cases, comparatively small in number. It is somewhat of an exaggeration, therefore, to raise the whole question of the jurisdiction of the courts and the House of Lords.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Viscount says that, and one knows that the vast mass of claims could not possibly involve questions of jurisdiction. But when the noble Viscount says that it is a small matter, I think I am right in saying that the Anisminic claim was something like £4 million. A question as to jurisdiction certainly should be appealable. The Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society have both expressed that view, and not only the opinion of people engaged in actual practice but also all the judicial opinion which has been given expression to is in favour of this Amendment. Those opinions are not expressed because judges want any more work. They are expressed because they think it is consistent with justice and will improve justice. I do not want to add anything to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce in his persuasive and powerful speech.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he has heard the

653
lawyers but has not heard the laymen; but lawyers in these matters are concerned with the interests of laymen and are very often the protectors of the interests of laymen. Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants to know what are the views of the laymen, there
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
is only one way to show him—that is, by dividing the House on this Amendment.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Belstead, L. [Teller.]

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Foot, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

St. Helens, L.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Clwyd, L

Gowrie, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Headfort, M.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Strange, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Daventry, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundonald, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Egremont, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Carron, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Willis, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Peddie, L.

NATIONAL INSURANCE &c BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NEW TOWNS BILL
7.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill which comes to us from the Commons has the single purpose of raising by £300 million the overall amount which may be advanced to development corporations and to the Commission for the New Towns, in order to sustain the New Towns programme. The present limit authorised by Parliament is £800 million, and on the last day of last year £750 million had already been committed for development approved by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on New Town building in England, and by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales for New Towns there. Therefore, we expect to reach the present limit of £750 million in the current Session of Parliament. The extra £300 million should be enough for another three years or so.
I would remind the House that this is a cumulative provision. Successive Governments come before Parliament from time to time to ask for a raising in the absolute total ceiling of money which may be kept in play for the purpose of the New Towns programme. I do not think that the House, thinly attended and at this time of the night, would wish me to give any account of that New Towns programme. It is not so very long since we debated it at considerable length, and I think it would be best if I sat down now and answered later any points which may be made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we have had a debate on the New Towns fairly recently. On this Bill itself in another place the opportunity was taken by a very large number of honourable and right honourable Members to discuss many aspects of the New Towns programme. Many of them did so against the background that they had in their own constituencies a New Town, and they
656
were able to discuss these matters with first-hand knowledge. I do not think that I have anything to add to that debate which so recently took place in the House of Commons, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to deal with the only point on which I believe no answer was given by the Government spokesmen at any stage there. It was a point raised by my honourable friend the Member for Runcorn, and it related to the procedure at inquiries when a designation order is made.
May I deal very briefly with what happens? The designation order setting out the area for the New Town is made by the Minister, and if there are any objections to it an independent inspector, who has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry, is in due course sent to hold an inquiry into them. At the beginning of the inquiry a member of the New Towns Department of the Ministry comes to give a short statement and to answer questions of fact, although he is not allowed to go into questions of Government policy. If I may pay tribute to those in that position whom I have heard do this, I think they acquit themselves extremely well in that position. They are always very full and frank in their answers, and most helpful. But the difficulty arises in this way. It may be that there is a local authority or somebody else there who wishes to support the designation order that the Minister has himself made and about which the inquiry is being held. Most of the people, however, will be there to object to it in one form or another. If there is nobody there who supports it, then the whole thing is completely one-sided. As your Lordships can imagine, all the people get up and say that there is something wrong with the order, and there is nobody there who has any incentive to criticise their criticisms or to examine them to see whether they are valid.
The inspectors, who come from outside—sometimes they are clerks of local authorities; they are men of great eminence and great experience—must, I think, find it extremely difficult to make a fair assessment of the weight of those objections on which they have to report and recommend to the Ministry, if there is nobody there who has anything but a one-sided view of the matter—if there is no

657
challenge, in fact, to the views which are put forward. I am not certain that I know what the answer is, because I can quite understand that it would be wrong for the Minister (who, after all, is going to make the decision on the designation order) himself actively to promote the order, as would happen, for instance, in a compulsory purchase case. It occurs to me, however, that there are procedures in the courts whereby, if there is a difficult point, the court can appoint amicus curiœ who will argue the case out, really for the benefit of the court, if there is nobody else to take that particular side, and who can be of great assistance in crystallising the issues and in testing the views of those who come before the court or the inquiry.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, not of course for any answer on this matter to-day but to see whether there is any validity in what I have been saying and whether inspectors have found themselves hampered in doing the difficult job that they have to do in listening to these inquiries and in reporting on them arising from the fact that in some cases, at any rate, there is nobody except the objectors present. If they do find that it is difficult, I wonder if the Department might consider whether there is any possible way—I do not think it would need legislation—to put the matter right; some arrangement which would have the effect of better informing the Minister about the strength of the objections. At the moment, the failing is really one of information. The Minister himself cannot judge from the inspector's report how strong and how valid these points of objection are because they have never been tested.
My Lords, that matter was briefly raised in another place; but I think all the other points—and there were many of them—which arose on the general subject of New Towns were examined and were answered by the Government, and I do not wish to go into them again. There is therefore that one point that I wish to ask in welcoming the Bill and hoping that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I fully take the point of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said, and will go into it and examine the matter together with my right honourable friend. I should not reply immediately off the
658
top of my hat, but it seems to me that there may be a difficulty in the way of appointing a friend of the court, or of inventing some person to grill the objectors, because under the New Towns Act itself designation order inquiries are held with respect only to the objections. They are not held to inquire into the desirability of having a New Town there: they are held to enable the Minister to be fully informed about the nature and the strength of any objections to the designation order before he finally takes his decision on it. So he is not in the position of someone who comes along to say to the inquiry, "I think this would be rather a good idea; now let us discuss it on equal terms." He has already made a draft designation order as an act of Government policy, and it is then his duty to sit back and listen for a while to see what objections there are and whether he can amend the order a little to meet the objections. So it is not as if there were two equal parties before a neutral judge, arguing the pros and cons of the case and cross-examining each other, as one has in courts of law and in other types of planning inquiry. But, having said that, let me repeat that I will indeed go into the suggestion which has been made to see whether, in the opinion of inspectors and of those who follow this matter closely, this is a defect or a weakness in the procedure which might be amended.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

