Sitting of 9 July 1969

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

    Concorde Aircraft
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Technology what percentage of the cost of the research and development of the Concorde was dollar expenditure; and what was the actual figure.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Expenditure on sub-contracts with American firms accounts for about £15 million, or about 2 per cent. of the total estimate of £730 million for the extra-mural development programme.
    Mr. Jenkins: While the percentage falls, does not the amount indicate the enormous level to which the costs of this aircraft have escalated since the original estimate of £150 million put forward by right hon. Gentlemans opposite? Will my right hon. Friend say whether or not the £1,000 million figure is already in sight?
    Mr. Benn: I do not think that the percentage of American equipment in Concorde has been affected by the escalation, although the total cost will be. I have dealt previously in the House with the figure of £1,000 million that has been quoted. I think that people have been confusing production finance with R. and D.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Technology whether the routes for testing the sonic boom of the Concorde prototypes have yet been decided.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further
    1330
    statement about the conditions under which the Concorde prototypes will be tested for sonic boom.
    Mr. Bean: Concorde's boom will be measured as one of the aircraft's characteristics during the flight test programme. The routes for flight tests at supersonic speed have not yet been decided.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend make quite certain that when these routes are determined, flights will take place over populated areas so that people can experience the nature of the sonic boom for themselves?
    Mr. Benn: The object of the flight tests is not to test public reaction to the boom but to test the aircraft's capability with a view to providing performance guarantees for potential customers. The attitude which Governments may adopt towards over-flight by supersonic aircraft is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and not for me.
    Mr. Rankin: Can we take it that Concorde will be flown at appropriate speeds over whatever areas are necessary to promote safe utilisation of the supersonic aircraft?
    Mr. Benn: We are now considering what would be the right route path for this aircraft. We have to take into account the desirability, on the one hand, of minimising disturbance and, on the other hand, of providing a route path which keeps the aircraft within radar cover and other necessary services. This means that parts of straight flights for supersonic testing are bound to be over land.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what further information e has obtained of the noise level of Concorde at take-off, at landing and in subsonic flight; and how this level compares with that of four-engine jet aircraft at present in commercial service.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): We have not yet had sufficient noise measurements on the prototype aircraft to draw firm conclusions on Concorde's noise levels in operation. It remains our aim to ensure that Concorde's engine noise should be no greater than that of existing subsonic jets.
    Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he therefore assure the House that as a result of the flights so far undertaken there is no reason to suppose that this aim will not be achieved?
    Mr. Mallalieu: On the flights so far there is no reason to suppose that.
    Mr. Molloy: Can my hon. Friend say what liaison exists between his Department and the Board of Trade for contacting local authorities concerned about the increasing noise of aircraft, particularly in those areas which have large airports in their vicinity?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The liaison between my Department and the Board of Trade is very close on all these matters.
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Technology what discussions he is currently having with the French Government to ensure that there will be no slowing down of the Concorde programme, in view of the possibility that United States aircraft manufacturers may decide to construct a supersonic aircraft to operate at a lower mach number than hitherto contemplated, which would be available earlier than anticipated, and in more direct competition with Concorde.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology what consultations he has had with the French Government about the slowing down of the Concorde programme; and what has been the outcome.
    Mr. Benn: I hope to meet the French Minister of Transport shortly to discuss the Concorde programme.
    Mr. Corfield: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the effect of the apparent slowing down at the moment on the labour requirements and labour problems in the Rolls-Royce Bristol Engine Division and the B.A.C.?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot at the moment because the production programme is the one that has to be discussed. Obviously, the slowing down of the programme due to delay in first flight has itself created a problem that was not anticipated earlier. My discussions with the French Minister are designed to look at the production programme and the phasing of it, in which one is balanc-
    1332
    ing on the one hand the desirability of maintaining a steady flow of work for employment and economic reasons against the risk of investing too much in full production before one knows the ordering position which one will get.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Paris Air Show I was able to consult various Frenchmen engaged at present in the production of Concorde and that all of them assured me that they would be dismayed by a slowing down in her rate of growth?
    Mr. Benn: I think there is no doubt that anyone engaged in building Concorde wants to see the green light flashing whether on this side of the Channel or the other, but the question which M. Mondon and I have to consider is what is the right rate of production, given that there has been some slowing down of the programme.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any major redesign of Concorde, for instance the incorporation of small nose wings, which may slow down production?
    Mr. Benn: The problem in all aircraft and advanced projects is the point at which one freezes the design and the effect of this on performance on the one hand and cost on the other. I think there is the right rate of development at the moment. I think the position as it stands between the French Minister and myself on this is clearly understood. I recently made a statement on cost aspects which have important elements in this.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rolls-Royce Company has recently established a further team of research into the whole question of noise? Is not this an indication that we cannot rush forward in relation to this project until the whole matter of noise has been settled?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, of course, the new high technology engines which Rolls-Royce has been producing include the RB211, which it sold to Lockheeds last year, which have a distinct noise advantage over the older types of engine. This, unfortunately, has not got an application in the supersonic field, but I agree entirely that broadly social costs and the

    1333
    technological implications in trying to overcome them must be taken into account when projects are authorised.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what further discussions he has had with the manufacturers of Concorde in respect of the estimated sales of this aircraft and the prices at which the aircraft and its spares and replacements will be offered to airline operators.
    Mr. Benn: The prospective sales and the selling price of Concorde are regularly reviewed with the manufacturers.
    Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his opinion that the ultimate sales of this aircraft will to some degree be related to the price that is charged to the airlines? When does he expect B.A.C. to be able to indicate the price it hopes to charge the operators so that we may get some idea of how many of these options will actually end up as orders?
    Mr. Benn: That is what the flight testing programme is designed to find out, but it is not possible to quote a price absolutely firmly and certainly not to publicise prices curently being discussed. The market will respond in part to the price, but this may not be quite as big a feature of the ultimate market as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in part the price for this aircraft can be achieved if it reaches the market early enough to compete in world markets and so uphold the traditions of our aircraft industry?
    Mr. Benn: There is no doubt about it that the capacity of this aircraft, as with every other aircraft, to get the market will depend in part on its being there on time. To this extent we have an advantage over the nearest competitors. This should help us, but it does not encourage us to relax our efforts.
    Sir C. Osborne: What proportion of the colossal sum we have already spent on development does the Minister expect we shall recover through sales?
    Mr. Benn: It greatly depends on the market for the aircraft. Therefore, I cannot say this with any certainty at this time. Until the options are converted into orders and Concorde enters into
    1334
    service, and until we know when the American competitor will be coming along, we could not answer that authoritatively. But we are not expecting to get back all the money we have put into the research and development. I think this has been understood.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology if he will specify the date by which a firm decision is to be taken to proceed with the financing of Concorde production; and whether this date is accepted by the French Government.
    Mr. Ellisasked the Minister of Technology if he will now allow the production of Concordes for airline service to go ahead.
    Mr. Benn: Manufacture of the first three production aircraft is already under way. We are currently discussing with the firms and the French Government the programme for the subsequent aircraft.
    Mr. Onslow: By what date must a decision be taken on the fourth production aircraft onwards? How are these to be financed? Is it under the Industrial Expansion Act? What rate of interest is currently being charged?
    Mr. Benn: The finance that will be provided for the production will be handled under the Industrial Expansion Act, and the negotiations are proceeding. This is at the going rate. As to the date, there is no doubt that the firms involved would like to have a measure of certainty as early as they can, but the Governments, particularly the new French Government, which has just acquired responsibility for the project, want time to think about the right production programme. I am discussing it with them.
    Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in connection with the financing of the aircraft that one of the reasons for the escalation of cast is the multiplication of modifications? Will he ensure that the modifications are kept within reasonable limits?
    Mr. Benn: It is true that when one introduces modifications one tends to increase cost, but they are normally introduced for very good reasons, principally to ensure that the published payload is achieved.
    Mr. Corfield: When the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his negotiations with his opposite number in France, will he make the information available to the House?
    Mr. Benn: I certainly shall. I have not fixed the date when I shall visit M. Mondon. He needs a little time to settle in. I have a direct interest in this myself, and I will ensure that the House knows.

    Carbon Fibres
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Technology if he will use his powers under the Industrial Expansion Act to secure rapid development under public ownership of carbon fibre technology.
    Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows, discussions are already in hand on the possibility of expanding production. No proposal involving the use of public funds has arisen.
    Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend will know that the major break-through in this technology occurred in two publicly-owned and publicly-financed research institutions of international reputation. Would it not be appropriate, since in the opinion of those qualified to know this could be a very fast growth industry, that the taxpayer should now make an investment in something which could pay off handsomely?
    Mr. Benn: The provisions of the various Acts, including the Industrial Expansion Act, are available if required, but the success that we shall achieve with carbon fibre depends on our finding a market for it, and applying it in areas in which, of course, a number of firms have expertise, and it would be wrong to exclude them from the exploitation of something which would be of benefit to the economy and, indeed, to the taxpayer through royalty payments.
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Technology what is his policy for the future of carbon fibre technology; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Minister of Technology when he plans to make a statement on the Report on Carbon Fibres, House of Commons Paper No. 157.
    Mr. Benn: Discussions are already in hand between I.C.I. and N.R.D.C. on the possibility of I.C.I. building a large carbon fibre plant.
    I expect very shortly to reply officially to the Select Committee, outlining my policy for carbon fibre technology in the light of its report.
    Mr. Neave: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the progress, may I ask what the rôle of the N.R.D.C. will be in this matter? Is he not averse to having too many middlemen in such a negotiation? Does not he appreciate the urgency of building this plant?
    Mr. Benn: I would not regard the N.R.D.C. as a middleman for this purpose. It has great experience of handling licences of this kind. It was set up in 1948 to do this kind of job. I am reluctant to undertake tasks best undertaken by others with experience in the field concerned. It is better to leave it to them.
    Mr. Parkyn: In view of the report that a Japanese firm is to build a carbon fibre plant with a capacity of about 150 tons a year, is my right hon. Friend aware that we are particularly delighted to know that he is going to support very fully the policy of putting up a major plant early in this country?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows our interest and also that the development of applications for carbon fibre plays a very large part in this matter. But, as in many other areas, this is a question not just of being in advance with the latest technology but of having a market intelligent enough to use it to its fullest opportunity.
    Mr. Lubbock: What issues are to be left to the negotiations between N.R.D.C. and I.C.I.? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, this is a matter of urgency? Will he guarantee to make a statement before the House rises for the recess?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot guarantee to make a statement before I have one to make. Clearly, in the discussions there are many commercial considerations which the firm itself has to take into account, as does the N.R.D.C. I will keep the House informed, as it is reasonable to do.
    Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existing I.C.I. industrial complex on Tees-side provides ample space for such a plant?
    Mr. Benn: I will bear that in mind, along with all the many telephone calls I received on the day the Select Committee's Report came out from people who have similar ideas about other parts of the country.

    Fluidics
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Technology what action is being taken by his Department to overcome the lack of development in British industry of the application of fluidics.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministery of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The Department is seeking to encourage the greater use of fluidics in industrial applications by offering financial support for projects; by a series of conferences at Cranfield; by lectures, courses and permanent demonstrations at the low-cost automation centres; by the dissemination of technical literature; and by making films.
    Mr. Hooley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What action is he taking to concentrate the number of firms which are actually involved in this work?
    Dr. Bray: There are not so many firms involved for this to be a problem.

    Electronics Industry
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Technology what action he plans to take to reorganise the British electronics industry in order to increase its export potential.
    Dr. Bray: The export potential of the British electronics industry has been increased by the substantial reorganisations that have already taken place. As opportunity occurs for further changes, we shall continue to support proposals which will benefit the competitiveness of British products.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, compared with West German industry, our organisation militates against exports? There they have standard catalogues, in which all the firms
    1338
    advertise. They have standard interfaces, which means that all their equipment is interchangeable. We do not have this. Will my hon. Friend look at this subject again, and see whether a similar pattern can be employed here?
    Dr. Bray: I shall be very happy to look at the point to which my hon. Friend draws attention. We have a very far-reaching scheme in preparation with both France and Germany precisely on standards for electronic components.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister think that if he did as his hon. Friend wishes it would have a reverse effect? Would it not be better if the Government did not interfere with this industry, since it is producing a considerable amount of exports to the benefit of the country as a whole?
    Dr. Bray: I do not think that the industry regards itself as being interfered with in any way at all. It is indeed, an enthusiastic supporter of the development of wider uses of standards.

    Oil Pollution
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Technology what research is being done by his Department into the problem of oil pollution of Great Britain's beaches; and what results are now available for immediate, practical application.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerald Fowler): Research, co-ordinated by the Warren Spring Laboratory, is in progress on removing oil from beaches, the sinking of oil at sea, the use of booms to protect estuaries, and the problems of burning oil in a wrecked tanker. Two thousand copies of the Warren Spring Laboratory's recommendations on beach cleaning have been sent to all coastal local authorities, and several demonstrations have been given.
    Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad to know that research establishments under his Department are contributing to the solution of this horrible problem. Can he give an assurance that the members of staff employed by his research establishments are not in any way inhibited from producing solutions of their own and have an opportunity of presenting those solutions to him?
    Mr. Fowler: No such inhibitions exist.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The list which the hon. Gentleman has given is a great deal shorter than that contained in Appendix 33 to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Will he consider giving an up-to-date report on the progress made on the various projects listed in that Appendix?
    Mr. Fowler: The rule for length of Parliamentary Answers is different from that covering appendices to Reports by Select Committees, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that possibly the best research to prevent pollution would be a spot of research into those responsible for it?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    V.T.O.L. Civil Aircraft
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what is the present position of the study of the vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft at present being made by his Department.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 16th April and 21st May. Firms are working on definition studies for three types of vertical take-off aircraft. Preliminary reports are expected in the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 1130–1 and 1132–3; Vol. 784, c. 419 and 430–1.]
    Mr. Fortescue: Since we already have a commanding lead in the techniques of v.t.o.l. on the military side, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that every urgency is being given to this side and that we are not likely to lose this lead because of procrastination in his Department?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I consider this matter just as important as does the hon. Member. We are pressing on very fast, but it is a complex problem.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would it not be desirable if my hon. Friend could divert some of the money being wasted on Concorde to this project, which, as the
    1340
    hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said, is extremely important and urgent?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I would not accept that money is being wasted on Corcorde.

    A300 Aircraft (British Engine)
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Technology what negotiations are taking place with the A300 consortium with a view to securing continued co-operation with Hawker Siddeley and the provision of a British engine.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Hawker Siddeley Aviation is actively negotiating terms with Sud Aviation and Deutsche Airbus for continuing participation in the A300B project. Rolls-Royce has offered to supply a version of the RB211 engine.
    Mr. Corfield: Is it true that the version of the RB211 offered by Rolls-Royce is the same as that offered for the Lockheed 1011 Transcontinental version offered to one of the Canadian airlines? If so, is it such an advance on the ordinary 211 that it will need launching aid?
    Mr. Mallalieu: It has similar characteristics. The possibility of further launching aid would have to be considered.

    Motor Industry
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology in view of the decline in output of motor-cars for home sales in the half-year ended 30th June, 1969, whether he will make a statement on the prospects for production and employment in the motor industry during the remainder of 1969.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated production of passenger cars for home and export markets, respectively, for the year to date; what percentage change these figures show over the corresponding period for 1968; and if he will make a statement on the expected levels of demand during the remainder of this year.
    Mr. Fowler: Total production in the 22 weeks to 31st May, 1969 was 778,232, comprising 403,462 for the home market and 374,770 for export. The weekly average production rate, compared with the 21 weeks to 25th May, 1968, was

    1341
    4 per cent. lower in total, the decline being largely attributable to losses caused by industrial disputes and a 12½ per cent. fall in home market production being partly offset by a 7 per cent. rise in export production. Total production in 1969 is expected to be about 5½ per cent. below the level achieved in 1968. No significant change in employment in the industry is expected in the second half of 1969.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the Minister know that motor car production for the home market is now at the lowest level since 1962 and is running at a rate of less than 1 million vehicles for the home market per annum, notwithstanding that export sales for the first time in our history are exceeding home sales? How does he expect export price competitiveness to be maintained if he goes on denigrating the home market?
    Mr. Fowler: I was not aware that I had ever denigrated anything. The hon. Member's question might just as well have been phrased, "Is the Minister aware that export production is now running at record levels?" We have at last achieved the switch of resources into exporting which many Governments have sought to achieve.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the great advantages of the present policy dictated by the Chicago school concerning money supply is that one can do without the peripheral controls like the existing hire-purchase controls? Will he therefore recommend to his colleagues in the Treasury that as some token of concern over the decline in the home market motor car trades' sales they should scrap hire-purchase controls?
    Mr. Fowler: I am in constant touch with the industry; so is my right hon. Friend. We watch the position very closely. Questions on hire-purchase controls must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Should not the British motor industry, like its German competitors, make even greater efforts to concentrate in the export field; for, despite the argument about unit costs, concentration in the home market leads to a complacent attitude?
    Mr. Fowler: I have been delighted to see the export successes of the British motor industry since November, 1967; and I congratulate the industry on these. What is notable is that in many markets the industry has now secured a sufficient volume of sales to make export sales much more profitable, because the overheads of maintenance and sales organisations in those countries are spread more widely.
    Mr. David Price: I am sure that the whole House is delighted with the success of the industry in the export field, but does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree or disagree with the opinion of the "Little Neddy" on the motor industry that a large, stable home market is an important factor in maintaining both profitability and international competitiveness?
    Mr. Fowler: None of us doubts that the motor industry requires a large and stable home market, but what we would want to argue about, and where there is not complete agreement, is how large is large and what is the degree of stability required.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the proposed penalties for over-estimates in the pre-production stage of the multi-rôle combat aircraft, designed to lessen the risk of attempts by one nation to gain a larger share of the contracts.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I cannot give details of the confidential arrangements made with our partners, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a country overestimating its aircraft requirements in order to gain more than its due share of work in the early stages of the project and subsequently reducing them will suffer a financial penalty.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of details, how can we be persuaded that this is a carefully worked out and costed contract?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think it is impossible for my hon. Friend to decide that in the absence of details. We have the details, and we are fully satisfied.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology whether he will seek the agreement of the Governments of

    1343
    Germany, Italy, and Holland to ensure that the Panavia Company, comprising the British Aircraft Corporation, Messerschmitt-Boeklow, Fiat and Fokker, should restrict tenders for the engine of the proposed European multi-rôle combat aircraft to European firms.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: A competition for this engine is already under way and tenders have been invited from Rolls-Royce and the American firm Pratt and Whitney. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 14th May when he made his statement to the House, we believe that Rolls-Royce will win this competition on merit.—[Vol. 783, c. 1411–17.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Would I be right in supposing that part of the purpose of the M.R.C.A. is to sustain a viable European aircraft industry? If by chance Rolls were not to win it, would there be any point in our continuing in the project?
    Mr. Mallalieu: In that event, which I consider to be hypothetical, it certainly would not be a European aeroplane.
    Mr. Lubbock: Why do not we in Europe impose a penalty on American aeroplane manufacturers who are trying to compete, in Europe, analogous to the penalties which are imposed on British manufacturers trying to compete in the United States? In other words, why do we not insist that there should be a certain percentage cost advantage before we are willing to buy an American engine?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That is something for consideration, but I would much prefer to impose the penalty of greater efficiency.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend care to ponder the implications of his statement that if the Americans were to win this contract it would no longer be a European aircraft? Surely the whole object of the exercise is to devise a system whereby the European aviation industry will remain viable?
    Mr. Mallalieu: It is not the whole object. The object is to get a plane which the air forces of various countries need for the future.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the ordering of the avionics for this -aircraft is every bit as
    1344
    important as the ordering of the engines, and that it is very important that these should be European, in which the British avionics industry has a very strong stake?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This point is very much in our minds, and is being kept there by the House of Commons.

    Uranium
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated demand for uranium by the nuclear power industries in this country during the next five years; what source it will come from; and at what anticipated price.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Demand for uranium for the nuclear power programme in this country over the next five years is expected to rise from some 2,000 to some 3,500 short tons uranium oxide per annum.
    It will be met from stocks and from current imports from Canada and South Africa under long-term contracts.
    For commercial reasons prices paid under the authority's long-term contracts are not disclosed.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that figures have been published which seem to indicate that there will be difficulty in meeting the demand for uranium in the future? Is he further aware that it has been suggested that there will be a fairly drastic escalation of prices?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I know that a figure was published in the Canadian Parliament for special reasons, but I know of no suggestion that there is likely to be in the near future anything like a uranium shortage.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Technology what reports on geological surveys for uranium in Scotland he has received from organisations which have commissioned such surveys and which are in receipt of public funds.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The work has not yet advanced sufficiently to enable me to add anything to what I told the hon. Member on 27th November, 1968.—[Vol. 774. c. 494.]
    Mr. Eadie: That is a disappointing answer. In view of the exploration going on in Scotland at present, would not such finds be an additional source of wealth to the country and help to make us more self-sufficient economically? Further, what part is the Highlands and Islands Development Board playing in advancing the search for new additional mineral wealth in Scotland?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that the board is involved here. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. The survey started only last year. It is a lengthy business, and it is a five-year programme.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend say something about the researches of the Institute of Geological Science in the North of Scotland, where the story is current that interesting finds of radioactive uranium have been made?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That is one of the areas where the survey is being carried out, but so far we have no startling results.

    Ball-bearing Industry
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's plans for reorganisation of the United Kingdom ball-bearing industry.
    Mr. Benn: A basis for a viable British-owned element in the industry has now been established. A very full statement was issued by the I.R.C. on 21st May, copies of which I have put in the Library and sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. As the I.R.C. has used taxpayers' money to frustrate the bid from S.K.F., ostensibly on grounds of economic nationalism, and as the Government themselves miss no opportunity to encourage a take-over of British assets by American firms, can we take it that it is the view of the Government and their minions that any efforts to create companies of European scale which might frustrate American industrial colonisation of British assets are against British interests; and, if so, which?
    Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting a political question on a
    1346
    subject which is extremly complicated and difficult. The Government's view of inward-investment has been explained on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, we welcome it. It brings investment. It brings technology. It brings management. It creates bigger growth. However, as a Government and as a community we are bound to consider the effect of take-overs on the viability of important sections of British industry. We are guided in part in our attitude to this by the attitude of customers here who do not want to see important industries passing entirely out of British control. This was not activated by any hostility to S.K.F., as has been explained to S.K.F. both directly and indirectly.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman at least recognise that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has raised is of great importance, that where the throughput of British industry is not capable of becoming viable when in competition with overseas he must make a choice whether he wants to go in with Europe or in with America?
    Mr. Benn: In this area it is not a matter of political choice. One is looking at it industry by industry, at the nature and character of the firm concerned, and the long-term economic and balance of payments price one might pay by allowing certain critical firms to come under overseas control. However, it cannot be presented simply as a choice between Europe and the United States. It is much more complicated than that.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

    Nuclear-Powered Vessels
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in his discussions with the shipbuilding and maritime interests over the possibility of constructng nuclear-powered container and bulk cargo vessels; and when he will make a statement about the technical and financial aspects of such a venture.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the

    1347
    construction of nuclear-powered container ships.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the Shipbuilding Industry Board about the use of marine nuclear propulsion for merchant ships, in particular, container ships; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the development of systems of marine nuclear propulsion.
    Mr. Fowler: The study of the probable costs and benefits of a nuclear ship project, of which I informed the House on 15th April, is now proceeding. Information is being sought from shipbuilders, shipowners, the Shipbuilding Industry Board and others. We hope to have the first results of the study by the autumn.—[Vol. 781, c. 230.]
    Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that several shipbuilding companies, including Cammell Laird, have now submitted propoals for a feasibility study, the total cost of which would be the equivalent of the average daily escalation in costs of the Concorde during the past eight years? Would this not be an entirely appropriate method of investing funds in long-term technological innovation which might have an important bearing on our balance of payments position in the years ahead?
    Mr. Fowler: It is true that some firms have submitted proposals.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has changed greatly since the Padmore Committee reported, and that there are grounds for haste in this matter if the possibility of a class of nuclear-propelled ships is to be examined? Will he press on regardless of the fact that certain vested interests, such as the oil industry, can, obviously, have no interest in such a project?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree that the situation has changed since the Padmore Committee. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to a class of ships. We have to look here at the economics of a fleet of nuclear-propelled ships, not simply at the economics of a single ship. As for haste, I agree that we want to reach the right decision as quickly as
    1348
    possible, but it must be the right economic decision, and that is where we have to take great care.
    Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the implication of his last answer, that the study will look at the use of nuclear-powered vessels as part of a commercial fleet and not in isolation, since it is most unlikely that individually they would today be economic, but as part of a fleet the case is a good deal stronger?
    Mr. Fowler: I willingly confirm that. I think that this is where some other countries may have gone wrong, in building ships which even as part of a fleet could not be economic and certainly individually could never be economic.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology whether he will organise an international conference in Great Britain and invite to it United States, German, Japanese and British shipbuilding firms and shipping firms whch have experience in the designing and operation of nuclear-powered vessels.
    Mr. Fowler: The Department was represented at a seminar on this subject held in May by the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and we do not think that it would be useful at present for this country to organise a further international conference.
    Mr. Brooks: But will my hon. Friend confirm that at least a number of advanced industrial countries, notably Japan, apparently seem to be persuaded of the merits of pressing ahead with investment in this project, and would it not be obviously in our self-interest at least to consult them to find out why they take that view?
    Mr. Fowler: We have consulted those countries, at the seminar which I mentioned and on other occasions. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mislead the House: the Japanese have gone ahead with a nuclear-powered oceanographic survey ship. This is by no means the same sort of thing as a nuclear-powered container ship or bulk carrier.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the countries which have operated nuclear-powered vessels so far—the Americans, the Germans, the Japanese and the Russians—has sought to break even but has done it only to acquire

    1349
    experience? Before going ahead in response to the pressures put on him today, will he make sure that shipbuilding companies involved in such an enterprise would be willing to put up their own money as well as making use of the Ministry's money?
    Mr. Fowler: It is vital in a field such as this that, if a proposition is put up which can be profitable, firms should show their own confidence in its profitability by putting some of their own money at stake.

    Oceanography and Underwater Technology
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken to give support to oceanography and underwater technology; and if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's future plans in these fields.
    Mr. Fowler: Support for oceanography comes from the N.E.R.C., which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Marine technology is under constant discussion by the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee on Marine Technology which was set up in April, 1968. A number of contracts have been placed by the Department on behalf of this committee during the past year. Information about some of these has appeared in the Press, and announcements about future contracts will be made whenever appropriate.
    Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the task of contemporary Government is to try to assess the advanced industries which can be exploited commercially over a period of 10 or 15 years, and does he agree that oceanography is one such, and that it may well be that, if he can get the structure right in the Government, where two Departments are involved, we might consider this as a suitable project for co-ordination and collaboration in Europe?
    Mr. Fowler: I am interested in my hon. Friend's last proposition. It is important to distinguish the pure science aspects of oceanographic work and the part of the work which may have a payoff in economic terms, to which, perhaps, underwater technology is crucially relevant.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: How did it come about that the Committee on Marine Technology was set up nearly a year before publication of the White Paper which eventually recommended its setting up? Second, will the hon. Gentleman say why industry was not brought into it, too?
    Mr. Fowler: On the latter point, industry is consulted regularly on a firm-by-firm basis. It would be difficult, however, to have industry represented on the committee since that would mean selecting one or two firms from a range of competitors, which could only cause ill will and produce a situation in which no one would be willing to reveal all the cards in his hand. As to why the Committee was set up so early, that is merely a demonstration of how rapidly the Ministry of Technology moves.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say, in reference to the matters envisaged in this Question, what kind of support he gives—scientific or financial—and what tests he applies to ensure that both his support and public money are not wasted?
    Mr. Fowler: The support given consists in part of technical knowledge, technical expertise, but it consists also of financial support. I mentioned the contracts which the Department has placed with various outside bodies as well as Government research stations. The normal tests to make sure that the cost-benefits of such work are adequate apply in this field as in any other.

    Computers
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Technology how many computers were in use in Great Britain in 1960, 1965 and 1968; and how many he estimates will be in use in 1971.
    Dr. Bray: The numbers of computers of all kinds, other than computers used for defence purposes, in use in the United Kingdom at the end of 1960, 1965, and 1968 have been estimated at approximately 200, 1,500 and 4,000 respectively. I estimate that by the end of 1971 the corresponding figure will be over 7,000.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we are trying to advance the British computer industry and avoid buying American, these figures are still

    1351
    dismal? Does he agree that the original 1965 predictions have not been met? Therefore, will he seriously consider making representations to the industries concerned to see how we can make the best possible improvement and maintain the figure he has now given for 1971?
    Dr. Bray: I am not sure what 1965 estimates my hon. Friend is referring to, but we have successfully increased our estimates every time we have made any. As for the contribution of British manufacturers to this figure of computer usage, it is substantial. Indeed, it is greater than in any other country outside the United States. We are confident that the industry's contribution in future will be greater still.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What is the present proportion of British computers, and what is it estimated to be in 1971?
    Dr. Bray: The proportion of British-made computers is about a half, but I could not give an estimate for 1971 without notice.
    Mr. James Hamilton: is my hon. Friend aware that many computers are unnecessarily being imported? Is he aware that Honeywell in my constituency can cope with the market quite capably, and that in many cases, even with nationalised industries, it is not afforded the opportunity to tender?
    Dr. Bray: The contribution of American computer manufacturers in this country is very welcome, and the terms under which they sell their machines to the public sector have been well known for a number of years. There is no restriction on Honeywell sales to the public sector.
    Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister saying that the number of computers at present in operation in the United Kingdom exceeds that in operation in France and West Germany and Japan?
    Dr. Bray: The latest figures I can find that are in any way comparable are for 1967, and are as follows: United Kingdom, 2,600 France, 1,400: West Germany, 3,100 Italy, 1,400.
    Mr. David Price: Does not the Minister agree that numbers of computers tell us nothing? It depends entirely on the size, computing power and software pro-
    1352
    gramme. Could he not, with the industry, think of a more effective method of measuring the computing power from year to year than simply talking of numbers of computers, which are meaningless?
    Dr. Bray: We have just published figures for the turnover of computer service firms, which is a step in the direction the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, I think that the figure for total numbers of computers in use is meaningful, because there is a distribution of the different sizes in use in different countries.

    Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Technology whether he will now publish or place in the Library in advance of the next annual report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, further details of the financial forecasts on the basis of which further public money is being advanced to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Benn: I have considered this proposal very carefully but have concluded that it would not be right to do so.
    Mr. Digby: In view of the amount of public money—I believe about 48 per cent.—now invested, is not the House entitled to the same kind of information as shareholders would have, particularly in view of the rather disquieting stories of resignations, another of which is reported in the papers today?
    Mr. Bean: I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty about doing this whenever the Government do business with any firm. We have had business with the aircraft firms for a very long time without information of any kind being given to the House or authorisation sought. We now have the innovations of the Shipbuilding Industry Act and the Industrial Expansion Act, under which much more information is made available. If anybody needed to be convinced of the damage which can be done by unnecessary publicity, one need only look at the case of the firm with which we are here concerned.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us appreciate the dangers of over-exposure in the affairs of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders?

    1353
    Is he aware that he is extremely popular in Glasgow, and that he may be invited to take part in the Gorbals by-election campaign? Will he try to find out before then which Conservative voice is stating official policy?
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner we get away from the atmosphere of continuing crisis in Clydeside and back to the business of building ships the better it will be for U.C.S. and those who work for it? In view of the concern about the number of resignations, when does he expect that the gaps in its board may be filled?
    Mr. Benn: I have made it clear in the House many times that it has never been my purpose or intention to run Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. The purpose of the exercise has been to get the company to take responsibility for its own affairs, and to provide the support necessary through the Shipbuilding Industry Board.
    Mr. Rankin: As the S.I.B. has no abiding place in the shipbuilding structure, why should it have such power over Clydeside in settling its shipbuilding affairs?
    Mr. Benn: The power of the Shipbuilding Industry Board is entrusted to it by Parliament. If we did not have the board one of two things would happen. Either no support for the industry would be made available or it would be given by direct Ministerial intervention at every point. That would be highly undesirable compared with the operations of a board which has on it business men, experienced trade union members and others with the objective of creating a viable industry.

    Aircraft Manufacture (Anglo-European Co-operation)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology whether he will publish a White Paper on the experience to date of Anglo-European co-operation in aircraft manufacture.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Mainly because of the need to preserve military and commercial confidentiality, I do not think it would be helpful to publish a paper. If, however, bearing in mind these
    1354
    limits, the hon. Member has any specific points on which he desires information, I should be very ready to consider them, and, where possible, to provide the House with the answers.
    Mr. Onslow: I had hoped that the Minister might go slightly further. Is he satisfied that there are no Anglo-European projects in which additional costs have not proved excessive, or where the surrender of design leadership on the British side has not been very damaging to our future capabilities?
    Mr. Mallalieu: We have not reached the point of full-scale production on any major project, so it is very difficult to say how they are going. However, I would expect to find some increase in total costs because of collaboration, but to find the share of each country substantially lower.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the truth that the best form of Anglo-European co-operation is in marketing? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends do their best to persuade the Europeans of the merits of the Harrier?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I will persuade anybody of the merits of the Harrier at any time of the day or night. I am sure that marketing is an essential part of collaboration.

    Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.
    Mr. Fowler: Subject to any decision which may be taken as a result of the Commission of Inquiry into the siting of the third London airport, the rôle of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford, will remain as at present to carry out research in wind tunnels and in flight in support of new aerospace projects.
    Mr. Parkyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that precisely because this might be selected as the site for London's third airport there is considerable disquiet and concern about the future of the staff at the R.A.E., Bedford?
    Mr. Fowler: We are well aware of the problems and are conducting our own studies into this matter. We shall give evidence to the Roskill Commission.

    Research
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology over what period of time beyond the current financial year he is currently budgeting for the research establishments under his control.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Four years, Sir.
    Mr. Price: Do I gather that the four-year programme is a rolling programme and not static? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Treasury will guarantee to honour the commitment of this four-year programme when the actual year of expenditure is reached?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This is a rolling programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I can give no guarantee on behalf of the Treasury.
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology when he now expects to publish the White Paper on Research Policy forecast in the February, 1968, number of New Technology.
    Mr. Benn: Various developments in our research policy have already been announced; and others are under discussion. These will be made known as soon as possible.
    Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same Question as I put down on 1st April, 1968, when he said that he had decided to defer publication of a White Paper? Will he produce a White Paper some time before the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Benn: My answers have improved every time the hon. Gentleman has put down Questions to me about this matter. I discovered, in considering the question of a White Paper, that I would be imposing a rigidity on myself in that I would be unable to do things in advance of a White Paper, which would be delayed until everything was tied up. We have the A.E.A. reorganisation which is part of this; we have introduced a new scheme for industrial control of research programmes; and we have also looked at this from the point of view of the ceiling on civil developments and civil applications coming along and the rundown of military developments. Therefore, I would rather not commit myself at this
    1356
    stage as to when I would publish a White Paper.
    Mr. Moonman: While recognising the strain that a White Paper imposes on a Department, could I ask my hon. Friend whether he would consider issuing a Green Paper which would also refer to the industrial exploitation section of the Ministry, which would be helpful.
    Mr. Benn: We have considered issuing a green paper, a White Paper with green chapters and various other things. But I would prefer to do it as soon as I am able to say what should be done.

    Machine Tools
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from the machine tool industry about the current intake of orders.
    Dr. Bray: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hordern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States the figures of orders for machine tools in May were produced in June? Is there any reason why we should not issue our figures for May in June and not have to wait until the middle of July?
    Dr. Bray: We publish the figures within a week of receiving the returns from firms. My right hon. Friend has written to them asking them to speed up their returns but the response has not been good enough.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming the improvement, may I ask what attention the Ministry is giving to the fact that for the latest three months of this year our deliveries of machine tools were 9 per cent down on the previous three months? This is serious.
    Dr. Bray: One has to look over a somewhat longer period. The trend this year of deliveries has been generally upwards and will continue upwards in view of the increased order intake. In the first four months of 1969, compared with the same period in 1968, the increase was 10 per cent.
    Mr. Dalyell: Surely the shortcomings in this matter are the responsibility of the firms and not of the Government.
    Dr. Bray: We have got confused between the sending of returns and the level

    1357
    of orders and deliveries. The level of orders and deliveries is extremely satisfactory, encouraging and improving, and is much to the credit of the firms.

    Process Plant Industry
    Mr. Howieasked the Minister of Technology when he expects the Process Plant Expert Committee to report to him.
    Dr. Bray: We hope to receive the report and recommendations of the Process Plant Expert Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend in the near future.
    Mr. Howie: When my hon. Friend says "the near future", no doubt he means the future, but how near is "near"?
    Dr. Bray: Days rather than weeks.
    Mr. Howieasked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure that the process plant industry is able to meet the increased demand recently forecast by the National Economic Development Council Process Plant Working Party.
    Dr. Bray: Rationalisation among firms making process plant, including pressure vessels, pumps, valves, instruments, desalination and electrical equipment, is bearing fruit in increased efficiency and capacity. Closer contacts between makers and users are being established. Consultations will take place on further action when the report of the Process Plant Expert Committee has been received.
    Mr. Howie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a large potential export market for our process plant manufacturers? Does he think they are now in a position to seize it?
    Dr. Bray: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of this, and United Kingdom-based chemical engineering contractors have set themselves ambitious targets for exports of British-made equipment.

    Heavy Electrical Manufacturers
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Minister of Technology whether, in view of the reduced ordering by the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will take steps to increase the export activities of heavy electrical manufacturers.
    Dr. Bray: Heavy electrical manufacturers are well aware of the need to increase the proportion of their deliveries
    1358
    going overseas. Government support for the increase includes the adoption of standards suitable for overseas markets, the rationalisation of the industry, the encouragement of the use of the experience of the Central Electricity Generating Board, area boards and the Atomic Energy Authority by overseas operators and the activities of diplomatic posts.
    Mr. Rhodes: I thank my hon. Friend but will he bear in mind that in the past large producers such as Reyrolle Parsons on Tyneside have relied heavily on C.E.G.B. orders to give them a base for research and development work vital for overseas markets? In view of this, will he continue to encourage and co-ordinate and help all the companies involved in order to capture these vital markets in future?
    Dr. Bray: We are in close touch with the heavy electrical manufacturers on their programmes, and when we can join collaborative projects with them we are ready to do so.
    Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsoring Minister for this industry, have urgent discussions with the Ministry of Power to ensure that the comments of the Wilson Committee are implemented and that there is better and more even planning of power generation capital investment programmes of the electricity board?
    Dr. Bray: The recommendations of the Wilson Committee are under active discussion. I have discussed them with the major manufacturers.

    Electricity Generating and Distribution Equipment
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Minister of Technology whether he will institute a study of the world market for electricity generating and distribution equipment, with a view to ensuring that the combined efforts of the electrical manufacturers, the consultants and the Central Electricity Generating Board are being deployed to the best effect in support of British exports.
    Dr. Bray: A contract is being placed with the Science Policy Research Unit under Mr. Christopher Freeman at Sussex University on the factors significant for success in the world market for heavy electrical generating and distribution

    1359
    equipment, following the valuable survey carried out by this unit on process plant.
    Mr. Rhodes: That is an encouraging reply. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the companies involved in this work readily respond to the Government if the Government give any kind of encouragement? I hope that he will continue to work with them.
    Dr. Bray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. These companies appreciate that ways of doing business that were right in the past will not necessarily be right in the future.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTE, EASTERN REGION)
Mr. Channon(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the signal-men's dispute on the Eastern Region of British Rail.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): An unofficial three-day strike by some signalmen, which began yesterday in the Eastern Region of British Railways, has affected services in certain areas. In the London area, about 70 per cent. of commuter services using Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street, and about 50 per cent. of services using Kings Cross, were operated yesterday and this morning. Some main line passenger services from London to the North, between the North-East and the Midlands, and between Sheffield and Manchester, have been affected by strike action at Doncaster and Sheffield. There has also been some interference with freight traffic.
The action by the men involved has been taken against the advice of the National Union of Railwaymen, which has condemned the strike and is using its best endeavours to get the men back to work. The Railways Board has been talking again today with senior officials of the union and is taking all possible steps to minimise inconvenience and delay to passengers and freight.
There is no justification for this unconstitutional action and every effort is being made by British Railways and the National Union of Railwaymen to bring the strike to an end.
Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many travellers are very
1360
grateful to British Railways for their efforts, in spite of these difficulties, to provide services? Will he convey that feeling to British Railways?
However, is he aware that this is the second time within a week that he has had to tell the House about an unofficial strike seriously inconveniencing many thousands of travellers? What action does he propose to take in future to deal with these matters before rather than after the strike stage has been reached?
Mr. Marsh: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about British Railways. Dealing with a problem of this size is very difficult and I am sure that his views will be appreciated.
Both strikes were about signalmen, although the backgrounds are rather different. It is worth bearing in mind that last week's strike was intended to be a regular weekly affair. I do not want to say much about it, but it was largely as a result of the union's action that that was not so.
I do not want to minimise the inconvenience to the public, but we should not be unaware of the fact that the industrial relations record of British Railways over the last year or so has been incomparably better than it was in the past.
Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a serious matter, involving large numbers of people? Will he say precisely what help he has received from the Department of Employment and Productivity and whether the T.U.C. Strike Committee has been brought in?
Mr. Marsh: The Department of Employment and Productivity and my Ministry are very much involved in watching the situation, because negotiations are taking place jointly and action is taking place both with the employers and the National Union of Railwaymen. For that reason, the T.U.C. has not yet been invited to intervene, because we ought to see whether the N.U.R. can repeat its undoubted earlier success.
Sir S. McAdden: I join in the tributes which have been rightly paid to all grades of railway staff who have tried to help to ease this very difficult situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last train from Fenchurch Street this evening will leave at 6.45 and that many groups

1361
of employees, such as those engaged on shift work, newspaper workers, workers in the catering industry, and not least the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), cannot get home?
Mr. Marsh: I will certainly look into the matter of the specific train to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am sure that he will recognise that British Railways will consider it in the context of their overall operational problems.
Mr. Ron Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the National Union of Railwaymen is doing all in its power to get the men back to work? Is he aware that at this very moment telegrams are being dispatched to all branches in the Eastern Region asking the men to return to work as soon as possible?
Mr. Marsh: I am aware of much of the action being taken by the N.U.R. The speech by the General Secretary of the N.U.R. this morning was very courageous in the circumstances, but at this stage I would rather not say too much about exactly what the union is doing.
Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people are using private cars to get to work and are finding themselves penalised by having to pay fines for improper parking because there are no additional parking spaces? Will he use his good offices with the G.L.C. and ask it to remove parking restrictions in the centre of the city during periods of strike?
Mr. Marsh: No. We have considered this. The Metropolitan Police drew up contingency plans in advance of the strike yesterday. They have provided temporary clearways on a number of roads, extra traffic patrols and free car-parking facilities at Hackney Marshes, by agreement with the G.L.C., and in Victoria Park. One of the difficulties of making parking widely available in Central London is that it can increase congestion by being used by people not affected by the strike.
Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend says that there is no justification for the strike. Can the House, for once, be told exactly what the issues are in a strike? Time after time we have statements from Ministers without being told exactly why workers are going on strike. It is my experience that workers do not go on strike unless they have some justification.
Mr. Marsh: I would slightly qualify what my hon. Friend has said. I think that generally they do not go on strike unless they think that they have some justification—they do not do it capriciously. I do not believe that they are justified and the men concerned obviously believe that they are.
It is not difficult to find reasons for the strike. It arises out of the railway pay and efficiency negotiations from which the railwaymen had an overall 3 per cent. increase. Unlike some other grades, these men did not get the further increases. They have been given an undertaking that at stage 2 this will be considered. This was agreed with the union and the union is still sticking to the bargain. In those circumstances, the men are not justified in striking.
Mr. Rhodes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive approach to this problem. May I impress upon him the grave urgency of this matter, particularly because of the spread of the strike? Will he bear in mind that not only are services to Newcastle-upon-Tyne seriously disrupted, but that at 6 a.m. the Gateshead depôt is to go on strike, thus severely inconveniencing passenger and freight traffic in that area? The men are not striking without undue cause and ultimately the matter will have to be settled by the sides being brought together.
Mr. Marsh: The position could be very serious. This is a large industry and we are talking about 310 men who are causing enormous difficulties. There is no easy way out of this and the House would be well advised to appreciate that the union and the employers are trying to persuade the men to give up a strike which the union does not support.