CARAVAN SITES ACT AND GIPSY CAMPS
7.18 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will make an order bringing Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 into immediate operation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name, and in doing so I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, to which I refer in this Question. This Act, which was sponsored by Mr. Eric Lubbock in another place, and which passed through both Houses in early summer last year, is divided into two Parts. We need not concern ourselves here with Part I, which is already in

659
operation. Part II deals with the provision of properly equipped sites for gipsy families. It puts a requirement on local authorities—county councils, county boroughs and some London boroughs—to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. The Act was so designed as not to put an unfair burden on one local authority as against another. For example, the London boroughs and county boroughs are required to provide a site and pitches for only up to 15 caravans, and once they have fulfilled this obligation under the Act they are given more effective powers to deal with any unauthorised camping by gipsies. Or, if some local authorities feel that they have no gipsy problem, they can apply for exemption from the requirement to build sites. That, briefly, is what Part II of the Caravan Sites Act is about.
May I remind your Lordships of the background to the Act and of the reasons why it was thought necessary to introduce and to pass this legislation? The term "gipsies", as used in the Act, is an umbrella term to cover Romanies, didekeis, mumpers, Irish tinkers—anyone, in short, who follows a nomadic way of life, except travelling showmen or circus people. It is estimated that there are about 15,000 such people in England and Wales, making up about 3,500 families. They are widely scattered. There are some gipsies in every county and in one out of every three local authority areas. They are without doubt the most harassed, neglected, downtrodden, poverty-stricken and persecuted section of our population. The conditions in which they are forced to live are a disgrace to any society, let alone a society like ours, which prides itself on its humane outlook. I believe that many of our dogs live better, and are treated better, than we treat the gipsies in this country.
For example, there are something like 6,000 gipsy children under the age of sixteen. A few get casual schooling; most get none; and the vast majority are growing up as illiterates, perpetuating the problem generation by generation. Only one family in three has access to mains water; only one family in six has access to a W.C.; the vast majority are without sanitary or other facilities—and the situation grows worse all the time,
660
day by day, month by month. A few short years ago the "travellers" could roam the countryside and follow their traditional occupations without too much difficulty. But since the end of the war all this has changed. As more and more land is taken for new towns, urban expansion and new roads, the number of available camping sites, and back lanes in which the gipsies can camp, shrinks away.
New laws have been passed making it an offence to camp without proper authority. At one time it was possible for gipsies to band together and to rent or own a permanent camping site. Now the law itself, plus rising prices, makes this almost impossible. So, forced out of his usual camping areas, the gipsy has had no alternative but to turn to the main roadside. And because of the decline in his old trades he has had to find new ones—principally the breaking up of scrap cars and the sale of the metal and spare parts. As a result, area after area of roadside is occupied by travelling families and turned into a wilderness of ugliness and litter. We have all seen these eyesores and have all been appalled by them. I sometimes wonder whether the ugliness which they create is any worse than the ugliness we create with urban development but I will leave that point for the moment.
This situation, the situation that I have been describing, has simply created a new hostility between the local citizens and the gipsies. Force was used, and is still being used, constantly, day by day, week by week, to drive out the gipsies, as if they were dogs; to force them to move on. But this does not solve the problem: it merely transfers it next door; it enlarges it. Even when gipsies can buy a site to-day they are often met with the icy, bureaucratic face of local authority. Let me give your Lordships one example of a case reported by the Gipsy Council. There is a gipsy in Leicestershire who owns a piece of land on which he keeps four caravans. A few weeks ago he was fined £15 for not having a proper site licence. This man is prepared to put 15 pitches on his land with proper amenities. Permission has been refused. There may be a good reason for it; but the man is in this position. If he stays on his own land he will face more fines; if he moves he will

661
be harried from pillar to post. My Lords, it is tragic, wasteful and frustrating. And those three words sum up the feelings of most gipsies to-day.
A few local authorities and a few private individuals deserve our thanks and praise because they have shown a glimmer of enlightenment and have tried to provide proper sites for some gipsy families. But I regret to say that they are the exception. By and large, the policy still is to keep out or expel the gipsy by main force. This is the background to the Bill. This was the situation which Eric Lubbock sought to check and to cure when he introduced the Bill.
Part II of the Act, in particular, could lead to the provision of about 200 permanent sites—a kind of national network covering England and Wales—where a gipsy family would have reasonable sanitary facilities and other amenities which would give his children some chance of a regular education. This, my Lords, is perhaps the most important and serious factor of all: the education of the children. It is not only wrong in the short term that a child should be denied schooling for reasons which are beyond his control; it is wrong and stupid in the long term—for it is only by educating the gipsy children that any real and permanent solution will be found to this problem. Part II of the Act would enable us to make a giant step forward in solving this problem. It would, it could—if it were implemented. But there is the big "if"! For all that we have done at the moment is to pass a paper resolution.
Part II of the Act can be brought into force only by order of the Minister—and so far he has not felt able to make that order. He has been pressed on several occasions to take the necessary action, and on each occasion his reply has been full of sympathy but empty of hope; warm with good will but cold and chilly in practical terms. The argument, in short, is that local authorities are being asked to cut back on expenditure and that it would be wrong to impose upon them at the moment this new burden of providing sites. I hope that we shall not hear that rotten, shabby argument to-day. It is true that the Minister has indicated that he would give sympathetic consideration to any application for loans sanction made by a local
662
authority for the purpose of providing a site. This is something; but it is not enough, not nearly enough. It negates the spirit of the Act by which the burden of providing sites was to be spread evenly over all the local authorities concerned. To leave the issue to individual localities means that enlightened councils are penalised while others get away with doing little or nothing.
If Parliament had wanted to leave the matter to the initiative of local authorities, it would have said so. It did not. It made its view plain; and the Minister should take note of that.
We are bogged down now by the question of expense. I believe that my noble friend Lord Foot may have a word to say about this aspect. He may have some information about the expense involved in pursuing the present policy of harassment. Figures are difficult to get, but it is true that some local authorities are spending hundreds of pounds is each year on the negative policy of evicting gipsy families, on the erection of obstacles, on the blocking of camping sites. Some of them are even employing uniformed security men, with guard dogs, to harass these poor people.
My Lords, how much longer are we to allow this policy of neglect, persecution and brute force to continue? I venture to suggest that if any immigrant group were to be treated in this way there would be a national outcry—and I should be one of those who would join in it. But the gipsies are a small, scattered, inarticulate and largely unorganised group; and very few people seem to care. I should like to make this plea to the Government: perhaps you cannot give them the whole deal, but give them part of it, at least. Make an order instructing local authorities to set up temporary sites under the Act. Let us, at least, give the gipsy somewhere that he can bring his caravan to rest. The remainder can follow later.
The expenditure can be phased over two or three years. The gipsy is prepared to pay rent for his pitch, and most of them would be prepared to work to lay down the necessary hard-standing base to the pitches and to help in creating other amenities. But unless the Minister is prepared to act on these lines, it may be years before there is any hope for gipsies, because local authorities have

663
already been told that their economies may have to continue into the '70s. Are the gipsies to be harassed from pillar to post for the next three or four years while we are waiting for the right moment to implement Part II of the Act?
My Lords, this is a human problem; it is a problem of people, of old people and of children; people who have become the victims of the development of our modern society. We have a choice. We can fight these people, we can turn guards and dogs on them, we can drive them aimlessly from one point to another—all at a great cost in terms of money and at a greater cost in terms of our self-respect. Or we can implement the policy that we have already decided upon and give the gipsies a place, some place, to live and perhaps to settle. It seems to me that there is no real choice. I thank the Government for the good will and sympathy that they have shown in the past, but I must frankly say that the time for words of compassion has passed, the time for words themselves has passed. We were all cold last week-end during the blizzard that shook this country. Can anybody in this House imagine what it was like for some of these poor devils on the roadside? Sympathy will not educate the gipsy children; good will will not keep them warm this winter or next, and compassion, by itself, will not lift the shadow from the lives of these people.
My Lords, I choose my final words with great care. In my view our present treatment of the gipsy is a national scandal, a mockery of all our pretensions toward building a Welfare State. When we wish we can find time and money for all sorts of causes and issues which are more fashionable and which can win more votes, or from which we can get greater publicity. But it seems that we cannot find the money that is necessary even to make a temporary start on these problems. For these people, who have hardly any voice and very little power, we can find nothing, it seems, except paper Acts, compassion and words of sympathy. I believe that if my noble friend Lord Kennet were not in the Government he would be making the same speech as I am making to-day; and that the Minister himself would do the same if he were on the Back Benches in another place. So I ask the Government
664
to implement Part II of this Act now. Do not let any further delay add to the problems and to the tragedies. If it is the Treasury that is laying its icy hands on this proposal, I say that you will never find a truer cause on which to fight them, and to fight them until they give in.
7.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has deployed his case most powerfully, if I may say so, and I am sure that it is a very good thing indeed that the matter should be brought to the attention of Parliament on this occasion; as of course it was when the Caravan Sites Bill was being debated last year. But I think the House should remember that when the noble Lord stated what Parliament had done by way of expressing its views about this matter, it must also be borne in mind that Parliament accepted without any demur that Part II of the Act was to come into force only when an Order was made bringing it into force; and there was never any doubt at all about the reason for that provision because it was explained very carefully in another place and in this Chamber.
The reason for the provision was that the burden that might be, or would be, put on the local authorities by Part II of the Act was one which had to be judged in the overall financial view of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to see what were the priorities at any given time, and to see which of the various matters which have to be laid upon local authorities should take precedence; whether it should be this or something else. Parliament accepted that at the time the Bill was before the House, and it therefore seems to me that it cannot now be said that Parliament has in any way departed from what the noble Lord himself has been putting forward, if Parliament is acquiescing at the moment in the Government not bringing in this Order.
The question about whether the Order should be brought in or not must be one for the Government of the day. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his Ministry to assess these priorities; and, of course, it is not only the gipsies who are asking for more money to be spent either publicly or locally. Noble Lords who sit on these Benches have fairly