BILL PRESENTED
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
  Bill to extend the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government under section 4 of the Public Health Act 1961, presented by Dr. Reginald Bennett; supported by Sir Clive Bossom, Mr. R. Gresham Cooke, Sir John Langford-Holt, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Arnold Shaw. Mr. James Wellbeloved, and Mr. John Wells; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  3.38 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
  That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday, 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.
  This is a Motion under Standing Order No. 43A to bring the Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill to an end on or before 14th July and to invite the Business Committee to propose an allocation of time accordingly.
  I do not propose to try to emulate the degree of heat engendered by right hon. and hon. Members opposite last night. As Leader of the House, I think that some of the occurrences of last night did credit neither to the Members concerned, nor to Parliament itself. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us start as we mean to go on, and cut out the noise which we had last night.
  Mr. Peart: I think that, on reflection, those concerned will take a similar view: at least, I hope so.
  One intervention which I particularly deplored was that of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in referring to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary as he did.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] I do not think it is playing right to attack people who are not in a position to reply, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regret that.
  Although the Leader of the Opposition expressed indignation, he knows very well, from his own experience as a Chief Whip, that there come occasions in the life of any Government—as happened more under a Tory Government than under a Labour Government—when it is necessary for a Government to programme their business. Indeed, I have a fairly lengthy list of the occasions when,
  1364
  as Chief Whip, he found it necessary to enforce the Closure of our debates. I have numerous precedents, which are on the record.
  I have no doubt that these were generally justified. But I notice, with wry detachment, that he felt impelled to do so in the past on such matters as the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1956, and the no doubt critical measure of the debate on the India (Family Pensions Fund) Amendment Order in 1957. I do not, however, wish to dwell unduly on the events of last night, or to do any more to exacerbate the narrow party issues involved in this matter.
  Turning to the Bill itself, its very nature inevitably means that it is a matter of great controversy in the House, but, not only is it a short Bill of four Clauses, but it is not by any means a complex Bill. Its proposals are clear and straightforward. Already, the general principles embodied in it have been endorsed by the House by substantial majorities. I do not think that the protracted discussion in this House is likely to elucidate any further the issues involved, or to reconcile the two basically conflicting views taken by the Government and the Opposition on this question.
  The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill by the Government is, I think, reasonable and adequate, and no exception was taken to it when I announced it in the Business statement last Thursday.
  Essentially, the Government's central proposition—already, as I say, endorsed by Parliament—is that it is reasonable, and indeed, essential, that Parliament should consider the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in the light of the fundamental changes in the structure of local Government embodied in the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
  Parliament is under no obligation, and, indeed, would, in the Government's view, be wholly unwise, to ignore the repercussions of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, and to press ahead with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners as if such a far-reaching report had never been made. It would, in the Government's view, be wasteful and disruptive, in view of these impending radical

  1365
  changes, for us to go blithely ahead, towards the probability of two major upheavals in the political map of the country in the short span of about 10 years. I think that this is clearly right.
  There are differences, of course. Widely varying estimates have been made of the effect on existing constituencies of this decision, and still more widely varying estimates of the effect on the electoral prospects of the parties in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will affect the Government more."] I am prepared to have a bet on that, but that is another matter. I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards. But I think that, when the transient storms have passed, it will be accepted generally by the country that the Government's decision on this matter has, in fact, been determined not by any short-term party considerations, but with the genuine long-term interests of central and local government in the country in mind.
  It is one of the purposes of the procedure under which this Motion is moved that the House should not be detained unduly on Motions of this kind, and that the debate should be confined to two hours only. I do not, therefore, propose to go further into the merits or demerits of the Bill, and I will leave my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, who will be winding up this short debate, to deal with any detailed points on the Bill which are raised.
  I propose, however, to refer briefly to the procedure under Standing Order 43A and to try to rebut the general criticism that in moving the Motion the Government are somehow acting in an un-parliamentary or unconstitutional way.
  The procedure under which we are acting was adopted by the House, following a Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, on 6th December, 1967. Those who study the protracted discussion of the House on this matter will have no doubt that this Standing Order was given the most detailed consideration before the House decided that this accelerated time-table procedure should be embodied in our Standing Orders. So much for the criticism that this particular Motion comes, so to speak, "out of the blue."
  In the Government's view, the conduct of the Opposition yesterday was not such as to give them any confidence that the
  1366
  Committee stage of the Bill would be completed with reasonable expedition. The Leader of the Opposition claimed last night that no complaint could be made about the progress of the Bill—Amendments had been obtained at an average rate of four hours each. What he failed to mention was that that average would certainly not have been got without the Closure having been moved—the very Closures which his hon. Friends complained about.
  It was open to the representatives of the Opposition when, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order No. 43A, they were consulted about a voluntary time-table, to say that they would certainly dispose of the Bill within say another 40 hours. But did they? Not at all. It was, therefore, necessary to invoke the procedure of the Standing Order and, following the failure to agree with the Opposition. Mr. Speaker was informed last night that a Motion under Standing Order 43A would need to be moved. The present Motion was tabled last night accordingly.
  It is, therefore, quite clear that what has been done in this instance is in full accordance with the procedures laid down in Standing Orders of the House. There is nothing underhand or unparliamentary in our dealing with the present position in this way: it is precisely this sort of situation which the Standing Order is designed to meet.
  "It is true…that all Members of the House regret very much a Guillotine Motion; and it is in the nature of things—and again quite rightly—that the Opposition, in particular, should resent it and should oppose it bitterly to the end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 472–3.]
  Before any hon. Member interrupts me after saying that, I should like to point out that that is what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) said, in circumstances similar to today's, on 23rd April, 1952, in a debate on a timetable Motion on the National Health Service Bill.
  But, I go further. There are many precedents of right hon. and hon. Members moving a guillotine Motion. Conservative Governments have moved more guillotine Motions in one Session than have been moved in all the time of this Administration. In 1962—right hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported that Administration must accept this—they moved five guillotine Motions. We have

  1367
  moved only two so far, and this is the third one today, in the life of two Parliaments. I could go further to show that, over and over again, when a Conservative Administration have thought fit to programme their business in the way that we are doing now, they have done it, and they know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gerrymandering."] There is no question of gerrymandering. I could give all the facts.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Peart: In 1963, after guillotining five Bills, they did it over the London Government Bill. Of course, according to them, that was normal constitutional practice.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Leader of the House does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Peart: Much as I should like to give way to a contender for the position of Leader of the Opposition, I cannot do so.
  In our view, the Opposition's attitude yesterday made it inevitable that the Government should adopt this procedure, and I am confident that the House will endorse our view.
  3.52 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Quintin Hogg.
  Mr. David Ensor: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I hope, involves the honour of the House. I wish to refer to the monstrous and outrageous behaviour last night of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with a point of order on what happened last night. The opportunity to deal with what happened last night was last night. I dealt with the matter at the time.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. We seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the events which occurred yesterday evening in order to try to understand what the procedure would be today if there should
  1368
  be a further outbreak of the sort of disgraceful conduct which occurred when the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) started to throw Order Papers around the Chamber.
  We are about to enter into a debate on a matter of considerable importance, namely, the timetable Motion. It was apparent from previous occurrences yesterday that the inflammatory speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot, under the guise of a point of order, have a réchauffé of all that happened last night. The hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Speaker how he would rule if certain eventualities happened. Mr. Speaker never rules on hypothetics. This is a brief debate; it is a serious debate. It must continue.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste time by persisting in raising point of order after point of order.
  Mr. Albert Murray: On a point of order. Yesterday, we had points of order interrupted by debate. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in ascertaining which way this debate is likely to go today? Last evening, when the Leader—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate, as a point of order, what happened last evening. On the narrow point which the hon. Gentleman makes about whether we shall have a debate interspersed with points of order, may I say that he is doing his best to make it that.
  Mr. Murray: I had not reached my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I proposed to ask you how far this debate will range, because the Leader of the Opposition ranged over Rhodesia and Ulster—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate last night's debate again today on points of order. I shall hear no points of order about last night's debate.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I had not completed my point of order. It does not relate to last night's events.

  1369
  I am trying to elucidate from you, Mr. Speaker, whether what happened yesterday could be avoided today—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads my earlier Ruling to him, he will see that I have dealt with that point. Mr. Hogg.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg rose—
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My point of order is this. Mr. Speaker. To protect the good name of Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—to protect hon. Members on this side of the House from missiles thrown across the Chamber, may I ask whether it is within your power, Mr. Speaker, to order that all paper should be removed from the Chamber to prevent the disgraceful conduct to which the House was subjected by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House were in danger, Mr. Speaker would take care to protect it. I do not see any danger now. Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Hogg.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House from time to time—[Interruption.] I remind the House from time to time that only the House can hurt itself and that the good name of Parliament—[Interruption.] Order—the good name of Parliament is in the hands of every individual Member. Mr. Roebuck.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order next.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: To facilitate progress, may I respectfully suggest that if the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition would be good enough to apologise for their disgraceful conduct yesterday, it would assist my hon. Friends and myself to give a quiet and courteous hearing to the hight hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member ought not to need any assistance in giving a courteous hearing to hon. Members with whose opinions he disagrees.
  Mr. Hogg: May I respectfully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order!"] This is a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be better to debate this Motion on its merits rather than have needless points of order and needless personalities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Not a single Member of the House would dissent from the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member. It is their application from time to time that troubles everybody.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: On a point of order. Will you let us know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received an apology from the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? He may think little of hon. Members on this side of the House, but he should apologise to you.
  Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that I shall take no more points of order on what happened last night.
  Mr. W. Howie: On a point of order. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to speak of the events last night. They were sufficiently disgraceful. I would, however, like to raise a point of order concerning today's debate, and receive your guidance.
  I am in some difficulty in hoping, like many other hon. Members, to take part in the debate, should time permit. I notice that this is a timetable Motion, and I should like some guidance as to the nature of the debate which is to follow the debate on this Motion. In what order will Amendments to the Bill be taken, and at what time?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a point that the hon Gentleman must take up with the Leader of the House at some time.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has, from time to time, acknowledged—I doubt not with complete sincerity—that he owes a duty to the House which transcends his duty

  1371
  to either side of it. I beg him to ponder what I have to say carefully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and courteously. I can assure him that I shall give neither him nor anyone else, so far as I can avoid it, any legitimate cause for personal offence.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I saw the hon. Member rise. I heard his voice. I hope that we shall get on with this very serious debate without spending too much time on points of order. Mr. Leadbitter.
  Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order. If we are able to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments seriously the House will be—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not have points of argument disguised as points of order. That is not a point of order at all. Mr. Hogg. [Interruption.] I have ruled that that was not a point of order.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot persist in raising points of order. I have ruled that the first was not a point of order.
  Mr. Leadbitter: My point of order is this: the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stated that he did not wish to embark upon personalities. Will he now—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I will not hear any more points of order from the hon. Member at this moment.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, I propose to use no kind of provocation at all, and I propose to respond in no way at all to provocation offered to me. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Apart from the disorder that has taken place, nothing has happened in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech of five or six words that can call for another point of order.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: On a point of order. I cannot hear
  1372
  the right hon. and learned Member, and I want to know whether he is putting an apology before the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be heard it is the fault of hon. Members on the Government side. [Interruption.] Order. This is not the first time in the last fortnight that one side or the other—I blame both equally—has prevented spokesmen from the other side being heard.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Will you give me your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On previous occasions this side of the House has been subjected to all sorts of abuse and annoyance, and not once have those strictures been applied to the Opposition which are now being applied to hon. Members on this side. We greatly respect your endeavours to protect all Members of the House, but we ask that we get equality of treatment.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will read, tomorrow, the Ruling that I have just given he will see that I attacked both sides for the same kind of disorder.
  Mr. Hogg: I was about to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of the duty to which I have referred: obviously guillotine Motions are moved from time to time by both sides, whichever party is in power. The question in each case is not whether such Motions are necessary—we know that such Motions sometimes are—but whether the particular Motion is justified. It is to that question that I wish to address myself and to address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman.
  In considering the validity or otherwise of a Motion of this kind—as I hope the House will agree—we have to look to a variety of different factors. One of these is the nature of the legislation proposed and the necessity for it. The right hon. Gentleman—if I may command his attention for a moment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to that factor, and I propose to deal with it shortly.
  Another of the factors to be taken into consideration is the length of the discussion which would be required by that legislation unimpeded by any artificial barrier.
  The third, I take it, would be the urgency of the legislation, to have it by

  1373
  a particular date; and, perhaps, fourth, the extent to which, if at all, the Government have legitimate cause to apprehend organised obstruction.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hogg: First of all, on the nature of the legislation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Bill, as he says, is a Bill of four Clauses. Owing to the selection by the Chair in Committee there would be, I think, nine debates. Two of these have already been concluded; both closured, in the case of the former, at least, some of us, including myself, ventured to think, prematurely.
  Mr. Stanley Henig: Surprise, surprise.
  Mr. Hogg: The House concluded its proceedings shortly after midnight last night, and two hours of its time today are being taken up by the Motion we are now discussing. I would have thought that, by now, had we continued to sit without the guillotine Motion, and with the addition of the two hours we are taking up now, we would have got a considerable distance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—a considerable distance through the Committee stage, with or without the assistance of the Closure proposed, no doubt, at legitimate intervals by the Patronage Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not what was said last night."] The question is how far the Guillotine is justified in these circumstances.
  The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the behaviour on this side of the House. He has been long enough in the House, and on both sides of it, as, indeed, have I, to know that there never is an occasion upon which, whether rightly or wrongly, the Opposition regard themselves as being stifled unfairly, that this sort of thing does not happen. I do not wish to prolong the discussion of that aspect of the matter beyond saying that we feel a sense of grievance which I appeal to him, as Leader of the whole House, to ponder seriously from the point of view of the duty to which I referred to begin with.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Oh, no.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Bill is a controversial
  1374
  matter; and he referred in general to its nature. I will do the same.
  It is a Bill the purpose of which is to suspend for a more or less indefinite period, but with a maximum of 15 years, the constitutional arrangements for the delineation of electoral boundaries recently, or comparatively recently, introduced, and comparatively recently amended, by agreement between the parties, and universally, I think, acclaimed at the time as a valuable addition to our constitutional arrangements, which put them above party, and the reason for it, be it good or bad, is alleged to be the inconvenience caused to the electorate by a second redistribution after the conclusion of local government reorganisation.
  Now, that is something which does require discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman must accept, and hon. Members opposite must realise, that we on this side of the House do not believe—that the case had been made out, that there would be serious inconvenience at the end of 10 years, that is, if Parliaments, as they have done, averaged three years' apiece, after two, three, or four General Elections—that it would justify a suspension of constitutional arrangements of that kind.
  It is, therefore, with a sense of very real indignation, even if hon. Members opposite do not think it justified, that we oppose the provisions of the Bill. We have not failed to note, and the right hon. Gentleman will not have failed to note, either, that these views, which are not held merely in the party to which I belong, but outside it, and in a very wide section of the serious Press, are associated will the belief, be it right or wrong, and be it intentional or unintentional, that the effect of the Bill would be to give a bonus of between eight and 20 seats to the Government party in the absence of any swing—one of which is said to be the Prime Minister's. One would think, in the light of these questions, that the right hon. Gentleman, as trustee for the interests of both sides of the House, would almost fall over backwards to establish his own integrity in the matter.
  This brings me to the second of the points which I have enumerated, the question of urgency. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must accept this from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that we at least sincerely believe that the case for

  1375
  urgency has not only not been made, has not been attempted, and was certainly not attempted in his short speech this afternoon, and that any degree of urgency which there may be is the direct result of the Government's having deliberately left their action to the last possible moment. It has not so far been disputed that this legislation could have been brought forward at least as soon as the terms of reference of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission were made known, but certainly not later than when the report was in the hands of the Government. But, in truth and in fact, the Government not merely delayed action, but concealed their intentions—[HON. MEM-bers: "Oh."]—even so recently—and the Home Secretary knows that the point I am about to put is true—even so recently as the Motion which I moved two or three weeks ago.
  Before I made my speech I pointed out to the Home Secretary that he was under no obligation whatever to disclose the Government's intentions to me, but that I would very much appreciate it if he did, but he quite deliberately did not. All I am saying is that if the Government are going to delay disclosure of their intentions to that degree till the last possible moment, they cannot legitimately be heard to complain of urgency.
  Now I come to the third point, the Committee stage of the Bill. We deliberately framed Amendments which accepted the main principle of the Bill, and the Home Secretary, in his short speech yesterday afternoon, was good enough to accept that that was so in the case of the first two Amendments which we were then discussing. He knew—or, at any rate, he knows now—that I attached very great importance to those Amendments. I proposed them in a short speech, which can be read in HANSARD, that lasted 15 minutes. I proposed them in a speech which the Home Secretary himself was good enough to agree was highly conciliatory in tone and content, and we received what we thought—and the right hon. Gentleman must accept that we did think—what we thought was a very perfunctory reply.
  Then the second Amendment came—and I want to say this, without any desire to give personal offence to the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to ex-
  1376
  plain the point of view which we held. When the second Amendment was called, after the opening speech, which again lasted for 15 minutes and no more, and had been going on for two minutes, the Home Secretary left the Chamber without the usual explanation or apology—
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of Order. In view of your earlier Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it was not in order to refer to incidents that occurred last night, is the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in order in referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary walking out of the Chamber?
  Mr. Speaker: I ruled that I can give no ruling as to order on what happened last night. The House can, however, refer to what happens at any time.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. It is within my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that you resisted my earlier point of order on the basis that it referred to the events of yesterday evening, and that it was only when I rose again to say that my point of order was not on the events of last night but on today's events that you heard me. It is within my recollection, subject to your reaffirming your Ruling, that we were not in order in referring to yesterday's events. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing precisely what you denied me the opportunity of doing.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I denied the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of raising what happened last night as a point of order. If he gets into the debate, he, like any other hon. Member, can refer to what happened last night.
  Mr. Hogg: I refer to this as delicately as I can, Mr. Speaker, not because I wish to complain that the Under-Secretary of State, who is a widely respected figure in the House, was asked to reply, but because it is common knowledge—and this is common to Governments of both complexions—that when an Under-Secretary, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, is left to reply he has no authority to go beyond in concession what has been told him before the beginning of the debate.
  This has a definite bearing upon what the right hon. Gentleman told the House about the prospects of a voluntary timetable. It is perfectly true that the right

  1377
  hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend and me whether we would consent to a voluntary timetable. My answer was, "That must depend upon the extent to which we shall receive concessions during the course of discussion." The right hon. Gentleman then said to me, "What concession do you want?", and I said, "Will you give me any?".
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman commits himself too far, it is in order to refer to the fact that there was such a meeting last night, but is it in order—and I put this for the right hon. and learned Gentleman"s consideration, too—to refer to what must be partial accounts of what took place at that meeting? This means that there will be two versions; we shall have to keep minutes and have shorthand writers. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should be a little careful. I say this in the hope that it will help before we get into that kind of discussion.
  Mr. Hogg: I would, Mr. Speaker, have accepted that entirely, but for the fact that the Leader of the House referred to that conversation partially and, evidently, his reference made some impact upon his hearers, since it was loudly cheered.
  Without reference to the conversation I will say what is my attitude. It would have varied a great deal according to what concessions were likely to be offered in Committee; but it has been made plain to us that no concessions whatever would be offered, and that the Government are intent on getting the Bill without Amendment and, therefore, without a Report stage. So long as that attitude persists, there can be no chance of a voluntary timetable. What is the good of—
  Mr. William Molloy rose—
  Mr. Howie rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the two hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.
  Mr. Hogg: I would certainly have given way but for the way in which I have hitherto been denied a hearing—
  Mr. Molloy rose—
  Mr. Howie rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen must not persist if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.
  Mr. Hogg: There can be no use in asking the Opposition for a voluntary timetable when we are given to understand that no Amendments of any kind will be accepted, whatever may be our reasons. If we know that nothing we say will have any effect, a voluntary timetable is utterly useless and would be a betrayal of the case which we are now seeking to present.
  We are being asked by both right hon. Gentlemen to pass the Bill under the Guillotine in the name of the sovereignty of Parliament. Again, I emphasise that I do not wish to give the right hon. Gentleman personal offence, but I ask him what kind of Parliament it will be whose sovereignty we are asked to uphold? Is it to be a Parliament which believes in government by discussion, or is it to be the dictatorship of a temporary majority? If it is the latter, the sooner we end the sovereignty of Parliament, and substitute the rule of government by reason and discussion, the better.
  The very name "Parliament" presupposes discussion, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to think again, in the name of his loyalty to the whole House and not to party, before we proceed with this procedural Motion. I have appealed to him in that name up to this point, but I wish to make a second and more personal appeal to him to consider carefully what will be the long-term effect of the course which he is now proposing upon the reputation of the Labour Party.
  What would one think of a man who was caught with an ace up his sleeve and who, when challenged about it, did not, like Mr. Gladstone, refer to supernatural agencies, but claimed that it was a matter of administrative convenience, and, when this was challenged, drew a gun to prevent an argument? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of Parliament and Parliamentary government, to resile from his present position in an age when liberty, freedom and law are in retreat throughout the world, and

  1379
  in an age when men look to this House of Commons for patterns in these things. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, with all the sincerity that I can command, to respond to my appeal, and to return to constitutional powers before it is too late.
  Mr. Peart: I want to say to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has waxed so strongly on the Bill and whose approach I reject, that I would better judge his sincerity if he were prepared to withdraw his insulting remark last night to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
  Mr. Hogg: If I had been approached in any circumstances other than the way in which I have been treated this afternoon—
  Mr. Charles Pannell rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, but I am in the middle of a sentence. If I had been approached—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman be approached?
  Mr. Hogg: If I had been approached in any other way than I have been approached by the other side this afternoon, I would have said that, if I had caused the smallest personal offence to any Member of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I would be deeply sorry. As it is, I can only repeat my remark.
  Hon. Member: Shame.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Seldom during the course of a prolonged experience of this Assembly have I listened to such a sanctimonious, arrogant and deceptive speech as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just delivered to the House. He is inclined to indulge in epithets. Yesterday, he indulged in an epithet of a most offensive kind against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We also can indulge in epithets. I have known the right hon. and learned Gentleman over the years, and the only epithet or description I can indulge in is that he is the immaculate deception.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was not directed to my right hon.
  1380
  Friend the Leader of the House, or to the Home Secretary, or to these benches. It was directed, for the foreseeable future, to those in another place. That is the game the right hon. and learned Gentleman is playing.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his case away absolutely and emphatically at the end of his speech, although it might well have been fortuitous. He said that if only my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had been ready to make concessions, everything in the garden would have been lovely. But, alternatively, if my right hon. Friend is unwilling or unable to make concessions, the Opposition will provide the alternative. What is that alternative? It is outrageous behaviour.
  This might have been expected—I say this with great respect, meaning no offence—from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, considering how they have been brought up. But this is not the kind of behaviour we expect from products of the high scholastic institutions, from Harrow and Eton, and is certainly not the reason why their parents should have been involved in considerable expenditure. I have often doubted—but do not expect a large measure of agreement here—the value of education. After all, I myself have managed without it—
  Sir Douglas Glover: So have most of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
  Mr. Shinwell: I understand that although it is not an unparliamentary expression to describe other hon. Members, or even right hon. Members, as hypocrites, which is quite Parliamentary, one must not describe them as humbugs, so I forbear. But never have I listened to such humbuggery as I have today.
  I may be accused of indulging in escapades and adventures during a long experience and I have witnessed scenes in this House far more serious than occurred yesterday—[An HON. MEMBER: "Such as?"] I have witnessed scenes when hon. Members were expelled from the House, even carried from the House.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Hon. Members opposite always manage to stagger out.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wishes to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful for all contributions received.
  But when those incidents occurred, they at any rate were in a just cause, were fortified by logic and were upholding the dignity of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] But what dignity did we experience yesterday?
  I am well aware of the traditions in the House and of the procedure in debates in which one must not refer unduly to events in the recent past. But I was here yesterday when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair and witnessed the behaviour of some hon. Members opposite. I do not refer to all of them. There are some decent Members on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] The behaviour of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and, indeed, some right hon. Gentlemen, when the Chairman of Committees was trying to uphold the dignity of the House, was almost beyond description.
  There was a time when I thought that the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair would adjourn the House to enable Mr. Speaker to attend to name some of the offenders. But he exercised a restraint admirable in character and consistent with the function and duties of a chairman.
  I sat here listening to it all and had to restrain myself. I understand that later in the proceedings the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was throwing missiles about. I suppose that that is what one would expect from the Shadow Minister of Defence.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within the recollection of some hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman is about the only hon. Member here who has ever actually struck someone in the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of history, not a point of order.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): On a further point of order. Could it be that the actual Minister of Defence has no missiles, real or otherwise?
  Mr. Speaker: Points of order should be real points of order.
  Mr. Shinwell: I have the inestimable advantage of never listening to anything which I do not want to hear.
  1382
  However, since the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has referred to an incident which occurred many years ago, perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House about it. Strangely enough, it happened on this very spot. The hon. Member who occupied this seat in the House in those days was an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an ex-heavyweight champion of the Royal Navy.
  There was no question of procedure. We were not discussing boundaries. I was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, in my harmless and even innocuous fashion, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman told me to go back to Poland. I had never been in the place. My first visit to Poland occurred two or three years ago on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That was the first time that I visited the place, and I did not like it, either. I am not surprised that my forebears left the place more than 100 years ago.
  I heard that offensive remark and at first paid no attention to it. I had no intention of taking action by word or deed. However, the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, Mr. John McGovern, who has now, unhappily, passed away, raised a point of order, and I was thereby involved. He asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apologise, and he refused. By the way, he was a Tory and one of the products of Eton. So I asked him to come outside, and he would not. I must confess that I did not know then that he had been the heavyweight champion of the Navy. If I had known, I would never have gone near him. I only learned that afterwards, but he suffered a little.
  I may say, out of respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has now retired from the House, that he poured coals of fire on my head later by complimenting me on a speech that I made on the subject of colonial development. I was greatly embarrassed by the knowledge and consciousness of committing an act which I would rather not have done.
  What is it that we are discussing this afternoon? It boils down to a very simple issue. The Government want to get a Bill through the House. The Opposition want to prevent them getting the Bill. So there is a conflict. Has that never happened before in the House? I have

  1383
  been involved in any number of guillotine Motions, either on one side or the other. There is no reason why we should lose our tempers because of that.
  What I object to more than anything else is the posture, the attitude and the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. Notice his language. I do not refer to that which he used against my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. We can pass that off. I refer to the language that he used this afternoon. He said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, "You must do this." He said to the Government, "You must do that." Who does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is?
  I recognise his ability. He knows that I do. I have referred to it more than once. But he lacks the quality of decency, and also the quality of compassion. It is a great pity. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition to take great care with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to be cautious of him. He may not be the kind of person to have alongside one in any crisis or emergency. He may be after the job of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, let us not forget that he left the other place. Why? He did very well there. It was because he hoped to become the Leader of his party.
  This is the simple point. The Government want to get their Bill. I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall tell the House why. I shall be leaving this place during the course of the next 12 or 18 months. I shall be sorry to depart from this assembly. It will be a severe wrench. However, I may not be very far away—one never knows—if only to keep an eye on the Tory Party. That is the reason why I say that I am not concerned about the merits of the Bill.
  Whether there is merit or lack of merit in the Government's proposed legislation, the Opposition must understand that they are only the Opposition and not the Government—
  Hon. Members: Must?
  Mr. Manuel: Yes, "must".
  Mr. Shinwell: I say this to the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not against
  1384
  him personally, although on the other side of the fence politically. He must recognise the inescapable fact that he is only Leader of the Opposition. As Leader of the Opposition he has to put up with a great deal, so he must put up with the decision of the Government to get the Bill—
  Mr. Peter Emery: By cheating.
  Mr. Shinwell: From past experiences of innumerable occasions when a Guillotine as had to be applied, I suggest that the best thing for the Opposition is to argue rationally with all the knowledge, ability and experience they possess, in an attempt to convince the Government that they are wrong. If they fail, I ask them, as gentlemen, to act reasonably and decently and not make fools of themselves, thereby destroying the dignity of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) use the word "cheaters." Is that a Parliamentary term?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It has been held that a word must be a personal reference before it becomes unparliamentary and requires to be withdrawn.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The House of Commons always enjoys listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), although I must say that I have never imagined him in his self-cast rôle of the elderly lady with her knitting sitting at the foot of the guillotine enjoying every moment of the proceedings.
  There was only one point on which I part company with him. I hope that it can be said to my credit at least, if nothing else can, that I am no great lover of the Conservative Party and what it stands for. There have also been many occasions on which I have disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), but I have a very great respect for the way in which he has personally stood for what he believes is right, particularly in racial matters, where there are some very dangerous currents in this country and

  1385
  where there are very great difficulties not only in his own party but outside it. He has had the courage to make his views known.
  I am delighted also that I have seated next door to me one who in the Birmingham, Ladywood by-election attacked, violently and successfully, a Fascist candidate to whom he, I believe rightly, referred to as an "Enoch Powell" candidate. I therefore believe that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington relating to the right hon. and learned Gentleman were not of the standard which the right hon. Member for Easing-ton himself would wish to apply in this House.
  I hope that I take the Leader of the House with me when I say that he not only wishes to carry his Motion tonight but wishes to carry it by the genuine conviction of those hon. Members sitting behind him; voting not merely because the Whips are on but because they are genuinely convinced of the merits of the case. I am sure that that would be his wish. That being my belief, there are three points, and three points only, that I wish to make.
  First, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this is a Bill, whatever its merits, of constitutional importance; and that we are very careful in this House, unless there is good reason for it, about a Guillotine on matters of constitutional importance. He cited certain cases where a previous Conservative Government had introduced the Guillotine—Christmas Adjournment, Indian pensions, National Health Insurance, and other things—but I am sure that with the best will in the world he would not suggest that those items, however important, were of constitutional importance. But even were the right hon. Gentleman able to provide such examples, I must confess that when I find a Labour Government justifying their present actions by reference to past Tory precedents, I realise that they are scraping the barrel. I therefore want to put the following point to him.
  This is a Bill of constitutional importance. It is not the only Bill of constitutional importance which we have recently discussed. It may possibly be within the recollection of the Leader of the House that we were recently discuss-
  1386
  ing a Parliament (No. 2) Bill for the reform of another place. We had a total of 14 days on that Bill, a total of 95 hours, and there was no question of a Guillotine—none at all. Indeed, there were even two days provided for Second Reading.
  On the other hand, we are now discussing a Bill not merely to affect the character of this House but to deal with the particular rights of the electorate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me there: that is what is in the Bill. Now, after one day devoted to Second Reading and one day spent in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman moves a guillotine Motion—
  Mr. Molloy rose—
  Mr. Thorpe: I will give way in a moment, but I want to finish with this point.
  What I want to know is this. If the right hon. Gentleman was so disinclined to have a Guillotine for the reform of another place, why has he overcome those scruples and now has no difficulty at all in proposing a Guillotine in respect of a Measure that affects the voting system to this House? Is it merely that he could not carry a majority of his own colleagues? If that is the case, I am sure that he would agree that the difference in motive is not what one might call the highest. Or is it that he regards discussion of the reform of another place as being of far greater Parliamentary significance and occupying a far higher priority in our time table than the distribution of seats in respect of election to this House?
  It would be very interesting to know why he should treat the two Measures in such a different way. No doubt the Home Secretary will be able to elucidate. It is very strange that a Labour Government should be more anxious to provide time for a debate about another place than for a debate about the democratic rights of the electorate.
  Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure he will understand that I wished to make a small point a little earlier and before he reached his peroration.
  The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the grave importance of the debate which started in Committee yesterday,

  1387
  but would he not also accept that when we are talking about the country's constitution responsibilities are to be shared by all parties? Was it not revealed quite clearly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that, in so far as he could not get his way, instructions went out to organise a filibuster irrespective of what happened and that the Government were therefore left with no alternative?
  Mr. Thorpe: Quite frankly, I am not concerned with the technical considerations on either side. I am concerned only with the terms of the Motion now before the House, so I hope I may be excused from following the hon. Gentleman up that avenue. All I am concerned about is the difference in treatment. There was compunction shown in the debate about another place, whereas there is no compunction at all about introducing a timetable Motion in regard to a matter which I consider to be constitutionally of greater importance. That is the issue. And hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to a reply from their own Front Bench, because I am satisfied that when they vote they will wish to do so out of intellectual conviction and not because the Whips are on.
  My second point relates to the circumstances in which the announcement was made. The Home Secretary moved to report Progress. I must be excused if I do not quote him verbatim, because the OFFICIAL REPORT for that hour of the night is not yet available, but I think that it is right to say that he asked the Committee to agree to his Motion because of the progress that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this timetable Motion was not something that had been adopted lightly but had been discussed, so I must assume that the Home Secretary was privy to that decision; that he knew there was to be a timetable Motion.
  What happened? The Home Secretary asked the Committee to agree to report Progress because of the progress that had been made, knowing full well that his real reason for wanting the Committee's agreement was that the Leader of the House might proceed to take time allotted to a private Member for an Adjournment debate—and who, as far as
  1388
  I know, was never even consulted—to announce that guillotine Motion would be moved to deal with a matter of constitutional importance, which many had alleged was tantamount to gerrymandering. If ever there was a case of compounding a felony it was there.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman was not here.
  Mr. Thorpe: Certainly I was here. If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), instead of asking the same question three times, would ask it once, he would hear the answer. I was here.
  Mr. Mendelson: We did not see the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Thorpe: In that case the shortsightedness of the hon. Member has my sympathy and that of the House.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Thorpe.
  Mr. Mendelson rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Thorpe: I suggest to the Home Secretary that with even his knowledge of the law he should know that those who obtain things by false pretences outside this House find themselves in considerable trouble. I ask the third question.
  Mr. C. Pannell: And get a silly answer.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) believes in a self-inflicted echo. I ask whether the Home Secretary realises why many of us genuinely feel that there should be a full debate on this Measure? It is not merely because it is of constitutional importance; that is accepted. It is not merely because it breaches the spirit of Acts of Parliament which this House has passed, but, very much more important, it may even be illegal.
  I am not allowed to go into the merits of that allegation at this stage. I merely make this point, which I think is relevant to discussion of this Motion. The obligations placed on the Home Secretary under the 1949 Act—I refer particularly to Section 2(5)—are mandatory. He

  1389
  "shall" lay a report before Parliament, and he must do so
  "as soon as may be".
  It is very interesting when one looks at the present Bill and at all those matters which are being repealed that there is no reference to any repeal of any part of that Act, still less of the obligation resting on the Home Secretary specifically to lay these reports before the House of Commons. That is why we believe that what the Government are doing may be illegal. It may be contrary not only to the spirit but to the practice of the legislation for which they themselves are responsible.
  Mr. Callaghan: Test it.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman says "Test it". I am coming to that. If this timetable Motion goes through—I hope in the interests of Parliament it does not—we should challenge this Government on the precedent of 29th June, 1950, to refer that specific matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [Laughter.]
  I am hardly surprised at the mirth at the suggestion that legislation which this House passed should be upheld. The mirth with which it has been received is wholly consistent with the manner in which this Bill has been approached by the Government. Had the right hon. Gentleman sought specifically to repeal those Sections of that Act he could justly say, "We are changing the law", but he has not done that. There is no reference to the mandatory obligation which this House and Parliament as a whole has placed upon him. Therefore he is in breach of an Act of Parliament which this House, indeed his own party, passed when they were the Government.
  That is why we believe that on both—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shows great confidence. I think he would take it from me that he has many qualities, but not that of being a legal expert. I do not profess to be a great expert in the law, but I profess to have made my living at it. I have never come to the Dispatch Box and, ignoring the due process of trial, announced that two men who had committed a murder had been arrested that morning. That is why I suggest to the Home Secretary that he might care to take the advice of the Attorney-General. If he has done so already, he should take it again on
  1390
  this point, because the Attorney-General is a very experienced and respected lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman may also care to consider a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which this House decided to make in connection with a privilege matter and the disqualification of an hon. Member.
  I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite who vote tonight will do so out of real conviction that they are adding lustre to Parliamentary reform and that they can stand up and be proud members of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and that so far as concerns gerrymandering their conscience is clear.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The main point of the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) can be disposed of by saying that if he felt so strongly about the legal aspect of the matter he should have attended the debates we have had on this subject. It is an extraordinary state of affairs—quite unprecedented as far as I recall—that a right hon. Gentleman should wait until a guillotine Motion has been moved before putting such weighty considerations before the House. We have had a Second Reading of the Bill and the debate on the Motion introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). If the right hon. Member for Devon, North felt so deeply on these legal questions he had plenty of opportunity to raise them then.
  I want to deal with some remarks made primarily by the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] In view of the fact that he made some very fierce remarks last night and some of his supporters prevented hon. Members replying to him on that occasion, he might at least have done the courtesy to the House of remaining for this important debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Leader of the Opposition, who said that this was so important a matter, has run away today. The Leader of the Opposition dared to refer—and some of us thought it most indecent—to my predecessor as the Member for Ebbw Vale. Hon. Members opposite vilified him in his lifetime. They might at least spare us the obscenity of their compliments to him after he is dead.

  1391
  The Leader of the Opposition should have looked up the facts, precisely on this question of boundary reports. The last time the Boundary Commission reported to the House—in 1954—on major boundary changes my predecessor for Ebbw Vale intervened in the debate. He spoke against the proposals which were being made by the Government at that time and went into the Lobby on about half a dozen occasions against the boundary proposals of the Conservative Administration. Who was the Lords Commissioner helping to shuffle through those hon. Members on a three-line Whip to vote for measures under the Boundary Commission recommendations? Of course, he was the present Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—so he ought to have known.
  As I tried to say last night, we all know that the Leader of the Opposition was not primarily concerned with the merits of the issue. The right hon. Gentleman, in view of his strenuous exertions in this manner, often reminds me of Pope Pius IX, the Risorgimento Pope. whom some people thought might become the leader of the Movement, Pope Pius said, "What? They want to make a Napoleon of me, who am only a poor country parson".
  That is the stature of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who does not even dare to attend this important debate. I would much have preferred to have said it to his face than behind his back.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Which face?
  Mr. Foot: Yes, I agree. We have to decide which of his faces. However, I would much rather say it to both faces. The political epitaph of the right hon. Gentleman will be, "Once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip".
  We all know that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate, perhaps, what he was doing in his speech last night when he referred to Ulster and Rhodesia. Some of us have thought that his failure to refer in the past to these matters, where real questions of civil liberty are involved, was due to mere political cowardice, but we see now that it is due also to a complete lack of political imagination. In Ulster, after 40
  1392
  years of Tory rule, people have had to come on to the streets to fight for civil rights. They have had to bring their country to the verge of civil war to get local boundaries changed there. Yet the right hon. Gentleman dares to compare that situation with this Measure. So in Rhodesia, on which issue he has been so craven. If he was interested in Rhodesia, one might have thought that he would have used his voice in trying to deal with some of his hon. Friends who have spent all these months trafficking with treason.
  We all know why the Opposition have got into such a state on the whole of this matter. It is nothing to do with the question of the Report of the Boundary Commission. It is due to the difficult situation in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed—the whole complication about his leadership. We all know what happened a few years ago when the Tories made the biggest mistake of their lives. When they had to choose a new captain, they put Jonah at the helm. All the time since then they have been looking around for some convenient whale to come around and relieve them of him.
  My advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not expect they will always take my advice—is to tip him overboard. It would cause scarcely a ripple on the political surface. Maybe they will not take my advice. I shall not worry either, because I say this to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite. Particularly in view of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman behaved last night—the right hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Marylebone does these synthetic explosions far better than the Leader of the Opposition—let them leave him where he is. From our point of view he is a gift from the gods.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: The time I have in which to sum up is short. Therefore, I will not on this occasion reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which were as inaccurate as they were irrelevant to this discussion. I can sum up—[Interruption.] I have only a short time and if I cannot make my speech I am afraid the Home Secretary will lose part of his time.
  I can sum up briefly what is involved, because the issue is narrow, though the implications are immense. A debate on

  1393
  a guillotine Motion is always very tightly drawn. The issue is merely whether the debates on the Bill should or should not be curtailed. We cannot discuss the merits of the Bill, though there has been some attempt to do so once or twice, but the nature of the Bill and the circumstances of its introduction are wholly relevant to the question whether discussion should be curtailed.
  The Bill raises issues of great constitutional moment. Therefore, this is no conventional guillotine debate. We know these guillotine debates; we know how the usual arguments are bandied to and fro across the Floor of the House according to which side of the House one is sitting on. This is not one of those debates, because the Bill involves a very big constitutional issue.
  We have not yet had from the Government any reason why debates should be curtailed. The Leader of the House said that it was necessary, but by declaring it to be necessary lie does not show it to be necessary. Therefore, the Home Secretary must explain to the House why the Committee stage of the Bill must end on 14th July. Why? There is no question here of disrupting the Government's programme. There is no question here, so far as I can see, of anything other than the Government's determination to rise for the Summer Recess on 25th July. Is there any other reason? This is a short Bill. The discussion would not have taken more than a few days in Committee. The Government, rather than giving those few days in Committee, are curtailing discussion on a Bill of the greatest possible importance.
  It underlines the frivolity and cynicism with which the Home Secretary and others have approached the Bill that they should prefer to curtail discussion rather than wait a few more days before the summer holidays begin. They must recognise that what is involved here is not merely a constitutional issue but the issue of the whole good faith of the Government in this matter. They may argue that this is not a serious matter. Some hon. Members opposite appear almost to think that.
  But nothing could be more serious than the distribution of Parliamentary seats in Britain, for surely an unbiased basis for a General Election is essential to democracy. That is why we have a Boundary Commission. That is why the
  1394
  views of an impartial Boundary Commission should not be departed from without full scrutiny and thorough argument.
  Experience has led me in the last few years to believe that the integrity of our political system is the most precious of assets we have. I tried on many occasions when I was Colonial Secretary to develop for newly independent countries constitutions that could not be subverted. I realised then how a constitution could grow only by centuries of usage and how it can be so easily subverted by a short, sharp act of folly.
  We have something here that we must not jeopardise, but I fear that the Government are doing so. Our system of government is unique, in that it gives almost unfettered power to the Government of the day, power that they may achieve by a very small majority of votes indeed at an election. Ours is a system of dictatorship of the majority party. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen closely to what I am saying, because it comes from a certain amount of study of and thought about these problems.
  We have a system whereby a narrowly contested election may give to a party enormous and virtually unfettered power. I think that this is the right system, and it suits our country, though it may not suit others. It is an acceptable system only if the electoral system remains un-biased and if the Government of the day cannot twist it at any time to their advantage. This is the seriousness of the issue.
  What is in issue is not so much the honour and the standing of the Government themselves, because I believe that much of this has been forfeited already by the introduction of the Bill. What is in issue, without a shadow of doubt, is the honour and the standing of Parliament. Let us not under-estimate the cynicism about Parliament which has prevailed in Britain in recent years. We know perfectly well the cynicism that abounds in the Press, in speeches. on television, and amongst our constituents—[Interruption.]—and it is not helped by interruption. We know the cynicism which abounds and I am sure that we recognise—we must recognise—how dangerous this is to our whole democratic process.