665
strong views about why it is that we cannot pay for all the things we wish to pay for in the public field, and I do not wish to go into that. The economics of the two Parties are probably very far apart on this matter. But the fact remains that when you get down to these small issues it is for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to judge the priorities at the moment.
My Lords, I suggest that the House should also remember this. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has not mentioned at all the powers that local authorities have quite regardless of Part II of the Act. It is perfectly true that Part II lays a duty on the local authorities that are mentioned in it to provide in some cases the maximum number of sites and in some cases whatever is necessary for the demand in their area. But all that does is to turn into a duty what is now a power. There is a perfectly good power in Section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development 1960 Act which enables the local authority to provide these sites if it wishes to do so. A number of local authorities, as the noble Lord said—and he paid tribute to them—have done this. As a matter of fact, the New Forestry Rural District Council has done a slightly different thing under the National Assistance Act. That council has provided a different sort of encampment and apparently this has been quite a success. There is no lack of guidance or encouragement from the Ministry as to how local authorities are to do this.
There was a very interesting Circular issued by the Ministry in 1966, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has read it. It not only set out some useful principles about how sites should be provided and how they should be run, but it explained also what various authorities have done and the difficulties they have run into in practice. There cannot be anything but good in that, and I wonder whether the Ministry have in mind to issue another Circular, bringing this guidance up to date and telling us what has happened in the two or three years since the 1966 Circular was issued.
My Lords, if there is financial stringency—and this is my last word on this subject— and if there are powers in
666
the local authorities already to do exactly what the noble Lord is asking for, is it not really best that we should leave it to the responsible authorities on the ground to decide what are their own priorities within the budget, within the overall limit laid down by the Government? It is true that if it is a bad authority it may so arrange matters that the gipsies are driven out into the area of another authority. I entirely accept that point. But that is not what all local authorities do. If there is the force that I think there is in the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, there must he people who are either members of local authorities or who can approach and influence local authorities to use their existing powers.
I cannot see that the lack of art Order bringing Part II into effect over the whole country, providing a duty as opposed to a power, is going to make all that much difference, although obviously it would make some. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has to say about the timing, but for myself, I think that if it cannot be brought in at this moment because of financial stringency then at least the Ministry can continue with their encouragement and the guidance that they have carried out in the past. It may be that the good will that is roused by speeches like that of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will enable something to he done, even if not on the scale for which he hoped.
7.39 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I am now doing something rather naughty in intervening at the final stage of the debate. I have not very much to say except to express the sympathy that I have with these nomad poeple. It is a tragedy of evolution that the less efficient get crushed out, and I think that they are being crushed out rather severely. There are two or three points which I would make. The position is the same in Ireland, as your Lordships will know. There they are called itinerants and they cause a lot of trouble. In their own way they are a charming crowd of people, who have done nothing really wrong, though they live on the land, and if people put up houses they are apt to take what is in the houses. The education of these people is extremely difficult because they move from one place to another.

667
I would give your Lordships just one little anecdote about the mentality of gipsies. This happened about fifteen years ago. Two of them went to the local town and bought a radio set for two shillings. They took it back to their encampment, took down some fence wires, put them into the terminals and threw the wires over some 500,000 volt cables. They were both killed. I have the greatest sympathy with the gipsies but I cannot see how they can ever be educated. The question is how they can be left alone with some degree of toleration.
7.41 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for an early—indeed, immediate—implementation of this Part of the Act. It seems to me that we are not under any obligation to discuss the merits of this Part. When the Act was a Bill passing through both your Lordships' House and another place, the whole of it received almost unanimous approval and enthusiasm from the Government, and I have no doubt that the object which the noble Lord has in mind in asking this Question to-night will be sympathetically received by the Government.
Two matters, it seems to me, arise from the noble Lord's Question. First of all, what is the urgency in implementing the Act and where do we stand, as the noble Viscount asks, in the list of priorities? Secondly, is it right that the cost of implementing this part of the Act makes its implementation impossible in this period of financial restraint and stringency? On the first question of urgency, may I quote some words which were used by a former Minister in a foreword which he wrote to a survey of the gipsy problem made by Kent County Council? The words which he used seemed to me to sum up succinctly the status—or non-status—of the gipsy in our social system. These are his words:
"The report reminds us of the remarkable fact that for most travelling families there is nowhere they can legally put their home. They are within the law only when going along the road."
Those words were written, not last year or the year before, but in 1952, by Mr. Harold Macmillan, the Minister in charge at that time. They were quoted in the Second Reading debate on this
668
Bill in another place by Mr. Skeffington, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and he added this comment, which surely is fully justified:
"Is this not an astonishing comment on the state of the law and on the legislative attention which we have given to the problem in the past?"
The description which Mr. Macmillan gave at that time of the status of the gipsies remains the description of their status to-day. It is a proved fact, not open to argument, that the status of the gipsy in this country is little better than that of the outcast. I would impress upon the Minister and the Government that this is a matter of the greatest urgency, because under this Part of the Act we are not trying to tackle a problem that has recently come to light; we are making a vastly belated act of retribution and recognition towards these people whose place in society has become increasingly difficult as the 20th century has rolled along. We are trying to redress an ancient and long-standing grievance from which these people have suffered for many years.
The Government's reason for feeling unwilling or unable to implement the Act now is financial. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that it is for the Government to decide where this comes in the list of priorities. I accept that. What I am not sure about is whether the sums that the Government have worked out are right, whether the financial burden which will be thrown upon local authorities is of anything like the magnitude which the Government seem to think. The sponsors of the Act endeavoured to make some calculation of the overall cost of its implementation. They calculated that within a few years' time there might be as many as 4,000 gipsy families in need of accommodation of this sort. They calculated that the cost of providing a single pitch might be in the neighbourhood of £1,000. Multiplying these two figures, we get a figure of £4 million. On the face of it that is a formidable figure, but there are many other considerations by way of offsets which have to be taken into account, if we are to arrive at a real figure of the cost.
First of all, as the Government will know, the implementation of this Act does not mean that we are going to incur the expenditure of the whole scheme