  1395
  What will be the effect on the public of the Government's Motion today? The public in its attitude to Parliament divides itself into two sections. There are those who say, "Members of Parliament spend most of their time engaged in bickering and party manoeuvre, while the national interest slips by". There are many who say that, and those who do will feel confirmed in their judgment by what is happening here today. There are many others—the wiser ones, I believe—who still believe that Parliament, despite its many acknowledged faults, is a great institution. Those who still believe that will be saddened and shocked by what is happening. They will see a Government whose honour is publicly challenged trying to curtail discussion of the issues in which their honour is involved. They will see issues of great national moment submerged by the manipulation of a party vote.
  Parliament is more important than any party or any Member of Parliament. Neither Parliament nor democracy can survive unless those who are in power for the time being are seen to be wielding their power honourably. If the Government persist in their policy on this Bill, they will write on the pages of history an indelible blot of shame.
  5.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): If the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was not aware of it before this afternoon, he must know know that he has given deep offence to this side by the description which he applied last night, perhaps in the heat of the moment, to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He did it knowing that my right hon. Friend would not be able to answer. The trouble with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen is not that he is a bad man—he is not—hut that he is a political schizophrenic. This afternoon, he wound up his speech by saying that, if he had been properly approached, he would have apologised, but as he had not been properly approached he would repeat the offensive remark.
  Yesterday, we had the charlatan. Today, we had the attempted statesman. It did not come off. The right hon. Gentleman will not receive the sympathy of the House—he must understand this,
  1396
  and I am sure that he does, as an old Parliamentarian—until he has made amends to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. When he makes those amends, his opinions will be taken, as they usually are, at their face value, and they are usually worth quite a lot. I, therefore, suggest to him that he should take an early opportunity to make amends in the way that he knows.
  In this afternoon's debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have spoken of their reasons for not being willing to accept the guillotine Motion. One figure has been strangely absent, not just the Leader of the Opposition.[An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister."] The Prime Minister, too, has been absent, but where is the "grandaddy" of us all, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)? Where is the Member who has moved more guillotine Motions than any other, living or dead? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman turn up? Is it because he fears that he has given too many hostages to fortune, and, not only that, he has in the past even put two Bills in one guillotine Motion? There is productivity. The right hon. Gentleman did not come because he knows that he could have been challenged on a great many of the Motions and statements which he has made in the past. [Interruption.] We are not discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is out of date. We are discussing the Motion on the Order Paper.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: What were the two Bills?
  Mr. Callaghan: To the best of my recollection, they were a Transport Bill and a Scottish Housing Bill. That was one occasion. As for the second occasion, I do not recall at the moment; the hon. Gentleman can go and look it up for himself. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman got some stick today, but that was only in payment for what the Opposition did last night. It is now quits.
  Lord Butler laid down certain conditions for a guillotine Motion. I shall repeat them because I think that they will appeal to hon. Members opposite. The first condition, he said, was: "Can we get the business by agreement?". We have had that discussion today. The

  1397
  answer is, "No, we cannot." The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was pretty blunt about it. He said, "Unless you make substantial concessions to us"—in other words, unless it is the Opposition's Bill and not the Government's—"we do not propose to give it to you". That is clear enough. We understand where we are when he says it.
  The Motion is brought in under Standing Order No. 43A. Under that Standing Order the first duty laid upon the Government is to make a formal approach to the Opposition and say to them, "Can we get the Bill by agreement?". The answer, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, was "No." [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hurry?"] I am dealing with the first of Lord Butler's conditions—Can we get the business by agreement? The answer is that we cannot. Therefore, the first condition for introducing a guillotine Motion is satisfied.
  Last night, we had an interesting discussion. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) took us on a tour of his roads. He discussed the employment situation in his constituency. He talked to us about the relations between his constituency and others in Devon. I thought it a most interesting holiday visit, but it had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the fact that the speeches were short makes them no less irrelevant on that account. It is no more valuable in terms of proving one's point to have 50 irrelevant speeches of ten minutes each than to have five irrelevant speeches of 100 minutes each. A lot of the speeches last night had nothing to do with the subject which we were discussing. They were just on the right side of the bounds of order. Hon. Members opposite were determined to make such speeches because they did not intend to give us the Bill. They know that. We understand it. We intend to take the appropriate action in answer. That has always been understood, no matter who spoke from this Front Bench, and it is understood now.
  The Government have what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) called the dictatorship of a temporary
  1398
  majority. Of course they have, and they use their majority to ensure that their business goes through. It may be an odd concept when the Tories are in opposition. They may think that we ought not to do it and think it odd that we propose to govern in the same way as they governed. We intend to get our Bill.
  The second condition which Lord Butler laid down was: "Is there adequate time for discussion?" Let us look at that. By the time we finish the Bill there will have been 30 hours of discussion. It contains three operative Clauses. With one of them the Opposition are in wholehearted agreement. The controversy is related to two Clauses, and two only, covering about three octavo pages of the Bill.
  There is nothing technical about it. It is not as though we are having difficult discussions on abstruse issues. The Clauses raise two simple issues. First, should the redistribution go on or not? Second, should a small number of very large constituencies be broken up? Those are the only two issues. We shall have 30 hours in which to discuss whether those two questions should be answered "Yes" or "No". The right hon. Member for Barnet referred to growing cynicism among the public. They will think that we are a pretty poor lot if the Opposition cannot make up their mind in 30 hours on two subjects of that magnitude.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made his usual sneering references to my lack of knowledge of the law. I admit that I did not have his good fortune to go to Eton. I did not have his good fortunte to go to Trinity College. I did not have his good fortune to be president of the Oxford Union. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on this subject before. The right hon. Gentleman adopts an upper class arrogance that only somebody who went to Eton and Oxford can adopt.
  The right hon. Gentleman told me that he did not want the Guillotine justified by reference to what Tory Governments had done on constitutional issues. Very well. I will not do anything of the sort; I will justify it by reference to what Liberal Governments did. Let us look at what the Liberal Governments did against the Conservatives; let us look at

  1399
  what the right hon. Gentleman calls constitutional Bills within the broadest meaning of the term. The Government of Ireland Bill, 1893—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Was not that a constitutional issue? The Plural Voting Bill, 1906—guillotined by the Liberal Government. A Bill dealing with the relations of the two Houses and the duration of Parliament—guillotined by the Liberal Government. The Parliament Bill of 1911—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Another Plural Voting Bill in 1914—guillotined by the Liberal Government. Two Government of Ireland Bills in 1912 and 1914, in successive Sessions, guillotined by the Liberal Government.
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must take his seat.
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am defending the record of the last Liberal Government on these things. I think that they were probably right to introduce guillotine Motions at that time. The right hon. Gentleman should not complain about it and should not so far forget the good his ancestors did by attacking us when we try to repeat it now. So, I answer both the second criterion of Lord Butler and the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman by the simple facts of the situation.
  The third question that was posed by Lord Butler was, is the guillotine essential? This is a question that I should certainly try to answer. We think that it is essential for a number of reasons.
  An Hon. Member: The holidays.
  Mr. Callaghan: I hope that it is not basically that. One of the basic reasons why I think that it is important that the Bill should go through is that it is very important for the G.L.C. elections for the candidates who are being selected to know where they stand on this issue. They must know whether they are likely to be selected on the old or new basis. The Bill deals with about 92 constituencies,
  1400
  and about 92 seats in the case of the G.L.C., and for this reason it is important that we should remove doubts from the issue as soon as possible.
  The other essence of the matter is that the constituency parties also wish to know where they are on these matters. It is important that we should remove doubt. In my view—and it is the Government's view—the Guillotine is essential for this purpose.
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I have only three minutes left.
  I have now dealt with all three of Lord Butler's criteria. He took the view that there was much to be said in favour of a Guillotine Motion when one had a short, non-technical; it is a simple Bill that matches that description. It is short and non-technical; it is a simple Bill that could clearly be debated and decided within the limit of 30 hours, unless the Opposition were determined to ensure that we could not get it, and they have said that they are determined that we shall not get it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has told us in the country that we shall not get it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) told us that the Opposition would use every political means at their disposal to ensure that we did not get it. We understand their position. Probably in their place we would do the same. If they were in our place they would certainly make sure that they got their Bill, and that is exactly what we shall do.
  I come to the one other point that has been made, which is that we cannot accept that a minority group can veto a Bill of this sort. There have been suggestions by some newspapers encouraging another place to mutilate the Bill. It would be a very serious matter if the Tory majority in the House of Lords did not recognise that the Bill deals essentially with the constitution of the House of Commons.
  It would be quite simple, although it would involve the expenditure of a great deal of Parliamentary time, for the Orders to be laid. I say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North that there would be no difficulty in laying them. Having laid them, I could not necessarily command the support of all hon. Gentlemen

  1401
  in voting for them. They would have to decide for themselves.
  The idea of one man, one vote, one value is absurd when I hear it in the mouth of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Conservatives won the General Election in 1951 on a minority of votes. They had a majority of 26. How much did we hear then about the sanctity of one man, one vote, one value? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite adopt it when convenient, and they will drop it as soon as it ceases to be convenient. We are not taken in by that synthetic indignation, or even the synthetic applause for the Leader of the Opposition last night. There has been nothing like the fluttering of order papers we saw last night since Nevile Chamberlain returned from Munich.

  Division No. 314.]

  AYES

  [5.38 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Archer, Peter

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamling, William

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Harper, Joseph

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Haseldine, Norman

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hattersley, Roy

  Barnes, Michael

  Dickens, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Barnett, Joel

  Dobson, Ray

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Baxter, William

  Doig, Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bence, Cyril

  Driberg, Tom

  Henig, Stanley

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dunn, James A.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hilton, W. S.

  Binns, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hooley, Frank

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Blackburn, F.

  Eadie, Alex

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Howie, W.

  Boston, Terence

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ellis, John

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Boyden, James

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bradley, Tom

  Ennals, David

  Hynd, John

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Ensor, David

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

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

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

  Finch, Harold

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Forrester, John

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fowler, Gerry

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Chapman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Coleman, Donald

  Gardner, Tony

  Judd, Frank

  Concannon, J. D.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kelley, Richard

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ginsburg, David

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Crartdock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

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

  Cronin, John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lawson, George

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gregory, Arnold

  Leadbitter, Ted

  The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone spoke about a failure to disclose our intentions. They said that we were concealing the truth, that our integrity was in question, and that there was a question of our honour. They seem to have forgotten Suez. Then there was a cold, calculated, frigid deception of the House that went on day after day. Neither I nor my colleagues are willing to take lessons in honour and honesty from a Front Bench that was then part of that Government, nor are we prepared to listen to the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition, who whipped them all into the Lobby then in support of a policy of trickery, deceit and deception.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 246.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Newens, Stan

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

  Silverman, Julius

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ogden, Eric

  Slater, Joseph

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Small, William

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Snow, Julian

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Orme, Stanley

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Storehouse, Rt, Hn. John

  Luard, Evan

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Park, Trevor

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Taverne, Dick

  McCann, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  MacColl, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  MacDermot, Niall

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tinn, James

  McGuire, Michael

  Pentland, Norman

  Tomney, Frank

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, s.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackie, John

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Probert, Arthur

  Wallace, George

  Marion, Peter (Preston. S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Randall, Harry

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

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

  Rankin, John

  Weitzman, David

  Manuel, Archie

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mapp, Charles

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Richard, Ivor

  Whitaker, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Whitlock, William

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mendelson, John

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Millan, Bruce

  Roebuck, Roy

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Molloy, William

  Rowlands, E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Moonman, Eric

  Ryan, John

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Woof, Robert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Moyle, Roland

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Murray, Albert

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

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Neal, Harold

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bryan, Paul

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Doughty, Charles

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Astor, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Burden, F. A.

  Eden, Sir John

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Emery, Peter

  Balniel, Lord

  Carlisle, Mark

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Batsford, Brian

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Bell, Ronald

  Chataway, Christopher

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Farr, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry

  Fisher, Nigel

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Biffen, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Foster, Sir John

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Corfield, F. V.

  FraseT, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain. A. P.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Blaker, Peter

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Body, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Braine, Bernard

  Dance, James

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brewis, John

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gower, Raymond

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Dean, Paul

  Grant, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Royle, Anthony

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Neil

  Scott, Nicholas

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sharples, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hay, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Silvester, Frederick

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Speed, Keith

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stainton, Keith

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hordern, Peter

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Temple, John M.

  Hunt, John

  Neave, Airey

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Tilney, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nott, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Waddington, David

  Jopling, Michael

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pardoe, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kimball, Marcus

  Peel, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Percival, Ian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kitson, Timothy

  Peyton, Jonn

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lane, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Lawler, Wallace

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Francis

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wright, Esmond

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacArthur, Ian

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Resolved,
  That pursuant to Standing Order No. 43A (Allocation of time to Bills) the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before Monday 14th July and as respects proceedings in that Committee the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have posted my selection of Amendments. The first selected is Amendment No. 1.

Clause 8

  CONSENT BY PERSONS OVER 16 TO SURGICAL, MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 20, at beginning insert:
  Except in the case of a minor in statu pupillari and resident during term time for not less than half the year at an educational establishment.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this Amendment, because the subject was hardly ventilated during previous stages of the Bill. On Second Reading, the Attorney-General disposed of it in four and a half lines of HANSARD, and in Committee in another place and in the Commons the Clause was moved formally.
  Before deploying my case, may I give the House a short background to it? In December, last year, the medical officer of one of our great schools wrote to me in a state of some anxiety about the implications for school doctors of the Latey Committee's recommendation that the age of consent to medical treatment should be reduced to 16. He raised a number of questions both on his own behalf and more generally as a member of the Association of Medical Officers of Schools.
  His main anxieties arise from the probability that the right of a 16-year-old to consent, or withhold consent, to diagnosis and treatment, for all practical purposes will carry with it the right to professional and ethical secrecy, in other words, to his physician's silence about any disease or treatment from which the 16-years-old may be suffering
  1408
  This distinguished doctor was worried, as well he might be, about the position of school physicians if a 16-year-old student were able to forbid the disclosure, for example, to parents or housemasters, that he was suffering from what might be a serious disease. When I received this communication, I discussed the problem with a number of schoolmasters and parents of children at boarding schools, not all of them public schools—on the contrary, they included people with interests in State-run boarding schools, industrial training establishments, charitable institutions and religious foundations, and some of them with interests in military training. They all agreed that the doctor had raised a valid question requiring careful investigation.
  I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary expressing my concern and asking for reconsideration. That was on 2nd December, 1968. The Under-Secretary at the Home Office, who was unable to answer my questions himself, passed my letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services. His Ministry at that time—I was tempted to say "as usual"—was in such a muddle that it lost it. When he did reply, the Minister of State said:
  "I am afraid that these papers were overlooked."
  To cut a long story short, it was not until four months after I had written to inquire that in April of this year I finally received a reply. By then, the Latey Committee's recommendations had been included in the Bill which had completed its passage through another place and received its Second Reading here. At that time, I regret, I was in the United States and so unable to raise the issue on Second Reading.
  The reply which I eventually received from the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, was not worth the paper on which it was written. I had made a serious inquiry and I received a reply four months late, without a date on it and containing at least one glaring spelling error. It was pompous, didactic and patronising of the school doctors and, characteristically, it missed the point which I am now glad to be able to explain.
  When I passed the letter with the Government's explanation to the doctors concerned, his reaction was instructive. I

  1409
  quote from a letter written by the medical officer of one of our largest schools. He said:
  It was of course a complete surprise to me to know that this recommendation was already in the legislative sausage machine and indeed had received a Second Reading."
  Perhaps the medical profession should have been more vigilant, but, as far as I can discover, the school doctors and their association were not consulted about this change in the law which will intimately affect their professional duty in the school. I do not know whether they have been consulted since; perhaps the Attorney-General will enlighten us. There followed a full meeting of the council of the school medical officers and it is because of their continuing concern that I have moved this Amendment at this very last moment.
  The heart of the matter is the construction which is normally placed by the medical profession on the right to consent to treatment. Counsel for the Medical Defence Union, whose opinions have been sought on this point, say:
  " It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment."
  I am advised that in effect this means that any boy or girl deemed to be old enough to consent to medical treatment likewise has the right to forbid a doctor to divulge information to any third party about that treatment, or about the condition which makes such treatment necessary.
  It is also true, as the Medical Defence Union's lawyers go on to say, that in any event it would be a breach of a doctor's ethical obligation to his patient to divulge such information even about 16-year-olds. But in practice, as hon. Members will know, school doctors, whether at boarding schools, military or industrial training establishments, or religious instituttions, almost invariably reserve the right to tell the parents, or the headmaster, any confidential information about a boy's medical condition, or his need for treatment, provided that one of two circumstances is met. The first is that in the doctor's opinion it is in the interests of the boy so to do, and the second is that it is necessary for the protection of the school, or of the other children at the school.
  1410
  I cannot believe that any hon. Member would think that was wrong. Yet under Clause 8 it is, to say the least, an open question whether a student over the age 16 could not, by extension of the right to consent, forbid his school doctor to divulge that information about him. That is the opinion of those who have advised me on this matter and, from the documents which I have seen, it appears to be the view of the Medical Defence Union.
  I want to cite a number of examples of what this could mean in practice. I stress that all are hypothetical, because I do not wish to start any hares in the public prints. All three are, however, cases which could easily exist.
  The first is the possible case of a 16year-old boy at one of the G.L.C.'s state-run boarding schools. Supposing he contracts syphillis. Under present arrangements, the school doctor would consider what best to do. He might or he might not feel it right to tell the parents—they might be serving abroad. But almost certainly he would feel it his duty to inform the school headmaster. As the law now stands, the boy could not forbid this, not at least unless he was of age. But if the Bill is passed as it stands, it is possible—I put it no higher, although I am advised that it is probable—that a court could take the view that the boy would be within his rights to forbid such disclosure of his condition and the doctor could be in the wrong if he transgressed against the boy's prohibition.
  The second example concerns a schoolgirl of 16 who becomes pregnant and who in a state of emotional distress is discovered by the school doctor to be seeking to procure an abortion. That girl's principal need is surely for her parents' affection and understanding and yet I can imagine circumstances where, out of shame or pride or embarrassment, she would not wish her parents to be told. She might hope, for example, that by seeking an abortion, legal or illegal, she could hide her predicament from her parents entirely. She might deem it best to tell them when it was all over.
  At present the doctor discovering this fact would undoubtedly inform the girl's headmistress and her parents. In most cases at least no question of medical ethics would be allowed to stand in the way of his divulging that information.

  1411
  But if Clause 8 stands as it is, the girl might in law be able to prohibit her doctor from making the disclosure which I believe the whole House, at least in most circumstances, would feel it was his duty to make. At the very least, the doctor's discretion so to do ought not to be compromised by Clause 8 as it stands.
  The third of these hypothetical examples concerns a group of 16-year-olds who might have been hooked on drugs. The Attorney-General will not deny that this is a growing problem, particularly in London, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that addiction to cannabis can be or is excluded from our boarding schools. Supposing the school doctor finds out. If it were heroin, be would be under an obligation to inform the police. In the case of soft drugs such as cannabis, and as Clause 8 stands, I am advised that there is at least a possibility that the students concerned, if they were over the age of 16, could forbid the doctor to divulge the facts of their addiction either to their parents or to the school.
  It is open to the Attorney-General to argue, as no doubt he will, that this in practice will not be the case. But there is to say the least, an important area of doubt and it concerns school doctors, their Association and the Medical Defence Union. There should not be any doubt when Parliament lays down this law, but here is an area of doubt which weighs heavily with the doctors. I want to quote from what one of them wrote to me the other day about the reply I had received on this point from Lady Serota. He said:
  "I do not think that this lady appreciates the position of schools like mine or of school officers like myself…"
  I hope that the Attorney-General will note this well:
  "Schools and school doctors will be put in an impossible position if a doctor cannot inform any member of the staff, including the headmaster, or the parents of the pupil concerned about any illness or injury to a child a boy of 16 years and over".
  I ask the Attorney-General to note that, in many of our boarding schools, those of 16 years and over constitute more than two-fifths of the pupils. This doctor stresses that the school doctors will be in an impossible position if they cannot inform parents without the express consent of the boys.
  1412
  Because of these anxieties, I am advised that school doctors will be forced, if the Amendment is not accepted, to take steps to protect themselves. I am informed that the Medical Defence Union has told them as follows:
  "In the case of boys and girls at school over the age of 16 it is the view of the Medical Defence Union that the school medical officer is entitled to reserve the right to inform the parents and/or headmaster or headmistress of confidential information about a boy or girl if he considers that it is within their own interest or necessary for the protection of other pupils that he should do so.
  Strictly this would be a breach of the doctor's ethical obligation to his patient and if this causes concern to a school medical officer his position could be protected by the school governing body making it known both to the boys and their parents that it is a condition of their acceptance by the school that the school medical officer should have this unlimited right."
  The prospect, as I understand it, is that if Clause 8 is allowed to stand without Amendment, the schools will have to put a clause into their prospectuses in future making this condition quite clear. They will have to stipulate that it is a condition of his acceptance that the school medical officer should have unlimited right to discuss the medical affairs of a pupil with the headmaster and parents.
  It may be, since we are close to the end of the Bill, that they will have no other alternative. It may be the only way out. But in my view, it is wrong that the schools should have to do this because Parliament or the Government have not adequately thought out all the implications of the Clause. It is even more wrong if schools have to require this express reservation to be made by pupils and by parents for the purpose of evading the potential force of the law laid down by Parliament.
  I cannot think that the Government really have given this matter adequate thought and on these grounds alone I urge the Amendment. But they are not the only grounds, and in conclusion I draw the Attorney-General's attention to a personal case of a school boy who happens to be my own son. I refer to him because he is typical, in no way special.
  Not very long ago, my son broke his shoulder when playing rugby. When the shoulder was set, the knitting together of the bones was not at first sight successful. It became necessary to break that set and

  1413
  to do it again. Once again it seemed that even with the re-setting he would have a disability in his shoulder for the rest of his life.
  A choice then had to be made whether to break the set a third time, with all the pain and worry which goes with it for a youngster keen on athletics. It was a difficult decision. My son, as it happened, was just below the age that this Bill would cover. He was under the age of 16 but he might well have been just over 16.
  That was for me one of the most agonising decisions. I knew that it would give immense pain. I knew that if the set were broken a third time there was still no guarantee that it would be right. But I had to decide. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be open to a boy of 16 to make that decision for himself, and I submit on the evidence that it would have been wholly wrong to lay that decision upon my son. It was necessary for his parents to take the responsibility and to make the decision on his behalf. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that this is what parents are for.
  The Attorney-General will no doubt put a number of reasons why the Clause may stand as it is and why my anxieties are unfounded. I invite him to do so. I hope that he will be able to satisfy the school doctors and their association and many parents who are very much concerned about this. But I say to the Attorney-General that there is here at the very least an area of legal confusion. My Amendment is designed to limit and if possible to eliminate the doctors' confusion.
  In her letter to me in which she summarised the Government's view about these points, Baroness Serota concluded with this sentence:
  "There is no reason why this new Clause should change the present position which it seems that those who approached you have misunderstood".
  That was an imperceptive, not say an arrogant, statement. Those who have approached me have by no means misunderstood the Clause. They have considered it very carefully—more carefully, I suspect, than the Department of Health and Social Security. They have taken the best available legal advice from the Medical Defence Union. They have even taken steps, although I believe them to be
  1414
  unsatisfactory, to protect themselves if the Government insist on keeping the Clause as it stands.
  However, I have perhaps a little more confidence in the Attorney-General than they have. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with some confidence. It is true that the Government did not consult the school doctors. It is true that when I made my original submissions they lost my letter. It is true that neither in the other place nor in this House has there been any discussion of this point during the Committee stage. But there is still time. So I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will apply his quick and benevolent mind to the problem. Let him change my inadequate Amendment in any way he wishes, but let him not rush into law with a Clause, whose intentions I do not oppose but whose detailed application could cause confusion and even distress unless the Amendment or something like it is accepted, even at this final hour.
  Mr. John Lee: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that I did not hear his opening remarks. He has raised a matter of some importance, although I am bound to say that I disagree with him almost entirely. Although he has put his case forward with a good deal of force and fear, I think that he has misunderstood what the Clause is about.
  The hon. Gentleman points out—and it is an understandable apprehension—that there might be a certain amount of difficulty about the relationship of doctors to those who are in charge, in a disciplinary way, of an educational establishment in the medical care of the pupils in that establishment. The fallacy of that is simply this. Either the House takes the view that a person of 16 is mature enough to consent to medical treatment or it does not. Either we accept that 16 is a reasonable age for people to exercise this power themselves or we do not. It does not matter whether they are in an educational institution.
  It may well be that many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who will be, in the nature of things, engaged in higher education and, therefore, may be better educated, are in a better position to weigh the pros and cons and understand the consequences of their actions in exercising the powers

  1415
  which the Bill grants them rather than people who are not in educational institutions. In other words, it might be argued a little more plausibly that there is a case for having the Amendment the other way around.
  6.15 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to concern almost entirely the disclosure of the nature of illnesses. The Clause is concerned with the giving of consent to treatment, and so on. It is an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman went on to give some singularly inappropriate examples in support of his argument. To say that it is right to disclose to a third party facts about someone suffering from venereal disease or an unmarried person who is pregnant is a most extraordinary argument to use in support of an Amendment of this kind. Of all the conditions in which one would have thought confidentiality was most important, irrespective of the patient's age, it is just medical conditions of this kind.
  It may well be that, with the growing maturity of young people and the growing permissiveness of society, these are embarrassing disciplinary problems in educational institutions. But it is most extraordinary to use this as an argument for making the medical officer a spy, although perhaps that puts it rather strongly, on behalf of those in charge of people in an educational institution. It would not give confidence to pupils who went to them in obviously embarrassing circumstances that what they disclosed would go no further than was necessary for medical purposes.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's point about spies, which is nonsense, but would he address his mind to the point made by the Medical Defence Union which I quoted:
  "It is widely accepted that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment"?
  That is the legal point.
  Mr. Lee: That may be so. Once we accept the concept that a person of a given age is likely to be mature enough to weigh up these matters, if we destroy confidentiality, not only shall we put them in a difficult position in a discipline-
  1416
  ary way, which may be justified, but we may inhibit them from seeking treatment, which the most important aspect.
  I am not entirely enamoured of the Clause. The age of 18 would possibly have been a better age. More people seem to become more mature year by year. These are weighty matters. The example of his son which the hon. Gentleman used is invalid for another reason. I imagine that any normal person would seek the assistance and advice of people older than themselves, perhaps their parents if they enjoyed a normal parental relationship. Therefore, when there is no delicacy in the situation, it is only reasonable to suppose that the pupil will be only too glad to lean on the shoulders of people older than themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman has done a service by raising this matter because there are problems which need to be solved, but my main objection to this Amendment is that it is totally illogical to draw a vertical distinction between some people of 16 and other people of the same age. One could perhaps divide it in other ways, but not that way.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us what he thinks of certain letters issued on behalf of educational institutions purporting to grant to their medical officers the right to disclose information. This would seem to be to disregard the provisions of the Bill. I suspect that those disclaimers of all cautionary provisos would not have very much effect. I should have thought that they should not be encouraged, in any event, and I certainly have doubts whether, in the face of the provisions of the Bill—if unamended—they would have any validity.
  Those are all the points that I wished to make. The hon. Member has raised an interesting point, but I do not think that the argument that he has adduced merits a change in the Bill.
  Sir Lionel Heald: I would not venture to offer any opinion on the legal conundrum raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) but I hope that the learned Attorney-General will deal with it. With great respect to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) he did not meet my hon. Friend's difficulty. The hon. Member expressed his opinion

  1417
  on moral and other matters but I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned with the difficulty which genuinely arises for organisations such as the Medical Defence Union which are uncertain of the legal situation. It may be that, as is so often the case, in a few moments the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us, with the utmost clarity and certainty so that we can accept it without question, the answer to the point, but at the moment I am impressed by the case put forward by my hon. Friend, which until now does not seem to have been treated with the seriousness that it merits.
  People are in difficulties over these legal problems. We have often come across such cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is most important that people should know where they stand. There may be a simpler explanation than that which my hon. Friend has given of the matter, but he is entitled to an answer.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall be brief. This is an important point, and as an ex-teacher I see a greater significance in it than does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). He picked three important but nevertheless unique and exhaustive examples, but he touched on a set of consequences with which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will deal.
  First, I require to be convinced that the right to medical secrecy is in fact a corollary to the right of consent. Presuming that that is the position, will my right hon. and learned Friend dwell upon the consequences to which I have referred? In many cases of medical treatment it is important for the head teacher to know the facts, if only for the sake of the student concerned. This is true in some cases of medical treatment of the ears and eyes, and of other medical treatment which affects the emotional stability of students.
  If the submission that the right to medical secrecy is a corollary of the right to consent is supported by evidence a grave situation might arise if the Clause omitted to take that fact into account. My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that a wider field has been opened up, and I hope that he will make clear whether the right to medical secrecy
  1418
  is as firmly established as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has suggested.
  Mr. John Lee: Accepting my hon. Friend's point that in certain circumstances it may be valuable, desirable or even necessary for certain information to be disclosed to a head teacher, is it not equally true that such information should be disclosed to officials of other institutions, and not merely educational institutions?
  Mr. Leadbitter: I do not place any great importance upon the levels of treatment of certain diseases, or their natures. As an ex-teacher, however, I am much troubled about the doubts that may exist in people's minds when they have to deal with these situations. Any misuse of information by members of institutions would be very wrong.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has raised some important and interesting questions. I say at once—lest some of his strictures may have caused alarm—that my understanding is that the Clause has been enthusiastically supported by all the relevant professional medical organisations—The British Medical Association, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, the Institute of Hospital Administrators, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Ministry of Health. To say that this matter has not been carefully looked at is less than just and certainly not accurate.
  The fact is that it may be the law already that a person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment. The main purpose of the Clause is not so much to change the law as to make it certain. This has been done at the express request of the medical organisations concerned in these matters. As the Latey Committee pointed out, the problem is not that the law is necessarily wrong but that it is confused and unclear, and therefore leads to inconsistencies of practice. The Clause is therefore designed to make it quite clear what may already be the law, namely, that any person over the age of 16 can give a valid consent to any surgical, medical or dental treatment.
  The House will appreciate that this is a branch of the law which in practice must be applied by doctors, often in difficult

  1419
  and urgent situations. It is therefore essential that, whatever else it may be, the law should be simple and clear. There is no rigid rule of English law which renders any minor—no matter of what age—incapable of giving his consent to an operation, but there seems to be no direct judicial authority establishing that the consent of such a person is valid. Until some years ago it was customary in practice to require the consent of a parent or guardian to an operation or to an anæsthetic being given to anybody under the age of 21, but for a number of reasons it has recently become more customary for doctors to accept the consent of minors over the age of 16.
  6.30 p.m.
  The B.M.A. and the other professional organisations that I have mentioned consider that the law should clearly provide that such consent is valid, and the Latey Committee agrees with that view—so do the Government. Clause 8 provides accordingly, but, as the House will notice, it does so in declaratory form, and subsection (3) expressly provides:
  "Nothing in this section shall be construed as making ineffective any consent which would have been effective if this section had not been enacted."
  The reason for this is that the law relating to consents given by persons under 16 is not clear, and whilst it is not necessary or appropriate for this Bill to enact a code to cover those persons as well, we think it would be wrong to validate consents by persons over 16 in such terms as to cast doubts on the invalidity of consents given by persons under 16, if some of them would otherwise have been valid but for the casting of such doubts.
  The Latey Committee said:
  "It is clear that in cases of emergency or unconsciousness all considerations regarding consent will be set aside and doctors will do whatever is necessary to save the life of the patient "—
  be he infant or be he an adult—
  "to save him from permanent disability or from unnecessary pain and suffering. In this they can only be guided by their professional conscience and will be acting as agents of necessity."
  I think it would be quite wrong to do anything by a side wind, as I think this Amendment would do, which might make the doctors' task more difficult.
  1420
  The Latey Committee took the view that 16 should be clearly established in law as the age above which consent can always be given to medical treatment, but as a matter of ethics and practice—and it seemed to me that most of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman were questions of medical ethics and practice—as a matter of ethics and practice. as I say, as opposed to law, the Latey Committee thought that doctors should make contact with the parents or guardian of a minor—or husband in the case of a woman—in every case unless the minor refuses permission. Moreover, as the Medical Protection Society put it, the doctor:
  "should also have some regard to the degree of emancipation of the patient, for example, a 17 year old girl wholly dependant on her parents and receiving her education at a fee paying school is in a different position from the young man of similar age living away from home and supporting himself".
  It would seem that this is the kind of situation which the hon. Member had in mind. But I should add, perhaps, to complete the picture, that he also said it should be regarded as essential for the nature and extent of the proposed treatment to be explained to the patient by a doctor and that it should be on the consent form, signed by a doctor, that this has been done.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  The Attorney-General: It may be that I am dealing with the matter that I am about to be asked, but, if not, I shall of course give way. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman seems designed to incorporate in the law the single example given by the Latey Committee to demonstrate the need for flexibility in practice. That, I submit, is contrary to the recommendation of the Latey Committee and, I am informed, of all the medical organisations which have been consulted. All of these took the view, with which the Government agree, that the law must be clear and uniform and must clearly apply to all persons over 16, and I think it is very important—and this is where some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman went awry—that the distinction between the requirements of the law and the requirements of medical practice must be kept clear and that it would be quite wrong to try to enact the requirements

  1421
  of medical practice in an Act of Parliament as if we were dealing with the requirements of law. Now I come to what I consider—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say as clearly as he is able whether the 17-yearold girl to whom he referred would be in the position to prohibit her medical adviser from telling her mother that she is pregnant?
  The Attorney-General: I think she can do so now and I think she could do so under the Bill. Whether the doctor accepted the prohibition would be a matter for his conscience, of what he thought to be right and what he thought to be appropriate. I should have thought that the advice which the hon. Gentleman read out, being advice given by the Medical Protection Society, in this field was sound, but this is a matter into which, as the Attorney seeking to advise the House on the law, I would certainly not be disposed to enter. It must be a matter for the medical profession itself, by its rules, by its practices, by its standards, to determine.
  What I submit to the House is that it is very doubtful indeed whether the Amendment would have the effect which it seems designed to have. Its only effect would be to exclude one class of persons from subsection (1) of the Clause; that would, however, still leave them subject to the existing law as preserved by subsection (3). As I have said, there is nothing in the existing law which says that these persons—the 17-year-olds, if hon. Members please—cannot give their consent now. As I have said, these days, and for quite a time now, customarily they do so and have done so. So, as it stands the Amendment will not be likely to achieve much, but it would certainly perpetuate uncertainty in one small and anomalous set of cases.
  Let us, however, consider, for a moment, assuming that the Amendment might have some effect, what result it might have. The House will notice that it is not limited as to time, so that while any person over 16 who was not a student could always give consent, even if he was living at home, a person who fulfilled the conditions of the Amendment would, to some extent at any rate, be unable to give his consent, not only while
  1422
  at school or college, when the tutor or person in loco parentis would have to give it for him, but he would be unable to give it while he was at home or away somewhere else, and that, surely, must be wrong on any view of this matter. I submit that it would add an intolerable burden, if, when a doctor had a difficult and urgent decision to make about an operation, perhaps when a young person is brought in after a motor cycle accident—all too frequent—he had to satisfy himself by law and as a matter of law that the patient, if under 18, was not
  "in statu pupillari and resident during term time at not less than half the year at an educational establishment"
  and that, if he was, the appropriate consent was forthcoming from parent, guardian, headmaster or tutor.
  Therefore, this Amendment, in my submission, is wrong in principle, and would add an intolerable burden to the tasks which already face a profession under strain with, alas, the multiplicity of accidents requiring quick decision by the medical profession. As to the doctor's dilemma which the hon. Gentleman put to me, these are matters which the medical profession must itself regulate; but, as I say, my understanding is that this Clause has the approval of the medical profession, and I doubt very much whether the Amendment would have.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has undoubtedly stimulated a most interesting and very valuable discussion, and I am sure that the Attorney-General would not want anybody to think by his last powerful words—but said with the greatest agreeableness—that this is not a matter of interest that has been raised by my hon. Friend. We have had from the Attorney-General an interesting reply to the point which my hon. Friend made so many months ago which was not at the time appreciated.
  I was more interested as a parent than as a lawyer. I have always believed that my daughter of that age would have to get my consent before any operation was performed. As a parent, I would certainly expect the doctor who treated my child in the circumstances pointed out by my hon. Friend to communicate with me.

  1423
  With respect to my hon. Friend, it seems to me that the Attorney-General is correct in saying that we are concerned basically with the ethics of the doctor. The doctor should take upon himself such responsibility, and we sincerely hope that he will do so. The arguments of the Attorney-General have force and validity. Nevertheless, our examination of the position and the short discussion which we have had have been of immense value.
  Mr. Elden Griffiths: It would clearly be wrong for me to seek to divide the House on the Amendment. In seeking to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say to the Attorney-General that he has simply not answered the question which I nut to him on the advice that has been given to me by the Medical Defence Union, namely, that the right to professional secrecy goes with the right to consent to treatment, and that children of 16 could forbid their doctors to inform their parents or head teachers of their physical condition. I cannot believe it is right. I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise the question, and it may be that we shall return to it.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

  PRESUMPTION THAT IN DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY REFERENCES TO CHILDREN AND OTHER RELATIVES INCLUDE REFERENCES TO, AND TO PERSONS RELATED THROUGH, ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 6, at end insert:
  (7) There is hereby abolished, as respects dispositions made after the coming into force of this section, any rule of law that a disposition in favour of illegitimate children not in being when the disposition takes effect is void as contrary to public policy.
  The Amendment abrogates, if it still exists—and here again the law is in a state of some uncertainty, I am afraid—the rule of law that a disposition in favour of "future bastards" is void on grounds of public policy. During the debate on this part of the Bill the Committee used the old English expression "bastards"
  1424
  without apology, in place of "illegitimate children ", "bastards" being both the old English and the true legal description.
  The Amendment makes good an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The matter was raised by the noble Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I expressed the view that, although the existence and scope of the rule was a matter of doubt, the Government's intention was that no such rule should operate after the commencement of Clause 15, and I undertook to put down an appropriate Amendment, which I have now done.
  I gave in Committee the reasons for doubting the survival of this old rule. It has certainly been castigated by some of our judges, and the House may care to be reminded of the comments of the Master of the Rolls in the case of Sydall v. Castings Ltd. on this subject, when he said:
  "I think that we should throw over those harsh rules of the past. They are not rules of law. They are only guides to the construction of documents. They are quite out of date. We no longer penalise the illegitimate child. We should replace those old rules by a more rational approach. If they are wide enough to include an illegitimate child, we should so interpret them. Just as Mackinnon, J., did in Morris v. Britannic Assurance Co. Ltd., when he held that, in a statute concerning industrial assurance benefits, the word 'child' included an illegitimate child. So here, the words relations 'and descendants' in a group assurance scheme are wide enough to include illegitimate children and we should so interpret them."
  6.45 p.m.
  Other judges, Mr. Justice Harman, for instance, have questioned the extent of the survival of the rule which this Amendment abrogates. It is because of the doubt whether there is any such rule that the Amendment refers to "any rule of law" and not to "the rule of law". The Amendment does not, therefore, prejudice an argument seeking to show that the alleged rule does not anyhow apply to a particular disposition made before the commencement of Clause 15.
  The noble Baronet did not commit himself to approving the solution to this problem which is contained in the Amendment, but it is diffiult to see what other solution could be accepted. The basis of Clause 15 is that a disposition in favour of relations, whether children, remoter issue or collaterals, is prima facie to be taken as being intended to benefit

  1425
  those related through illegitimate as well as legitimate links. In the nature of things, many of those capable of benefiting on this basis will be unborn at the time the disposition is made, and it would be absurd if Parliament were to provide, on the one hand, that such a disposition should be construed as intended to benefit those persons, but, on the other hand, that public policy required this intention to be frustrated.
  If, contrary to the philosophy underlying Clause 15, "future bastards" ought not to benefit, then Clause 15 is fundamentally wrong. If, however, Clause 15 is right, as I submit it is, it follows that future bastards should not be excluded on grounds of public policy.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I should be churlish if I did not express pleasure that the Government have seen fit to put down an Amendment on this point, because I insisted in Committee that something was necessary. To that extent I am grateful to the learned Attorney-General for the Amendment and also for his explanation.
  The Attorney-General expressed doubt about the validity of the rule which the Amendment seeks to abolish. I am inclined to agree that there is such a doubt, but we must look at this and ask why there is a doubt. The answer is that there has been no need to test this rule for a very long time, and the matter is now important because of the insertion of Clause 15 in the Bill.
  The right hon. and learned Attorney-General's argument comes to this: that, if Clause 15 is to be inserted in the Bill, it is necessary to make an Amendment in this connection also. If the Government had attempted to insert an Amendment the other way round, they may well have found themselves in still more of a difficulty.
  This matter was carefully considered by the Russell Committee, a Committee composed of a number of distinguished lawyers and experts in the law. Having considered the matter, that Committee unanimously agreed that there should be no change of the law in this connection and that a provision on the lines of the present Clause 15 should not be put in the Bill. They decided that any change would be bound to lead to a number of difficulties and complications. It will
  1426
  not be helpful to anybody, least of all to the bastard himself; it can lead only to doubt, litigation and trouble.
  I do not agree with the sense in which the Government now propose to alter the law. I gave my reasons at some length on Committee and, in view of this Amendment, I shall repeat them quite shortly. The situation may arise where a person makes a trust in favour of a young person, giving that young person a life interest in certain property and then after providing that after his or her death the property should go to one or more of that person's children. At present, taking the ordinary meaning of the word "children", that is to say, legitimate children, no question arises in connection with the problem which is proposed to be dealt with by the Amendment. But if one changes the meaning of the word "children" so as to include bastards, the effect is that the gift is to a person who may be unmarried at the time of the gift for life only and then over to his or her illegitimate children.
  In certain circumstances this is a direct invitation to the life tenant of the property to beget an illegitimate child so as to be able to secure the succession and to prevent it going away from his own family. It could give rise to cases where a person, either male or female, seeks to obtain an illegitimate child from another person on condition of some money payment. Where a substantial settlement involves £100,000, the kind of offer that could be made could be very tempting—perhaps even as much as £50,000.
  The Attorney-General: Would the hon. Member say what possible benefit that would give to this remarkable character who is being described hypothetically? I do not know how he could benefit. He could have the dog-in-the-manger satisfaction of denying a relative something that he might otherwise get, but this course of profligate intercourse in order to deny a relative seems an unusual sequence of events.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to go at length into the discussions which took place in Committee. I there cited the case of a married couple who were unable to have children of their own, who went overseas and came back with a child who was a child of one of them

  1427
  but not the other, in order that that child should be able to inherit and keep the funds within the family. That is the kind of thing that actually happens. I have little doubt that it could easily happen under the law as envisaged in this provision.
  The provision will lead to the kinds of complications which were aptly illustrated in an excellent speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in Committee. I not unfairly described the speech as requiring a computer to work it out. Indeed, the Attorney-General paid very close attention to his script and I am sure would be incapable of repeating his exposition of the meaning of the Clause in the House today. This is only one example of the kind of difficulty which will arise as a result of the Clause. I object to the direction in which the Amendment has gone, I object to the Clause as it stands, and I should be willing to go into the Lobby to vote against the Amendment.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I share the views put to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). In considering these matters we must try to draw the law in such a way as to provide for these strange circumstances which, as those of us who practise in the courts know, arise from time to time. The case cited by my hon. Friend, odd as it may seem, strange as it must have appeared to those who listened to it, was a real case. We must try to ensure that the law is properly drawn to cover the whole of the area.
  I share my hon. Friend's attitude to Clause 15. It is quite true that the Russell Committee unanimously decided that no such provision should be included in any legislation. The Amendment to the Clause takes us into an area in which it is sought to be said that it is no longer contrary to public policy to do something which has been the law. It has not been tested, but it has always been thought to be public policy that there should not be a disposition in favour of illegitimate children not in being. The Bill will now introduce the presumption that where property is being disposed of children and relatives should include bastard children and therefore the relatives of those bastard children. This
  1428
  means that the disposer, if he so wishes, can include bastards as coming within the word "children". Because of the complexities, the inconvenience, and ultimately the litigation and cost which may well arise from these provisions, we should be most careful before seeking to change what in the past has been a rule of law.
  It has been pointed out during proceedings on the Bill that a problem will exist where a claim is made through the father's line. The position of illegitimate children claiming through the mother presents no real difficulty in practice. The pregnancy of the mother is easily proven, and there is little dispute about the birth. But the bastard child conceived many years previously and not acknowledged by the father throughout the whole of his life presents the possibility of the bastard or the bastard's relatives suddenly appearing to make a claim on an estate. In the case of small estates such an event would give rise to very grave difficulties. A large estate with its resources will be able to beat off a spurious claim, but a claim on a small estate could be extremely serious. With Clause 15 as it appears in the Bill and no protection given to the possibility of spurious claims through the father's line, in my view we should not abolish the rule of law.
  7.0 p.m.
  Under Clause 15 we make a disposition in favour of bastards. The difficulty arises in the case of a bastard not in being. If a testator makes his will in favour of "my son and his children", that does not exclude bastard children which that son might have in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has pointed out, if we abolish illegitimacy we also abolish legitimacy. If we make a disposition for children including all children that a man may have in the course of his life, we shall abolish a law which has served the public policy of society and of the State.
  Mr. John Lee: It is true that the controversial Divorce Reform Bill may make a difference, but where the parties have cohabited over a long period of time surely it would be reasonable for a testator to make provision not only for children in existence but those who are not in being.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: Could not he do that? He could make provision "for the children of my son X and Jane X", by name. All that he has to do is to take that amount of care. If he says "the children of my son", 25 years earlier when a young man serving in the Army the son may have had a child by some woman. What if that child then makes a claim? Surely the onus should be upon the person making the disposition in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has described. It is for the testator to make it clear that he is making the disposition in favour of the children of his son by his common law wife with whom he has been living.
  It would be a mistake to abolish this rule of law. The learned Attorney-General quoted the ringing tones and the words of the Master of the Rolls in his judgment in Sydall v. Castings Ltd. However, I do not think that they are wholly apposite to the problem that we are discussing. What the learned Master of the Rolls said in that case does not fit what we are looking at now. We are discussing whether we should remove from the general principles of English law the idea that bastards not in being should not be included in a general disposition. It is my personal instinct, therefore, to reject the Amendment, and I am coloured in my attitude to Clause 15 by the reasons which my hon. Friend has given.
  By the Private Member's Bill procedure, in recent times this House has

  Division No. 315.]

  AYES

  [7.7 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ensor, David

  Alldritt, Walter

  Cant, R. B.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Archer, Peter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Finch, Harold

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnes, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ford, Ben

  Bence, Cyril

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Forrester, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Binns, John

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Gardner, Tony

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Boyden, James

  Dempsey, James

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bradley, Tom

  Dewar, Donald

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dickens, James

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Doig, Peter

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, John

  Hamling, William

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

  Ennals, David

  Harper, Joseph

  made great changes in the law. It may be that the attitude of some persons has not wholly caught up with the progressive attitude of the Houses of Parliament. But I do not think that we should abrogate this rule of law as an act of policy in a Government Bill. Therefore, as I share my hon. Friend's attitude and as my attitude to Clause 15 is coloured by what he has said, I shall join him in voting against the Amendment.
  The Attorney-General: If I may reply to the debate briefly, the Amendment and Clause 15 are in keeping with the principles and approach of Part II of the Bill dealing with the property rights of illegitimate children. I would be the last to deny that the implementation of the new rule will not in all cases be easy. But as a rule it has the benefit of being simple and universal and, as a result of these proceedings, it will become immediately known to all legal advisers.
  We are dealing with a sphere of property where the dispositions with which we are concerned are in favour of remote relatives, usually of a complicated nature and made on the basis of legal advice. I feel confident that lawyers will be able to cope with any difficult problems that may arise. As for spurious claims by remote bastards, I have confidence in the ability of the courts to smell out the rogue.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 119.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

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

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Hazell, Bert

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Henig, Stanley

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rowlands, E.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Ryan, John

  Hooley, Frank

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mapp, Charles

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Hynd, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Marquand, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Slater, Joseph

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Small, William

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

  Mendelson, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Millan, Bruce

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

  Symonds, J. B.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tinn, James

  Ke ey, Richard

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomney, Frank

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Moyle, Roland

  Tuck, Raphael

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Murray, Albert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lawler, Wallace

  Neal, Harold

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lawson, George

  Newens, Stan

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Ogden, Eric

  Wallace, George

  Lee, John (Reading)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Park, Trevor

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Whitlock, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Pentland, Norman

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Woof, Robert

  McCann, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  MacColl, James

  Probert, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rees, Merlyn

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  McGuire, Michael

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Neil McBride.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Balniel, Lord

  Gower, Raymond

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bell, Ronald

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Neave, Airey

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Body, Richard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pounder, Rafton

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rees-Davits, W. R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Clark, Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Eden, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

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

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

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

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maginnis, John E.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Waddington, David

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodnutt, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Waters, Dennis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mr. Anthony Grant and

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Wright, Esmond

  Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 13, line 14, at end insert:
  (8) No trust for such members of a given class of objects as the trustees may select shall be void by reason only of uncertainty due to the impossibility of ascertaining at any given time the illegitimate children or illegitimate relatives, if any, of any person.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had a word with both Front Benches, and we all seem to be agreed that with this Amendment we can take the following Amendments:
  Amendment No. 7, in line 34 [Clause 17], after '17', insert '(1)'.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 4 [Clause 17], at end, insert:
  (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply to an insurer who pays monies due under a policy of life insurance to persons entitled thereto either directly or on a distribution of the estate of a deceased, in like manner as they apply to a trustee or personal representative as therein provided.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we do as you suggest.
  Clause 15 provides the presumption that in dispositions of property, references to a child and its relatives shall include bastards and the bastards' relatives. Clause 17 provides an indemnity in respect of dispositions of property made in ignorance of the existence of a bastard, but it is an indemnity which is given only to trustees and personal representatives. Difficulty arises not only in respect of a claim possibly being made very many years after the conception of a bastard. A difficulty which could arise in this circumstance is such that one has to take into account the position of those people who make disposition of property but who are not trustees, and may dispose in ignorance of the existence of a bastard.
  The practice of certain life offices in small cases is, on the death of the policy holder, to make payment to the widow or to the next of kin without the production of the grant of representation. They do so in the smaller estates in order to avoid hardship and to give immediate assistance to the next of kin of the policy holder who has just died. What they do
  1434
  in that respect is, I understand, an extension, by agreement, of certain provisions of the Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act, 1965. The life offices obtain a statement of who the deceased's children are, and make payment without any risk of or fear of any risk of any other person intervening.
  The life offices believe that where there is no widow they may be at risk if they do not satisfy themselves that there is no illegitimate child.
  The deceased himself might not have known of the existence of the illegitimate child. The life offices therefore have been concerned and have been making representations as to the position which arises under this Bill. Will they be at risk and able to continue what I should have thought all hon. Members would consider an important and very useful practice, that of paying out before legal grant of administration? Many policies provide that on the death there should be payment out at the trustees' discretion. It may be payment out to a very wide class, including relatives and children. If, as the Bill will now provide, those children include illegitimate children and the relatives include relatives of illegitimate children, the trustees cannot be expected to review the whole class of beneficiaries.
  The life offices fear that such a trust would be void for uncertainty under the rule of the Revenue case, Inland Revenue Commissioners versus Broadway Cottages Trust. They have sought, and would like to see in the Bill, some provision to prevent that rule vitiating a trust for illegitimate children by reason of uncertainty as to who are beneficiaries. Does it include the illegitimate children and, if it is for relatives, the relatives of illegitimate children? They have posed this question during the passage of the Bill through the House.
  I can see that on the other side of the fence it can be said that there is no possibility of such a trust being held void under the rule in the Broadway Cottages case, but it is an opinion which can be expressed only and cannot be made sure until there is a decision or unless there is provision made in the Statute. It would not be difficult to imagine that the life

  1435
  offices might discontinue small payments without asking for a grant, because of the fear and risk. If that were so they would demand first that a grant of administration should be obtained, which would mean the postponement of these payments out.
  I can see the view which has been indicated that their fears are exaggerated and that they need not be so apprehensive. Clause 15 expresses an intention of presumption. It says that in dispositions of property reference to children and their relatives include references to persons related through illegitimate children. Therefore, it can be said that on one interpretation of the law Clause 15 is a rule of construction and a prima facie rule only. One can see that that is a submission and interpretation of the law which may be correct. However, can it be said with certainty that the entry of a new member into a trust does not affect the meaning of the words creating the trust? The life offices are not satisfied. They fear that they are being put at some risk. It would not be right for us to allow this Bill to pass into law without ensuring that there is not any such risk, and the purpose of these Amendments is to try to ensure that no risk arises.
  It may be demonstrated that there are enormous drafting snags in these Amendments, particularly in a matter as complex as this. That may well be the case and, if so, it will be too late for this House to do anything about it. On the other hand, the Attorney-General may be able to satisfy the House that these fears of the life offices are unfounded. It would be highly inconvenient if grants of administration had to be taken out before the cash was made available. That would undoubtedly affect others not covered by the terms of the Amendment I have moved. It would affect banks, but they have not been included and it is too late to include them. In a small estate the bank is not usually concerned; it is usually the insurer.
  Usually the widower or the son, wishes to draw from the life offices the not very considerable sum of perhaps a few hundred pounds to which he is entitled as the next of kin. But who is to say that he is the only next of kin? We come back to the difficulty inherent in this piece of legis-
  1436
  lation that, without seeking to do something which most people think is a compassionate and sensible thing to do, to relate the laws of succession and to introduce the illegitimate child in certain circumstances we are nevertheless perhaps creating very considerable problems.
  If the Attorney-General says that these Amendments do not do what I seek to do because of defective drafting or because it is not necessary, I hope that he will make a statement acceptable not only for its clarity and authority making certain that the Inland Revenue and the Estate Duty Office will be able to take note of it and appreciate that it has been said here with the authority of the Attorney-General. This seems an important practical point. We should not allow this Bill to become law without satisfying ourselves that the matter has been covered by legislation.
  The Attorney-General: We have been giving careful thought since the Committee stage to the matters which have given rise to these Amendments. The conclusion I have arrived at is that Amendment No. 6 is based on excessive fears about problems which Clause 15 might create. My conclusion is that the proposed Amendment would create fresh problems rather than eliminating existing ones.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Amendment is designed to meet a point concerning the Life Offices' Association. The life offices have expressed fear that trusts for pensions schemes under which trustees are empowered to make payments to a specified class of relative of members of a trust will as a result of Clause 15 be caught by the rule in the Broadway Cottages Trust case. The Association has made clear that its members are not so much concerned with trust deeds drawn up in future, because they can always be drafted if required to exclude such classes of illegitimate relatives as may be desired, as with existing trusts. The fear of the Association is that, as it can be argued for some purposes that the entry of a new member into a pension scheme constitutes a fresh "disposition", the new rule of construction could apply notwithstanding that the trust deed had been executed before the commencement of the operation of the Clause. That fear is ill-founded.

  1437
  The Clause is a rule of construction only, and subsequent events cannot alter the meaning of the words used in the original trust deed. For example, if the original trust deed specifies children as benificiaries and is drawn up before the Clause comes into force, "children" means legitimate children. Unless and until the trust deed is amended, "children" will continue to mean legitimate children, even though the trust continues in being after the commencement of the Bill.
  7.30 p.m.
  I have informed the Inland Revenue of my view that the subsequent entry of a new member into a scheme established under a trust deed executed before the commencement of the operation of the Clause cannot affect the construction of that deed, and I have no reason to suppose that the Revenue will disagree with that view.
  One of the difficulties about the Amendment is that it is not confined to existing trusts. It appears to be so worded as to apply equally to existing and to future trusts. In so far as it applies to any trust, it is objectionable. In so far it applies to existing trusts, it is open to the objection that it consitutes retrospective legislation capable of upsetting existing rights.
  The conclusion that I have arrived at on these difficult problems has received strengthening support from the observations of Lord Justice Harman in a case reported last week—re Baden's Deed Trust—where the learned Lord Justice dismissed, it is true obiter, the scope of the Broadway Cottages rule. In his view, the rule may not apply to ordinary family settlements, at any rate where the beneficiaries are close relatives of the settlor. Since, in practice, the only settlements likely to be drawn up without professional advice are those resulting from a "home-made will", it is, if Lord Justice Harman's doubts are well-founded, most unlikely that the Clause will ever cause such uncertainty as will invalidate a trust. Therefore, it would seem that the danger against which the Amendment seeks to guard may well be exaggerated.
  It is the case that one of the consequences of the Clause is that those making settlements hereafter will have to be careful to ensure that in using expressions
  1438
  denoting relationships without qualification they do not extend the possible range of objects too widely. However, in practice these settlements are invariably drafted with professional assistance from solicitors and others who will have the Clause well in mind.
  Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, are designed to give life assurance companies the same protection as is given by Clause 17 to trustees and personal representatives, and their object is to enable the company to pay out the policy money to the relatives of the deceased without worrying about the possibility of there being illegitimate children with an equal, or possibly better, claim.
  I agree that the practice of the Association in paying out promptly to the widow or other close relative of the deceased without waiting for representation to be taken out is obviously a sensible one. I appreciate the Association's worry that Clause 14 will make it difficult for life offices to continue that useful practice, because they will be at risk should a latent bastard, as we have come to know him in these discussions, subsequently make a successful claim to the estate.
  There are, however, problems in what the Association proposes. Insurers are not the only people affected by this problem. Bankers also in practice allow close relatives to draw cheques on the deceased's current account on the manager's being satisfied that they are entitled to succeed. The problem facing the life companies is one which faces any debtor of the estate who is prepared to take a chance on paying the right person. One of the inevitable consequences of accepting the policy in Clause 14 is that the risk of making a mistake is greater.
  Trustees and personal representatives, however, are in a different position from that of insurers, bankers, and other debtors. They are obliged to pay out to the persons entitled, whereas insurers and bankers are not; and they can, in a doubtful case, insist on representation being taken out. If Clause 17 were extended beyond the class of persons obliged to pay out, it is difficult to see where to draw the line.
  In practice, the Association's problem is not likely to be as great as it fears.

  1439
  The need for ready cash usually occurs where the assured is a man who dies leaving a widow. But if he dies intestate she is absolutely entitled to the first £8,750 of his estate. So in the case of an estate worth less than that sum the insurance company is safe in paying the widow. If the estate is worth more, she will certainly have to take our representation and, even in this case, the underwriters are safe if they pay her and take out an indemnity.
  It must also be borne in mind that the greater the protection given to those paying out the greater the risk that the person entitled in law will be deprived of his rights. A balance has to be struck between attempting, on the one hand, to help the underwriters and the legitimate family, and, on the other hand, protecting the interests of the illegitimate child.
  I regret that in the circumstances I cannot commend any of these Amendments to the House, but I am happy to have given the assurance that I have given to insurers in respect of Clause 15, and I hope that they will accept my view that their anxieties about lack of protection which they say they will suffer from are exaggerated.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am grateful to the Attorney-General foe giving that assurance, as will be the Life Offices Association. However, there is no doubt that the Bill will create problems. I see the force of the Attorney-General's statement that in practice the problems may not be as great as the Association fears. Nevertheless, we have put the Association to a certain amount of risk and we shall pass the Bill into law with life offices and bankers, to a certain extent, having some degree of risk. This is unfortunate, but I do not think that we can do anything about it now.
  I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having made his view clear and for having conveyed it to the Inland Revenue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

  POLICIES OF ASSURANCE AND PROPERTY IN INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 14, line 35, at end insert:
  (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Acts of 1882 and 1880 in relation to a policy effected before the coming into force of that subsection; and subsection (2) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Act of 1965 in relation to a member of a registered society who dies before the coming into force of the said subsection (2).
  This is a drafting Amendment arising from a point which was raised in Committee and which I undertook to consider. The Amendment prevents the Clause from affecting retrospectively any existing policy of life assurance, or the operation of Section 25(2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, in respect of a person dying before its commencement.
  In Committee the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether subsection (1) would affect existing policies. I undertook to consider the question. As to the construction of an existing policy, subsection (1) cannot have any effect. Clause 15, which embodies the new rule of construction, does not affect existing dispositions and any reference in an existing policy to children will be prima facie construed as a reference to legitimate children.
  Moreover, since Section 11 of the 1882 Act and its Scottish counterpart, as they now stand, operate on policies for the benefit of legitimate children, any reference in an existing policy to either of these enactments will be the strongest possible evidence that the prima facie construction is the construction intended. I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Baronet.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

  STATUTORY PROVISIONS AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTING 18 FOR 21 YEARS
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the next four Amendments, Government Amendments, Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, are all drafting Amendments.
  The Attorney-General: That is so. They are minor Amendments to include in the Schedule statutory references to the age of 21 which have come to light since the Committee stage. The age of

  c. 44

  The Customs and Excise Act 1952.

  Section 244(2)(a)

  Entry invalid unless made by person over 21.

  No. 11, in page 22, line 30, at end insert:

  1946 S.R. & O. 1156.

  The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board(Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1946.

  Regulation 36(1) and (2).

  Stock held by persons under 21.

  1949 S.I. 751.

  The Gas (Stock) Regulations 1949

  Regulation 19(1) and (2).

  Stock held by persons under 21.

  No. 12, in page 22, line 34, at end insert:

  1955 S.I. 1752

  The South of Scotland Electricity Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1955.

  Regulation 30(1) and (2).

  Stock held by persons under 21.

  No. 13, in page 22, line 39, at end insert:

  1957 S.I. 2228.

  The Electricity (Stock) Regulations 1957

  Regulation 22(1) and (2).

  Stock held by persons under 21.

  1963 S.I. 935.

  The Exchange of Securities (General) Rules 1963.

  Rule 1 (1).

  Definition of "minor".

  1965 S.I. 1420.

  The Government Stock Regulation 1965.

  Regulation 14(1), (2), (3) and (5).

  Stock held by persons under 21.

  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  7.40 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read, the Third time.
  This useful Bill implements three important Reports—those of the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, the Russell Committee on the Law of Succession in relation to illegitimate persons, and the Law Commission on blood tests and the proof of paternity in civil proceedings.
  We have had most interesting and helpful debates. I am grateful to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for guiding us through the labyrinth of the law of succession, around the fringes of which we have walked tonight for a short time. Having briefly heard some of the technicalities this evening, the House may well feel that this is a bit of the law that must be looked at some time, but I cannot enlarge on that on Third Reading.
  The most important feature of the Bill is that it reduces the age of majority to 18. This important social and legal reform will enable young people, the generality of whom are maturing earlier and
  21 will be altered to 18 in these provisions.
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 21, line 31, at end insert:
  —[The Atorney-General.]
  accepting responsibility at a younger age, to be freed from the legal restrictions which now affect them. There is little doubt that the present law is no longer geared to their requirements, and it is right that this change should be made.
  We have discussed at some length the implications of the reduction of the age of majority for marriage. The Government's view, which the House has accepted, is that the age of free marriage should be 18, the same as the age of majority for all other purposes. The phrase "free marriage" is odd, and has only a technical meaning. There are perhaps few undertakings more expensive than marriage. In the Government's view, it would have been illogical if the requirements of parental consent remained until the age of 20, when all the other incidents of parental and legal control ceased two years earlier.
  The change is important. The Law Commission is engaged in a study of many aspects of family law and I hope that the Bill will prove to be merely the first stage in a comprehensive reform of family law, which is clearly needed.
  Part II takes important steps to improve the lot of illegitimate children.

  1443
  We discussed at length the detailed matters arising from the change in the construction of the term "children" in wills, and have considered in more general terms the scope of the reform. Some hon. Members have felt that we were not going far enough, while others have contended that our approach was too radical. The need for better provision for illegitimate children has, however, been expressed on both sides of the House, and it is the Government's view that the present proposals constitute a sound and sensible measure of reform in a difficult field. The illegitimate child and his parents will now have the same right to share in each other's estate on an intestacy as if the child were legitimate.
  The extension of the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act to illegitimate children is also an important step which will go far to remove a fundamental injustice in our present law.
  We are satisfied that these proposals will in no way weaken the institution of marriage. They will give a fairer deal where for so long it has been badly needed.
  The third part of the Bill will give the courts considerable assistance in determining paternity issues. The provisions reflect the rapid scientific advance that has taken place here in recent years.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.46 p.m.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: One thing that is absolutely certain is that when we pass the final stages of a Bill which will shortly become law we are serving the best interests of lawyers. In the Bill before us we have three Bills in one. I can see great feasts for the lawyers arising from practically all its provisions, even that relating to blood tests, as a result of its many complexities.
  I drew attention to the fact that the Bill is three Bills in one on Second Reading. I do not think that this is the best form of law making. There should have been three separate Bills. I know all the problems and difficulties that face the Lord Chancellor's Department in promoting such Bills, and the difficulties which face the Law Officers in conducting them through the House.
  I think that my comments on Second Reading when I seemed to become unduly
  1444
  exasperated by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) were unwarranted, and I am sorry that he is not here for me to tell him that I withdraw what I said when my quick temper flew when he intervened.
  Two of the three Bills with which we are presented will affect many people. Despite the time we spent in Committee and the help given by the Attorney-General and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), I wonder whether we have dug sufficiently deep as legislators into the problem. It is a matter of great interest to us all that the Law Commission is examining family law. The extent of the family law is enormous, and I am glad that the Law Commission is making that investigation. But let us not hesitate to recognise that when it presents its report to us it is not Holy Writ being handed down. It is our responsibility as legislators to test its proposals and examine them with the greatest care.
  Part I deals with the change which the House has agreed to make in the age of majority. It gives the advantages of free marriage, to use the Attorney-General's phrase. I have read of non-wives and non-marriages, but I think that "free marriage" means one that a person can enter into without obtaining permission from a guardian or parent. But we must understand that we have also imposed liabilities and responsibilities which have not hitherto been borne by 18-year-olds.
  Up to the day when the Bill becomes law, a person of 18 avoids the responsibilities and liabilities. The Bill will impose such liabilities and responsibilities on them. I think that this will have a serious effect. I think that the essential decision was taken when we decided that the voting age, and, therefore, the age of adulthood and maturity, should be 18. But again it is right to be logical and it follows that the age of 18 should be for all purposes—fiscal purposes and purposes affecting all responsibilities as well as all rights. We have decided that, by the age of 18, a man achieves full adulthood and therefore full responsibility, and we must ensure that, in other legislation, a person at 18 not only gets rights but also accepts liabilities and responsibilities in every aspect of the law.

  1445
  Part II is a matter of introducing almost unbelievable complexities. It has a compassionate and civilised aim which most of us agree with. Yet, hidden in it, is an immense number of snags. There is the problem, for example, that has already been raised—if we abolish illegitimacy do we abolish legitimacy? We have considered this matter in Committee and on Report. Undoubtedly, the effect of illegitimacy on a child in being has in the past often been very harsh. That harshness is now being eliminated. But we are still left with the problem, which we discussed earlier this evening, of the position of the illegitimate child not yet in being.
  I thank the Attorney-General for the help he gave the Committee and the House on this very complex matter. He has himself already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. It was a difficult Bill and we have had great assistance from the Attorney-General.
  7.52 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I thank the Attorney-General for the kind things he said about me. If I may say so, it has been the manner in which he has conducted his defence of some almost indefensible propositions that has often turned away our wrath.
  The Bill is partly good and partly bad. When it is good, it is very very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Part I I find wholly good. On a personal aspect, perhaps I can claim the merit of consistency here. I believe that I am the only hon. Member left in this House who was here at the time of the Act called the "flapper vote" Act, which gave the vote to young women down to the age of 21. I made a speech on that occasion and dwelt on the aspect of responsibility. I believe that the responsibilities that the Act gave young women have proved to be nothing but good, and I am sure that the reduction of the age to 18 for giving young people full responsibility is a good thing and will work well.
  Part II has very much in it that is good. It is right to bring the mother's illegitimate children precisely into equality with her legitimate children for all purposes. I do not see any difficulty there and I believe this is what everyone would wish. One of the most important
  1446
  Clauses is that which brings illegitimate children into the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act. I believe that those provisions will be used a great deal to rectify a great many hardships which should be rectified.
  On the other hand, part of the Bill is bad. I believe that the bringing of what has sometimes been called "unacknowledged bastards"—the Attorney-General called them "latent bastards"—into the intestacy of a father is wrong in principle and will do a great deal of mischief. The same is true of Clause 15, where the definition of children will bring bastards into many trusts where the person making the will or settlement has no intention of bringing them in. It will lead to litigation, blackmail and doubt. I believe that we shall find it necessary to pass amending legislation in this case at a fairly early date.
  I find Part III of the Bill acceptable. I do not think that it will do much good but I certainly do not think that it will do any harm.
  On that brief examination of the Bill, and weighing it up, I am bound to say that I think the good in it exceeds the bad by quite a comfortable margin. For that reason, I shall have pleasure in the Bill receiving its Third Reading and I only hope that my prognostications about the bad will not transpire, as I fear they will.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I, too, have tried to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill and to me it goes a long way to giving young people new rights and to bringing some sense into the subject of illegitimacy. Clause 2 is the one to which I spoke in Committee and this is the part of the Bill which, in effect, deals with the question of altering the date of what has been described as "free marriage"—that is, the reduction of the age from 21 to 18.
  I indicated in Committee and re-emphasise now that it is not sufficient to be able to show that we have done a useful job in Parliament because we appear to have extended some sort of freedom. The contrary can be the truth. One can succeed in creating new limitations, new problems, for the people one is seeking to benefit. I want to address

  1447
  myself to the language of the recommendations in the Latey Report, which says on page 51:
  "We can only end by saying that this is not because we think parents should never discourage their children's marriages but because this is not the way to do it".
  Unfortunately, I object to the language in that Report.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the Latey Report on the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to how the Bill will operate or otherwise.
  Mr. Leadbitter: So be it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the matter is so important to me that I am quite in order, I am sure, in summarising the intentions of the Latey Report. Clause 2 is part of the Bill and on Third Reading surely I would be in order in expressing my anxieties about its consequences. This is what I am seeking to do and I respect your Ruling on the finer point. Here we are involved with the question of the reduction of age for free marriage because of the thinking that consent is not the way to do it.
  Whether we like it or not, we are living in times when there are great problems which arise because young people are sometimes misguided about their duty to society. I accept at once that the vast majority of young people are generous, creative and a fine example to the nation but, whenever we think of relaxing laws, we have to remember that there has been an upsurge of wrongdoing, of petty thieving, of vandalism, and much of it arises from the problems associated with the stresses and strains of modern life. Our courts are overworked because of their efforts to deal with this facet of our national life.
  I am not convinced by the numbers of young people who go to the courts to seek consent to get married, nor by any other evidence, that to permit free marriage at 18 is wise. The stability of family life is generally to be found among those families where sons and daughters feel it right and proper and a privilege and an honour to ask the consent of their parents to be married. There is something about family life which we must protect and which must not be lost at 18. If the reduction of the age to 18 is regarded as
  1448
  an extension of liberty, why should we not have the corollary of a reduction later to 16 or 14?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is suggesting Amendments to the Bill and that is entirely out of order. He may support the Bill or state reasons for opposing it, but he must not argue for alterations.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I was not suggesting Amendments; on the contrary, I was arguing that there should not be Amendments.
  The change will open up wide areas where young people will be vulnerable. Not only will they be able to get married at 18 without consent, but they will have freedom to sign contracts and make agreements without advice. Young married couples getting married are faced with highly complex problems. Earlier, we discussed guidance, but sometimes they will enter into these complexities without guidance—the problems of buying a house, or dealing with hire-purchase contracts for furniture. All this introduces a fearsome and a dangerous element into what for young people is an already strained situation.
  I do not want it to be thought that I am saying that we should not liberalise, or that we should be restrictive. On the contrary, I take the view that some stability is a symbol of true freedom and liberalisation. I do not want to appear to be a "square". But there are some factors which demonstrate the need for care. Young people are remarkably generous and creative and are comparable with any previous generations, but there is a growing minority who are unable to deal with the complexities of modern life and who need family stability and who would benefit if they were not able to marry freely until they were 21. Incidentally, the Bill originally proposed the age of 20, and so the judgment of 18 is not based on hard criteria.
  Many of those responsible for dealing with the consequences of delinquency and vandalism and the waywardness of footloose young people ask whether this is the right time for Parliament to reduce the age of free marriage. I know that nothing I can say will alter the hard facts of life, but at least one voice in the House has expressed concern about this subject.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. David Waddington: It has been said that this is three Bills in one. Perhaps the most controversial part is Part I, which we did not have an opportunity to discuss on Report and which I should now like to mention.
  As usual, the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has hit the nail on the head. As he said, so many of us do not like to be thought "square". Time and again I have been forced to the conclusion that far too often hon. Members have been so determined not to be thought "square" that they have thrown logic to the winds. I respect the membership of the Latey Committee, but I am still entirely unconvinced by its arguments. What strikes me as so peculiar is that after the whole of the progress of the Bill through the House there is still no public interest in this matter. Do not let us run away with the idea that people are queueing at the doors of the House asking for these responsibilities to be put on their shoulders. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are about to put into law a Bill for which there is no demand in the country generally and precious little demand among young people.
  All too often it has been suggested that the Bill will be a boon to young people and will extend their rights, but that is not the correct way to look at it. By passing the Bill, we shall put on the shoulders of young people responsibilities which they have not had and we shall take from them protection which they have always had.
  I still regard Part I with some dismay. It has been said that having decided to give votes to people aged 18, it would be thoroughly illogical if we did not give them full civil rights at 18. But it is often a far more serious matter to enter into a binding legal contract than to cast a vote. If a teenager casts a vote, the chances are that it will be cancelled out by the vote of some other teenager, but if he rashly signs a contract, he remains bound by it, and that is a serious step to take. We have been told many times that the age of 18 is a watershed, but almost every age is arbitrary to some extent. After all, one can ride a motorcycle at the age of 16 but has to be 21 to drive a heavy motor vehicle. No one
  1450
  has suggested that at 16 young people should be able to make binding contracts, despite the fact that, although with parental consent, they can marry at 16. I am very concerned about Part I and am disturbed that the House should have put this Measure into law without any demand for it.
  Part II is concerned with the property rights of illegitimate children. I agree that this is a very worthy aim. Clause 14 is particularly worthy, since it would allow illegitimate children to succeed on the intestacy of their parents. But I am by no means happy with the way that these provisions will work in practice. None of us who have heard the debates today is entirely happy with how it will work. Many years will pass between the birth of a claimant and the time when, on the death of his alleged father, he can make a claim on the estate. Might we not be putting an appalling burden on the administrators of estates, leaving them to decide whether a claimant is genuine?
  Many cases will have to be taken to court and, if the estate is small, it may be dissipated among the lawyers. I say that, although I am a lawyer myself. In some cases—we hope only a few—the claimant will be bogus, but he will succeed, because, like all other legal systems, ours is fallible. It is not good enough to say that the courts can be left to make the right decision. It may be all too easy to make a bogus claim and difficult for the rightful heirs to rebut it. This may be yet another instance of hard cases making bad law. Because of our genuine anxiety to be fair to illegitimate children, we may be unjust to the legitimate.
  At present, the word "child" in a legal document means a legitimate child. The Bill will reverse the rule for documents made after it comes into force. It runs entirely contrary to the recommendations of the Russell Committee. The Bill changes a rule of construction. I agree that ordinary English words should be given their ordinary natural meaning by the courts, but, in ordinary language, "child" means a legitimate child in one context and an illegitimate child in another. An obvious example is that a man and woman living together who are not married obviously mean their illegitimate children when they use the word, but a man who leaves money to his son

  1451
  for life, and thereafter to his son's children, means his son's legitimate children. This will make the law more helpful in some cases, but less helpful in others.
  I welcome Part III as much as anyone else. It is the least controversial part of the Bill. We should obviously allow the courts to use all scientific methods of resolving disputes, particularly about paternity, which can be so difficult. It is a great pity that three Bills should have been lumped into one, mainly because it is strange to think that, after all the debates on the Bill, we have not had a Division on the vital question of whether the age of majority should be reduced to 20 or to 18. If there had been a vote, I suspect that there would have been much more opposition to the recommendations of the majority of the Latey Committee than one would think from some of our debates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  INFORMATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE ACCOUNTS
  The operation of section 24 of the principal Act shall be amended so that in addition to the provisions therein the Corporation shall in its annual statement of accounts present details of the rate of return both on the total net assets of the Corporation and on the net assets of each of its principal regional or product groupings as is for the relevant period determined under subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act; and also the Corporation shall publish each financial year not later than nine months after the commencement thereof, in relation to the first half of the financial year, an unaudited statement of total sales, costs, profits, tax liabilities together with a summary of working capital and utilised borrowing powers.—[Mr. Stainton]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  1452
  This Clause was drafted originally as an additional subsection to Clause 5, but, on the advice of the Table Office, it was thought better to make it a new Clause. However, it should be read in conjunction with Clause 5, which spells out the Corporation's financial duty. It should also be seen in the context of Clause 2, which is the provision for the switch from fixed interest capital to public dividend capital, expunging £700 million of commencing capital debt, leaving £134 million, and creating £700 million of public dividend capital, upon which the discipline, in terms of payment to the Treasury and hence back to the public out of the Corporation's profits is quite different from that which automatically arises in connection with the discipline of a fixed loan. This is an important starting point to be remembered.
  The second starting point is the inadequacy, for public control, of the dividend machinery in Clause 2, although "machinery" is a most elevated expression. It certainly is not a policy criterion. Therefore, we come to Clause 5, under which the Corporation's financial duty is the only discipline in terms of this £700 million of public dividend capital. But the Clause fails to impose any realistic discipline. The specification of a rate of return on net assets
  "… as for the time being defined for the purposes of this subsection by the Minister …",
  if put in colloquial terms, represents the result of a "private huddle". There is no question of Parliamentary sanction in the short term or almost equally certainly in the medium term.
  In Committee we attempted to grapple with the situation by proposing that the Minister should proceed to stipulate performance on return on net assets by way of order, subject to Parliamentary procedure. But, in the coma of non-co-operation which seemed to obsess the Government in Committee, that was rejected without good reason. However, on Report, we are precluded from repetition. Hence we find ourselves trying to tackle this problem from the other end. Getting hold of the tail of a problem does not always commend itself as a solution, but if we can get hold of the tiger by this new Clause, we shall have made a distinct advance.

  1453
  The new Clause tackles the problem by seeking to amend Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, which parades under the rubric of
  "Accounts of the Corporation and audit thereof",
  by imposing on the Corporation an obligation to report as part of its ordinary financial accounting-reporting procedure the rate of return which it is achieving on its net assets. It goes on to enlarge on this duty and requires the Corporation to report not only on the total return but on the principal regional or product groupings—that is, the principal activities of the Corporation.
  A very generous interpretation of Clause 5 might permit the Minister even to specify separate rates of return on separate parts of the activity. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is in his mind. But it is not an interpretation which would be mandatory on the Minister. Hence the new Clause. As Clause 5 stands, the Minister could satisfy the requirements of the Bill by stipulating a single rate of return for any period.
  We do not want a long argument about what constitutes the net assets. May we rest this part of the discussion on the net assets shown in the last Annual Report and Accounts of the Corporation? I refer to the consolidated balance sheet in Appendix A on page 78 of that document. The net assets as reported there are £1,059 million. This is a vast figure by any reckoning. If the Minister can get away with it by simply stipulating one single rate of return on net assets, we arrive at the ludicrous position that a mere 1 per cent. difference in the stipulation of performance—the return on net assets—could be worth £10½ million per annum, or 1 of 1 per cent. could be worth £1 million per annum. One rate of return would be an unduly blunt and imperfect instrument.
  I think that I am entitled to call in aid the provisions of the Companies Act, 1967, which spells out in fairly considerable detail the obligation on any public company or limited company to report the turnover of different activities of the company and the profits thereon if there are different essential elements in those activities.
  A second reason why we should aim to differentiate the reporting on the return
  1454
  on net assets and get away from the concept of one figure only derives from the second Report on Organisation, Cmnd. 163 dated 11th March, 1969, made by the Corporation. There are some extremely disturbing passages in that Report. First, the Corporation refers to its experience with its present type of organisation. We are not talking about a row of beans. We are talking about a sum—net assets, let alone gross assets—well in excess of £1,000 million. This is the largest industrial enterprise in this country, possibly in Europe.
  The Corporation says:
  "In the eighteen months that have elapsed since then"—
  that is, vesting day—
  "however, the Corporation has had the opportunity to study closely the major problems confronting it … It has also had time to examine the way in which problems of comparable size and complexity are handled by steel industries in other countries, and by industry generally in this country and abroad."
  That is a curious comment in view of all the high enthusiasm for the nationalisation of steel and the precision with which this was represented from the benches opposite. Apparently, they knew precisely what they were doing and they got it absolutely right. Here we have the Corporation telling us, in the light of experience, that it has thought again, and its thoughts emerge briefly as follows:
  "As a result of its experience in operating the present system of multiple-product Groups it has become clear to the Corporation that this system by its nature impedes rationalisation and the optimum ultilisation of the Corporation's assets."
  This was written only 18 months after vesting day. Then we come to the volte face:
  "Practical experience gained by the Corporation"—
  I like the bit about "practical experience"; presumably theretofore experience was utterly impractical—
  "since vesting day has led it to believe that the disadvantages of a product grouping, which were envisaged in the Corporation's first Report on Organisation"—
  in other words, when it started it nailed its colours to this particular mast—
  "would be outweighed by the advantages in promoting rationalisation and the optimum use of production facilities to which that report also drew attention".
  So that we are now about to reorganise internally the physical allocation and

  1455
  control of the activities of the Corporation.
  That is the basis of the second very important point that I want to elicit in support of the new Clause. It requires a reporting by the Corporation not merely against the one figure of internal net assets but in terms of performance against net assets in the principal regional or product groupings. The reason for this wording is that the Corporation is in a transitional stage, and one understands that the regions may become product groupings. This does not preempt the situation; it leaves it open to that or any other intermediate form of organisation for which the Corporation might finally settle.
  That is the case that I present in support of the first 4¾ lines of the new Clause. There remain 3½ lines which, in effect, require the Corporation to publish an intermediate profit statement each year. This has been designed to make the task as little arduous as possible. The Clause provides that
  "not later than nine months after the commencement"—
  of the financial year. The Corporation shall report—
  "in relation to the first part of the financial year, an unaudited statement of total sales, costs, profits, tax liabilities, together with a summary of working capital and utilised borrowing powers".
  8.30 p.m.
  The most obvious argument in support of the second part of the Clause is to be found in the General Undertaking of the Stock Exchange. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the document—Memoranda of Guidance and Requirements of the Federation of Stock Exchanges, commonly known as the Yellow Book. This General Undertaking specifies criteria for all companies in the public sector quoted on the stock exchanges of this country. The criteria are much more harsh than I have specified for the Corporation.
  The second reason that I adduce in support of this interim statement is that people in the country—not just hon. Members on this side of the House—are deeply disquieted about the course taken by the steel industry since nationalisation. I call in evidence of that statement the increase in the borrowing
  1456
  powers allowed to the Corporation since the nationalisation Act came into being in 1967. The Corporation started with authorised borrowing powers of £300 million. This was under an enactment made in March, 1967. Last summer, by Order, that £300 million was increased to £400 million—an increase of 33⅓ per cent. The Bill seeks to increase the borrowing powers immediately from £400 million to £500 million—a further increase of 25 per cent.—with reserve power for the Minister further to increase the £500 million to £650 million—another tranche and another 30 per cent., admittedly by Order, but in all representing an increase on the original limit of borrowing powers of no less than 116 per cent.
  I would not go so far as to say that the situation is out of hand, but when one aligns this position with the obvious financial difficulties—I do not say crisis—which are now clearly being encountered by the Corporation, a mere reading of its Annual Report and Accounts and a simple extension of some of the trends on the back of an envelope will give one all the answers, let alone the rumours that British emissaries of the Corporation have tried to raise money in Germany and Switzerland in anticipation of the Bill's going through Parliament and receiving the Royal Assent. This is an important second reason why the public should be equipped with a regular interim report of the Corporation's profits, working capital and the utilisation of borrowing powers.
  It is on those very strong grounds that I move the Second Reading of the new Clause.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the new Clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton) on the most able way he moved it. It is of vital importance in building some common sense into this Bill.
  This Bill is the predictable result of the nationalising of the steel industry. That industry is now returning to Parliament for more money and is treading the well-trodden path which has been taken by many nationalised industries in the past, and I have the feeling that this is not the last time that we shall see a Minister of Power coming back to this House to get more money to shore up a

  1457
  nationalised industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge spoke about financial difficulties, and, of course, he is quite right, but this will come as no surprise to any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because this is exactly what we said would happen when the original Act of 1967 came into being.
  However, the feature of this Bill, and. indeed, of all the debates upon it, is the total lack of clarity of any of the figures which have been given by the Government during our discussions. The Minister will remember only too well the storm which, when he was sitting in his place during Second Reading, broke about his head because the figures which we were given were conflicting and confusing. This new Clause would at least give the public an opportunity of seeing in some detail exactly what is the financial situation of the British Steel Corporation.
  Apart from the fact that it asks for more money this Bill endeavours to dress up a nationalised industry as a commercial enterprise. We all know perfectly well that that is absolute rubbish, but at least this new Clause, if accepted, would enable the people to see what the true facts of the matter are. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, who is, clearly, in a very concilliatory mood tonight—I have seen him smiling—will accept the Clause as being a wholly sensible and right Clause to have in a Bill which deals with so much public money. I have never made any secret, personally, of my dislike of Ministers posturing as captains of industry.
  I find the sight unhappy, and, indeed, dangerous. This Clause, if it were accepted by a Minister, would at least allow this captain of industry to have some of the disciplines which go with a normal commercial undertaking. It is not unreasonable that the British Steel Corporation, which is, after all, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, one of the most important industries in Britain, when it asks the House of Commons, the country, for money, should make perfectly clear exactly where it stands financially. After all, a great deal of the ordinary taxpayers' money is wrapped up in this industry, and I should have thought it quite reasonable that he should have a clear picture of the Corporation's situation. This Clause, if accepted, would at
  1458
  least build in something like discipline. It cannot be the true discipline of the commercial market because no nationalised industry ever operates in that way, but at least it would provide evidence of what the situation is.
  It would do more than that. My hon. Friend pointed out the size of the borrowings which are required by the Corporation. An eventual sum of £650 million would be possible under this Bill, with the approval of Parliament: £650 million of taxpayers' money. At least this Clause would enable us to be given some indication as to where and why the money is required. During all the debates we have had on the Bill so far not one shred of evidence has been given in any detail whatsoever as to why this money is required or how it is to be spent.
  Then there is the other element in this new Clause. It deals with he facts and figures relating to the possibility of the new product groups. This is something for which we have to wait and see; we do not know where the headquarters of the groups will be, we do not know what exactly their constitution will be. But we do know, after this very brief period of nationalisation, that the regional concept of geographical areas has proved to be a failure. I remember so well the arguments in 1963, when the then British steel industry was taken to the Restrictive Practices Court and accused of being monopolistic. It is quite clear, when these product groups come into being, that we shall be moving into the area of total monopoly in the British steel industry, with each product group an unchallenged monopoly on its own.
  Therefore, in the new Clause we have sought to ask that the Corporation and the new product groups should at least declare their hand, so that comment may be made on their success or otherwise. Having attacked the steel industry as a monopoly when it was in private hands, and having set up a new structure which is now a failure, we are setting up a new State monopoly, and we should have an opportunity of judging its performance. I am sure that the new Clause will commend itself to all hon. Members. It is reasonable, sensible and essential. It makes sure that we, as the stewards of public money, are insisting that the steel industry should make its position crystal