669
all at once. It will proceed by stages, and the first stages do not involve the incurring of any real expense. First of all, the duty is thrown on county councils and county boroughs to assess the need for pitches for gipsies in their areas. They have to make a survey and then make proposals for the siting of these pitches. Then, in the case of the county councils, they have to consult the district councils, who will later on have the duty of actually developing the sites. At that stage objections can be put in, either by the district councils or by individuals, and any objections made have to be investigated at a public hearing. All this will take a considerable amount of time, and it is not until all this has been gone through and the stage arrived at when the county council have to acquire sites that any serious expenditure is involved.
Nor must it be assumed, as I see it, that the different county councils and county boroughs and the rest will proceed at an even speed. Some will be dragging their heels, and others will be getting on with it. That in itself will defer part of the expenditure we are talking about. Then, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, there is no need, in order to meet the imperative urgency of the gipsy problem, for all these sites to be brought up immediately to the maximum proper standards. It would be a great mitigation of the situation if we could think that in the next winter there would be provided substandard sites; that there would have been set aside by that time places to which these gipsies who are now being driven from one authorised site to an-other could resort.
What I should like to ask the Government is this. Why cannot they implement the Act now, so that these essential planning processes can be got through? Surely it would then be possible for the Government, having got rid of that and having got through those planning procedures, if they thought there was not the money available for the full implementation of the programme, to apply, if necessary, a regulator. But could we not get rid of these preliminaries, which are all being held up at the present moment because the Act is not being implemented?
670
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that all that Part II of the Act does is to turn a power into a duty, and he suggested that there were ample powers in the local authorities at the present time, if they were so minded, to provide sites. But I am sure the noble Viscount must be aware of what the real problem is. It is that if it is left to individual local authorities to make the decision for themselves, it casts an entirely unfair burden upon the authorities which accept the obligation, and at the same time attracts into their areas a greater number of gipsies. That, as I understand it, has been the common experience: that if an authority is enlightened, and establishes some pitch or site for these people, this automatically, attracts people from other areas, and the plight of the enlightened authority is greater than that of those authorities which remain indifferent to the problem.
The next item in the account is this. Once these sites have been established, it will be open to the local authorities to require rent to be paid for them. I am not suggesting that it will ever be possible for these sites to be made self-supporting; I have no doubt that this is impossible. But the rents which the gipsies would be able and prerared to pay would bring in a substantial contribution to the capital cost of setting up these sites.
Then there is a much more important point, if I may suggest it to the noble Lord; and it is this. At the present moment, we are engaging in a considerable expenditure on the harassing of the gipsy population which is pure waste of money. It is the expenditure which is involved in driving them from one site to another; in clearing up the sites after they have gone; in setting up fences, and posts and earth-banks in order to prevent them from coming back on to the unauthorised sites; and the expenditure which is incurred in enforcement orders, in criminal proceedings under the Highways Act, and the rest. All this expenditure is pure waste, and produces nothing. It is the bill which we face for trying to enforce this legal anomaly. It surely must be the falsest of economies to tolerate the continuation of this entirely unproductive expenditure as an alternative to the rather greater

671
productive expenditure which would be involved in implementing the Act.
The sponsors of this Act have set out, I think as a result of conversations which they have had with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to try to ascertain from local authorities how much money is being spent by them in what I might call the general policy of controlling or harassing the gipsies; and many local authorities have been good enough to give a reply. It had been my intention to quote one or two examples to the House, but on reflection I do not think that would be very useful, because there are two difficulties about these statistics which we tried to gather together. The first is that the local authorities themselves, however anxious they may be to help, have difficulty in dissecting and isolating the expenditure which can be properly appropriated to the control of gipsies. The second difficulty is that the anwers one receives from the local authorities are necessarily very selective, and it is impossible to paint an overall picture of the full extent of this wasteful expenditure throughout the country as a whole.
I should like, however, to quote one letter from one borough council in reply to this inquiry. I do not think I need say which borough council it is; it does not matter very much. But the town clerk wrote, in reply to the Member of Parliament for this borough, saying:
"The council have not as yet spent any money in providing a site for itinerant caravan dwellers. Their policy is to evict the trespassers as quickly as possible, and to this end they have for the past four years employed a retired police inspector as security officer. I enclose a copy of the report which was circulated to members of the council in July "—
that was, July, 1968—
"of his activities in this field during the past 12 months. The figures speak for themselves."
My Lords, indeed they do, because the figures are that:
"during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1968, the security officer moved a total of 752 caravans in 161 operations. Details are attached."
Attached to this document there are three foolscap pages itemising the day-to-day activities of this security officer in moving these people as quickly as possible.
The report continued:
"During the previous 12 months 1,456 caravans were removed in 251 operations."
672
It then went on to set out the expenses incurred by way of salary for this security officer—car allowance, hire of tractor and the like—and the figures were these: in 1964–65, £1,069, and in the three following years, £958, £1,480 and £1,647. It is an almost Dickensian document, is it not? Here are these people, as a deliberate act of policy, being harassed and driven from these sites on which they settle. The policy of the borough is "to evict the trespassers as quickly as possible" and to this end they have employed this retired police officer.
Then it goes on to say this—and I suggest that this is the answer to the noble Viscount when he talks about the local authorities to-day having the power to provide sites for these people if they so wish. These are the words of the town clerk:
"The council realise that eviction does not solve the problem, and last year they agreed to provide a properly equipped site on an experimental basis providing other local authorities in the area would do the same. Some councils did not agree with this policy, and not unnaturally this borough decided that they were not prepared to act in isolation."
That is the dilemma in which these authorities stand.
I will not trouble your Lordships with any further quotations. Indeed, I think it would be more profitable if I were to invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to consider one or two questions. Will the Government look at their figures again? Will they tell us whether they have themselves tried to make some assessment of the extent of this wasteful and indeed almost penal expenditure in which all local authorities and public bodies, police and the rest, are involved? The Gipsy Council, as the noble Lord will know, last year attempted to make some estimate as to what this wasteful expenditure was going to amount to during the winter months through which we are now passing. The noble Lord may recollect that their estimate at that time was that the monthly expenditure of this sort, all thrown away, might be something in the neighbourhood of £100,000. That figure may be wholly wrong—I do not know—but it is impossible for people who do not have the facilities that the Government have to form any certain conclusion.