  1459
  clear about the money which it is receiving from the taxpayer and the assets which it controls.
  Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I also begin by paying tribute to the closely reasoned argument with which my hon. Friend moved the new Clause. As I listened to him marshalling arguments, it came to my attention that not a single Government Amendment appears on the Notice Paper. The Minister is a modest man, and it must have crossed his mind that it would be extraordinary if, in the preparation of the Bill, he and his colleagues had been perfect in their conception and drafting on a matter of such importance. If he had been totally right in every word of the Bill, I suspect that he would have achieved something which few Ministers in any party have done. Perhaps this will prompt him to look particularly hard at the constructive proposal embodied in the new Clause.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Companies Bill, 1967. We sat often enough for the deliberations upon the contents of that Bill to have been imprinted with a reasonable degree of clarity upon our minds. One of the major considerations in the Bill revolved round the question of fuller disclosure, and it was generally accepted that for large enterprises the time had come to move towards a fuller disclosure of information to the shareholders, the general public, the financial press and those who comment on these matters.
  Since that Bill became law, people are much clearer about the type of information which should be disclosed. One class of information for which we should constantly be seeking, so that it can be identified and produced, is information which will enable the efficiency and the trends in efficiency in underlying constituent parts of an organisation to be assessed.
  My hon. Friend has put the case so convincingly that I cannot believe that there will be no response from the Minister. I shall not speak at length, but I would draw attention to the recently published Reports of the Monopolies Commission on the Rank Organisation and the De La Rue Company, and on Unilever and Allied Breweries.
  1460
  8.45 p.m.
  The Monopolies Commission felt it appropriate to add some general observations on mergers in an appendix to their comments. The appendix suggests that information for disclosure by companies has some relevance to the new Clause. One of the Commission's comments which I should like to quote is set out on page 62 of the Report:
  "We have in mind here that the classes"—
  that is to say classes of a business—
  "might be prescribed by the Board of Trade, broadly on the basis of the Standard Industrial Classification Orders, though in our opinion it would be desirable that there should be some further breakdown of the Orders in this context …".
  In referring to the Companies Act, 1967, the Commission say that the directors' report must contain
  "the turnover and profit (or loss) figures for each class of activity which in their opinion differs substantially from other activities."
  The Commission suggested that this provision had been variously interpreted by companies, a comment which I find rather interesting.
  The Monopolies Commission then stated:
  "We further suggest that for each prescribed class of business the profit on capital employed should also be shown either in the directors' report or in the form of notes to the annual accounts …".
  This is what is being asked for in the new Clause in connection with the affairs of the separate divisions which we are given to understand will be created by the Steel Corporation.
  Since my small involvement in the proceedings leading up to the Companies Act, one of the criteria I have applied to all Bills dealing with public corporations and bodies in the public sector is that they should set the pace in conforming not only to the letter of the Companies Act but to its spirit. On one or two occasions in relation to the making of information and reports available within a specified period Ministers have responded to my promptings on this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed to the requirement asked for by the Stock Exchange in their General Undertaking provisions to be observed by every company seeking a quotation or wishing to make an issue in the private sector. The Minister

  1461
  must consider carefully whether he has any reason to reject this requirement in an enterprise in the public sector since he has laid considerable emphasis on his wish to align the British Steel Corporation so far as possible with firms in the private sector to try to make it a commercial undertaking with the same advantages as other commercial undertakings and free from any disadvantages.
  I suggest that his protestations will carry more conviction if he will accept the new Clause for which there are such good precedents, both from the Monopolies Commission and from experience from the Stock Exchange and in the Companies Act, 1967, which was introduced and passed by the Government of which he is a member.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: Like my hon. Friends on this side of the House who have spoken in support of the new Clause I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on the clarity with which he stated his case. I am sure that every hon. Member on this side approaches the new Clause in no sense of seeking to hamstring the British Steel Corporation.
  In Committee, the argument was advanced repeatedly that what we were seeking to do was to make the British Steel Corporation commercially viable. That was commonly agreed on both sides. However, if one is to accept the argument of commercial viability, one must also accept the requirement that ordinary commercial practices should apply to the Corporation.
  My hon. Friend said that financial discipline was of the first importance. There can be no doubt about the importance of establishing ordinary commercial practices in a nationalised industry. Throughout the course of this Bill thus far, the B.S.C. has been extremely generous in providing memoranda, statistical information, financial data and so forth. I do not think that it can be argued that the Corporation has been backward in providing information or that it would not be equally helpful in providing additional information were it the wish of the House that it should do so.
  I would go further than my hon. Friend does in his new Clause. Surely it is of importance that one should want
  1462
  to see profit forecasts set against actual performance. That is of the utmost importance in ordinary commercial undertakings. It should be of equal importance in a nationalised undertaking.
  No one with any experience of budgetary control can reasonably expect such forecasts to be 100 per cent. accurate. Having spent a short period of my life in such work, I know that a 5 per cent. margin of error is normally accepted. I would very much like to see these half-yearly statements of account examined against the budgetary forecasts which presumably will have been made about six months before the beginning of the financial period in question.
  I am not certain that my hon. Friend is not being too generous in inserting the words "unaudited statement". I cannot see why it should not be an audited statement. I imagine that, in common with other large organisations, there is a continuous audit process within the Corporation. Such organisations would employ a professional firm of accountants for what is called a balance sheet audit. That is probably being done, anyway. I would not have thought that excessive work would be involved in producing the figures which are the subject matter of the new Clause.
  When my hon. Friends were making their points, I could not help trying to imagine the kind of arguments which the Minister will seek to employ in trying to knock down my hon. Friend's Clause. It could be argued that it seeks materially to alter the Bill. However, that is not the case. In fact, I do not see any logical ground on which the Clause can be resisted. It is merely a requirement for additional information which I am surprised is not already embodied in the Bill. It is not asking for anything which would not be required of a commercial undertaking engaged in any other field of activity. In view of the fact that the B.S.C. has been so helpful and generous in providing statistical data, I would have thought that it would be only too pleased to accede to the request embodied in the Clause.
  I hope that this Clause commends itself to the Government.
  Mr. David LaneThe new Clause deals with an important matter, and I am glad to support it. I hope that in the harmonious climate that has now

  1463
  descended on the House the Minister will turn over a new leaf, and agree at last to make a change in his original Bill. Whether or not he does so, he is provided with a further opportunity to tell us a little more about the Government's thinking on the rate of return. Too often in our debates so far the Government have been coy, if not evasive. Too often, when we have asked major questions, we have had mini-answers. We need more clarity and certainty, and that is what the new Clause would provide.
  We are still in the dark about the Government's intentions on the rate of return. I reread this afternoon what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee in answer to our Amendment seeking to tighten up Clause 5 by making it obligatory on the Government to set a target, but the Bill remains highly unsatisfactory in this respect. It is necessary to tighten it further before it leaves the House.
  I particularly commend the idea contained in the Clause of a separate breakdown between the different parts of the whole business. The exact manner of definition does not matter so much, but the principle is important. This breakdown would be of great help in enabling us to judge relative efficiency and to tell whether different parts of the nationalised sector are taking an unfair advantage of their dominant position.
  The second half of the Clause calls for half yearly results. I do not know when the Minister will finally leave his present office, but I am sure that, when he does, he will want to be remembered not only as the "Laughing Cavalier of Millbank", but as a bold innovator. He has already written into the Bill a provision that a target rate of return may he, and we hope will be, laid down by the Government: let him go further, and agree to our suggestion that at least this nationalised industry shall publish a half-yearly statement of results.
  Many of the largest companies in the private sector publish their results quarterly without difficulty, and this obligation has proved to be a stimulus to management and a service to the public. The chairman of the Corporation has repeatedly said that he wants to lead the industry as a commercial concern comparable with the large competitive con-
  1464
  cerns either in this industry or in other industries at home and abroad. Here as my hon. Friends have said, is an opportunity to make sure that the Corporation acts in the same way as do those other concerns.
  Whatever may be our disagreements in the House about the method of running our national economy, I think that we all agree in welcoming the fact that year by year it is becoming a more open economy. There is more disclosure, and most of us want still more disclosure in both the private and the public sectors. But in the context of this debate I must ask whether the Government are serious in wanting the public interest to be safeguarded, and in wanting those interested in the industry to be well informed about its plans and performance. Are they serious in wanting the Corporation to be fully subjected to commercial disciplines in the way that other businesses are? If they are serious in all this, let them accept the Clause, or something like it.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friends have left me with little to say, but to me the extraordinary thing is that this is called the Report stage, yet there has not been one intervention from any hon. Member opposite. We have the pleasure of the company of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), but he is about the only back bencher present on the opposite side, apart from the Minister's P.P.S. It is a sad fact that the House of Commons should be debating an extremely important Bill involving a vast amount of money with so little, if any, attendance of hon. Members opposite.
  While my hon. Friends have been speaking I have been trying to think of what the Minister would say in reply. Knowing him a little, as I do, I am sure that he will refuse to accept this Clause, but I wondered why he would do so. He will smile, I know, and I am certain that he will charm the House, as he always does. I thought that he might say that the Clause is unnecessary, as he already has adequate powers under Section 6 of the so-called principal Act of 1967 to require the Corporation to change the form of its various returns. I thought he would not use that argument because,

  1465
  if so, there would be no point in having Section 24 of the Act. The drafting of the Bill in Clauses 4 and 5 obviates the necessity for him to hide behind Section 6.
  9.0 p.m.
  I asked myself why the right hon. Gentleman should want to resist this new Clause. It seemed that the reason was that we were asking him to do something which either he or the Corporation would decide is a bad thing and against the public interest. I cannot see why that should be. My hon. Friends have clearly demonstrated that it would be in the public interest for the Corporation's accounts to be published in the pattern suggested in the Clause and that the accounts should be separated and refer to the new product groups which it intends to bring in. I can see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should say that this would not be in the public interest. Every large enterprise today publishes its accounts in as much detail as possible. That is of great assistance to management and everyone concerned, including the shareholders. In this case we constitute the shareholders.
  Mr. Stainton: I point out that the British Steel Corporation Report, in Appendix B, goes some way towards meeting the demands we are making, but the critical point about the new Clause in terms of reporting of assets is found in lines 4 and 5 relating to the stipulation about performance under Section 5 of the Act.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was coming to that point. Under Sections 4 and 5 the Minister can give directions to the Corporation. We ask that the accounts should thereby be submitted. It occurred to me that the right hon. Gentleman would not like this to happen. This perhaps would be why the Corporation might object to this course being followed. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will use some other method of getting round this point.
  The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown tremendous coyness all through proceedings in Committee about coming forward with facts and figures as to the Minister's real intentions and the criterion by which he will judge and study standards. I believe that even at this moment the right hon.
  1466
  Gentleman does not know. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) said, the last thing the Minister would claim to be is a captain of industry. He does not even look the part. I think the Minister is wandering in a country he does not understand, that he is slightly frightened of it and, in his usual charming fashion, he will laugh us through his objections to this new Clause.
  That will be a great mistake for the new Clause should command great respect not only from the right hon. Gentleman but from all in this House and from the whole industry. There can be no substance in the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept the Clause. This is something to which he should give way, something which would improve the working of the Corporation and help the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in guiding the Corporation. I hope that he will accede to my hon. Friend's request and accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: As I have been invited by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) to contribute to the debate, and as I worked in the steel industry for 16 years and represent a steel division, I shall do so.
  In Committee and on Report, hon. Members opposite, instead of being objective and presenting their arguments in an adult fashion, turn into a mutual admiration society for the wonderful contributions they have made. Despite my liking for most hon. Members opposite, I find their contributions to these debates—I served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill—like verbal diarrhœa. Their contributions are more in the nature of a party political broadcast than of an objective appraisal of the Corporation's problems.
  I see merit in Clause. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept the whole of it, I hope that he will accept some elements of it. Because the individual companies making up the Corporation still exist, we have had a yardstick by which to measure the success or otherwise of each company. When the companies are dissolved, what yardstick will those interested in the industry have other than an overall picture of profit and loss? How shall we be able to measure whether the investment

  1467
  which will take place is going to the right place? How are we to judge whether the decision to site the ore terminals will be on a political or an economic basis?
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to indicate the form in which the accounts of the Corporation will be presented once the companies have disappeared. The Corporation must be a profitable concern. There is a limit to the extent to which the nation can subsidise the various industries which are losing money. If the Corporation is to be profitable, we must ensure that the investment will not bolster up some development area but will be made in plants which are already making a profit. Although we have heard about the siting of some plants, we have heard little on the question of putting investment where individual works are already showing a substantial profit. My right hon. Friend should insist that future accounts contain a league table of profitable works and product divisions.
  Before I finish, I should refer briefly to the disappearance of the regional groupings. It is said—I think that it is in the Bill—that the interests of Wales, of Scotland and of other regions will be safeguarded. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us how this is to be done. It is rumoured that the setting-up of the product divisions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman may make incidental reference to the product divisions, but he must not argue the principle.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall leave it there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Whatever his view of the new Clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us in what form future accounts of the B.S.C. will be published, so that not only those of us who are interested in the industry but the nation also may see exactly where the money is being invested and what sort of return is coming from individual works and products.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): I admire the wiles and ingenuity of the gaggle of accountants which seems to have assembled on the Bill, and remarkably well have they
  1468
  drafted the new Clause in order once more to have what has been very much a Second Reading debate on the steel industry.
  The purpose of the Clause seems to crystallise as three main points. In fairness to some hon. Members who spoke, I should say that they mentioned the new Clause or certain aspects of it in Committee, although others wandered a little wider, especially the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), but that is understandable since we became accustomed to his forceful expressions of view in Committee.
  The three points are as follows. First, the determination by the Minister of separate financial objectives for the Corporation's regional or product groupings. That seems to be one of the main planks. Second, the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. Third, the publication of detailed half-yearly statements of the financial position and results of the Corporation.
  I take, first, the financial objectives of regional or product groupings. The reference to regional or product groupings is impossibly vague and legally meaningless. This must be recognised by those who drafted the Clause. The Corporation has announced that it is changing from a largely regional subordinate organisation to one based on products, but even if this difficulty were removed the reference to product groupings would be legally meaningless. What type of product? What description? No product divisions have yet been clearly established, and no consent has been given. Therefore, even that would be difficult to spell out and put into the Bill. It would, I suggest, be legally meaningless.
  More important, however, is that the only relevant statutory body here is the Corporation itself. The Minister of the day would not wish to be under a statutory duty to determine the rate of return earned by the subordinate organisations of the Corporation. It is not even certain whether each of these will be intended by the Corporation to break even or whether the Corporation itself will be concerned with its central result or the results of different activities.
  My concern is with the central result, and to a lesser extent with the results of different activities. I should not wish to

  1469
  take these powers, let alone be under an obligation to determine separate financial objectives for different subordinate bodies in the Corporation's organisation.
  If one point behind the Clause is that, with only a central financial objective, the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another—
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick. The new Clause provides that the Corporation shall publish the achieved rates of return, not that he shall lay down what rates of return are to be sought.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: I hope that I shall deal with that.
  As I was saying, one point behind the Amendment may be that with only a central financial objective the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) raised this point on Second Reading. The Corporation published detailed turnover and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for its different activities at Appendix B at the end of its 1967–68 accounts. One hon. Member suggested that I would raise that as part of my reply, and rightly so, for it is a fact. Further, Section 25 of the 1967 Act, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit and estimated capital employed for different activities, is expected to be brought into effect soon. That should help considerably. This publication should be a sufficient safeguard against cross-subsidisation of diversified activities.
  The second point concerns the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. The Clause appears to require publication only of the financial objective prescribed by the Minister in the accounts, not, apparently, a statement of progress towards achieving it. On the former point, I have already undertaken in Committee that the financial objective of the B.S.C., like those of other nationalised industries, will be announced to Parliament quite soon. I assure the House that the Corporation will also be expected to publish details in these accounts. The provision in the Clause is therefore unnecessary. Since I cannot agree to a duty to prescribe financial
  1470
  objectives for the subordinate groupings, the question of publication in the accounts does not arise for those.
  The question of half-yearly statements was mentioned, and I hope that I can be helpful on this. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised in Committee the problem that we are gearing the Corporation to a September year. But I am having discussions with the Corporation on the possibility of a March year to bring it into line with the other nationalised industries and what is done by Government. I hope that my discussions are fruitful in this respect. But we have to have the September provision in the Bill in the meantime. Since the Corporation is expected to change to a March year, I would not wish to impose on it a statutory obligation to provide much more by the way of half-yearly accounts than other nationalised industries or the relatively brief information published by companies generally. But the Corporation has already expressed its readiness to produce half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange in accordance with the undertaking given by companies having Stock Exchange quotations. It is my intention to approach the Corporation with a view to its publishing this information.
  I think that I have covered the main points, and I have tried to be helpful. I have not suggested to the House that we should accept the Clause, but in view of the half-yearly statement, which goes some way to meet hon. Members opposite, and the point I made about Section 25 of the 1967 Act being brought into effect soon, which will give us much more information, I hope that the House will accept what I have said.
  Sir John Eden: My hon. Friends will be grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he answered the debate and for some of the things he said. They made out an extremely strong case for the Clause, as he recognised. As he also recognises, the main purpose behind our tabling it was to ensure that in as many respects as possible the Corporation would accord with accepted commercial practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) twitted Government back-benchers, fairly, for

  1471
  the fact that so few of them are present and that up till then not one of them had taken part in the debate, as a result of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) intervened. He then said that we on this side were becoming like a mutual admiration society. I was rather sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he cut a rather lonely figure. He seemed to have no one mutually to admire. But he need not worry about it, and nor do we, because he went on to make a first-class speech in support of new Clause 1. He does not need anyone mutually to admire. He can pat himself on the back for his contribution and for the powerful support he gave our arguments.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard of the well known adage that it is quality that counts and not quantity?
  Sir J. Eden: Quality is better even when it comes in abundance than when it comes singly, and, as he has so fairly recognised, from the position in which he sits at the moment he is able to view quality in superabundance.
  The hon. Gentleman asked some pertinent questions—most notably, what form will the accounts take? It is this underlying anxiety which has filled us on this side. We have not been told exactly how the Corporation is to proceed from here. Understandably, we are not clear as to what will be the nature of the organisation of its subsequent groupings. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) so forcefully declared, this is bound to become an increasingly strong monopoly in individual product groups and we want to be as certain as we can that it is fairly costed out all the way through and that the public at large are aware of what is taking place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) put it very fairly when he said that we want to be in touch with the trends, that this must provide us with a measure of efficiency and that we should, as a result of the forward disclosure in the Corporation's accounts, be aware of the underlying trends of efficiency in the constituent parts.
  1472
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made it clear that new Clause 1 refers back to Clause 5 and the power which the Minister has there to fix the target for the Corporation, and, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised, this is the critical part of new Clause 1. We want to be quite certain here that the powers which the Minister has, not only under this Bill but also under Sections 6 and 24 of the 1967 Act, will be used by him to require the disclosure of information such as will enable people outside the Corporation to assess the performances of clearly defined units of operation and to judge those performances against the targets set by the Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman had comparatively little to say about Section 17 of the Companies Act, which was the point my hon. Friends brought forward in support of their case because it is in that Act that we find the most justification for bringing into the new Clause I the requirement for disclosure under a number of different headings. The right hon. Gentleman went a long way to meet us on the question of certain of the Stock Exchange "Yellow Book" criteria of the publication of interim statements. This will carry us considerably further than we had expected to be the case when we put down new Clause 1.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend make clear what the Minister said? Did he say that he would insist on the Corporation publishing half-yearly returns starting from the moment after lie has managed to get it to change to annual returns starting at the same time as the Treasury's financial year, or is he to hope that it will?
  Sir J. Eden: The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's question and may wish to intervene in my speech to supplement what I am about to say, but it was certainly my understanding that he would require the Corporation to do this, that is, as soon as he has got the Corporation on to an accounting year basis similar to that of other sectors, he will require it to publish an interim statement.
  One of the things which has been worrying us is the powers of other Sections of the principal Act which give discretionary power to the Minister. We

  1473
  were seeking by the new Clause to impose statutory obligations on the Corporation to produce this information. If the Minister can assure us that the way in which he proposes to exercise the powers which he has described is no less effective than that, we shall be very much relieved. If I take that to be his intention, in view of his assurances given on the publication of an interim statement generally, I am sure that my hon. Friends would not wish to press the new Clause.
  Mr. Stainton: It is my understanding that, as the hon. Member who proposed the new Clause, I may say a few words to conclude the debate.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has the right to say a few words.
  Mr. Stainton: The essential difference between the Minister and myself and my colleagues is concerned with the expression in the new Clause, "principal regional or product groupings". I made it clear that I was endeavouring to pin down the Minister, not simply to one figure in one return of net assets, but to differentiate between principal activities.
  I was disconcerted by the Minister's lack of response on this point. He disposed of it simply in legal terms. I cannot but refer to Section 17 of the Companies Act which finds it perfectly adequate to talk about a business carrying on businesses of two or more classes. If that imposes the test of the courts, regional product groupings would go a long way further.
  Be that as it may, on the whole the Government have come a long way in their assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have a fair amount of work ahead of us on this Bill and the next. Speeches so far have been commendably brief.

Clause 4

  POWER OF THE MINISTER TO EFFECT FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(1), NOTIONAL CAPITALISATION OF RESERVES OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANIES
  Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 27, after 'years', insert:
  'and within a period not exceeding two weeks following a determination or direction in compliance with section 2 of this Act'.
  The Clause relates to the capitalisation of reserves. In Standing Committee, we debated the full implications of the rather odd importation into nationalised industry legislation of the public bonus issue, as it has been dubbed, which device has been copied from private industry in order to try to reflect more accurately the true worth of the equity of the Corporation. The declaration of the dividend and the decision as to how much to put to reserve go hand-in-hand. They are the same operation, and they are part of the annual apportionment of the profits of the Corporation as a whole. When a private company makes its fundamental financial decisions, it allocates a certain amount of profits to its reserves and a certain amount, as dividends, to the shareholders, but it does both operations at the same time.
  9.30 p.m.
  If we are going to copy these devices, if we are to play at tycoonery in the public sector, we must do so properly and completely. Of course, the capitalisation of reserves is part of the same operation as the declaration of a dividend, so this modest Amendment would simply require the Minister to make his decision about capitalisation of reserves within two weeks of the declaration of any dividend on the public dividend capital.
  There cannot be much difficulty in accepting this principle, since it would clearly be wrong to give the Minister power to force the Corporation to capitalise its reserves at some late stage in the financial year. It could even be used as an act of chastisement by the Minister, suddenly stalking into the Corporation's offices in a fit of petulant fury and capitalising some of its reserves. We seek to protect the Corporation from such high-handed action. The right hon.

  1475
  Gentleman would not dream of doing such a thing himself, of course, but the Government have been doing some strange things lately—we saw an example earlier today—and some action like this in future would not surprise us.
  What we seek is that declaration of the dividend should go hand in hand with any capitalisation of reserves which might be contemplated. The two weeks' grace is simply to allow the Minister time to consider the dividend which has been declared and then to declare any capitalisation. This is a useful Amendment, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) for having devised it. It is a slight protection for the Corporation and a correct addition to the practice. I have no doubt that the Government will want to accept it, and I look forward to hearing that from them.
  Mr. Stainton: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It strikes me forcibly that the dividend decision under Clause 2(2) runs exactly in parallel with the capitalisation requirements under Clause 4. Both the capitalisation of reserves and the declaration of a dividend, by definition, come within the same pool of available profits in the Corporation's accounts. What one is seeking to do in this small Amendment is to protect the Corporation so that, in effect, the capitalisation decision is made, if not simultaneously with the dividend decision, at least very rapidly thereafter—and that it is for the financial year.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): There is no basic difference between us here. I suspect that the tabling of this Amendment, which pursues a point discussed in Committee, chiefly on the initiative of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), arises perhaps from a slight misunderstanding of the position, which I thought I had dealt with satisfactorily in Committee. In our sitting on 24th June, I explained that there was not a need for such a narrow time limit within which a direction under this Clause could be made, because
  "…the Corporation does not need to know what notional additions are to be made to public dividend capital until immediately before the end of a financial year…"—
  1476
  [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 24th June, 1969, c. 301.]
  Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough in Committee that any capitalisation of reserves will become part of the p.d.c. return for the forthcoming year whereas the p.d.c. return referred to in Clause 2(2) relates to the current year when one is looking at the reserves under consideration for capitalisation.
  Mr. Stainton: I suggest that, although Clause 2(2) refers to the year, there will be a theme about dividend decisions. It is in this context that I am anxious to marry the capitalisation with the dividend decision.
  Mr. Freeson: There is no difference on this point. The link between capitalisation of reserves and the p.d.c. return which the Minister will have to decide annually is to be taken as occurring over a period. One does not necessarily relate the capitalisation within a given 12 months to the p.d.c. return which the Minister has required for that 12 months. Therefore, it is undesirable to relate the capitalisation to the two weeks within which a determination will be made by the Minister.
  Although I have been a little convoluted, I hope that I have clarified the points which were raised.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

  DURATION OF CERTAIN OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 32, leave out '1973' and insert '1972'.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 26, in page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38, and Amendment No. 27, in line 41, at end insert:
  'not exceeding any period greater than five years'
  which are linked on the question of timing.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Clause 6 deals with the duration of certain powers which the Minister will have. Briefly, those powers are, first, to provide the level of public dividend capital; secondly, to direct the notional capitalisation of

  1477
  reserves; and, thirdly, to set specific financial duties for the Corporation. These powers would normally lapse at the end of the first financial year to end after 1973. By these Amendments, we seek to shorten that time by inserting "1972".
  As the Clause is drafted, at the end of the financial year after 1973, the Minister may, by order, have the provisions extended permanently or for a specified time. We are strongly opposed to having a permanent feature of this type built into the Bill. We are far from happy that there should be an extended period for this exercise without the most careful vetting.
  I find it hard to discover any common ground about the concept of p.d.c. It is well known that in this concept the eventual return will be determined by the Minister. That means that the Minister acts as the principal shareholder, board of directors, and everybody else.
  Those people whose money is involved in p.d.c. should realise that a variable return may mean that on certain occasions there is no return at all. We regard this concept as somewhat dangerous. It was brought into the Bill because the Government and their supporters have spent much time moaning about the fact that the Corporation is labouring under a heavy capital debt. I ask the Minister: who put that debt on the British steel industry? Why are the incumbents of the Corporation labouring under this debt? The answer is that it was first put there by the nationalisation of steel by a Labour Government—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Third Reading debate. The hon. Member must link what he has to say with the Amendment that he is moving.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall be guided by you, Mr. Speaker. I was merely pointing out that the concept of p.d.c. was to remove the incidence of capital debt on the Corporation. We believe that this experiment, as it is described, should be carefully watched.
  These Amendments seek to shorten the time of this experiment by approximately one year. I hope that the Minister realises that the Amendments are intended to be helpful, and that it is not a question of dragging the plant up by the roots to
  1478
  inspect it over a shorter period. Because it is an experiment we want an opportunity to look at it over a shorter period than is provided for in the Bill. We are converting a large part of the capital debt of the Corporation into public dividend capital. The performance of the Corporation during the years to the end of 1973 may be unhappy and difficult. We have already had one problem in relation to the views expressed by the N.B.P.I. which could affect the return on this dividend capital. We are merely giving the Minister an opportunity of examining the situation rather more quickly than he would do under the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Hall-Davis: I shall be brief. I want to put only one point and to ask only one question. My objection to the Clause is that it gives the impression of giving full opportunity for a continuing scrutiny of this arrangement but when one reads it closely one sees that it is not what it seems. I know that many Clauses are not what they seem on first reading, but this Clause disguises the fact that, in effect, there will be only one guaranteed opportunity for review according to the provisions of the Bill—the review at the date specified in subsection (1).
  It is right that the implication of the Clause should be made clear. I should like to know whether I am right in assuming that if the Minister acts under subsection (2)(a) he or his successor will not have power to revoke the Order. In other words, is an Order that the provision shall continue in force permanently subject to a change of mind on the part of a Minister if he finds that there has been a dreadful mistake and the system is not working properly, or is it a permanent Order which would require legislation to overturn or withdraw? This is important, because we are dealing with a new departure and we are providing only one guaranteed opportunity for review. The Minister seems to be committing himself to not being able to change his mind. In our view this is too limiting a factor.
  Mr. Mason: We are dealing with three small Amendments grouped together. Amendment No. 25, if accepted—and it is not my intention to accept it—would cut back the experiment with p.d.c. by one year. It does not seem to make sense. I do not see the aim of the exercise.

  1479
  There is a precedent for the creation of public dividend capital in the B.O.A.C. There the first experimental period was for five years. We suggest the same period in the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  Secondly, I think that five years is really the minimum for the test. We have talked a lot about a cyclical industry, and one of the reasons why we agreed that p.d.c. should be established for the British Steel Corporation is that it is subject to fluctuating returns and would need a span of time before we could look back and check whether p.d.c. had worked fully. So I do not think it makes sense to cut back the time.
  Thirdly, when p.d.c. came in it was considered that the Corporation should be given time to make up its losses and earn profits to pay minimum dividends and tax, on p.d.c. and I would not have thought it sensible to cut back from five years to four.
  If Amendment 26 were accepted it would allow me to keep p.d.c. in being permanently only if I agreed to go through the substantive legislative process—that is what I think the hon. Member is referring to—instead of by order. Of course, even that order would still necessitate Parliamentary debate and consent. I think it is likely that for the British Steel Corporation and this industry, because of its nature, we may wish to keep this system of financing in being. It is right, therefore, that there should be in the Bill provision for us to do so, via an Order.
  Amendment 27 is a further restriction designed to end p.d.c. after five years.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Amendment 26 would make him come to the House for substantive legislation. I do not think it is so. I think the effect of the Amendment would be merely that he would have to come back under Clause 6(2)(b) at the expiration of the Corporation's financial year or as might be specified in the Order. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his argument.
  Mr. Mason: Well, I gather that Amendment 26 would take out Clause 6(2)(a) which gives the Minister by Order the right to continue the powers in
  1480
  force permanently after the time they would otherwise expire.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the Amendment were accepted the Clause would read:
  "The Minister may be order (made by statutory instrument) direct that the said sections"—
  that is, Sections 2(1), and 4 and 5—
  "shall continue m force after that time until the expiration of such of the Corporation's financial years as may be specified in the order …"
  Mr. Mason: Yes, but even if I were impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument I still would not be agreeable to accepting the Amendment—
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Why not?
  Mr. Mason: Because I said I might wish to keep this system of financing in being. I am also suggesting that if I wanted to do it by Order I might instead have to go through the substantive legislative process to do so.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Keep on coming back?
  Mr. Mason: Yes, I shall be coming on—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are at the Report stage, and it is a little more formal than Committee.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman would stop me from establishing p.d.c. as a permanency. I am very surprised. I would have thought, as I said initially, that, as this industry is one which, by its nature, is one of fluctuating returns, but viable in itself, p.d.c. would have been right for it. I think the experiment will succeed. I do not think that the Corporation should be lethargic, and, so to speak, lie back on a couch, but that Board and manpower alike will work and will succeed. I shall expect to get from public dividend capital at least what I would have got from fixed interest capital, and as the B.O.A.C. precedent has succeeded, I see no reason why this experiment should not, too.
  Mr. John Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has furnished the House with as unsatisfactory an answer as one can expect on the basis of experience in Committee. The experiment, and it can be no more than an experiment, of public dividend capital is a hazardous and rash one from the point of view of the nation.

  1481
  I entirely appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman looks upon this more as a matter of party interest and dogma than from the point of view of the nation.
  When he said, "I may wish to keep this system of financing in being either for a period or for ever, and I wish to do so by Order", I regard this as pushing the tactics of dictatorship a little too far. The Bill gives him much too wide discretion.
  While it is no Dart of my purpose tonight to criticise the selection, I nevertheless regret that we have not been able to deal in detail with other Clauses, particularly those referred to in this Clause, that is to say, Clauses 2(1), 4 and 5.
  The Minister is introducing what I regard as a fraudulent device—public dividend capital—which he hopes will give him a return greater than he could get from a fixed interest loan to a nationalised industry. This is not saying much, because nationalised industries have made a habit of regularly writing off whacking great losses of capital at the national expense. What the Minister means is that this undisguised loss to the taxpayer will be clothed, so far as words can do so, in a garment of respectability, and so we have this queer hybrid animal, public dividend capital.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, under the heading of Clause 5, says of the Minister that:
  "He may, by order, express the financial duty in a form other than as a rate of return on net assets but any such order would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament."
  Will the Minister be good enough to give one of his less cursory answers and say exactly what is meant by that?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Financial Memorandum. We are not discussing the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman regrets has not been selected. The Amendments we are discussing propose certain time checks, and the hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to those.
  Mr. Peyton: I have already expressed my regret that we are not discussing those matters, and I would not wish to do so more strongly than I have done. I am saying that this is a rash and undesirable experiment which should not be continued indefinitely. I am endeavouring
  1482
  to say why it is undesirable, and, therefore, why it should not be continued indefinitely, and I hope that I am not being disrespectful to the Chair in saying that.
  I am asking the Minister to go to some length to explain to the House what he means by this. What kind of return over this period is to be expected from public dividend capital? If it is not to be a return on net assets, what does he mean? Can the Minister be a little more specific, or is he saying that he will have to go through the tiresome procedure of having to come to the House to say that a nationalised industry is to be given a nice, respectable way of swallowing up capital rather than that it should be written off in the future?
  One of the reasons for the Amendment is that we, as representatives of the taxpayer who has been called upon to buy this industry, are entitled to have certain procedures observed. The Minister should have to go through this tiresome performance—and he has virtually said that it would be tiresome for him. If the experiment does not look like working he would not be able to get away with a by merely coming to the House for an order. He would have to come to the House and go through the full process of an Act of Parliament to continue an experiment which had been proved unsatisfactory.
  We all know that the Minister finds Parliamentary debate and discussion rather tiresome. He has his views about how one can dress up with words thoroughly unsatisfactory and unrespectable proceedings. He does not like to have to deal with them in detail or at any length. One can only admire his discretion. He plainly does not wish—ne has not the talent of the Chief Secretary—to go to the lengths of justifying what cannot be justified.
  We are concerned that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, should have the impudence to ask for powers to perpetuate, not merely a rash experiment, but an experiment which if indulged on by a privately-owned industry would land its directors in an uncomfortable situation in the Old Bailey. I am not saying that that would be an improper place for the Minister and his colleagues to find themselves. I am merely suggesting that

  1483
  the House of Commons would be most unwise to agree, without any resistance at all, to give its fiat to such a monstrous, naked proposal; a proposal built upon the twin pillars of total incompetence and a measure of fraud.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I would not have intervened if the Minister had given to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) a straight answer to a straight question.
  I find particularly objectionable subsection (2)(a), under which the Minister may by Order continue in force permanently the public dividend capital. That is an extraordinary large power. I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to ask whether it was the Minister's intention under that subsection to continue the provision in force permanently and, if so, what "permanently" means.
  The Minister in a very short and I thought cursory speech, brushed the question aside. He surely owes the House an explanation which so far he has not given. We all know that it is an experiment and should be as short an experiment as possible. I must strike a petty attitude on this matter and hope that a Conservative Government will not be inhibited by any legislation in going as far as 1973. I hope that we shall be able to get rid of it in 1972 or earlier. I would prefer the Amendment to read 1971) or 1971 rather than 1973—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper.
  Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the date 1972 but wishing that it had been earlier.
  The Minister tells us that this is an experiment, and though I have some regard for his achievements in office, I remember an occasion some years ago when he jumped, fully dressed, off the end of a pier into a vast quantity of water. I suggest that he is doing something similar here. He has a completely unknown body of water called public dividend capital, and he is leaping in—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill and the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Griffiths: I was about to say that, once again, the Minister is leaping fully clothed into a large and unknown experimental body of water, and we do not know how we shall fare. In view of that, it is only sensible to limit the length of time in which he will be floundering about in it. It is not an edifying thought to imagine that we shall have the Minister permanently floundering about in this experiment. For his good as well as the country's, I should like to put a very short term to it.
  When the Minister was speaking to Amendment No. 26, which I also support, he said that he might want to keep it in being by Order
  "… without having to come too often to Parliament."
  That was an extraordinary remark for a Minister who is responsible to this House. He should regard it as a privilege to explain to the House what he is doing. This House represents those who pay his salary as well as the salaries of the rest of us and who have to provide the money which he is chucking round in a haphazard fashion. Therefore, he ought not to take this view about coming to the House of Commons. He ought to explain to us in great detail what exactly he is doing.
  Throughout his speech, I was struck by his display of what can only be called mindless optimism. He gave the impression that somehow it would be all right on the night and that, if only he was allowed these powers without having to explain them, the Corporation and this new experiment would be a howling success. That kind of mindless optimism has dogged the Government's steps for the last few years. It reminds me of the story of the so-called Socialist captain of the "Titanic", who explained to

  1485
  his passengers that he had stopped to take on ice.
  Sir J. Eden: If my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) had not made such a strong case in support of the Amendments, the Minister's speech would have been reason enough for supporting them.
  The case which has been made out has emphasised the state of uncertainty and confusion in which we still find ourselves about so many aspects of the requirements which the Government propose to place on the Corporation.
  The most important point, well-emphasised by my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest and Yeovil, have centred on the experimental nature of public dividend capital. The Minister has approached it as a matter of pride in that it was introduced a short time ago in the British Overseas Airways Corporation as an experiment for a short period of time and that, before that time had expired other corporations in the public sector had come forward asking for the same dispensation; for the same means, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest put it, for evading their obligations on the initial capital debt. This it is that underlies the purpose in bringing this matter forward, certainly in the eyes of the Government, of the Minister and of the Chief Secretary.
  The experiment, by its very definition, should be limited. If the Minister wants it to continue, he should tell the House

  Division No. 316.]

  AYES

  [10.9 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dean, Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Balniel, Lord

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

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Bell, Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Holland, Philip

  Biffen, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Black, Sir Cyril

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

  Hunt, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Body, Richard

  Farr, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Kitson, Timothy

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grant, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Clark, Henry

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lane, David

  Clegg, Walter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  fully his reasons for wishing it to continue. He should not seek to evade his obligations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly stressed how appalling it is that any Minister should brush aside his obligation to seek from the House further powers in a matter of this kind involving, as it does, such a very large sum of money. There is, therefore, every justification for shortening the period of the experiment, which the first Amendment seeks to do.
  In addition to that, we find subsection (2)(a) wholly offensive. We would not wish to see this type of wide ranging power, no matter what its purpose, written into any Act. We do not like to give Ministers such sweeping, generalised, all-embracing powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil put it forcefully when he said that the Bill gives far too wide a discretion as it is, and this is a feature from which the Minister will get powers enabling him to enshrine as a permanency something which, in an earlier Clause, is introduced as an experiment. It is a wholly unjustified process. The Minister seeks not only to bring in an experiment but to run it indefinitely. Far too much self-perpetuating legislation is brought forward by this Government, and I strongly advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 180.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Peel, John

  stainton, Keith

  MacArthur, Ian

  Percival, Ian

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

  McMaster, Stanley

  Peyton, John

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Temple, John M.

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Maddan, Martin

  Pym, Francis

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Marten, Neil

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Waddington, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  More, Jasper

  Royle, Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wright, Esmond

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Younger, Hn. George

  Murton, Oscar

  Sharples, Richard

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Neave, Airey

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Alldritt, Walter

  Fowler, Gerry

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Anderson, Donald

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Archer, Peter

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Manuel, Archie

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mapp, Charles

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnes, Michael

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marquand, David

  Bence, Cyril

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Binns, John

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamling, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Boyden, James

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Haseldine, Norman

  Molloy, William

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Buchan, Norman

  Hooley, Frank

  Neal, Harold

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Dougas

  Newens, Stan

  Cant, R. B.

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

  Oakes, Gordon

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Chapman, Donald

  Hynd, John

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Palmer, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Park, Trevor

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lawson, George

  Probert, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Dickens, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dobson, Ray

  Lamas, Kenneth

  Rowlands, E.