673
What I should like to ask the Minister is this. Have the Government made their own assessment of the cost, and, if so, what relation does that bear, what proportion does that bear, to the overall cost of the implementation of this Act over the years? If they have made an assessment, may I ask what factors they have taken into consideration; how their calculations have been worked out? If they have made an assessment, may we be told what conclusions they have arrived at? If, on the other hand, they have not made an assessment, would they undertake to make one, and to make one urgently, so that we may all know what are the true facts and to what extent the implementation of this Act would involve the incurring of a real financial liability?
The other question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. If the answer is going to be, "No; we cannot undertake to implement this Act now", is he prepared to give us a date when the Government might feel able to implement it? Because unless we can get an early date—and I mean by that a date within the next two or three months—it is absolutely certain that the situation next winter will be almost precisely what it is now. Indeed, I should have thought (I do not know very much about these things) that in the winter after that almost the same conditions will be prevailing because of all the preliminary steps which have to be taken before the Act can be brought into effect.
My Lords, I apologise for taking so long. Let me finish by saying that I recognise, as of course we all recognise, that this country and the Government are faced with grave problems of assimilating and integrating minority groups into society. It may well be that, because of political pressures and political tension and excitement, greater priority is being given to some of these minority groups than is being given to others. But would it not be very wrong, when we are spending money at all upon the integration of minority groups, for us to put at the end of the queue these people, the gipsies, who have been here with us for centuries and whose plight has not been becoming better, but becoming progressively worse, during the course of this century?
8.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I apologise because I was not present at the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but I want to support his persuasive and compassionate speech and his plea to the Government to implement Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to this as a matter of first priority and as a belated Act of reparation; and I find myself in agreement with those words and in agreement with the two questions he has put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
At this hour I shall be as brief as possible. I wanted to put three points before your Lordships. I have seen in Hertfordshire something of the problem of gipsy encampments. I know the careful thought and planning that has been given to this problem by a number of influential people in the county: by councillors, by the police, by social workers, by the Hertfordshire Council for Social Service, and others. I know, too, the strong local resistance that can be met when plans are under discussion for a gipsy encampment. I understand the hopes of the planners and the fears of the people who see a threat to their locality. I am well aware that on this subject a speaker needs to choose his words with care, and I shall attempt to do so.
I have tong felt some responsibility in this field, and though I claim no expert knowledge I wish to make these three points. I hope this debate will encourage local authorities to be more active. Section 6 makes the point that:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority…so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area".
A few local authorities, certainly, deserve our thanks, and it is well that our thanks should be given to them. Before coming on to that, though, I wish to distinguish between the two classes that come under this section to whom the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has already referred: the gipsies—the people of Romany blood with a high standard of morals and hygiene—and the didekei, the Romanies who marry outside the tribe and the travellers of various origins, including

675
Irish tinkers and travelling scrap merchants. Coming to the first group, the gipsies, I visited a gipsy site and went over their caravans. A retired police officer was in charge of this small settlement and he took me round. I was impressed by the whole site, by its high standard of cleanliness and order and the obvious happiness of the wives and mothers. I visited the site on Derby Day and, not surprisingly, all the men were away on Epsom Downs.
I believe we need to be imaginative, particularly when we come to the didekei, to the travellers. We have to try to see the problem of accommodation through their eyes, and to encourage and educate them to behave responsibly when accommodation is found for them. A useful experiment is being made here in one of the boroughs in Hertfordshire, where a site was provided for six families of Irish travellers living in caravans. I believe it is still the only site of its kind in the country. A piece of council land, well screened and handy to the town, was made available. There were six fenced plots, with water and a chemical closet; there was a car park; there was a children's playground. Then, the Simon Community Trust was taking an interest in the site. This Trust, a voluntary organisation as your Lordships know, which takes care especially of people whom society is inclined to reject, provided two volunteers to work and live on the site. They live in their own caravan and they help the travellers with their social problems, their personal relationships, their adjustments. I believe that such an experiment is to be much commended, but I think it will work only if there are well qualified people at hand regularly to befriend the gipsies. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to the non-status of gipsies, "a little better than outcasts", he said. If we can have these small experiments they will lose that sense of being unwanted and outcast; and what one authority is doing I hope this debate will encourage other authorities to attempt.
I come now to my second reason for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It is only when adequate accommodation is provided that the other problems can be faced with some hope of success—the control, for instance, of unauthorised
676
encampments, to which the Act refers. Of course some of these places are eyesores. We know them well, and they tax the patience of those who live in the neighbourhood and of the police. I appreciate the problem, but I do not think it can be solved by the process of keeping people on the move—and keeping people on the move can lead to keeping people on the run. Adequate accommodation needs to be found, and I hope that some of the points that have been made—the possibility of providing semi-permanent sites in the very near future—will be considered by the Government.
I have referred to the position in Hertfordshire, and now may I mention something of the position in Bedfordshire. In a Bedfordshire local paper last week there was a complaint which illustrated the situation we face continually. There is an encampment by one of the main roads on land which is a catchment area for the drinking water supply of many villages. Local fears have been expressed that with no proper sanitation there is a possibility that this encampment will pollute the water supply; and this is an appeal which goes home to the people in the district strongly and widely. The Buckinghamshire Water Board has asked the Bedfordshire County Council to move the gipsies off the site. And so it goes on, pressure from one authority or another, for a good reason or not so good reason, to keep these people moving. Therefore we reach the position to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has referred, with a local security officer with 161 eviction operations in the year; and we find the unhappy state of affairs continuing. We need a lead from the Government if local authorities are to take appropriate action.
I come to my last point, a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which concerns the children of these people. We shall not make substantial progress with improving conditions for gipsies until we face the clear connection that exists between this rejected minority of adults and the kind of lives these adults had to lead when they were children. As children they were often being evicted; they often grew up thinking of the authorities, the police and others, as their enemies; through no fault of their own, they grew up illiterate; they were not trained to