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ryan, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Ellis, John

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ennals, David

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Ensor, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Small, William

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Snow, Julian

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

  McGuire, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Finch, Harold

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Wallace, George

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. John McCann and

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Woof, Robert

Clause 7

  POWER OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES TO BORROW MONEY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY
  Mr. Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 30, leave out:
  'with the consent of the Minister'.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
  No. 29, in page 5, line 31, leave out 'he' and insert 'the Minister'.
  No. 30, in line 32, after 'Treasury', insert:
  'by order (made by statutory instrument)'.
  Mr. Ridley: The effect of these Amendments is to oblige the Minister to obtain Parliamentary approval for each tranche of foreign borrowing in which the Corporation indulges and to secure that this consent is to be obtained by means of a negative Order so that the House can, if it thinks fit, pray against it. There are a number of reasons why the House should keep close control on foreign borrowing by the Corporation.
  It is curious that the Government have decided to write into each industry's Statute the power to borrow abroad. It would have been much more sensible if the Government had introduced a blanket provision enabling all the nationalised industries to do this: then the question could have been debated on its merits with Treasury Ministries and we should not have had to inject these highly complicated economic subjects into what is otherwise an industrial Bill dealing with one industry.
  The economic situation is so deplorable and is changing so rapidly that the House would do well to keep the tightest control over this aspect of Government economic policy.
  I thought that the more as I read and reread the Minister's speech in Committee. At one point he said:
  "Before a nationalised industry can borrow abroad it must explain its proposals and it has to obtain specific consent before it can borrow. The check is really made there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A. 26th June, 1969; c. 366.]
  1492
  The check should be made here in the House. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that there is need to keep control and a close check on this borrowing, but in the typical way of this Government he abrogates to himself and the Government the job of keeping a check and leaves the House of Commons out of it. The Amendment would bring the House back into it.
  The dangers are great. There will be a major upheaval of currency parities in the near future. It is now being openly said that there will be a revaluation of all the major currencies at some time this autumn. A point which has already been made but which cannot be made too often is that the House would be unwise to give consent to a borrowing in currencies which are clearly likely to be up-valued. If any currency is obviously likely to be up-valued, it is the German currency, the currency in which the Government have seen fit to do the first two borrowings for the other two industries.
  This is a matter to which the House would probably object, if Orders were laid asking for permission for the Steel Corporation to borrow D-marks, since it is clear that within a few months we stand a good chance of losing a substantial proportion of the capital value of those D.-marks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) put down a sensible Amendment—which I am sad to note is not selected—which would put upon the Steel Corporation the duty only to borrow on such terms that the value of the sterling was guaranteed. This would have been a useful provision in the Bill, but, since we are not to debate it, the House ought at least to have a chance to scrutinise the currencies which it is proposed to borrow at any time.
  I join issue with the Minister on something else which he said in Committee. Reading from his carefully prepared Treasury brief, he tried to make out that borrowing abroad by nationalised industries in order to spend here in England was not an increase of the money supply. He said:
  "The central Government will be borrowing more from the banks in respect of the Exchequer Equalisation Account but less in respect of the needs of the National Loans Fund. Money supplied remains unchanged by

  1493
  the shift in the source of finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June 1969; c. 359.]
  I do not know who put that brief into his hands. My information from economists who understand every ramification of the money supply argument is that that is not right. Provided that the money is borrowed abroad and is invested in this country—I agree that investing it abroad would invalidate the point—it is a definite increase in the money supply because the borrowings to match the Exchequer Equalisation Account do not come from increased taxation or increased borrowings from the public; they have always traditionally come by an increase in Treasury Bills, which is net inflation. Undoubtedly, if money is borrowed abroad and spent in this country either as capital or as income, that is a net addition to the money supply.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, strictly under the tutelage of Mr. Milton Friedman and puppet on that string that he is, has no alternative under the Letter of Intent but to increase taxation in order to mop up the extra money supply which is created by the foreign borrowing. So we can safely say that for every £1 million which the Steel Corporation borrows abroad we can look forward to an extra £1 million on taxation at some stage. Before we part with the Clause, that ought to be made abundantly clear. It is a pretty depressing prospect, because whatever happens, whether we borrow abroad or at home, it will mean an increase in taxation. This is one of the more substantial reasons against the extension of the public sector, which seems to be one of the Government's main objectives.
  The borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries amounts to an increase in the Government's indebtedness in the world. There can be no doubt about this. The borrowings are backed by Treasury guarantee, and the Minister admitted this when he said:
  "In any case a Treasury guarantee is a better form of security, since it involves a pledge in the name of the Government …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June, 1969; c. 360.]
  So he has given a Treasury guarantee that all these loans will be underwritten by the Government. We are already at the I.M.F. a fourth-tranche borrower, along with several banana republics. We
  1494
  are at the limit of our credit. I can see that it is a clever and convenient way around the limits imposed to send the nationalised industries, disguised as commercial concerns, to try to scrape up a few more millions in the lush money markets of Germany. That is the only place the right hon. Gentleman will get any. But it seems to me a fairly irresponsible policy. It is pawning the steel mills to foreigners so that the Government may obtain a little more tick to last out the week.
  Although that may be necessary, due to the parlous state to which the Government have brought the economy, I still believe that it would be better to admit that that is what they are doing, and to say, "Every penny we can get helps, and if we can sell some of the assets of the steel mills abroad, we shall do so."
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Clause 7, but three Amendments to it. The hon. Gentleman should link what he is saying with the three Amendments.
  Mr. Ridley: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was merely making the point that, for these reasons, it would be desirable if the House commented specifically on each slice of borrowing which is proposed.
  The Press has commented unfavourably on our lack of alacrity to criticise the Government over the whole provision. The Financial Times said:
  "The heavy over-spending Britain has been indulging in since the present Government took over—last year's current account deficit was even larger than that 'inherited' from the Conservatives in 1964—has been financed largely by incurring massive debts with the International Monetary Fund and foreign central banks and selling off investments. Such rake's progress behaviour is not going to be made any more virtuous by being passed off as borrowing by State enterprises to finance development programmes."
  Those are pretty harsh words. They are not mine but those of a financial commentator.
  We feel that before recourse is had to this last desperate resort, the House should be presented with a cut-and-dried scheme, showing the amount of money, the rate of interest, the duration of the loan, and any other conditions attached to it. It could be laid before the House in the form of an Order which could be prayed against if the House did not

  1495
  consider that it was the right time and right way to borrow money.
  The Minister tried to write the whole matter off as if only small amounts of money, peanuts, are to be borrowed. I think that he said that he would not have thought that the I.M.F. would have the slightest interest in these small borrowings. The expression he used was that they would be only piddling in size. But a bad policy is not made any better by carrying it out on a piddling scale. If they are only to be piddling in size, it is not worth bothering the House to have the Clause in the Bill. I should be happy if the Minister said that at another stage he would take out the Clause. If that will not inconvenience him much because the amount of money is piddling, let us do without it. But if it is here for a substantial purpose—and we have already borrowed about £38 million abroad through other nationalised industries—the House should have its say on whether or not it approves the borrowings.
  After all, the House is ultimately in control of finance. It is the House which votes supply to the Government and, through the Budget mechanism, votes domestic borrowing to the Government as well. Therefore, if the House is not to be allowed to comment on borrowing from abroad, it is deprived of one of its main weapons of control of the economic policies of the Government.
  I would not say that there are not times and circumstances when it might conceivably be right to borrow abroad, but let us take each of these borrowings on their merits. Let us wait until they come and, as each opportunity for borrowing abroad arises, have each specific proposal laid before us in the form of an Order so that the House can debate it and, if it thinks fit, approve it. Without that weapon of Parliamentary control, my right hon. and hon. Friends would be unhappy to see this Clause go through.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peyton: I am glad to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I hope he will not take it as anything other than a compliment to him if I touch again on some of the arguments he has adduced so powerfully.
  1496
  What the Government are asking here is that nationalised industries should be allowed to tout round Europe and collect in little bits what the Government's credit does not allow them to collect in total. It is a disreputable and scruffy exercise. It is being suggested that the Corporation is looking for loans and credit in Europe already and that it has not as yet been wholly successful. If the Parliamentary Secretary, from the knowledge that must lie in his Department, assures us that that is untrue and that as yet the Corporation has not ventured into the Continental capital markets, I should be happy to accept his assurance.
  It seems to me, however, that if the Corporation is already applying itself to this hunting ground in Europe, it has been rather jumping the gun. It would have been better if it had waited for the Bill to go through. It always seems odd that the Government should be so willing to allow these proud champions of Socialism, the nationalised industries, to see what crumbs are available in capital markets abroad when it would somehow be an offence against their chastity if they were to borrow at home.
  It is evidently so important that a publicly-owned industry should not have the integrity of its equity besmirched by any element of private ownership that the Government prefer it to go overseas rather than make any offer to such facilities as remain available at home.
  I echo the views of my hon. Friend about a reappraisal of currency parities. I do not like to use rude words like "devaluation", but it seems a bit odd that nationalised industries should be set loose to borrow from foreign countries in currencies which may be revalued upwards and thereby expose them to a fairly heavy and gratuitous penalty when it comes to repayment.
  Another consideration is the present credit squeeze. The Opposition have always complained that the nationalised industries are largely excused from the pains and burdens which are piled one upon another on the shoulders of privately-owned industries. Nationalised industries are allowed to go scot free of many of the imposts and burdens which are reserved for private industries.
  Today we have another example. In circumstances in which it is exceedingly

  1497
  difficult for private enterprise companies to borrow money in this country, the nationalised industries are allowed to take such advantage as they may of the lingering residual elements of something which might be called the credit still appertaining to what is known as the British Government in overseas capital markets. I hope that it will not be thought rude to the British Steel Corporation if I say that some private concerns may find this fairly fierce in view of the heavy pressure and contribution to the intensification of the credit squeeze by the Corporation—
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths; On a point of order. The hon. Member has not been speaking to the Amendment for the last 10 minutes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that matter to the Chair. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has been bordering on getting out of order, but I have listened very carefully and so far he has not done so.
  Mr. Peyton: While I am naturally grateful—
  Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave his various reasons why power should not be given to the Corporation to borrow abroad and much of his speech was concerned with what he called the economic mismanagement by the Government. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is arguing the general principle. How far will the debate be allowed to broaden before it is regarded as a "Clause stand part" debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not rule hypothetically. The hon. Member may leave it to the Chair to see that hon. Members remain in order.
  Mr. Peyton: I gladly conform to your very fair Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. I only wish that I could congratulate you on the pair of guides who have been wished upon you and have made your difficult task even harder.
  The Amendments would provide that, to permit any foreign borrowing, the Treasury would have to come to the
  1498
  House for an Order, and the House would be enabled to supervise this matter and to bear in mind the sort of material points with which we have dealt. I had hoped that my purpose would be clear to hon. Members opposite from a cursory reading of the Notice Paper, and I am sorry if I have caused you any embarrassment, Mr. Gourlay, through the unnecessary advice which they have given you.
  If it were possible to supervise such overseas borrowing, the House could keep a check on, or seek an explanation of, the extent to which the Corporation enjoyed the best of both worlds, namely, playing a marked part in intensifying the credit squeeze upon private industry while doing all it could to relieve itself of pressure by borrowing overseas.
  My hon. Friend, in a graphic but not unheard-of phrase, said that we were taking the example of various "banana republics" I do not want anything I say to be taken as meaning any disrespect to any of those personally engaged in the immensely difficult task of running and managing, which includes financing, the nationalised industries. But it is very regrettable that, when this country's credit stands as low as it does, for reasons which it would be painful and out of order to enumerate, the Government should arm yet another creature with the powers to go dragging through the coverts of Europe, to get some resources which the credit of its masters, the British Government, and this wretched lot of Ministers cannot command.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I support these Amendments because this country has borrowed enough at home and more than enough abroad. Our total indebtedness abroad now amounts to over £6,000 million. The difference between this sum and the sum which the last Socialist Government borrowed just after the war is that the latter could be repaid in about the year 2000. This sum of about £6,000 million has to be repaid within the next seven years. This is a monumental strain upon the country. It is far beyond the capacity of this Government to achieve. We should think very carefully before allowing the Government any further powers to borrow abroad.
  The reason why they are seeking power to borrow abroad is that they have no

  1499
  longer power to borrow at home. The Government could not sell or persuade British investors to buy Government debts and securities. This has been proved day after day—
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: What about private business? Is not that getting money from abroad?
  Mr. Hordern: I was referring to Government borrowing at home. I was saying that the Government cannot borrow at home, in great contradistinction to private firms, in that, however difficult it has been made for them by this Government, people have been prepared to subscribe money to private industry, whereas nobody has been prepared to subscribe money for the Government. If one looks at the ability of the Government to manage their debt properly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Clause. The hon. Member must not argue the reason for the Clause. The hon. Member must adduce arguments why we should delete certain words or insert other words. In developing his argument he must not argue the principles of indebtedness.
  Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have taken the words practically out of my mouth. I was asking that the power to borrow abroad should be in the control of the House. We have already done far too much borrowing abroad. At least the powers given to the should be given to the House.
  There is a further effect of borrowing abroad. Not only are the Government incapable of borrowing at home; we recognise why foreign countries want to lend us their money. Germany, for example, has a strong reserves position and she is only too anxious to lend us money. Why? Because she foresees a possible change in the level of exchange rates. The Government have landed us in a disgracefully dangerous position. We are having to repay £6,000 million in seven years—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment. The Amendment that he is referring to is Amendment No. 30, and his argument is much wider than the Amendment under discussion permits.
  Mr. Hordern: Perhaps I was being a little provocative. I was pointing out that it is essential that the Government should ask the House for authority to borrow whenever they wish to do so. The Government must not be so deceived by the ease with which they can borrow abroad. They must recognise that it is not just a question of the rate of interest but that other countries are only too happy to lend us the money.
  I turn to another aspect of the matter which was mentioned in Committee by the Minister himself—the important effect, if such borrowing is carried out, on domestic credit expansion—the money supply. This point was discussed somewhat shortly in Committee but the Minister referred to it in the absence of the Financial Secretary, who was indisposed. I am sorry that neither he nor the Chief Secretary is here to help the House tonight. These matters are somewhat complex. Perhaps we could get a clearer explanation from those Ministers than from others who are perhaps not quite so well versed in these affairs.
  In any case, what we should like to know—certainly, what I should like to know—is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is going to be the effect on the Exchange Equalisation Account, because it is quite clear—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is very wide of the Amendment. Perhaps he would address his remarks more specifically to the Amendment.
  Mr. Hordern: I am very sorry. I was of course trying to do so. I was referring, as narrowly as I could, to the question of the power of this House to decide whether this foreign borrowing should be done or not, and I was merely mentioning the disadvantage if we allow this power to be given to the Government and to the Steel Corporation to borrow money abroad, without having some sort of check upon them, and the dangers of doing so.
  The primary danger, of course, is the increase in the level of the money supply, because the effect of the increase in the Exchange Equalisation Account is that to the extent that they receive foreign pounds they have to issue Treasury bills which act as the basis of

  1501
  the banking system, and to that extent the level of the money supply is increased, and to that extent the Government have, either by taxation or by further genuine borrowing, if they can, to meet that situation. That is another reason why this House should have the power, if it wishes, to allow or disallow the Government's power to borrow abroad.
  Mr. R. B. Cant rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member should tempt the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), because even though he is just within the bounds of order, I am having great difficulty in relating his remarks to the specific Amendment. One must, in arguing for this Amendment, state the reasons why the Government should not have this power, but without going into the principles in too much detail.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. We did not hear the point which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was going to make. He may have been going to tempt my hon. Friend hack into the paths of order. May we hear the point he was going to make before he is ruled out of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) gives way.
  Mr. Hordern: I think I must.
  Mr. Cant: Before the hon. Member reaches the Amendment may I ask him if he would resolve a paradox? If an import surplus leading to loss of reserves—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was rather afraid the hon. Member might tempt the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) out of order.
  Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. If I may say so with the greatest respect, a totally unwarranted attempt—I am sure, an unsuccessful attempt—is being made by hon. Members opposite to brainwash the Chair into suggesting that my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot accept any reflection upon the Chair either from one hon. Member or another.
  Mr. Peyton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be most unfortunate if there were any suggestion that the Chair was being influenced by either side of the House.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. I am so sorry. If I said anything which could even remotely be held to be disrespectful to the Chair I withdraw it unreservedly, but, in fact, I said that an attempt, which I was sure was totally unsuccessful, was being made by hon. Members opposite to brainwash the Chair, and I said it was unsuccessful and I meant it was unsuccessful. The point I wished to put to you very strongly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that here we are dealing with a very major borrowing powers Bill, with a skeleton Report stage, and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), very reasonably, is putting the point that here a novel power is being given to a nationalised industry to borrow overseas. He was suggesting, as this Amendment suggests, that the Government, before that power is evercised, should be obliged to come to the House for approval. The background arguments which my hon. Friend is putting forward are very germane and, with the greatest respect, I think that he has not been so wide of the mark as hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman. Some arguments which have been adduced are germane to the Amendments. The difficulty the Chair has is in deciding how wide the arguments should range, and on occasions I have had to pull up the hon. Gentleman for going too wide.
  Mr. Hordern: The Amendments with which we are concerned are necessarily technical, because the process of borrowing abroad is technical, You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, understand, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), have difficulty in understanding these abstruse matters, so it is not surprising that they think I am out of order. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know very well that I am absolutely in order.
  A further reason for looking carefully at these powers for borrowing abroad is

  1503
  the present interest rate. In 1963, interest payable abroad stood at £444 million. In five years that amount has risen by a further £330 million, so that the annual interest charge overseas is well over £800 million, and that is an astonishing sum. We must look carefully before we allow any expansion of that debt. The size of the debt and the rate of interest are continually increasing.
  This leads me to the further point that one should consider the level of interest rates and their possible trend. With the development in the United States and with the increase in the level of the Federal Reserve rate and the Euro-dollar rate, it is most unlikely that this country will be able to stay altogether outside that trend of increasing interest rates. The likelihood, therefore, is that this indebtedness and the interest rates abroad will continue to increase.
  There are some local authorities which already have power to borrow abroad but find it difficult to do so because of inability to pay the high interest rates. Suppose local authorities take to borrowing overseas? It will not be a question of a few tens of millions of £s but of hundreds of millions of £s, which will be a very serious matter.
  The House must say quite clearly that this is enough; we have had enough of this borrowing and we want to have the powers provided by the Amendment to check the power of the nationalised industries to borrow abroad.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I moved an Amendment in Committee on this matter, and we discussed whether or not, when the British Steel Corporation wishes to borrow money overseas, it should come to the House of Commons. The need for it to do so increases as the amount of money borrowed overseas by the British Steel Corporation or other nationalised industries increases.
  We elucidated some information in Committee. It was argued—this is column 358—that borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries increased the supply of money and injected money into the public sector. He also referred to the procedure adopted by the Treasury.
  1504
  Reference has also been made to the Minister's account of what happens when a nationalised industry borrows abroad. It thereby increases the country's longer-term in and is offset by a reduction n our shorter-term liabilities. This depends on the amount of money so far borrowed abroad by the nationalised industries.
  I believe the figure has been described as peanuts or a piddling sum, but it was estimated at £40 million, as one can see from column 367 of the proceedings in Standing Committee. This is small in relation to the interest which has to be paid.
  The point that concerns us is whether or not the British Steel Corporation should report to the House on these matters. We know that the United Steel Company obtained a dollar loan, but this was not a loan, of course, to the British Steel Corporation. This matter was referred to in Standing Committee.
  We reminded the Minister in Committee that much of our present difficulties are due to the fact that if the B.S.C. wants money it must go to the Treasury for it or abroad. Yesterday, in reply to Questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there had been a considerable increase in the amount of investment in this country by overseas industries. If the B.S.C. had not been nationalised and had needed equity capital to expand, it could have gone to the market at home or to overseas markets. It is now by the very act of nationalisation being denied that source of funds.
  One constricting effect of nationalisation is that this great industry must borrow subject to a Treasury guarantee. Every penny borrowed abroad is subject to Treasury guarantee and increases our international indebtedness. The Minister replied in great detail on this matter in Committee. At a time when we are suffering from a credit squeeze and when we as a nation must go cap in hand for every penny we require, it is necessary to support the Amendment.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to address my remarks to Amendment No. 30 which seeks, after the word "Treasury", to insert the words "by order (made by statutory instrument)". Between those two phrases lies the whole vast dimension of the conflict between

  1505
  Treasury orthodoxy, as we have seen it elaborated and demonstrated over the last three or four years, and Parliamentary responsibility as we here in the House of Commons understand it. The Amendment attempts to make Treasury orthodoxy, or lack of it, accountable to Parliament.
  It has been dramatically demonstrated in the last three or four months, if not for slightly longer, that there is an urgent need for the principal Ministers of the Treasury to come to the House in order to justify important departures in Treasury economic thinking or in Government policy. These departures are made plain to organisations abroad but often they are not made sufficiently plain to the electorate and to Parliament here at home.
  Germane to the whole concept of making Treasury Ministers come to Parliament on matters affecting foreign borrowing was the fact that in the House on 25th June the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt it necessary to explain the significance of the commitments we were undertaking in respect of obligations entered into by the country to the I.M.F.
  The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in effect, joined the Treasury to Parliament in this important connection. The right hon. Gentleman introduced an important new concept in the matter of foreign borrowing and its effect or lack of effect upon our internal affairs. He called this new concept d.c.e., or domestic credit expansion, and he justified its introduction by a rather striking paradox, to which I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was about to draw our attention. It was that a balance of payments deficit is in itself obviously rather unsatisfactory, but paradoxically the way in which we examine it, analyse it and present it, makes it show up in the money supply aspect as a rather beneficial result, namely, a drop in the money supply. We all know the reason for this.
  The Minister of Power should appreciate that the Chancellor's argument in justifying Treasury policy in its money supply context operates in the obverse direction if there is a balance of payments surplus. I hope I carry the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central with me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order in making incidental references to Treasury policy in saying why he supports the Amendment, but he must not argue the case in too much detail, which is what he is doing at the moment. We are not discussing Treasury policy on this Amendment.
  Mr. Alison: The Treasury is deliberately introduced into the Amendment in respect, I take it, of the necessity for the Treasury to come to the House to justify its policy, because we feel that the House should have an opportunity to consider some of these matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not to justify policy, but to justify reasons for new borrowing powers, which is slightly different.
  Mr. Alison: Then I will pursue the argument more along those lines.
  One of the unavoidable corollaries of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us on 25th June is this. When a nationalised industry borrows abroad, the sum involved represents an inflow of foreign currency. When that happens, there is to that extent an increase in the money supply, since the purchase of all foreign currency coming into the United Kingdom has to be financed by the Government through the Exchange Equalisation Account. When the British Steel Corporation borrows abroad and receives foreign currency, that necessarily has to be sold to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and the Exchange Equalisation Account has to hand over sterling to the British Steel Corporation. As a result of losing that sterling, the Exchange Equalisation Account has to let its stock of Treasury Bills run off, and the Account in turn has to ask the Government to top up its supply of sterling. In turn, the Government have to go to the money market to recoup their own losses to the Account. All this results in a real increase in the money supply, and it always happens when there is an inflow of foreign exchange.
  The Government are casually taking steps to organise matters so that we should suffer an increase in the money supply at a time when we are in deficit in our balance of payments. They are

  1507
  making for an artificial inflow of foreign currency, and increasing the money supply at precisely the wrong moment.
  Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister was at pains to argue in a contrary sense in Committee, reading from the Treasury brief? Does that not alarm my hon. Friend even more?
  Mr. Alison: It alarmed me when I heard the quote from the Treasury brief, which was the argument that the Corporation, to the extent that it borrowed abroad, pro tanto, would borrow less from the Government; but the Corporation does not borrow only from the Government. It borrows also from the banks and from the public on its own stocks. So that is not a satisfactory answer to the problem we are raising, which is that to the extent that the Corporation reduces its bank overdraft, on which it pays an extremely high percentage, and brings in foreign currency, on which it pays a lower rate of interest but raises the money supply, it does two things to the detriment of the economy at the same time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is still arguing the point rather too specifically.
  Mr. Alison: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is very difficult unless one is fully au fait with some of the complexities of the argument, to avoid doing so when in the Notice Paper we have the word "Treasury" used in the sense of a synomym for "Government," and references to Parliament. But I certainly take the point, and in any case I was drawing to a conclusion.
  There is a double fault in what the Government propose if they do not give Parliament an opportunity to debate in the way I am modestly trying to debate now. They are making the double fault of simultaneously increasing the money supply by an inflow of foreign currency and generating expenditure by the Corporation in the United Kingdom with no offsetting savings in the United Kingdom, because the savings have been made by foreigners supplying us with foreign currency. Two double-barrelled simultaneous injections of inflation should be something which the Treasury should justify by an Order laid before Parlia-
  1508
  ment which could be examined by hon. Members such as, on this side, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and, on the other side, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), who are interested in these matters.
  I beg the Minister not to make the mistake that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in thinking that he can carry on dealing with foreign creditors and dealers without coming to the House. The Chancellor got himself into very hot water by dealing with the I.M.F. without consulting Parliament. Let the Minister make provision for the Treasury Ministers to justify this kind of borrowing to the House.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: These are three very important Amendments, because they are concerned with checks on overseas borrowing. On a separate issue in Committee we raised this question, and the Minister gave an answer which, while it may have satisfied him, showed that we were talking on different wave lengths. He said:
  "The checks on the extent of the limited borrowing overseas are the Treasury and myself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th June 1969; c. 366.]
  I do not think that our experience of the management of the economy in recent years has been such that I or any other reasonable person would regard a check by the Treasury and the Minister as being in itself adequate to ensure that everything went well in the economy. In these Amendments we have tried to provide an additional check by saying that the Corporation, through the Minister, must come to this House of Commons to ask permission to borrow abroad.
  I have a number of reasons for thinking that this check is important, and one of the most important is that at present those organisations, financial or otherwise, which are thinking of borrowing abroad look only to the places where there are opportunities to do so, and this at the present time means Germany—
  Mr. John Mendelson: They all have the same briefs.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Member that if he goes through the debates he will

  1509
  see that, rather than speaking from briefs, some of us have tried to think seriously about these matters. It is an absolute tragedy for the country that when we discuss these important matters there is only a handful of Lobby fodder opposite who cannot understand the seriousness of the issues involved. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have rightly shown that you wish to keep the discussion in order and to get proceedings on the Bill advanced as quickly as may be. I cannot believe that it is helpful to you in your difficult task to have a series of noisy and rude interruptions, which may be characteristic of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who remains seated throughout the debate. I do not see how that can help you or the House to get the Bill through as quickly as desirable. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who was making a perfectly reasonable point, will have your protection from the violations of a rather hooligan nature of the hon. Member for Penistone, who succeeds in amusing no one but himself.
  Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair endeavours to protect hon. Members on both sides of the House impartially.
  Mr. John Mendelson: All that I was doing was seeking to commiserate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in that he came in late to the debate and his brief was therefore rather stale.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Penistone is being unduly provocative for I certainly have no brief on this matter. Most hon. Members who sat in the Committee tried to make sense of this Bill, which has very dangerous implications. Out of courtesy to some of my hon. Friends who did not have the advantage of being on the Committee, we wish to say something on Report. The Minister knows how important this is. He has listened very carefully to this discussion.
  As the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) suggested, one important reason why we should have this check on borrowing abroad by the
  1510
  British Steel Corporation is that we should look where the money can be borrowed. Where the money is clearly available is in countries within the E.E.C. At the present time it would be unwise if we were seen to be in a position of pawning our assets to nations of the E.E.C. while entry to the Community is being considered. I and some other hon. Members have strong reservations on this issue. It would be extremely regrettable if at such a time we were to put ourselves into the difficult position without Parliamentary control of being in such great indebtedness to countries of the European Economic Community.
  The second reason why we should have a control and check on borrowing abroad is not any constitutional issue but because experience has shown that this Government are just too good at it. Unfortunately we have not with us the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or any Treasury Minister. I do not want to be disrespectful to them. They are very able and have shown brilliance in going to almost any foreign capital to get a loan. Unfortunately, as a nation we may have to pay for that in years to come, but they have shown enormous ability, despite our difficult position, to tout round the capitals of the world to get foreign loans. This is a tribute to their ingenuity and competence, but we do not want unreasonably to add to the burden of future generations. There is already an exodus because of our economic problems and high taxation. It would be unreasonable to indulge in more and more foreign borrowing. Precisely because the Government have been too successful in it there should be some Parliamentary check.
  The third reason why there should be a check on borrowing abroad by the nationalised industries is that, unfortunately, the nationalised industries have shown an ability to eat up capital with an almost insatiable appetite. Is it generally realised that the nationalised industries, since Labour came to power, have been writing off capital at more than £1 million a day?
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: On a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourtay): Order. I was about to interrupt the hon. Member for Glasgow,

  1511
  Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and say that, in referring to the general indebtedness of nationalised industries, he is somewhat wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. Taylor: I have no wish to get out of order, so I will leave the point, except to say that, in view of this insatiable appetite, there should be control at home and abroad, particularly abroad.
  Another important reason why there should be control on foreign borrowing is that, if the Minister has to seek the approval of the House to foreign borrowings, he will have at the same time to say why he wants to borrow money abroad. We should have such control on what could be an unreasonable appetite for empire building on the part of some sections of the Corporation about which we have heard and read. In view of what has happened in Britain, it would be bad if we were to allow the Corporation without restraint to indulge in a campaign of investing in activities abroad when in many cases it has enough difficulty in controlling the problems of the home industry. The House should have the opportunity of discussing any proposition for investing in steel works or, indeed, in ore supplies abroad.
  I do not under-estimate the potential for investment in the steel industry abroad. There is the fantastic example of Australian ore supplies: in 1966 exports were only 230,000 tons; last year they leaped to 9 million tons. The Amendment seeks to ensure that before the Corporation invests abroad the approval of the House should be sought. If it was just a piddling amount, as the Minister said, there would be no need for such strict control, but what guarantee is that there it will be a piddling amount? The Bill extends the borrowing limit to £650 million. I do not suggest that the Corporation has any specific proposals for investing £100 million or £200 million abroad, but the borrowing power is in the Bill. It is possible under this Clause that all the money or a substantial part of it could be borrowed abroad. It is precisely because of that that we want to restrain this power.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman decide whether he is talking about borrowing abroad or investing
  1512
  abroad? For the past five minutes, he has been talking about overseas investment.
  Mr. Taylor: That is an important point which serves to illustrate what I mean. If the Steel Corporation proposed to the Government that it should borrow abroad £20 million, £30 million or £40 million, I should want to know whether the money was to be used for investment in our own industry or for investment abroad. The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. He should think about it a little. We know that he has the ability to think about these things, and I hope that he will.
  Will the Government be borrowing abroad through the Steel Corporation simply to dodge the difficulties in home borrowing or will they be doing it for investment abroad? Every time the Steel Corporation says that it wants to borrow abroad, I shall want to know on behalf of my constituents—I am sure that the hon. Member for Brightside would want to know, too—whether the intention is to expand our home steel industry or merely to dodge the difficulties of credit supply in Britain. Only yesterday, we learned how even the poor old National Savings Movement finds its withdrawals exceeding deposits by £2 million a day. In these circumstances, the House should have an opportunity to discuss the matter and see what is happening.
  The Minister gave quite a thorough reply in Committee, but he did not deal with this point. How would he have an opportunity of seeing what the foreign-borrowed money would be used for—for home consumption or for investment abroad?
  We are aware of the fantastic potential abroad, and we are aware also of our own potential at home, but we want to know what the money would be used for. It would be wrong and against the character of all that the Minister said in Committee if this power were exercised merely as a dodge to increase our foreign indebtedness, not as a natural financial transaction of the Steel Corporation.
  The currencies borrowed would be those likely to increase in value. Not even the hon. Member for Brightside would suggest that the Steel Corporation would consider borrowing money from India, Indonesia, Ghana, the Yemen or

  1513
  countries like that. Far from borrowing from countries whose currencies are not stable, it would think of borrowing from countries with stable currencies. This gives add point to the need for the Amendment. There must be a check and control.
  If we do not adopt the Amendment, we may be giving preferential treatment to the nationalised industries over the private sector. If a private industry wants to extend its credit today, either by foreign borrowings or by home borrowings, it is subject to the discipline of difficult credit restrictions. There is a danger that if we provide these two open channels for the nationalised industries without the check of Parliament to ensure fair play there will be a very unjust and unfair situation.
  11.30 p.m.
  Surely, when about half of our productive resources seem to be under the control of the Government, we have a special responsibility to ensure fair play and that no special privileges are given to the public sector as opposed to the private setor. Many of us feel that the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the public sector and that the burdens on the private sector are increasing all the time. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is conducting himself disgracefully, as he usually Joes. He makes no positive contribution to our discussions. On the contrary, he tries to be disruptive and gives the impression that he is not following the debate, otherwise he would realise how serious and important a matter this was.
  In the Amendment we try to ensure fair play. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting it. If they had a proposal for borrowing the piddling sum which the Minister suggested he would be interested in or a substantial sum, all that they would have to do would be to argue the case in the House. They will find that when the national interest is concerned we rise above party politics.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this industry requires an injection of capital to make it more viable and more competitive with steel industries overseas? If so, from where does he suggest the capital should come?
  Mr. Taylor: I should love to deal with that point. If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more talkative in Committee, we could have gone into it firmly. We on this side dealt with these points thoroughly, and the Government found themselves in considerable difficulty in answering them.
  We do not want to add to the special privileges in the public sector. It is only fair and reasonable that the Government should justify foreign borrowings.
  Mr. Tinn: The hon. Gentleman argues that the Amendment would provide a safeguard against preferential treatment being given to the public sector by requiring the Minister to come to the House before authorising a loan. If the hon. Gentleman believes so strongly in equality of treatment as between the public and private sectors, I am puzzled why he did not feel called upon to urge that the Minister of Technology should require approval before giving assistance to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We might get out of order if we pursued that.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) made an unworthy and irrelevant interjection. Any nationalised or private industry involved in borrowing money abroad should be subject to the same disciplines. I make no exceptions. I try to be consistent.
  All that we are trying to do is to effect something which hon. Members opposite obviously feel is of no concern, and that is Parliamentary control of foreign borrowing. We have seen from some of their actions recently that they hold our democratic system and all it is based on in utter contempt. They have shown that today. In this Amendment we are simply seeking to ensure fair play and to introduce the restraint of Parliament. This is important. When the time came, the Government would find that, when the national interest and the steel industry were concerned, we on these benches rise above party politics and discuss matters fairly and reasonably. At present we have only the check of the Treasury and the Minister. That is not enough. Therefore, we should accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad to follow what was, at this late hour, a distinguished speech by my hon. Friend the

  1515
  Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). What a contrast it was with the outpourings of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). I never know whether it is worse to hear him from his seat or on his feet. Neither is a pleasant experience.
  Mr. John Mendelson: We have not heard the hon. Gentleman at his best. In the steel nationalisation Committee he never sat down without having spoken for 48 minutes.
  Mr. Griffiths: Two minutes from my hon. Friend is worth two hours from the hon. Gentleman.
  This debate, which I have listened to with great interest, has been about accountability, the accountability of the Government to Parliament. Throughout our discussions this evening it has been obvious that the Minister of Power regards it as somehow inconvenient that he should have to account for his actions to the House. Here he goes again, setting off with his companion, the Chairman of the nationalised Steel Corporation, with their begging bowl, tramping around Europe, picking up a few guilders here, a few francs there and possibly a mark or two on the side, and he expects that he should do this without coming here and accounting for his humiliating activities.
  I feel a need for him to tell us what he is up to, because this country and his Government are now under the surveillance of our international bailiffs, the International Monetary Fund. I wonder whether the purpose of this borrowing power is not in practice to pull the wool over the eyes of the I.M.F., to pretend that the Government are keeping down the creation of new borrowings in this country while bringing them in at the back door.
  It is very important, when the Government have committed us to the International Monetary Fund to the extent that they have, that the House should make sure that they do not once again slip away from the obligations they have taken on. The obligations the Government have laid on this country, unfortunately, become the responsibility of the House and not solely of the Government. The House has a very keen interest in seeing, if we can, that they live up to them. Therefore, we must have accoun-
  1516
  tability. What I am asking for first is virtually a letter of intent, from the Government to the House, in respect of their proposed foreign borrowings. We are entitled to that letter of intent, and to keep the Government up to it. What we want to know is how much they will borrow, where, and on what terms. All we are told in the Bill is that the Corporation can take on these new liabilities with the consent of the Treasury and the Minister. Their consent is no comfort to us.
  I now come to the details of the Amendments. My hon. Friends seek to eliminate the words
  "with the consent of the Minister."
  That is a very good idea, because if Lord Melchett and his Board seek to obtain funds abroad—and I see a good deal in favour of that—they should borrow on their own responsibility, as commercial judges of what is appropriate. They should not have to obtain the Minister's consent. I am sure that it is right to blot out those words.
  We also seek to insert the words
  "… by order (made by Statutory Instrument)"
  after the word "Treasury". That is the heart of the Amendments. It would impose on the Government the accountability of which I have spoken. In seeking greater accountability by the Government to Parliament, I am not opposing the principle of what they seek to do here. I could hardly do that because, in 1965, on a Bill relating to the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and I moved an Amendment to give the Board power to go to the international capital markets in order to acquire this kind of new money. We argued strongly and eloquently for the Amendment but the then Minister of Power turned it down. The debate is to be found in HANSARD for 2nd December, 1965. There are three or four columns of eloquent argument in favour of nationalised corporations being allowed to go abroad for money, although under much stricter conditions than the right hon. Gentleman proposes here.
  Now the Government have changed their minds and want this power. Thus it would be wrong for me, having proposed such a course in the past, to

  1517
  object to the principle now. I see advantages in tapping new capital markets—we have not enough of our own—and advantages in using such assets as the nationalised industries have to borrow against. That is sensible. We should also be encouraging foreign capital to come here. If foreigners believe that it is a good investment in British steel, let them make it, but they will be taking a much greater risk than I should be inclined to take.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart referred to the Common Market. He and I do not necessarily share the same views about that, but I can see some advantages in British steel moving into the European Community.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Out of order.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: So, in seeking greater accountability to Parliament—
  Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to shout "Out of order" when my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is in order? Is it not out of order to shout from a sitting position "Out of order" when my hon. Friend is in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is not desirable for any hon. Member to interrupt from a sitting position.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is about time that hon. Members who discuss with other hon. Members their respective attitudes to the Common Market were told that they are completely out of order in doing so on this Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to instruct the Chair. The Chair listens very carefully and it is sometimes in order for hon. Members to make incidental references. Immediately an hon. Member does more than that, the Chair will call him to order.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the very natural temptation of the Chair to listen to what is going on on
  1518
  this side with a great deal more attention because it is so much more attractive and interesting, but if every now and again you could strengthen your resolve to the disagreeable extent of digesting the interjections which issue from the mouth of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), we should be grateful because we know that this would be followed by a stern rebuke.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be that interjections are more audible in the hon. Gentleman's part of the House than they are to the Chair.
  Mr. Tinn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is difficult to understand how it appears to be in order for hon. Members opposite to advise the Chair and not for me and my hon. Friends to do so.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not accepting advice from either side of the House.
  Mr. John Mendelson rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When Mr. Deputy Speaker is on his feet, hon. Members must remain seated. The Chair is quite competent to give Rulings and has done so.
  Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. Nobody is making any statements about what the Chair should do or should not do. But every hon. Member has a perfect right to suggest in a debate that the Opposition are engaged in deliberate time-wasting repetition of a tedious character. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said seven times that he wanted control by Parliament. It was tedious repetition and we on this side of the House are as entitled as hon. Members opposite to point this out to the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is within the competence of any hon. Member to raise a point of order, but it is for the Chair to rule, and the Chair has not so far ruled.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against a Parliamentary pest.
  I was saying that while I cannot object in principle to what the Government seek

  1519
  to do here, it is important that Parliament should be told regularly and closely what they are up to, for reasons which I did not have the opportunity to put before the hon. Member for Penistone began lecturing.
  Over recent years, there has been a particularly instructive experience in West Germany on this very point. The German Länder have had the power to go to the international capital market to borrow, and they have done so, because of their special independence and autonomy within the German State, in very large sums. One of the results of this was that there came into being a near financial crisis in, of all places, the rich Federal Republic, and it arose in large measure because it was unable at the centre to control the very large borrowings of the individual Länder.
  The experience of the German Parliament is important here. It became increasingly apparent throughout the later years of the 1950s and the early 1960s that the lack of accountability to the Federal Government for the extensive borrowings of the German Länder was creating severe financial difficulties, and that is why I want to urge—
  Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that relations in a federal constitution in Germany are wholly irrelevant to the Amendment and I ask you to rule references to them out of order.
  Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. We on this side of the House are getting a little tired of having the time of the House wasted and your admirable chairmanship challenged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on occasion after an occasion by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). Will you please protect my hon. Friends, who are trying to make constructive speeches, from the ravages of the hon. Member, who has done nothing but come here and try to interrupt the progress of orderly debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly competent of any hon. Member to raise a point of order. My reply to the hon. Member for Penistone is that up to this point I have not seen fit to rule the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) out of order.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am most grateful to you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection against a Parliamentary pest.
  My analogy is fair. This was the practical experience of the German Government and the German Parliament in finding that the lack of accountability to the central Exchequer and to their legislature for the extensive foreign borrowings by the German Länder—they could easily have been nationalised corporations—placed the German State in great difficulty. We should beware of something similar happening in this country. That is a practical experience—
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: When the hon. Member reads his speech in HANSARD tomorrow, he will find, I think, that, in the early part, he was quite happy with Lord Melchett borrowing abroad without asking the Minister's permission. In the second part, however, he has been talking about accountability, which leads me to believe that he does not know what he is talking about.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member, who takes a keen interest in this subject, must have misheard me. I support the Amendment because the Steel Corporation should not require the Minister's consent to make arrangements for loans. I accept, of course, that, when these arrangements have been made, the terms and sources and amounts should be reported in detail to the House. I hope that the hon. Member will understand the distinction between making commercial arrangements for loans and actually getting Parliament's approval to bring them into effect. It is plain that he did not understand that distinction, however—
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: But how can the Minister bring such arrangements to Parliament, when the chairman of the nationalised industry does not have to ask his permission to borrow abroad?
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I did not say that the Chairman of the Steel Corporation should be able to borrow abroad without consent. I said that it was right that he should be able to get in touch with the bankers of Europe, and "tee up" the arrangement and then go to the Minister, and that the Minister should then ask

  1521
  the House if we agree. That is a perfectly normal distinction to anyone with commercial experience.
  The further reason why it is crucially important that the Minister should have to bring Statutory Instruments here for discussion is that we should know from which countries these sums are to be borrowed. I may even catch the attention of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) here, because it is hon. Members on his side of the House more than any others who are particular about which nations they trade with. For example, the hon. Member chooses his partners on moral grounds. He thinks that it is all right to trade with Cuba but not with Spain, with Communist China and Soviet Russia but not with Greece and South Africa. He is entitled to his point of view, although it is damaging to the country—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide in his submission in support of the Amendment. Perhaps he would come a little more specifically to the Amendment, without ranging over the principles.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was giving an example of the importance of Parliament being able to discuss the sources of the money which it will be possible for the Corporation to borrow. I was illustrating by my analogy that hon. Members opposite, more than anyone else, want to pick and choose those countries with whom they are prepared to do business. They could not do that without the Amendment, because then arrangements could be made without regular consultation of Parliament. You will agree, I think. Mr. Gourlay, that this is a proper point to advance in support of the Amendment.
  The third reason in support of it is the danger of incurring debts abroad which the nation as a whole cannot afford. The Government have already over-borrowed abroad. They have taken us beyond our short-term capacity to repay. They should not be allowed to take on any more debt without having to justify to the House every guilder, franc or mark they want to borrow. It is not good enough for the Minister to indicate throughout our debate that he finds this all something of a tedious bore. I am
  1522
  sorry that he should find it so. He should realise that his powers—if he has any—arise from this House and nowhere else. He must account to the House at every stage for his use of these powers.
  My hon. Friends have already raised the question of the danger of shifting exchange rates, which might leave us in a position where we had to repay moneys borrowed at much steeper exchange gradients than those at which we borrowed. My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of the revaluation of the German mark this autumn. The Government have already increased our external debts in hard currency by about 12 per cent., due to devaluation alone. It is not good enough for the Corporation to be enabled to take on new debts against a shifting background of incompetent economic policies that might land us in still further devaluation, and therefore to load upon the suffering British taxpayer yet more liabilities that Parliament will not have had a chance to discuss in advance. I am strongly in favour of the Amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them. They have nothing to lose by that.
  Do you not find it strange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government should impose upon ordinary citizens a £50 travel allowance which they may spend in foreign currencies abroad while, at the same time, the Corporation will be able to borrow any sums it likes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The Chair does not find such matters strange. The Chair has no opinion in such matters.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that you have answered my question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can now only state rather than ask: I find the contrast between holding down the ordinary citizen to £50 in foreign exchange and the permission for the Corporation to borrow large sums without having to justify such borrowing to Parliament nauseating in the extreme and the hallmark of Socialist Government.
  Mr. Freeson: I am sure that the hon. Member feels all the better for having got that off his chest. I am in some difficulty in seeking to reply to the debate, on two grounds. First, if I were to seek to reply to most of the points that have been raised I should be soon out of order,