677
qualify for well-paid and interesting jobs; they were treated as vagrants. Is it surprising that they cannot, without solid and sustained outside help, overcome the difficulties that face them when they attempt to settle in an area? What chance has anyone of education, of benefiting from the National Health Service or of going to church, if he is continually on the move? From the camp site I visited on Derby Day, because the parents were settled, and because their local parson visited them regularly, a dozen or so gipsy children, of varying ages, had recently been baptised in the parish church.
As has been said, we are more conscious in these clays of our duty to act responsibly to men and women of other races. Africans and Asiatics are more in our minds and more on our consciences. But long before they came in numbers to this country gipsies were here, and we have neglected them and their children shamefully. I hope that this short debate will encourage the Government now to implement Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, or at any rate to get on with the planning, so that even if it is to be only the provision of sub-standard sites in the next year or so, at any rate something is done to meet this urgent need. My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
8.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given by my noble friend's Question to have another look at the situation of the gipsies and see in what respects it has changed, if at all, since we passed the Caravan Sites Act, and what relevance those changes, if any, have on whether or not the Government ought to bring Part II of that Act into effect. As all noble Lords remember, the Government said, when the Bill was going through, that we could not bring it into effect at that moment because the economic circumstances made it unjustifiable to lay extra burden on the local authorities when we were all the time urging them not to spend any more money than they were doing, and in fact not permitting them to spend more money than they were doing, on the full range of their services.
What is the present situation of the gipsies? During the passage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Willis, suggested
678
that there was likely to be terrible hardship for many travelling people this winter. I do not think the hardship has been any more terrible than it was in the winter before, or indeed in the winter before that. There continue to be evictions and moving on, very much to the Government's regret. It is, I have to inform the House, impossible to be sure whether there is more eviction and more moving on: statistics do not exist. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to send me the copy of the letter read about the borough which he did not name with the very high record of pushing around.
To look at the other side of the question, there are now 27 sites provided for gipsies by local authorities, compared with 13 in 1967. So that gives one a doubling of the number of sites in the country in only two years. I do not know whether the total will continue to double every two years. I very much hope that it will, but one cannot be sure. Therefore, there is the fact that the gipsies, so far as proper sites provided by local authorities are concerned, are now twice as well off as they wore two years ago.
Then there are 16 more firm proposals for local authority sites that have got as far as application for planning permission, and beyond that we know of quite a few more coming along where they have not yet got that far. It is encouraging to see from Press reports of local discussions about sites—here I can only relate an impression; but it is an impression I have—that the need for sites and the plight of gipsies are increasingly understood. Of course one still gets objections, and they are often totally unreasonable objections, to applications to provide gipsy sites. But we certainly have the impresion that now we more often find people moving in the opposite direction. More people are realising that the gipsies have to go somewhere, and that it is an insufficient contribution to public debate to say, "Well, let them go somewhere else". The voices of such people are heard increasingly.
It is not only in connection with sites where there is progress to report. Some local authorities, including some who do not yet provide any sites, are already taking water and refuse collection to the gipsies who have settled on waste land.

679
It is the opposite approach. You get an unauthorised and unwelcome settlement of gipsies on waste land. Some local authorities move them on; others take water and refuse collection to them in return for payment. I think it is clear that progress in establishing sites is much less than we want it to be, much less than we would ask for it to be and much less than it will be when we bring the Act into effect. Yet the situation of the gipsies has not perceptibly deteriorated this winter, nor has it perceptibly improved.
I fully agree with what has been said, that of course the most urgent and deplorable part of their present situation is not getting the children to school. I am not sure that it is as many as 6,000. I have here a figure of 4,000; but at any rate it is far too many children to have not at school. Now if I may turn to one or two particular points made—
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point I should like to get one thing clear. This Bill was introduced, as we all know, to deal with what was generally admitted to be an appalling hardship in respect of the gipsies. Part II was deferred and not brought into effect not because the Government thought that there was insufficient hardship, but because they said they had not got the money. Is the noble Lord now telling us that he will not bring Part II into operation until he has evidence that the gipsies have hardship, or more hardship?
LORD KENNET: No, indeed; I was not telling the House that, and I shall not be telling the House that. I was saying that our impression was that the amount of hardship suffered by the gipsies was not increasing nor was it decreasing. I was repeating what was said both in this House and in another place at the time of the passage of the Bill, that Part II will be brought into effect as soon as there is money to do it, as soon as the economic circumstances permit a further upswing in local authority expenditure on this as well as other good purposes not related to the question of proving more hardship.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised the question of Circulars, and asked whether we would follow up our
680
Circular of 1966 with another one. We have twice followed up that Circular with others. One in October, 1967, says:
"The Minister and the Secretary of State emphasised that needless moving on of gipsy families from one area to another should not take place".
This is firm language for a Circular to local authorities. Then there was a Circular dated August, 1968, which said:
"The Ministers have repeatedly emphasised that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on from place to place"
and again
"local authorities in whose area need has been shown to exist the Minister hopes will go ahead with arrangements for providing sites, whether on a permanent or a temporary basis. The problems facing gipsies in winter are immense. Loan sanction applications, whether for such proposals or for permanent provisions will be sympathetically considered".
The Government's policy in this is perfectly clear. It is to say to the local authorities: "You have the power to provide sites. We will give you loan sanction if your proposal is anything like a proper one. For heaven's sake! get ahead and do it." We say that to them at yearly intervals; some do, some do not. Lord Colville was perfectly right in saying that it is a question of turning a power into a duty. The power is there and has been there for some time.
There is also the question of what standard sites ought they to provide. Our thought traditionally has always been that only the best is good enough. But I am wondering whether this is necessarily so, and I am inclined to think that the Government ought to give loan sanction for the kind of economy style site, without necessarily a separate tap for each pitch and without the very high standards which can be imagined. I think this would be done if a local authority were to come forward and say: "Let us have a cheapish site, on the cheap in the right place". They will get loan sanctions if the place is right, just as much as if they were to come forward and say, "Let us have a site with more modern comforts". I think that also answers the point made by the right reverend Prelate about a lead from the Government. These Circulars are the lead. They are the best lead we can give until the Act is brought into effect.
I turn now to the remarks made by Lord Foot about cost. He asked me:

681
have the Government tried to assess the diture takes place, and that is where evictions in large measure tend to present expenditure? He gave, if I may say so, a vivid account of the wasteful expenditure which is undertaken by certain local authorities in pushing these people about. I want to give him an exact answer to his question: have we tried to assess present expenditure? We have. Have we succeeded in doing so? Not very well, I am afraid. It is not possible to be certain what the local expenditure is because in most local authorities where anything is spent on this it is hidden in other expenditures. Somebody is sent out; it is part of his salary; it is part of the petrol for the tractor of the local authority, anyhow, whatever it may be. Only a very small number employ an identifiable person like the retired police officer referred to by Lord Foot.
Lord Foot mentioned the Gipsy Council and their figure of £100,000 per month throughout the country for moving on the gipsies, and he asked whether our assessment bore that out or whether it gave a different impression. I would say—with tremendous reservations, because our assessment is extremely approximate; it is indeed hypothetical—no, it does not bear out that figure, or anything like it. Lord Foot himself referred to a local authority which was spending £1,600 a year. That is a borough, I assume, which has a bad gipsy problem. There may be about 24 boroughs in the country which have a bad gipsy problem. Let us assume, wholly for the sake of argument and hypothetically, that they are each spending £1,600 a year on this problem—that might not be far out. Your Lordships will see that that takes us to about £30,000 or £35,000 a year, a long way indeed from the £1,200,000 a year postulated by the Gipsy Council. I need hardly add that if we thought there was any truth whatever in the Gipsy Council figure we would bring the Act into effect, because it would probably be a saving of money to do it in that way, besides providing all the social advantages for the gipsies.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he considers only the county boroughs?
LORD KENNET: Because experience shows that that is where the expen-
682
take place, They have the bulk of the problem. I readily admit that one should count in urban districts and possibly counties as well, but it is still a long way from their £1,200,000 a year. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the figures and calculations. I do not state them; I suggest them to the House; and let me repeat that these are hypothetical in the extreme. But if there were any question of the expense being up to the level suggested by the Gipsy Council, it would put a totally different complexion on the matter.
I turn now to the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Willis. His point that if Parliament had wanted to leave this matter to the local authorities they would have said so and not passed the Bill has, I think, been fully answered already by Lord Colville. If they had wanted the Bill to go into effect at once they would have said so, and not left it to the Minister. Lord Willis said the present situation of the gipsies was "a national scandal". For myself, I do not find that expression very much exaggerated, but I would point out that if it is a national scandal it is one that has been going on for an extremely long time. The same language as Lord Willis has used was used in the 16th century. You will find the same evictions and the same hardships for the last 400 years. I would repeat what I said when we were talking about the Bill. All we are talking about is: do we come to a great new drive for a new system for the gipsies in the 400th or 401st year they have been here? Although it is a bitter matter it is not one that is in any way new.
Lastly, Lord Willis said that he hoped the Government were not going to use the "rotten, shabby argument" about not having enough money to do it. I put that rough phrase down to his fiery generosity of soul, and I do not complain about it. It is not a "rotten, shabby argument". I believe it is the usual sort of grey and boring assessment of economic possibilities. Lord Willis said that if I were not a member of the Government I should be up there making his speech. I would say to him that if he were, he would be down here making mine.

  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS: STOLEN DOGS AND CATS
  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS: STOLEN DOGS AND CATS