  1523
  and would probably remain out of order for most of my speech. However, there is another more pointed difficulty—
  Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. It is surely a little odd that on top of all the interventions we have had, of a very irrelevant kind, from back benchers opposite, a junior Minister should rise to his feet at this hour of the night and challenge not only the whole of the Opposition but the Chair with the allegation that the whole debate is out of order and therefore that he has an excuse for not answering it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not take that meaning from the Minister's remarks. It may be that the Minister intended to go much wider in reply to the points raised than I would have allowed.
  Mr. Freeson: That was the sole point of my observation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My other difficulty is that the simple answer to most of the words spoken about the need for accountability either to the Government or to Parliament on the part of the Corporation is that the Opposition themselves—although obviously not aware of it—have not proposed any parliamentary control over borrowing by the Corporation in foreign currency, as I shall seek to show.
  12 midnight.
  I would congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on one point at least. So far as I can recall, during this long debate he was the only Member to refer to the particular Amendment before us, and to which the other two are related, when he referred to Amendment No. 28. This Amendment, if it were accepted, would remove from the Bill the need for the Corporation to get the Minister's consent to borrow in foreign currency. It seems to me to be a reduction in accountability, not an increase in it.
  However, since most of the remarks which were made did not relate to that Amendment I will turn to the one which did give rise to most discussion, and that was Amendment 30.
  Sir J. Eden: Since the hon. Gentleman appears to think he has demolished Amendment No. 28 in the way he suggests, I would ask him just to clarify
  1524
  the observations he has just made. If the words "with the consent of the Minister" were to be deleted—and that Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with the other, subsequent, Amendments—the subsection amended by the three Amendments would read:
  "The Corporation may, from such person and on such terms as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury by order … specify, borrow, in a currency other than sterling.…"
  This would allow the Corporation still to borrow in currencies other than sterling, but these words, supplanting the words "with the consent of the Minister", would mean the Minister would come before this House to seek the approval of this House.
  Mr. Freeson: I was coming to that further Amendment, if I may be allowed to continue the reply. I was about to answer precisely the point raised. The Amendment would delete any requirement on the part of the Corporation to seek the Minister's consent. There is in that Amendment, by itself, at least a relaxation—
  Sir J. Eden rose
  Mr. Freeson: I am going to link this point with the one which has just been made, if I may complete a paragraph of my speech.
  Sir J. Eden: The only point I was trying to emphasise was, that the hon. Gentleman was picking on one Amendment and taking it separately. He cannot fairly do that. All three Amendments are interdependent, and the two that follow are consequential on the first.
  Mr. Freeson: That is exactly the point I was just making. If the hon. Member will be a little patient I was just about to point out that the Amendments would not increase Parliamentary control at all. First, the first Amendment would delete the requirement to seek the consent of the Minister, so to that extent, by the first Amendment, there would be a relaxation of control.
  I would ask the hon. Member to listen carefully to what I am saying. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that on Amendment No. 30, which they have argued would establish parliamentary control, they are wrong. The

  1525
  mere fact that something has to be done by Statutory Instrument does not mean that it has to be laid before Parliament, let alone debated. To give Parliament the opportunity to debate an instrument would require a statement in the Bill that it is subject to the affirmative or negative Resolution procedure. Without that there is no Parliamentary control.
  The only effect of the Amendment as it stands on the Notice Paper now, I must point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported it, would be that the Minister would be required to publish a Statutory Instrument by means of H.M.S.O. This would be to impose a duty on the Minister to have printed a specification made by him of the terms and sources of any foreign borrowing by the Corporation.
  The power to specify has by its very nature to be kept flexible. The Corporation and the lenders would be in negotiation up to the moment when the terms are settled: final settlement may even be by telephone. The Minister and the Treasury must be able to act speedily without the time-consuming procedural difficulty of the publication of the Order, as the Amendment requires.
  What hon. Gentleman are seeking to do would not be achieved by the Amendment. For the purposes of Parliamentary debate there must be the requirement in the Bill for an affirmative or negative Resolution of the House; without that there can be no Parliamentary debate.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard of the negative Resolution procedure; he has not been in the House for very long. He might have paid the Opposition the compliment of realising that we had made this subject to the negative and not the affirmative Resolution procedure, which is where his form of words comes in.
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is no reference in the Amendment either to negative or affirmative Resolution procedure.
  Mr. Ridley: There is.
  Mr. Freeson: I had the courtesy to listen to the hon. Gentleman without interrupting. I am seeking to make a valid point, as did the Opposition. The Amendment would require only the pub-
  1526
  lication of an Order and not debate by the House.
  There were complaints from the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffith) that, although the Bill allowed borrowing in foreign currency by the B.S.C., it did not allow borrowing on the home market. The Conservative Government, in 1956, decided that nationalised industries should no longer borrow by stock issues in this country. This was done because such issues, in the view of the then Government, complicated the management of the money market. I do not know how many hon. Gentleman were members or supporters of the Government in 1956, but it ill behoves them now to criticise on this score when they did away with the power which they would now like to establish for the B.S.C.
  Several hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), referred to the effect of this power on foreign exchange, credit and the money supply. I will resist the temptation to refer to my notes on this, as I cannot add to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend, which is reported at column 358 of the Committee proceedings of 26th June, 1969. This is a full statement of the position on the basis of consultation with the Treasury.
  Mr. Alison: One of the most cogent points put forward by the Minister in Committee was that the difficulty anticipated by some of my hon. Friends would not arise because the transfer of Steel Corporation borrowing abroad would produce a countervailing drop in borrowing from the British Government at home. The hon. Gentleman has not taken in the point that provision is made in subsection 7(2)(a) for the B.S.C. to borrow from people other than the British Government, particularly the banks. If there is a switch from the British private banking sector to borrowing overseas, it will produce different results from that which was suggested by the hon. Gentleman. May we have a full answer?
  Mr. Freeson: If I were to give a full answer, it would mean repeating the whole of the answers given on the matter in Committee. I must content myself tonight by saying that in so far as borrowing requirements in B.S.C. are taken by these other means, by foreign banking or partly from the banks, to

  1527
  some extent borrowing requirements from Government sources will be reduced. The overall requirements of the industry will remain the same. This does not decide the size of its capital investment programme. It decides the overall programme, and if the components vary it does not affect the total.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point. If the B.S.C. are not relieving the British Government of any of the burden of borrowing, then the inflow of foreign exchange puts a direct and net additional burden on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to finance the purchase of the foreign exchange by the exchange equalisation account, so that there is a net increase in the burden.
  Mr. Freeson: The advice we have received from the Treasury is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is wrong.") If I had to choose between the advice received from the Treasury and what the Opposition Front Bench are saying, I would choose the former rather than the latter.
  Mr. Paul Dean: The explanation given in Committee was that when a nationalised industry borrows abroad it surrenders foreign currency required to operate the Exchange Equalisation Account. The point we seek to make is that the Exchequer equalisation account operates only through the medium of the Treasury bill. To that extent it does not have a countervailing effect on the Government's total borrowing requirement, because the Government can borrow through other means outside the Treasury bill market. We are concerned with the difficulties of the Treasury bill in the expansion of money supply. This point has not been covered by the hon. Gentleman, nor was it covered in the Treasury brief in Committee.
  Mr. Freeson: I do not think I can go further than what was said in Committee and what I have said this evening. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made any additional point on top of what was dealt with in Committee.
  I turn to deal with the final point, the general issue of the desirability of borrowing abroad. There are two main purposes for which the Corporation and its
  1528
  companies might wish to borrow in foreign currency. The first is that such borrowing might be desirable in the light of specific projects—this matter was touched upon by one or two hon. Members—or some specific investment. Secondly, regardless of any particular projects, the Corporation and the companies may find it desirable to raise money abroad. An obvious reason might be that funds are cheaper.
  12.15 a.m.
  I was asked what would be the position if a foreign currency were to be revalued. It is impossible to write a matter of this kind into legislation. It must be a matter of judgment for the Corporation and its financial advisers, and consent remains subject to Ministerial and Treasury control, so that a good deal of expertise will be available in deciding on the soundness or otherwise of borrowing in any foreign currency. It is impossible to cater for such a situation in legislation.
  The obvious reason why there would be such borrowing would be if funds were cheaper in the currency which the Corporation wanted to borrow. The Government cannot see any reason why the Corporation and the companies should be restricted in borrowing in foreign currency for the first purpose, and nor can we see any reason why there should be any restriction on the second.
  My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in the House recently that the Government are prepared to encourage foreign borrowing in appropriate circumstances by offering special arrangements to relieve the industries of the exchange uncertainties associated with such borrowings. It is important to bear in mind that we are not taking powers which will enable us to require or force the Corporation to borrow abroad. Any initiative will come from the Corporation and will be considered by the Government.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman consent to the Corporation borrowing from South Africa, for example? Speaking for myself, I hope that there would be no hesitation in consenting to borrowings from South Africa, but I wonder what the Minister's hon. Friends would say.
  Mr. Freeson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman saves his discussions of the

  1529
  politics or policies vis-à-vis South Africa for a more appropriate occasion. But when an application is submitted, from whatever source, it will be considered.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend confirm something that he said earlier, because my hon. Friends and I were amazed by it? He suggested that the Amendments which have been dealt with under this heading have been just to dot the i's and cross the t's in terms of Ministerial control of the Corporation, and have nothing to do with Parliamentary accountability.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are always very critical when they suspect that someone has not done his homework. For once, they appear to have slipped up badly with these Amendments. Is my hon. Friend saying that the past two hours of pious indignation about information and Parliamentary accountability has been a lot of claptrap?
  Mr. Freeson: In reply to my hon. Friend's mini-speech, all that I can say is that it goes somewhat further. Not only would there be no additional Parliamentary control by reason of the second Amendment, but, taking them together, we should reduce Ministerial control and end up in a far worse position.
  Mr. Ridley: The Parliamentary Secretary is the Opposition's best secret weapon. He succeeded in putting his foot in it throughout the Committee stage, and he has done it again tonight. He suggested, first, that the whole debate was out of order, which was a reflection on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Then he went on to make out that the Amendments meant something which they do not. If he had taken the trouble to study the effect of the three Amendments taken together, he would have found that they do not remove the power of the Minister to control foreign borrowings, but simply give him power to lay Orders before consenting to them.
  Again, the hon. Gentleman will find, if he does just a little bit more thorough searching, that the principal Act is riddled with references to the power of the Minister to do things by Order. He will have Section 28 at his finger tips, so I quote from it:
  "The Minister may by order provide for the termination of liabilities …".
  1530
  There is no mention whatever of either the negative or the affirmative Resolution procedure in that Section. So, with a little more experience, he will learn that it is quite common in legislation to allow the Minister to have power to do things by Order.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), who has been a little bumptious tonight, is also a newcomer to our debates and has not, I think, studied the full implications of making Statutory Instruments. The little interruption he made in his hon. Friend's speech was, perhaps, unwise, because it was not right. So I suggest to him, also, that he learns a little more before making such remarks.
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to argue that borrowing abroad was not inflationary of the money supply. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) put him right there. That, if I may say so, was the fourth point on which he was plumb wrong. He was forced back to argue that the Treasury had given him a brief, and that he preferred to believe the Treasury brief rather than my hon. Friends.
  May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he could have been in his right mind when he spoke those words? That any one should ever believe a brief of this Treasury any more after what we have been through, is straining credulity too far. In this case, the hon. Gentleman was wrong again. If he likes to check with the experts on the academic theory of money supply, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash was right, and that he and the Treasury were wrong.
  The hon. Gentleman tells us that in the appropriate circumstances he will welcome borrowing by the nationalised industries, but he does not tell us what the appropriate circumstances are. If I may say so, he has made his usual sort of reply to a debate, and it is the sort of reply that he does not deserve to get away with. If he has a case to make he must make it. He must not try to find little drafting faults in a group of Amendments, but make the substantive point. In this case, his drafting points were more real than imaginary, but what he failed to do was to answer the substantive point made by my hon.

  1531
  Friends. He should be ashamed of his performance, and should regard himself as extremely lucky that we intend to let him get away without pressing the Amendment to a Division, as it deserves to be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 34, after Minister ', add—
  Provided that such borrowings not in sterling may be utilised only against expenditure incurred by the Corporation outside the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  We have had a long debate on the borrowing powers of the nationalised industries, and particularly borrowing from overseas. It is rather difficult to summarise the debate we have had on the Clause so far, but I want to try to bring out one or two aspects and then relate them specifically to the Amendment.
  It has been agreed that it is desirable in normal conditions that the nationalised industries should be able to borrow overseas, but we have found that under the credit squeeze and our increasing indebtedness this needs to be looked at. We have discussed the merits and demerits of Ministerial and Parliamentary control, and we have discussed the consequences on the realities we now have to face because of the increase in the national indebtedness. The Amendment would add a proviso to the consent of the Minister which is referred to in the Clause.
  I have mentioned that overseas borrowing is desirable, and we have talked about Ministerial control. What I am certain will be the reality we will face is that overseas borrowing will be increasingly difficult. We have already discussed the difference between overseas borrowing and overseas investment. In Committee, I moved two Amendments which related to both aspects of the problem. The question now is how the Corporation should deploy its assets, how many in this country and how many overseas. How can we make more money available to the Corporation? How is it possible to provide increasing funds from overseas without having to go through the paraphernalia of Parliamentary control, Ministerial control and Treasury control and increasing our
  1532
  foreign indebtedness? [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is chortling again. I hope that he will listen to me.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member is going through the same rubbish that he went through on the previous Amendment. His only aim is to do a disservice to the industry.
  Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member made a typical attack which makes it impossible to get on with the Bill.
  Mr. Mendelson: Do not attack the Corporation.
  Mr. Osborn: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood my hon. Friends and me. We are concerned that the Corporation should be successful and provide employment for the people, including those in the Sheffield area in which the hon. Member is interested.
  Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member is not.
  Mr. Osborn: I must appeal for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is accusing me of attacking the Steel Corporation.
  Mr. Mendelson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Osborn: I am trying to provide the means to help the Corporation when this country is in the most ghastly economic mess of all time, partly due to the nationalisation of steel.
  Mr. Mendelson: Nonsense.
  Mr. Osborn: If the hon. Member would read what I said in Committee—I could go over the ground again for his benefit—we would make more reasonable progress. It is utterly wrong to impute to my hon. Friends or to me a desire to attack the Corporation. It is at present in a mess, not necessarily of its own making, but as a result of political decisions taken in the last few years.
  This Amendment would help to resolve some of the problems which the Corporation faces. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone makes a series of chortles and attacks. Now the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) wishes to interrupt. Perhaps he will back me up, for he was a member of the Committee.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) makes me go to sleep. Does he

  1533
  say that the steel industry is in a mess because of nationalisation? Is it not true that for years the industry has been behind competitors abroad? The hon. Member must be aware that the production by a man in the British industry is 90 tons a year while in Germany it is 120 tons and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interruptions must be brief.
  Mr. Wainwright: I was finishing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In America, it is 180 tons and in Japan 200 tons. Is that due to nationalisation or private enterprise?
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Osborn: We have had a diversion. We have now been on Report for four and a half hours. Obviously, hon. Members are a little weary.
  I raised in Committee the question of what amount of overseas assets we can offset against borrowing from overseas. The annual report gives a figure of slightly less than £20 million. The Minister did not answer the question, because he pointed out that the Corporation have very few overseas assets, that they belonged to the companies. Tonight, we are interested to learn the real value at current prices of the assets of the Corporation when the implications of the Bill have materialised and the assets have been transferred to the Corporation.
  Can we offset the value of those assets against sums borrowed overseas so that we do not have to go through the paraphernalia of having Parliamentary and other types of control? The purpose of the Amendment is to suggest that we should look at the Corporation's future expansion. In due time it will be necessary to weigh the merits of expanding home steel melting, steel rolling, blast furnaces, the deeper ports to take the larger cargo ships, as against expanding overseas.
  The Clyde has been mentioned as a possible expansion point at home. Then there are South Wales and the North-East Coast. Does the Minister want to say anything about the merits of expansion in this country against the possibility of expanding overseas? This is something which he and Lord Melchett will have to consider in detail. If ex-
  1534
  pansion overseas is proved to be economically desirable for the reasons which we advanced in Committee, would it not be better to use funds from overseas for that expansion?
  Mr. Speaker, before you arrived I apologised to the House for the diversion into which I was drawn. The Amendment, which was meant to be constructive and which I hope that the Minister will consider sympathetically following our discussion in Committee, has led to the suggestion that I am attacking the Corporation. The Corporation has much to consider in the future and will obviously have to consider deploying assets overseas. That Amendment would be a useful Amendment to the Corporation.
  Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) is well known for his interest in and knowledge of the steel industry. He was right not to be led astray by the thoroughly unpleasant, typically demagogic, vulgar, wholly unwarranted, and personally abusive intervention of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).
  Mr. John Mendelson: I said—I put it on record, and I repeat—that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and all Tory speakers this evening have been vilifying the Corporation by saying that it will go around Europe—
  Sir J. Eden rose
  Mr. Mendelson:—trying to pick up a few D-marks and francs. They are doing a disservice to the Corporation—
  Sir J. Eden: Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Gentleman allows another hon. Gentleman to intervene, he must allow him to complete his intervention.
  Mr. Mendelson: I was saying, and I am putting it on record, that the hon. Member for Hallam and the other Tory Members who have spoken have been vilifying the Corporation by saying that under the procedure proposed in the Bill it will go around Europe trying to pick up a few dirty D-marks in a few capitals, and he was doing a disservice to the Corporation.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Sir J. Eden: Now, Mr. Speaker, you have had an opportunity of hearing what an unpleasant fellow the hon. Member for Penistone is. I am sure that you now recognise how great was the temptation put upon my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member must ever pray Mr. Speaker in aid.
  Sir J. Eden: All of us who have worked on Standing Committees with my hon. Friend know the extent to which he supports the industry and the backing which he has given to the activities of British steel, whether in the public or the private sector. As he said, the purpose of this Amendment is to further that end.
  The Amendment is very much in line with observations made in the Corporation's own report, "Finance for Steel", in the section on overseas development on page 12. I shall quote one sentence. After dealing with all the various ways in which it might seek to invest money abroad, the Corporation said:
  "If the Corporation is empowered to borrow abroad, the financing of ventures of this nature would be facilitated."
  My hon. Friend seeks to take it one stage further by requiring that the powers of the Corporation to borrow abroad in money other than sterling should be exercised only against expenditure incurred by the Corporation overseas. The Corporation will probably incur considerable expenditure overseas. This is not the moment to go into the various ways in which it will wish to develop overseas, but the Minister knows of many of the plans which it has for overseas development. The Amendment is worthy of full consideration and sympathetic support.
  Mr. Mason: On the previous Amendment, we had a debate lasting more than two hours on much the same matter, and I shall not weary the House by going through the problems of indebtedness, the flow of money supply and the rest. What the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) say is that it is all right for the British Steel Corporation to borrow abroad, but it must be spent abroad.
  The Corporation may want to borrow to assist it to strengthen its position over-
  1536
  seas. The Corporation is an international industrial organization, not like the domestic nationalised industries of gas and electricity. Because of the many subsidiaries related to the companies which it has taken over, after the companies are absorbed and the Corporation is entirely responsible, the assets of the companies abroad will be in its hands. As hon. Members know, they are worth about £20 million.
  There are several companies abroad, and it may be necessary for the Corporation to borrow abroad with a view to helping and strengthening those subsidiaries. It may wish to borrow abroad to protect the long-term supplies of ore. Again, it would be borrowing abroad and spending abroad. It may be necessary for the Corporation to borrow abroad in establishing a consortium with overseas firms. The Corporation is an international industry in international competition.
  Unlike other nationalised industries which may have power to borrow abroad, it is likely that the Corporation may use more of its overseas borrowings for overseas purposes.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: Would the Minister recognise that borrowing abroad for overseas investments need not involve the Treasury in having to supply guarantees, as is the case for borrowing abroad at present, and it is a good way to short-circuit the difficulties which would normally result from borrowing abroad for capital expenditure at home, thus increasing our international indebtedness? Would the right hon. Gentleman touch on that aspect?
  Mr. Mason: I gather that it is far better that there should be the Treasury guarantee.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the real value of the Corporation's assets. He knows what is entered in the book and what the companies' total assets are which are going to the Corporation. But I do not think we can go much further. The Corporation has shown the value in its accounts in the usual accounting form. We have no better figure.
  I can appreciate fully the purport of the Amendment: if there is to be borrowing by the Corporation abroad, it should be spent abroad. I should have thought that in many instances when it

  1537
  borrowed abroad it would need that money for purposes abroad. I should not like to apply this restraint on the Corporation when it may want to borrow abroad. I should not like to stop it using that facility for home purposes as well.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: The Minister has dealt with the Amendment with sympathy. I hope that he will consider some of the points which I raised. It is not our wish to press the Amendment at this hour. We put it forward in order to get some appreciation of the Minister's intentions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the Third time this day.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRI BUTIONS (MISS M. NEVILLE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
  12.43 a.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I never realised when I first raised this case with the Ministry that I should have to take it as far as I have to take it now.
  Miss Margaret Neville came to this country from Eire in 1935. She was desirous of becoming a nurse. She went to St. Thomas's Hospital, in London, and trained and qualified for that profession. She was a very patriotic member of the community. When war was declared, she felt it her duty to join up to support this country. On 6th September. 1939, she joined the Royal Navy Nursing Service, and she served in several war hospitals in the United Kingdom, carrying out her duties with efficiency and courage on behalf of this country.
  In 1942, Miss Neville was sent abroad and served in a hospital in Alexandria, Egypt. She stayed there for two years, under great stress, as one would expect of anyone serving in the Royal Navy Nursing Service at that time. On her return to the United Kingdom, in 1944, she was sent to the Royal Navy Hospital in Londonderry, and she was discharged in February, 1946. In December, 1946, she went back to Eire, to nurse her sick parents. They were rather elderly and
  1538
  needed someone to look after them. Her mother was a registered blind person.
  While Miss Neville was there looking after her parents she contracted lung disease and also suffered from anaemia. These illnesses could have been caused, and probably must have been caused, by her war service. But she did not trouble to claim benefits while she was living in Eire.
  In 1957, Miss Neville returned to this country, bringing her mother with her. Unfortunately, her father had died. By this time she had fully recovered. Immediately on coming here she began work at the surgery of a Dr. Robinson, at Wath-upon-Dearne, in my constituency. Her brother, who is a doctor, was a member of the group.
  Miss Neville's knowledge of the National Insurance Act was very limited. It could be said that she knew nothing about paying contributions and receiving benefits. The only thing she realised about paying contributions was that some money must have been deducted from her weekly or monthly salary as she was working as a nurse and in the doctor's surgery. She was so ignorant about what should be done in the matter of this kind that it was not until she received the advice of her employer, Dr. Robinson, that she went to the Barnsley office of the Ministry of National Insurance. She went twice, and on her second visit she was asked by the clerk if she was the Miss Neville who had been trained as a nurse at St. Thomas's Hospital. London, and had later served in the Royal Navy.
  Of course, her answer was "Yes", but the clerk never informed her that she had a gap in her contributions and that she was entitled to pay the arrears. It was obvious that the office had obtained details of her career, but it failed in its duty to notify her about paying the arrears of contributions. Why did not the clerk tell her? Why did not the office pass on the information? Was it because they were failing in their duty? Or were they really taking it for granted that Miss Neville knew about the payment of arrears being allowed?
  Surely this shows that it is a fallacy for the Ministry to make a statement that wherever possible it advised people on these matters. During the whole of the period in which I have discussed this matter with it, the Ministry has not yet

  1539
  proved to me that it has any system for passing information to people who have arrears of contributions and notifying them that they have six years in which to pay them.
  My hon. Friend knows that in the 1940s and 1950s and today nurses were not and are not interested in what benefits are paid out in national insurance and social security, but in their work, to which they are totally dedicated. Miss Neville is of that kind. She is a dedicated nurse. She never questioned whether she should support the nation when war was declared. She volunteered to serve the country, of which she had been a resident for four years. One must not forget, of course, that when she joined up millions of other people did at the same time.
  I failed to get satisfaction from the Ministry on this case. My hon. Friend was sympathetic and made arrangements for me to meet representatives of the Ministry, for which I was grateful. But the hand of bureaucracy could not be moved and although I pleaded with them on behalf of Miss Neville I failed to move them. They would not agree that the arrears could be paid.
  I then went to the Parliamentary Commissioner and thought that I had moved things in getting that far. But there is a statement in his report which is disturbing. He says that some arrears had been paid. Obviously, the record must have been supplied to him by the Ministry, but that information was never given to me when I met the representatives of the Ministry and at no time has my hon. Friend given it to me.
  Miss Neville refutes the statement that she was ever asked to pay arrears, or that she paid. She says that had she known she could pay any arrears, she would have done so. When did she arrive at the knowledge that she could pay arrears? She happened to be in York at the home of a niece when discussion arose about the payment of arrears. The niece said that Ministry officials had visited her home to inform her that she could pay the arrears which she owed for one year. That was in 1967 and shortly afterwards the case came to me.
  So, for all this length of time, the Ministry failed to notify my constituent
  1540
  that such arrears could be paid. I want to know whether information was given to the Parliamentary Commissioner which was not given to me—I believe that it must have been—because if it was given to him, it should have been given to me during the discussions which took place.
  Today, I put a Question on this issue:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will give details of the time limits under his regulations within which arrears of contributions, due to a person being out of work for any length of time, must be paid before the weekly amount of pension will be of a lesser rate; and if he will make a statement."
  In his Answer, my hon. Friend said:
  "In certain circumstances contributions paid after these dates may be treated as having been paid on the due date, if the failure to pay at the proper time was due to ignorance or error on the part of the insured person which was not due to any failure on his part to exercise due care and diligence. These time limits are necessary to protect the National Insurance Fund and we have no flans to vary them."
  This was ignorance on the part of my constituent. She could easily have afforded to pay the arrears at any time on her return to this country.
  I have little sympathy with those who fail to pay when they have the opportunity to pay and know that they have to do so, although we must not forget that even some of those may be on low wages and not able to afford the extra required. But when a person is not made aware of the position and the Ministry has no clear method for giving the information, she must be allowed to pay arrears.
  I have been shocked by the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this issue. I have received many letters of complaint about the Ministry's attitude. The Ministry issues only one pamphlet to notify people that they may pay arrears. Presumably, it is a reprint, but the pamphlet is dated January, 1969—it is pamphlet N.I. 38. Paragraph 8 deals with time limits for payments of contributions.
  How many contributors go to the National Insurance office—the Social Security Office—it has changed its name many times and is now the Ministry of Health and Social Services office—to ask about the rules and regulations? It all depends on the clerks at the desk. When my constituent went to the Barnsley office

  1541
  in 1957 to obtain her new insurance card, the clerks did not give her the necessary information. If they had done so, she would have paid off the arrears. It now seems that she will be penalised because someone at the Barnsley office did not do his duty. The Ministry does not put out sufficient publicity to ensure that people qualify for their pensions by paying off arrears within six years of their being due.
  I am shocked and disgusted by this case. Here is a young woman who came from Ireland and who trained to be a nurse in this country. Within four years of arriving here she joined up. Her illness must have been due to her service abroad. She did not trouble to claim sickness benefits, and no one from the Ministry even asked her to supply evidence of her sickness. She was then told that it was her fault and that she should have known that she could pay her arrears and claim benefits. If I had got on to this case earlier, this constituent might have been able to claim a pension because of her sickness, which must have been contributed to by war service.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider this case again, even at this late stage, and grant Miss Neville permission to pay her arrears of contribution.
  1.1 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I have listened carefully to everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and I fully appreciate the care and attention to detail with which he has presented the case seeking a favourable outcome for his constituent, Miss Neville. I also pay tribute to his diligence on behalf of his constituent. I know from experience that he has pursued every avenue open to him on this case.
  However, despite everything that he has said tonight about my Department, I can assure him that everyone who has handled this case in my Department has for his or her part begun by wanting to help Miss Neville, particularly in view of her war service in the Queen Alexandra Royal Naval Nursing Service and the circumstances in which she had to abandon her nursing in England to go back home to the Irish Republic to look
  1542
  after her parents. We have all tried to bend the rules in her favour, but we have been forced to admit that we can do nothing to help her.
  Let me briefly trace the course of events and explain why it is we reached this conclusion. When the new scheme of national insurance began in 1948, Miss Neville was at home in the Irish Republic and we heard nothing from her until November 1959, when she registered for the first time under the scheme of national insurance. Now, that was more than 11 years after the start of the scheme. If she had written to us in 1948, we could have told her that she had the right to pay voluntary contributions from the Irish Republic, even if she intended to spend the rest of her life in that country, and we could also have told her that later on she would have the right to draw her retirement pension there. At that time, in 1948, we were sending out many thousands of letters and leaflets all over the world in reply to questions about the new scheme. But Miss Neville did not write to us, so we could not tell her about her position.
  When she did come to our Barnsley local office, in 1959, it was too late for her to pay arrears for the whole of the 11 years she had missed. But she could still have paid arrears for the last six contribution years. In fact, she did not offer to pay arrears until 1967. It was then too late. The six years' time limit had expired. It is true that there is power to extend that time limit, but my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Social Security, now Paymaster-General, could find no ground for extending it, although we searched the papers diligently when my hon. Friend brought the case to our notice.
  We discussed the case at great length, but, in the end, we felt bound to tell my hon. Friend that nothing could be done. He then submitted Miss Neville's complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the Commissioner, after making a thorough investigation of the case, reported that the gap in Miss Neville's record of contributions could not be attributed to maladministration by our Ministry.
  Our records do not tell us everything that was said when Miss Neville visited our Barnsley local office in 1959, but they do show that the local office dealt

  1543
  intelligently and sympathetically with her case. It took the trouble to have a search made in the records of the old scheme of contributory pensions so as to link up her insurance under that scheme with her record under the new scheme of national insurance. Here, I should like to clear up a point on which there has been some doubt. Miss Neville still had the impression, even in 1967, that this linking of insurance had reduced her pension rights. Quite the contrary. Actually, it helped her. It will enable her, if she maintains a good record of contributions till she reaches 60. to have a yearly average of 37 contributions rather than a yearly average of 32.
  That aside, I think that the main point made by my hon. Friend is that our Barnsley local office failed to tell Miss Neville about the gap in her record of contributions and about her right to pay arrears of contributions for at least part of the time she had spent in the Irish Republic. On this, I should say that our local offices are instructed to warn insured persons about the effects of any gap in their record of contributions and to tell them about their rights to pay arrears of voluntary contributions for any time they have been abroad.
  In Miss Neville's case, the Barnsley local office, when she went there in 1959, may not have stressed these points with sufficient vigour, because at that time—and I must make this plain—so far from being willing to pay voluntary contributions for the years she had spent in the Irish Republic, she was unable or unwilling to pay all the contributions she was liable to pay for the time between her return to England in 1957 or 1958 and her first visit to the Barnsley local office in November, 1959.
  It is important, when looking at Miss Neville's case, to appreciate that it is not unique. Every year about 200,000 people go abroad for a substantial period of years rather than months, and the majority of these pay no voluntary contributions for the time they are abroad.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: My hon. Friend keeps mentioning November, 1959. Miss Neville came back to this country in 1957. As soon as her employer advised her to go to the Barnsley local office she went. Will my hon. Friend check the point about its being December or
  1544
  November, 1959—because this differs from what Miss Neville has told me?
  Mr. Pentland: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. I said that Miss Neville returned to England in 1957 or 1958, but according to my information, and the information passed to us from the Barnsley local office, her first visit to that office was made in November, 1959.
  As I was saying, every year about 200,000 people go abroad for a substantial period of years rather than months, and the majority of these pay no voluntary contributions for the time they are abroad. If we allowed them to wait till they were approaching pension age, many of them would be glad to pay arrears of contributions and thus qualify for pensions at the full rate. We are already paying 110,000 retirement pensions abroad, but the number would be much greater if we had no time limit for the payment of voluntary contributions. We think that a time limit of six years is generous enough. Anything more than this would be unfair to the insured people who remain in this country, paying their contributions regularly every week and financing the national insurance scheme not only as contributors but also as taxpayers. For this reason, we feel bound to maintain the time limit of six years, and we must apply this time limit in an orderly way, for we are dealing with thousands of cases.
  Bearing in mind that we have such a time limit it is, of course, quite fair to ask what we do to make certain people know where they stand. This is one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. Well, I can tell him we do a great deal. Every year, for example, we send out just over 3 million notices telling people about gaps in their record of contributions; and our local offices hand out many thousands of leaflets about the position of insured people who are abroad and about the time limits for paying arrears of contributions. But we cannot tell everyone everything that is relevant to his national insurance position. We must rely on the individual to take an interest in his national insurance and to make inquiries if he is in doubt. Our local offices are always ready to help.
  There are many hundreds of thousands of insured persons who have gaps in

  1545
  their records of contributions, because they have been abroad for substantial periods. Some of these, like Miss Neville, have had the opportunity of discussing their problems with our local offices. Others have never visited a local office in their lives and have never written to us from abroad.
  I believe that most of these people, whether they are still abroad or have now come back to this country, could say honestly, when they are approaching pension age that, as far as they can remember, no one ever told them about the gaps in their contribution records or about their right to pay voluntary contributions. The Government are satisfied that it would be unfair to the general body of insured persons and taxpayers in this country if we allowed these
  1546
  people who have been abroad to gain an advantage by reason of their failure to ask us for information and advice.
  I have been talking in general terms about the situation. I end by saying once again that I am sorry we have been unable to help Miss Neville. I know full well that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about her case. As I have said, we all started with the aim of seeing what we could do, but, after the most careful review of all the circumstances, we have become convinced that her case has been properly and fairly handled in accordance with the rules which apply to such cases.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Nuclear Feasibility Study (Rotterdam)
  Nuclear Feasibility Study (Rotterdam)
  Micro-Electronic Devices (Development and Manufacture)
  Micro-Electronic Devices (Development and Manufacture)
  Advanced Technology (United States Firms)
  Advanced Technology (United States Firms)
  Electric Motors
  Electric Motors
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Reactors (Technical and Economic Potential)
  Reactors (Technical and Economic Potential)
  Silicon-integrated Circuits
  Silicon-integrated Circuits
  Marine Sciences
  Marine Sciences
  Little Staughton Airfield, Bedfordshire
  Little Staughton Airfield, Bedfordshire
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
SCOTLAND
  Pre-School Playgroups
  Pre-School Playgroups
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
  Divorces
  Divorces
  Northern Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Northern Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Tay Road Bridge
  Tay Road Bridge
  Sheriff Court Buildings, Airdrie
  Sheriff Court Buildings, Airdrie
  Bute-Mainland Bridge
  Bute-Mainland Bridge
  Property Restoration (Bute, Cumbrae and Arran)
  Property Restoration (Bute, Cumbrae and Arran)
  Football Stadia (Licensing)
  Football Stadia (Licensing)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Inventions (Patents)
  Inventions (Patents)
  Boneless Beef (Tariff)
  Boneless Beef (Tariff)
  Containerisation
  Containerisation
  Airport Site, Thurleigh (Runways)
  Airport Site, Thurleigh (Runways)
  Soft Fruit (Imports from Hungary)
  Soft Fruit (Imports from Hungary)
  alance of Payments (Imports Substitution)
  alance of Payments (Imports Substitution)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  V-Bombers (Nuclear Capability)
  V-Bombers (Nuclear Capability)
  Far East
  Far East
  Marine Technology
  Marine Technology
  ulti-rôle Combat Aircraft
  ulti-rôle Combat Aircraft
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Metal Can Prices
  Metal Can Prices
  Milk (Retail Price)
  Milk (Retail Price)
  Sugar Beet (Factory Rationalisation)
  Sugar Beet (Factory Rationalisation)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Trains (Stability)
  Passenger Trains (Stability)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Contributions
  Contributions
HEALTH
  Audiological Technicians (Pay)
  Audiological Technicians (Pay)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE SCHEME
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE SCHEME
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Marine Science
  Marine Science
  European Economic Community (Youth Exchange)
  European Economic Community (Youth Exchange)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Youth Exchange Programme
  Youth Exchange Programme
  St. Vincent (Constitution)
  St. Vincent (Constitution)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Legislation)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Legislation)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHRISTMAS CARDS
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHRISTMAS CARDS
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid (International Sources)
  Aid (International Sources)
POST OFFICE
  Manchester (Postal Facilities)
  Manchester (Postal Facilities)
  Inland Letter Service (Survey)
  Inland Letter Service (Survey)
COAL
  Timber
  Timber
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Treasury Stock
  Treasury Stock

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

THE YEMEN
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is now proposed to recognise the present Government of the Yemen in view of the apparent stability of that Government and the failure of military resistance to it; and whether our diplomatic representative is likely to be appointed to Taiz or Sana'a at an early date.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): No, my Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer given on June 25, 1969.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not agree that if the Yemeni Government could be recognised, this would materially assist relationships between this country and not only the Yemeni Government but the South Arabian Government? And can he say in what circumstances Her Majesty's Government are likely to recognise the Yemeni Government? May I also ask him whether meanwhile we have any diplomatic representative at all in the Yemen, and what is happening to our legation?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take note, of course, of what my noble friend has said, but the criteria for recognition of a régime are, in our view, not fulfilled. The civil conflict has clearly abated, but the situation in the Yemen still remains confused. So far as diplomatic representation is concerned, as my noble friend will know, the legation at Taiz was closed in February, 1963. A very full Answer
1050
was given on this point on December 4, 1968, and all I can say is something which I think is already within the knowledge of my noble friend; namely, that the Italian Embassy in Taiz are at the moment responsible for looking after our interests, which are of course extremely limited.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what other Governments have recognised the existing régime, de facto at least, in the Yemen?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not have that information immediately to hand, but if the noble Lord will put down another Question I will of course answer it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will seriously consider the now position that has arisen in the Yemen? Is it not a fact that the Royalist Government now has no significant place and that the commander of its forces has joined the Yemen Government; and are we not losing great opportunities by being among those who decline to recognise the Government?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I fear that the situation in fact is not as clear at it appears to be in the mind of my noble friend. The criteria for recognition are quite clear in our minds, and in our view they are not yet fulfilled.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, as the only Member of your Lordships' House who has travelled extensively—probably the only one who has travelled at all—in the Royalist-held areas of the Yemen, may I ask the noble Lord, first, whether he is aware of the great satisfaction with which his Answer will be received by the Royalists of the Yemen? Secondly, may I ask him whether he would agree that the success of the revolution of 1962, in so far as it was a success, was due solely to the massive intervention by a foreign Power, Egypt, who were acting from no kind of altruism but simply from motives of colonialism, and that despite this massive intervention, including at one time over 100,000 men—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He is supposed to be asking a question, rather than making some interesting but debatable points.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Royalist armies in fact still control wide and important areas of the Yemen, I hope the present situation will continue.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that pious hope can scarcely, I think, be categorised as a question. I can only say that on neither side of this argument are the facts entirely clear. The criteria for recognition, as noble Lords will know, are that the regime should be seen to enjoy the obedience of the mass of the population and the effective control of the greater part of the territory, with some prospect of permanence; and I can only repeat that in our view those criteria are not yet met.

GIBRALTAR: HOUSING AND AMENITIES
2.42 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 investigation has been conducted into the housing conditions of Gibraltarians; what steps are being taken to provide adequate modern accommodation for them; approximately what would be the cost of providing this accommodation; and what amenities exist to serve the needs particularly of young Gibraltarians.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lord, the problem of housing in Gibraltar has engaged the close attention of the authorities in Gibraltar for many years. Since the war 2,263 housing units have been constructed and 373 units are at present under construction. The cost thus far has been about £.7½ million. Amenities are unavoidably restricted because of the limitations of space, but the Gibraltar Government intend to improve them by developing the Victoria Stadium when circumstances permit.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware, as I am sure he is, that according to reports
1052
a large number of Gibraltarians are living in the most appalling conditions? May I further ask whether something could be done to speed up accommodation for these unfortunate people and in so doing reward them for their loyalty to the Crown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I am sure all of us know, in the field of housing none of us can ever be satisfied. Unfortunately, many Gibraltarians who once lived in Spain now reside in Gibraltar, and this has, of course, put very great pressures not only on the authorities but also on the space in Gibraltar. The bad conditions are being dealt with. I understand that there are some 215 applicants who come into what is called the priority list, and I hope that these will be dealt with within the 373 units at present under construction. The accommodation of other families who now live in what was old barrack accommodation has been improved, but I hope that we shall be able to make further improvements in the not too far distant future.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any information as to whether it is possible for young Gibraltarians to borrow money to purchase houses, or have access to any building societies for private purchase?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the only building society in Gibraltar is relatively small, and the number who are able to use it is clearly limited. Also, the quantity of housing of this sort that is available is again limited. In the main, I think development must depend greatly on Government-aided assistance.

MIDDLE EAST: FOUR-POWER TALKS
2.43 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the Four-Power talks between the U.S.A., the Soviet Union, Britain and France to facilitate a settlement between the Arab nations and Israel.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, some progress has been made in the Four-Power talks, and I am sure my noble friend will not expect me at this stage to go into details. The four have decided to postpone fixing a time for their next meeting because of important consultations which are taking place among Governments. But a working group of deputies will continue to meet.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can confirm that the American representative who is going to Moscow will call at Paris and London en route there? If so, could Her Majesty's Government urge some immediate steps, if not a comprehensive settlement, in regard to this problem which is so dangerous to the peace of the world?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot confirm the itinerary of the American representative mentioned by my noble friend. I can, of course, say that we should like to see a settlement of this problem. It is urgently needed, and that is why we have been active from the outset in the quest for a settlement. We expect these talks to resume in a matter of weeks, and I hope that we may then see some further progress.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is not the matter most urgent? Is it not the case that yesterday there was the biggest air conflict since the war and the troubles in Suez and Jordan? Is it possible for Her Majesty's Government, in view of the danger to the peace of the world, to urge a United Nations peacekeeping force to prevent the conflict between the two sides?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government would agree that any violations of the ceasefire make settlement of this problem more difficult. In reply to the second part of my noble friend's question, I can only say that I think it would be wiser to await the further outcome of these talks among the four. If the four great Powers could arrive at some proposals which they would then put to the people mainly concerned in the area, I think there would be some chance of their proposals being accepted. But before we think in
1054
terms of any other kind of action. I believe we should wait and see how far the four Powers can get in proposing some kind of settlement.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are we not in danger of becoming somewhat selective in our support of the United Nations? If we repudiate decisions of the United Nations which we regard as manifestly unjust, as in the case of Gibraltar, can we deny to other countries the right to repudiate United Nations' decisions which they feel may endanger their own security?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think this is a question partly of the Charter of the United Nations and the actions that are allowed within the purview of that Charter. Certainly we should not deny to any other country the right to take any action or any attitude that it wishes in its own interests, and this of course is what Her Majesty's Government would do.

MEDICAL EDUCATION: THE TODD REPORT
2.47 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 have any statement to make on the action that they propose to take on the Todd Report on Medical Education.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, On April 14 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced in the House of Commons the Government's decision to increase by 1,000 the places at medical schools by 1975. He also said that he would make further announcements later about the other recommendations of the Todd Report.
The Government have now completed consultations on the Report's proposals for post-graduate medical education, and my right honourable friend will make a Statement as soon as he can. Discussions

1055
between the University Grants Committee, the University of London and the Health Department are continuing and will be extended to the appropriate hospital interests. My right honourable friend also hopes to make an early announcement on the progress of these discussions.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I think will go some way towards smoothing over a certain amount of worrying about what has been going on in regard to this Report.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that this Report was made nearly two years ago and that it involved a tremendous amount of work, may I press my noble friend to make some Statement with regard to the other recommendations as soon as possible?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that his Statement is urgently awaited, and there is no avoidable delay going on.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
2.49 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Moved, That the membership of the Committee be increased from twelve to fourteen, and that the Earl of Selkirk aria the Lord Hughes be added to the Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before the Motion is agreed to, may I say that while I am most honoured to serve on this Committee, I regret that I shall not be able to attend on Tuesday of next week. I shall be able to be there on Monday and Wednesday, but not Tuesday. If any other noble Lord is able to be there the whole time, I feel that that might be an advantage.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that that invitation has been heard by other noble Lords in the House. As was made clear by my noble friend when the original Motion was put before the House, it is, of course, open to any noble Lord who wishes to do so to attend at the meetings of this Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT: THE EDWARDS REPORT
2.50 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Air Transport; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this civil aviation Report of 394 pages is indeed a monumental document which reviews the past and the present of civil aviation and makes suggestions for its future. I know that the Government have stated that they are studying this Report, and a White Paper has been promised. I understand that the White Paper is not now likely to appear before the autumn. Nevertheless, to-day—which is the first occasion in either House of Parliament on which there has been any debate upon this Report—gives an opportunity for some exchange of views, as it were a two-way traffic. Also, we can express the hope that we shall hear some Government thinking on the main issues raised in the Report.
The first point that I would make is to urge the necessity and importance of speed by the Government in coming to their decisions. Since the publication of the Report a period of stagnation has descended on all initiative and adventure in civil aviation. Very understandably no one will enter into commitments, financial or otherwise, until the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been declared. This state of affairs is bad, and I urge a speeding up to the greatest possible degree of Government decisions and their subsequent publication.
In order to be brief and not to detain your Lordships unduly, I can only comment in broad terms on the main recommendations in the Report, many of which require study in depth and many of which I cannot even mention, important as they are. My first criticism

1057
of the proposals in the Report is the danger that civil aviation will become over-administered and over-centralised. It is an industry which is already weighed clown by both those characteristics. I think there is a danger in these proposals of unduly and needlessly tying up civil aviation in regulation, in control, and in direction by Government and Government-sponsored bodies. It seems to me rather curious that just as we are engaged in freeing the old form of transport, the railways, as much as we can from control as regards fares and operation, we should be engaged in tying up the new form of transport in so many different directions.
I do not like, and I do not believe your Lordships will like, the recommendation in the Report for periodic statements of Government policy by Statutory Instrument. I dislike that for two reasons. The first is that from the Parliamentary point of view a Statutory Instrument is not the appropriate body for promulgation of Government policy. Government policy should he by Statement and by Bill, and we do not want what I call "packets of instant policy" produced by Statutory Instruments. My second objection is that what civil aviation needs is not frequent change and frequent declarations of policy but a clear run on set policy lines for a period of years. Civil aviation over the past has been bedevilled by politics, and I want to see civil aviation fly above Party lines on a good long flight.
I must dwell for a moment on the very important proposal in the Report for a National Holdings Board. I will keep my quotations to the minimum, but I must make one quotation on this subject from paragraph 531, which says:
"… as trustee and controller of the public sector capital of the air industry,"
this Board
"would concern itself with major strategy of the airlines, the quality of their management, financing and investment, diversification into new fields, and the monitoring of the results of the undertakings within the group."
That is quite a task. I believe, and I hope, that this proposal will find very few friends anywhere, within and without the air world.
Many objections could be raised but I stand on one main objection only. In a sentence it is this: I believe the functions of this proposed Board would be
1058
either a replacement or a duplication of the functions, duties and responsibilities of the existing Boards of the two nationalised Corporations. Really this proposal would reduce the functions of the Boards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to those appropriate to a management committee. The proposal, I submit, cannot stand up to examination when the Report suggests that this Holdings Board will be analogous to a holdings board i1 the private sector of industry. As many of your Lordships know, in the private sector a holdings board of an industry is the ultimate authority. That can never be so in the case of a National Holdings Board because ultimate authority must rest with the responsible Minister, with the Treasury and finally with Parliament. I would summarise my objection to this proposal in that I see little merit in interposing an unneeded body between the Corporation Boards and the final authority of Parliament. The proposal renders impotent those appointed to carry responsibility, and I believe would result in a confusing dichotomy.
Of course, as the Report says, closer co-operation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. is needed. I do not think the cooperation in the past has been all that it might have been, but it is no good going over the past; what we have to look at is the present and the future. And I do not think the National Holdings Board is a solution as regards closer co-operation. In the final event, closer co-operation depends on human relations, and I believe that now there is being established between the leaders of the two Corporations a degree of relationship which will bring about that essential co-operation.
The next most important proposal is that for the creation of what the Report calls a "second force", which means putting on certain overseas routes covered at present by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. a second operator from the independent sector. The Report suggests two such areas, the North Atlantic and London to Paris, as suitable. Quite bluntly, this means taking from the Corporations some of their present traffic and sharing out future traffic growth between them and private enterprise. I have read in the Press that the unions concerned are already strongly rejecting this proposal. Very understandably, the two Corporations also dislike it, and I think it will

1059
be a very hard proposal for a Labour Government to accept.
Like many noble Lords interested in these matters, I have tried to give the proposal a lot of consideration. I have had ten years' experience as a Board member of British European Airways and, naturally, I have what I would call a conservative outlook. But to set aside doctrinaire approach, either from the Left or from the Right, one can produce arguments on both sides and I think there must he a balance of considerations. A second force in the near future can be built only by diminishing the Corporation's present patterns of routes, and by restricting their share of future traffic growth.
The question which I put to myself, and I hope that the Minister may reply to it, is: Would a second force of independent competitors on scheduled routes, rather than the present policy of a single designated operator, be for the benefit of British civil aviation? Would Britain's traffic share overseas be increased? I do not mind who operates the designated body. I am not advocating a national or a private enterprise. But would two operators on any of these routes really be to Britain's advantage? In the case of the London to Paris route, British European Airways are restricted in frequency to match the French frequency. At the present time, you can put on a second operator only if you cut into the franchise of B.E.A.
We have had some experience of a second force on main domestic trunk routes from London to Glasgow, and from London to Edinburgh. The result has been a division of existing traffic and of growth traffic, between the private and public sectors. The final result has been two losers; both have been losing money, instead of one breaking even or possibly making a profit. On the other hand, I must say that the public has benefited from the competition of the independent. The public has had better, sharper service, and I believe that British European Airways would be the first to admit that the competition has been a spur to them and has caused them considerably to improve and polish up their services.
Again, in the case of overseas routes, if it had not been for the initiative of the
1060
independent British United Airways, there would to-day be no British aircraft flying on the South Atlantic. I believe that that example alone justifies the plea for the independents. But if the independents are to play a part, they must have a fair chance on scheduled routes as designated carriers. I hope that I have not wearied your Lordships by expressing my thinking. Thus, on balance, I would support a second force, but would give it designated scheduled overseas services away from London Airport, operating from Gatwick or from the future Third Airport, and operate from our great provincial cities to continental points; an area which, in some directions, I feel the Corporations have not been exactly energetic in developing.
As I see it, the question which arises about creating a second force on these lines is: Would it justify the financing of new equipment? I believe that it would, because it may he that in the future the money lies not in the scheduled services, but in the development of this great new method of holidays abroad on inclusive tours. While the Corporations must also be kept in the picture, as the Report recommends. I should like to see restrictions on inclusive tours lifted. Indeed, I heard on the radio early this morning that the Board of Trade has sanctioned tariffs for inclusive tours this winter which are approximately half the cost of the scheduled service fares. In doing so, it is overriding the International Air Transport Association, which exists to protect the airlines and their interests against inclusive travel. I hope that something on those lines might be developed, which would satisfy the desire, which many of us rightly have, to see private enterprise having a good chance, without at the same time diminishing the Corporations' existing services or future growth.
I pass from that for a moment to the proposal for British air services within Britain. The Report suggests that the present network should be enlarged and the present operators combined, but leaving the main trunk routes to the Corporations. This is an excellent proposition, if you can get the existing interests to combine; but sometimes it is not a very easy task to knock together the heads of people in the aircraft world. The Report also

1061
says that a considerable degree of subsidy will be required. Let private enterprise do this. I strongly support the view expressed in this document, that there should be no cross-subsidising; that is to say, the profitable London to Nice service should not be used to subsidise the Highlands and Islands. If a service will not stand on its own, and yet is required for social purposes, as is the case in the Highlands and Islands, let the Government come forward with a direct subsidy to make good the loss which they consider must be faced in order that those services can be provided.
I should like to say a special word about Scotland and the services in the Highlands and Islands. They are long-term, definite losers, and the inhabitants need services for which they will never he able to pay. I think we need a bold imaginative set-up for Scotland, and it is a wonderful area for a unique experiment in "bush" operations.
The Report says very little about vertical take-off aircraft, about helicopters. When I tell your Lordships that one 35-seater helicopter carried a total of 55,000 passengers, including the Prime Minister on several occasions, from Land's End to the Isles of Scilly and finally came out just on the right side financially as regards the operating account, one can see that the helicopter is already here and should be taken into account. I should like to see the fixed-wing aircraft going, as at present, from London to Aberdeen, to Inverness, to Edinburgh and to Glasgow. But I should then like to see 12 aerodromes to the North shut down. The economies would be tremendous—no great maintenance staffs, no fire engines on duty, probably for 24 hours, day and night, and no great radio control organisation. I should like to see the subsidy which the Government may have to give—say a quarter of a million pounds—added to the economies which would come from closing down the aerodromes; and then I think it would be justifiable to ask for a Treasury grant towards the technical development of vertical take-off machines. Add those three items together, and then use that sum of money to make up any deficiency which may occur in the operating costs of a fine, unique, helicopter network all over Scotland.
Take, for instance, a service from Inverness to Invergordon (where there is
1062
going to be a great new industrial development) stopping at Dingwall; then on to Dornoch and Brora, where the coalmine is; and then un North to Wick and Thurso, and around the Highlands. There need be no airports—just a concrete landing pad—and no large staffs. The pilot will land, there will be one man on the pad, the rotor will be kept going, off will come one set of people and on will go another, and then the pilot will take off again. That is a picture of the sort of service—what I call a "jump-bush" service—which I believe could be developed for Scotland.
I do not believe, as some noble Lords may, that a small aeroplane taking off on a short runway is the answer. Directly you put passengers in something which has to go forward at 150 miles an hour into the muck and bad weather you must have proper radar, proper radio aids and proper control—and then your economy goes. In the case of a helicopter, if you do not like the weather very much you put it down in somebody's football field, and there is no trouble. As to the regularity of service—and the Isles of Scilly have proved it—this, I believe, could be accepted. I have merely painted a word picture of something which I should like to see examined in depth by Her Majesty's Government when they consider this Report.
The last recommendation on which I should like to touch is this. This Report proposes a new Authority to take over the work on civil aviation of the Board of Trade, the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Air Registration Board. In general, I support the proposition, for I think the Air Transport Licensing Board needs revision, and I believe its members will be the first to admit that. What I do not like, however, is the proposal that the Air Registration Board—that independent body which is responsible for the safety of design and construction and for ensuring maintenance up to an airworthy condition—should be merged with this Authority, which would really be too close to it. It would be part of something which it should be judging. My noble friend Lord Kings Norton, whose work with his colleagues of the Air Registration Board has gained the complete confidence of the aircraft world, is, I know, going to speak to your Lordships on this subject a little later on.
Just a final word on airports. The British Airports Authority is doing a fine job, but with its capital of £60 million—rather more than £60 million—I believe that that body deserves the status of a corporation, and should not have a part-time chairman. The responsibilities are so great and the finance involved is so big that we should have someone employed whole-time on a salary scale comparable to that of a corporation; and let me say at once that I can think of no one better for such a position than the present part-time chairman, Mr. Peter Masefield.
Some rationalisation of ownership is needed in the interests of efficient economy. Again, take Scotland as an example. The position there is silly. There are Turnhouse, owned by the Board of Trade; Abbotsinch, owned by Glasgow Corporation, and Prestwick, owned by the British Airports Authority—three different owners, three different sets of facilities, three different sets of administration. That ought not to be allowed to go on a month longer. It is a waste of money, and I hope that as a result of this Report, and perhaps of the views which may be expressed to-day by other Members of your Lordships' House, the Government will realise that when they finally produce their White Paper they must put an end to that absurdity. Probably the end should be a Scottish Airports Authority allied to the British Airports Authority.
My Lords, I conclude my remarks with a warning and a tribute. Let the operators and the airport authorities, especially the big and privileged ones, remember that, particularly in their handling of passengers on the ground—I think that passengers are handled splendidly in the air, but I am referring now to the handling on the ground—their enterprises are run for the benefit of travellers, on whom they finally depend for economic survival. There is a menace, I believe, in an attitude that regards passengers as necessary bundles of humanity to be pushed around for the convenience of those operating the services. My Lords, my tribute is contained in paragraph 1057, which says:
"… there is nothing radically wrong in British civil aviation … calling for really urgent surgery".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this Motion and for giving us an opportunity to discuss the Report of the Edwards Committee. I support what he said about the Report. It seems to me a splendid document—splendid in conception, in analysis and in presentation. From all those interested in aviation—and they are a critical lot of people—we have heard praise. It is readable, factual and fair. Its very fairness, indeed, may in one sense be its weak point, since it makes action on the recommendations that much more difficult to decide. I agree with the noble Lord that an early statement of Government policy is important, but I hope he will agree with me that it is never an advantage to arrive early at the wrong place. A few weeks longer, to allow for more adequate consultation and consideration, will be time well spent: and, of course, what is said to-day will also be studied. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to publish a White Paper on policy as soon as possible, but it will not now be before we rise for the Summer Recess. The timetable, I imagine, will provide for a debate on the White Paper after it is published and for any required legislation as early in the new Session as the legislative programme allows.
I expected to hear from the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchyre, to-day, as we have heard over the years and from all sections of the industry, of the need for stability of policy and less interference from the politicians. The difficulty is that some want this stability but only after the politicians have made yet more changes which improve their own relative position. The degree of patience for change tends to be closely related to the position one holds in the aviation field. Indeed at times one is reminded of that famous bridge on which
"Those behind cried, 'Forward'
And those in front cried, 'Back'."
On the other hand, there are many interested, informed and objective observers of the aviation scene who believe that, given certain changes, it will be possible to give the customers an even better service and gain for the country an even bigger percentage of international air traffic.

1065
One truth is that there will always be change in civil air transport. An industry which will be three to four times its present size by the end of the next decade, cannot avoid change. It is estimated that over that same decade some £2,000 million will be invested: re-equipment on that scale, much of it embodying new technology, is certain to require administrative adjustments. What is now needed is a regulatory framework for the industry which will permit. indeed stimulate and encourage, maximum growth with a minimum of chopping and changing, a continuity of evolving policies and no sudden veering from one direction to another. The Government's ultimate decisions on the Edwards Committee Report will he judged, I suggest, by this criterion.
May I first deal with the recommendations for regulating the industry? The noble Lord was rather scathing about the regulations and the prospect of tying up the industry. I suggest that in this one particular at least he did not resist sufficiently strongly the temptation to exaggerate. The Edwards Committee recognise that, inescapably, this is a highly regulated industry, and I doubt whether any noble Lord who knows the facts of aviation life will wish to dispute that. It is true here; it is true elsewhere in the world. The Edwards Committee reappraise the whole of the present system. They lay great stress on the importance of the regulatory authority taking a comprehensive view. They point out that all aspects of an airline's activities have a bearing on the safety of its operations. Similarly, what is done to improve safety and reduce noise levels inevitably has financial and economic consequences. It follows, says the Committee, that decisions in one area should be taken with full knowledge of all the facts in related and adjacent areas. There is no suggestion that present arrangements are grossly inadequate. Indeed, the Report praises both the Air Registration Board and the Air Transport Licensing Board. I was particularly intrigued by the sentence referring to the A.T.L.B. which said:
"The longer this inquiry has gone on the less critical we have become of the existing Board".
Nevertheless, the Report recommends the constitution of a new Authority with responsibility for both economic and
1066
safety regulatory functions. Most interested people will agree—and the noble Lord himself has already agreed—that there is a need for change. The question is, precisely what kind of change? The main issue before the Government is twofold. They have to weigh the very powerful arguments which are advanced that safety and economic regulations should be kept apart so that safety standards are not compromised in any way. As I understand what the noble Lord has said, he agrees with that viewpoint. On the other hand, if one accepts the Committee's view that overall responsibility is required, how should this be exercised? It would be helpful to have the views of other noble Lords on this subject. It would be quite feasible to bring all responsibility directly within a Government Department. Or there is the possibility of a completely new statutory Authority, separate from Government Departments but working to a policy directive which would be approved by Parliament.
The Report itself sets out four possible alternatives before coming to its own recommendation of a new, all-embracing Civil Aviation Authority. But there seems to me room for further consideration of the extent of the responsibilities to be placed on this new Authority. A dividing line could rationally be drawn between those safety functions now vested in the Board of Trade and those now fulfilled by the A R B. This would mean that the new Authority embraced responsibility for economic regulations; for those safety responsibilities now vested in the Board of Trade; for the planning of airports and for air traffic control, but leaving the Air Registration Board to carry on, at any rate until problems in the other sectors have been clarified. The argument for leaving the A.R.B., I suppose, is that their C. of G. is nearer the aircraft construction than the air transport operating industry. They could indeed be regarded as the bridge between the two complementary industries. There are arguments for all the permutations. I know that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxiously considering them all. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, will need no encouragement from me to give his views, and certainly with his

1067
long experience they will carry great weight.
There is one further point which I would make—and in this I follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. Practically throughout the development of this exciting air transport industry, certainly since 1945—and I think I am right in saying even in 1938 and 1939, when the noble Lord himself, in another sphere in another place, had particular responsibility for the implementation of another Report—we have had the conflict of ideas as between public ownership and private enterprise. In some respects this has been a good thing; in other respects, and as time went on, it became an infernal nuisance. The decisions which now have to be taken about the structure of Britain's air transport industry ought to be taken and can be taken quite separately from any ideological consideration. It is now possible to determine, in a way which it was not possible in the 1940s, whether airline A is more efficient than airline B. The question as to whether airline A should have a licence to operate a route rather than airline B or C should be and could be, determined on the basis of ascertainable data and not on political theory. As I said earlier, what is wanted is the best possible service for the customer consistent with fair conditions for the worker and the biggest possible percentage of international air traffic for the country. How these objectives can be achieved should, within a proper directive, be settled by an objective professional body. Such a body would not be a passive, licensing authority. It would be a positive, innovating body, actively engaged in securing that kind of industrial structure and route pattern which in its professional judgment we need.
Such an Authority, of course, would have to work within the framework of its directive. The noble Lord himself suggests that the Committee's proposal of a policy directive in the form of a Statutory Instrument as recommended by the Report is inappropriate. I am inclined to agree with that, since a Statutory Instrument must be legislative in character. What it seems to me would be more appropriate is a statement of the Government's policy in suitable formal terms, which had the approval of Parliament
1068
and was binding on the Authority. One way of doing this would be by laying a White Paper before Parliament and subsequently making this a Schedule to the Act setting out the new Authority's powers and functions. There is a precedent for this in the field of Prices and Incomes policy.
In its analysis of the public sector of the operating industry, the Committee support the judgment of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that the two Air Corporations are efficient organisations, and they emphasised, too, that there is value in retaining the identity of these two Corporations. But to meet the very cogent arguments of those who say that there are also benefits to be gained by merging the two Corporations they propose the creation of a National Air Holdings Board. This proposal, to put it mildly, has aroused some dissent. Many feel that the compromise would be the worst of all worlds, with the addition of one more layer in the chain of command as the price to be paid for uncertain benefits.
Conceivably, my Lords, there has been some misunderstanding as to what this proposal entails. On the one hand, the Committee did not want the Chairman of the Holding Board to become what they call an "airlines boss" and they suggest that at least six of the ten Board members should be directors from the two Corporations over which they were to be placed. They go on to say that the reins of control were to be held lightly. On the other hand, as the noble Lord himself said, the Committee were clearly thinking of the analogy with private business, where a holding company does not interfere with the day-to-day running of its subsidiaries but, if at the end of the year the results are bad, it sacks the managing director of the unsatisfactory subsidiary and starts the next year with a new team. At such a point of decision, it seems to me that the term "a light rein" is something of a euphemism.
The Committee stress that the kind of decision needed to effect economies and to gain benefits are best made by inside men with inside information. This was their idea of the working of the holding company composed of inside men. But since the initial decision to accept or not to accept this particular proposal must be made from outside the Corporations, it

1069
is, as noble Lords will agree, necessary to test very carefully the strength of available evidence before deciding that a different institutional framework is required for their realisation.
The Report also recommends that this Air Holdings Board should have a holding in a company created or initiated by Government action from the merging of existing independent companies. This idea of a so-called "second force" has also aroused criticism. It may be that this proposal, too, has been misunderstood. Its purpose here is more to do with the rationalisation of the private sector than with the dismemberment of the public sector. The fact is that regardless of the question of ownership, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are the country's principal airlines, and nobody in his senses, least of all the Edwards Committee, would wish to weaken them.
B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will both continue to grow vigorously. The question now is: how best can the independent airlines also contribute to the balance of payments and to the strength of the economy? I am sure the Committee have made a good case for there being fewer and stronger airlines. But are they right in maintaining that there is room for only one independent scheduled international carrier? If this is so—and the Committee produce some strong arguments—it is impossible to lay down precisely and in advance how big the proposed second force airline would need to be in 1975, in order to be viable and to guarantee the route network that would achieve this. The airline, if it came into being would clearly have to prove itself and to evolve progressively. Much would depend on the actual rate of growth of traffic on particular routes and on the success of the airline in getting its share of the traffic. Much would depend on the particular routes it might have. I put it to your Lordships: ought these decisions to be taken at this stage even in principle, directly or indirectly by Parliament?
One possibility which the Report suggests (and the noble Lord referred to it) and which is now being looked at is dual designation on the North Atlantic. The argument here is that although a second British carrier would attract some traffic from B.O.A.C., in the longer run it would
1070
also win traffic from foreign airlines. This net gain in traffic would increase the aggregate contribution by British airlines to the balance of payments. It is conceivable that certain rationalisations of route structures of the British carriers, even if this involved some net transfer on a modest scale, might benefit both, or at least produce a better aggregate result for the balance of payments and for the economy. But these are propositions that need to be examined carefully in relation to particular routes, and it seems to me that a Civil Aviation Authority, constituted in the manner that I have indicated, if it is established, is precisely the point at which decisions on these propositions should be taken.
My Lords, the Report also makes proposals for strengthening that part of the industry that operates regional services, both through structural changes and through subsidies. Looking at this sector of the industry dispassionately, there certainly seems room for rationalisation of the route patterns and of the structure of the industry itself. Both have grown up haphazardly over the years. Changes could result in economies of scale and of specialisation. The noble Lord, as I understood him, spoke about "knocking heads together" in this sector. I am not sure to what extent it is preferable to have one's head knocked rather than to he tied by some regulation. But certain it is that a number of airlines engaged in regional services have made clear that they wish to retain their independence, although some would like more co-operation and would not be averse to an exchange of routes on a fair and reasonable basis. What they do not want is compulsory acquisition, or the imposition of a monopoly. Here is another example of an area in which the regulatory authority and the airlines might seek to work together.
The question of subsidies which the noble Lord has raised is a difficult one. Until now Governments have held firmly to the line that the decision whether or not to operate a service must rest with the airlines in the exercise of their commercial judgment. The Report recognises that the link between the existence of air services and the pace of regional development has yet to be demonstrated; and unless and until it has been demonstrated that there is such a link, it would

1071
be difficult to justify the giving of subsidies on these grounds. There is, of course, an exception (to which the noble Lord referred) in the case of the Scottish Highlands and Islands services. A special feature of this case is the fact that surface communications in the Scottish Highlands and Islands are particularly difficult. In other parts of the United Kingdom there are some quite good surface communications which, in many cases, have been greatly improved in recent years and are still being improved. There is an obvious need to guard against waste through the competitive subsidisation of air and surface transport, and especially do we need to study quite new technical possibilities.
The introduction of advanced passenger trains or guided hovercraft or new types of V/STOL aircraft could revolutionise the whole situation. Although one must consider what the noble Lord has said about helicopters, since he had such an active and intimate recent experience with them, I am not so sure as he is that V/STOL aircraft will not prove a more economic proposition, in the regions at any rate, although of course there is a difference when it comes to servicing certain islands or the oilrigs, and so on.
My Lords, there are other quite important aspects of the Report on which I have not touched. I should have liked, for example, to say something about industrial relations in this industry which, on occasions, seem to fall so far below the standard which we have a right to expect. I must also resist, at this point at any rate, the invitation to follow the noble Lord in the whole question of airport development. At this stage I think that the best service I can render to the House is to listen to what others have to say.
3.40 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for taking us aloft with Edwards to-day and for the very constructive way in which he did so. I am grateful, too, for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, admittedly studiously "cagey" comments, on the subject of the Edwards Report. I join with him in saying that this is a remarkable document. I think that the highest compliment I can pay it—and I do so—is to say that it is as remarkable
1072
and as competent as one would expect, given its authorship. What particularly impressed me in reading the Report is its open-mindedness, the fact that its authors lay no claim to omniscience and that the structure for the aviation industry which they have suggested is one which has a built-in flexibility. I am sure that is wise.
Like other noble Lords, I shall try to be deliberately selective in my remarks and I should like to turn straight away to the objectives of our aviation policy. So far as these are concerned, the Report puts the emphasis where I believe it should be placed; namely, on the customer. I particularly like what they say about this and, if I may, I should like to quote their words:
"So let us say that in our view the primary long-term objective of a national policy towards commercial flying should be to see that our customer, be it for personal travel or freight, gets what he wants—not what somebody else thinks he ought to want—at the minimum economic price that can be contrived. Romantic, interesting and important though the airline business may be, it is, in the last analysis, there to do the same job as butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, i.e. to provide services for money."
I do not think that these objectives could be better stated. I should like to add only one more. I am told that world air travel is likely to expand by a factor of four in the next decade, and clearly it should be a major objective of our national civil aviation policy that Britain should get its full share of that growth.
So far as the way in which these objectives should be embodied is concerned, I should like to say straight away that I share the doubts that have been expressed by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about whether the Statutory Instrument is an appropriate vehicle for laying down policy guide lines. I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on this. So far as the statutory Authority is concerned, many different views have already been propounded and many different solutions are possible. But, equally, I think that most people will recognise that the present situation is messy. I believe that the Edwards Report has made out the case for a strong and independent regulatory body and personally I am rather taken with the solution which they propose. I believe that it has a great deal to commend it.

1073
I have been impressed, for example, by what I have read and learned about the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States, and I believe there is a great deal to be said for setting up a rather similar body, which would have a real measure of independence and which could evolve a steady forward-looking policy towards the industry and accumulate the corpus of knowledge and technique and other experience which is really required here. Because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, and I entirely agree, there are now objective criteria on which, if we ask the right questions we can judge the performances of individual airlines. I think that a body of this sort would give assurance both to the two nationalised Corporations and to the independent air companies. I believe in addition that there is a good deal to be said for the hiving off of Governmental functions in this way. It is, after all, what Fulton has recommended. In the words of their Report:
"It may well be that in modern political administration the machinery is so complex that immense departments of state may be made to work better if the agency device is used more freely."
I believe strongly that that is the case. After all, it is what we have done with some of our ports, and we have the recent precedent of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, for Lord Hall's Post Office Corporation.
The critics of the proposal have fastened, of course, on the view that it would be wrong to bring the A.R.B. under the wing of the proposed new Authority. Personally, I found the argument in Edwards about the main regulatory function of the Authority to be compelling, and I should have thought that we would get a read-across from the technical and the operational to the economic and vice versa. Nevertheless, like other noble Lords, I await with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. If he is against this, and I understand that he might be, because the A.R.B. is rightly held in high regard both in this country and abroad—and I think much of that is due to its independence—I wonder whether he could tell us whether certain of the intermediate solutions we have heard suggested would not be perfectly feasible, like bringing the new Authority into being by stages or
1074
perhaps treating the A.R.B. as a separate division, with something of its own personality within it.
I now turn to the public sector—the Corporations. I think it is true to say that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. receive a good chit from Edwards. As the Report states:
"B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are both held in high esteem in the international airline community and have established reputations as innovators in technical and operational fields."
I should like to endorse that. They point to the fact that the growth of the Corporations has been about par for the international course. On the whole, I believe these bouquets to be well deserved and, by and large, we can take a lot of pride as a country in the way these two Corporations are now running. Of course, by the same token, I do not think that we should overpaint the lily. For example, both Pan-American and B.O.A.C. are comparable in certain respects, as they are both basically long-haul operators, but so far as I know, whatever its financial difficulties, Pan-American have never had to write off £100 million plus of capital. But to that qualification, I should like to add one more, and dwell for a moment on a point on which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye touched; namely, the standard of service to the customer. I must say, particularly in the case of B.E.A., that this sometimes falls short of what one could reasonably desire. For one reason or another, I fly a good deal to Europe. So far as all the operational aspects of the flight are concerned—the plane, its punctuality, its safety and so on—I believe that B.E.A. has no peer in Europe. But on the little things, the petits soins, for travellers, especially on the ground, I believe that many of their European competitors order things rather better and I hope that attention will be given to this.
The Committee considered the whole question of ownership and came to the conclusion that:
"no indisputable case can he made for a policy of denationalisation."
I, for one, would be prepared to try my hand at making an indisputable case for denationalisation, but I doubt whether I would persuade the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and I do not think that I should detain your Lordships at the present moment with that argument. But let me

1075
say straight away that I believe that there is a far stronger case for the injection of private capital into the Corporations' capital structure than is suggested in the Edwards Report. They say that:
"they see little merit in artificially contriving a minority holding",
and go on to say,
"But we would certainly not oppose private stakes should there be good practical reasons."
I believe that a case can be made that there are good practical reasons for the participation of private equity in the Corporations. A private sector would, in my view, give the Corporations greater independence, and it would expose them even more directly than they are exposed at the moment to normal commercial competition, particularly if the private share were quite substantial. There is the point that a large number of European competitors of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. now have considerable private stakes in their equity. With Swiss-Air, it is 70 per cent.; with K.L.M., 49·5 per cent., Lufthansa, 25 per cent., and with Sabena and Al Italia, 10 per cent. If this is considered sensible abroad it is at least arguable, proud and parochial though we British may be, that it is sensible here.
In any event, my Lords, although I do not go the whole way with the Edwards Committee on ownership, I go a long way with them on the organisation of the Corporations. The Committee considered the case for and against amalgamation, and they came down against it. I personally agree with that judgment. As they have pointed out, there is no clear advantage in sheer size. Indeed, the experience of the American airlines points the other way.
Next, I should like to turn to a point which has already been touched on by other noble Lords: the consideration by the Committee of the necessary cooperation between the two national Corporations and their judgment that, although there was co-operation in certain fields, this was insufficient; and from that their suggestion of the establishment of a National Air Holdings Board with an independent Chairman.
There is a great deal in this Report that I like, but I say at once that, with my noble friend, I do not like this suggestion one little bit. I am convinced that if we are to have nationalised bodies
1076
and national Corporations they must be allowed, once their targets and their strategical objectives are set by the Minister concerned, to get on with the job. The thing that is above all to be avoided in the public sector is "back-seat driving", whether by Ministers or by Committees. This would tend to weaken the authority of the organisation; it would be bound to blur responsibilities, and would be bound to act as a decelerator to decision-making in a field where urgent decisions are often required.
Mr. Michael Foot was kind enough the other day to describe all of your Lordships as "political castrata". I think the suggestion which has been advanced in the Edwards Report would turn those otherwise virile leaders of industry, Sir Anthony Milward and Mr. Hardie, into commercial castrata. I am not saying that there should not be closer co-operation in various common fields between the Corporations. There should be. It is insufficient, as I think they themselves recognise; but I really think that, on balance, I should prefer the unnecessary duplication which may exist at the present time to this unnecessary bureaucratic monster.
I should like to turn now to the private sector. Here I find myself largely in agreement with what the Report has suggested. In this respect I think it is a very impartial Report. It rightly recognises the enterprise which the independents have shown, for example. in making a success of the South American route when B.O.A.C., for understandable reasons, gave it up. The Edwards Committee also, quite rightly, paid tribute to the inventiveness which the independents have shown by, for example, the development of the inclusive tours—"I.T." traffic as it was called: as the Report puts it:
"One of the most important credit items in the performance of British civil aviation in the recent past…."
I believe that these tributes not only are overdue, but give the independents their due. We on these Benches hold, and hold strongly, that whatever the right structure and ownership of the Corporations may be, there is not only a justification but also a real need for a strong private sector in the aviation industry. The alternative might very well be one single nationalised monolith. Edwards

1077
comes down very firmly against this; and that concept has been demolished, I think, in very telling language in two brief pages of the Report. But we also need an active private sector for other reasons. We need it since the industry as a whole, and those who regulate it, would benefit by an alternative yardstick to the nationalised concerns. We need, as the Report puts it:
"more than one source of expertise, judgment, experience and enterprise".
Again, my Lords, the private sector can be justified by the contribution which it makes to our foreign exchange earnings. For example, British United Airways are not only making a profit now on the South American route, where B.O.A.C. were losing well over £1 million a year, but they are thereby also making a quite significant contribution to our foreign exchange earnings. But this is only one side of the coin. In South America, B.U.A. stepped into shoes which B.O.A.C. had discarded. The Edwards Committee, however, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested, have argued that in the case of certain international routes—for example, the New York route—there is room for two major British airlines. I believe that this would be in the national interest from the standpoint of our balance of payments. It is interesting, for example, that the British share of this route has dropped from nearly 40 per cent. in 1962 to not much over 25 per cent. in 1967. May not a contributory reason for that be that there is only one British airline operating scheduled services on this route?
For example, it is significant that B.O.A.C.'s summer capacity on this route this year amounts only to 28 per cent., while T.W.A. and Pan American have 27 per cent. and 26 per cent. respectively, making a joint capacity of 53 per cent. The Bermuda statistics are even more striking. The British held 32·4 per cent. of this traffic for 1962, the year in which the Eagle licence was revoked. The percentage of this important route now held by this country has dropped to 16·4. That, of course, is quite apart from the question of the consumer choice. I accept that on many routes there is not scope for two operators, let alone two British operators; but where there is such scope, it is surely a good thing that the consumer should be offered as much choice as possible.
1078
For all these reasons, my Lords, I am glad that the Edwards Committee attach so much importance to the private sector, which they believe may become by the 1970s perhaps one third of the civil aviation industry. They envisage also, as my noble friend has pointed out, a strong second force (why they call it a "second force", I am not certain: I should have thought that it would be a third force, given B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.), possibly built around B.U.A. and Caledonian as the main element here, operating a mix of long-distance and short-haul scheduled services, and active also in the I.T. and charter field.
Alongside that they think there is real scope—provided that there is the necessary rationalisation in the private sector—for other private operators in the domestic field, and in the internal inclusive tour, charter, air freight and air taxi business. I am sure that this is so, and that these rather specialised fields are really carved out, or almost carve themselves out, for the independent operator. But, my Lords, it is one thing for Edwards to express these views; it is another for the Government to accept them. I hope that in the months of summer cogitation on the Edwards Report they will move further forward in this respect.
Secondly, having accepted the principle, I trust that the Government will take the action which requires to flow from it. Much of course depends, as the Report points out, on pricing policy. For example, the Edwards Committee advocate a good deal more liberal policy towards inclusive tours and charters, and they make a very interesting suggestion that on certain routes, which they describe as "holiday routes"—I suppose that is the Minorcas of this world—the charter operators, the I.T. operators, should be given a free hand as an experiment. I think this would be well worth trying; it would be good for the operators and, more important, it would be good for the consumer.
Most important of all, if the Government decide to make this difficult choice for the second force—and I hope they will—they must have the courage of their convictions. There are two essentials here. The first is that the second force should have a really viable route I structure of scheduled services, including

1079
long-distance services. The Report has suggested that the airline, or agglomerate of airlines, would need to be provided with 4,000 seat miles by 1975 to have a really viable stable of aircraft to be able to support it. A layman like me would not dream of querying that estimate, or even of venturing an estimate of what route structure would be required. Clearly—and here I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour—it would mean that the second force would have either to replace or double up with the Corporations on some of their existing scheduled routes.
What does this mean? I have talked to one of the airlines which might be involved in the second force. All I can say is that they believe that they could be given a route structure which would enable them, for example, to go to the City and raise the money which they would need for this stable of aircraft. They could get a viable route structure without undue damage to the Corporation's prospects. They estimate that if they were given what they think they would need for a viable route structure, it might cut back B.O.A.C.'s growth rate from an estimated 12 per cent. per annum to something around 10 per cent. per annum. I am rather a new boy at business, but I should be perfectly happy to have an assured 10 per cent. per annum growth rate stretching out ahead of me. I am also extremely bad at compound interest, but I think it means you would double the size of your business within about seven years.
Secondly, it is important to remember that under the Edwards recommendations the Corporations themselves would stand to gain in a major way. They are now proposing to break in a big way into the I.T. trade, the trade which independents have pioneered. I understand, for example, that B.E.A. will be operating their Comet fleet from Gatwick next year. I think that this is a good thing and that Edwards thinks it is a good thing, because the distinctions between the scheduled services and the nonscheduled ones are becoming increasingly blurred. What seems to me reasonable is that if the Corporations are to be allowed to break into what has been up to now the preserve which has been pioneered by the independents, the in
1080
dependents should be enabled to make at least a small dent in what has hitherto been almost the preserve of the Corporations, the scheduled routes. If that is so, I should have thought that a bargain could be struck, and that with that in mind it would be wise that the decisions regarding the second force's entry on to the scheduled routes, and the Corporations' break into the I.T. market should be taken coincidentally.
Apart from that, two things seem clear to me. If the Government do opt for a second force concept, they must not be half-hearted about their choice. They must opt either for a proper second force, or against it. They should at all events avoid a "botched-up" compromise here, because if we are to have a second force, as Edwards recommends, we need one with two wings, not just one. I know this may be asking quite a lot of the Government, but I hope that they will not only say that they will grasp this rather difficult nettle, as they have said they will grasp one or two other difficult nettles recently, but that they will actually grasp it.
I hope it will be possible for these decisions to be taken reasonably quickly. I was a little worried about the tone of Lord Beswick's remarks here. As Edwards says, the independents are:
"urgently awaiting clear guidance from the Government on the future size and shape of the private sector."
This, as I understand it, means that these decisions are in certain respects very urgent. For example, if the second force is going to be a viable one, it will need, first, supersonic aircraft, and secondly, large fuselage aircraft. It has to get into the queue for the purchase of those aircraft, and it cannot do it until it knows roughly what the future holds for it.
So far as the smaller domestic services are concerned, may I say that I agree that these services have an important part to play in regional economic development. I also agree that if they are to be subsidised the subsidy should be an honest and visible one. Let us not embark on regional airline services just "for the heck of it" and unless there is a real need for a competition with surface means of transport here.
There was one passage in the Edwards Report which I found particularly interesting. That was where it

1081
pointed out that at the present time we are spending in public funds something like £300 million a year in regional development. The Committee indicated their preference—a preference which I share—for a selective approach to regional development, the support of infrastructure at selected points rather than the more scatter-gun approach which we seem to be adopting at the present time. They pointed out that if we spent only one per cent. of £300 million on the development of regional airlines, that would amount to £3 million per annum and could make a very important contribution to the whole development of our regional airline network. So far as the area of the world so dear to my noble friend Lord Balfour is concerned—Scotland-I would support his plea for a deep examination of this problem, and I hope particularly that there will be a real examination of the proposal which he has put forward. I hope he will allow that examination—as I know he will—to include the small, fixed-wing, short-take-off aircraft, as well as his favourite helicopters.
In conclusion, may I say that although I have ventured one or two criticisms of one or two of the recommendations in the Edwards Report, I believe that taken in the large it is an admirable and, indeed, splendid document. I hope the Government will decide to carry out its main recommendations. Without wishing to press this unduly, I particularly hope that they will give free enterprise the fair crack of the whip which Edwards has asked for. My final hope is that their decision on this matter will not be unduly delayed. I trust that the promised White Paper will come before us at least in the autumn. Certain of these decisions are urgently required, and if it is not going to affect the main package of the decisions there is no reason why the Government should be inhibited from announcing individual decisions in advance of the White Paper. That could be really helpful in certain fields.
4.9 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave your Lordships a most interesting commentary on the proposed Civil Aviation Authority, and the alternatives to it. I, too, should like to speak in particular about that proposal, and in some detail. The
1082
Edwards Committee propose that a single Authority should be:
"… responsible for almost all the technical and economic regulatory functions, now performed by the Board of Trade, the A.T.L.B. and A.R.B. for the civil side of the Joint National Air Traffic Control Services, for operational research, for long-term airport planning and for the main work of traffic rights negotiation."
In speaking to-day I must declare an interest because, as I think many noble Lords know, I am the Chairman of the Air Registration Board. This interest which I declare is not a financial interest. The Chairman and the members of council of the Air Registration Board, eighteen in number, received no payment for their services. I should also like to emphasise what I am sure your Lordships would in any case assume, that I speak personally and not in an effort to represent the views of my A.R.B. colleagues, although I cannot help being aware of some similarities between their outlook and mine. The formal views of the Air Registration Board are of course in process of being made known to the President of the Board of Trade.
I should like to say something a bout the origins, the character and the past of the A.R.B. because I believe that all these are relevant to decisions on its future. We in the A.R.B. have al ways been conscious that there is something a little odd about us; and we have always been proud to feel that this oddity is something peculiarly British and, as time has shown, I believe, peculiarly good. The oddity is that we exhibit the unusual administrative pattern of a great industry regulating itself. A Minister is indeed always in the last analysis responsible for what we do. At present it is the President of the Board of Trade; in the past it has been at various times the Secretary of State for Air, the Minister of Civil Aviation, and the Minister of Aviation. But the President and his predecessors have depended for their formal actions in the field of airworthiness upon the A.R.B.'s advice, and I like to think not only that the A.R.B. has never let them down by giving them bad advice, but that the Minister has never let the A.R.B. down by rejecting the good advice it has given.
The organisation of this Board derives from the Report of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the late Lord Gorell, himself once the Minister

1083
responsible, inter alia, for civil aviation, and which reported in July, 1934. The other members of that Committee were also unusually distinguished and included not only the noble Lord to whom we are so indebted for initiating this debate to-day, then Captain Harold Balfour—whose views on the Air Registration Board I was so interested to hear—but Mr. Handley Page, Colonel Moore-Brabazon and Mr. Lindsay Everard, all of whom regrettably are no longer with us, and one other great pioneer, Mr. Gordon England, who is. At that time the civil aviation industry had become dissatisfied with the way airworthiness had been administered by Government. Government, on the recommendation of the Gorell Committee, had the great good sense to make the sweeping change by which the A.R.B. came into existence.
The report of that old Committee was followed by the work of a Committee under Handley Page, to draft the details of the new scheme for regulating airworthiness, and the outcome was seen in the Air Navigation Act 1936, which gave the Secretary of State powers to delegate his functions in respect of the airworthiness of civil aircraft to a Board, a Board ultimately defined—and this is extremely interesting—as consisting of four representatives of constructors of aircraft, four of operators of aircraft, four of insurers of aircraft, together with four co-opted members—to-day known as the independent members—and two more members appointed by the responsible Minister, not to represent him, but one to be a pilot and the other to represent the public interest. The Minister has no say in appointing the other 16 who are nominated by the interested sections they represent. The whole 18 choose one of themselves as Chairman. That is how the governing body of the A.R.B. is still constituted and what makes it a body of essentially independent character.
The A.R.B. Council, when it came into being in 1937, began the task of creating its executive: and I am proud to say that I was its first Chief Technical Officer. To-day it has a staff of well over 400. This organisation has stood the test of time, and when we of the A.R.B. consider ourselves dispassionately—and from time to time we do take a careful stock of ourselves—we conclude
1084
that the recommendations of the Gorell Committee, the work of the Handley Page drafting Committee and the Air Navigation Act 1936, produced an extraordinarily appropriate top administrative structure for aircraft, a structure which has itself created an excellent staff, high in morale, efficient and economical in character, and with the best possible relationship with the industry with which it has to work and which, indeed, in the matter of aircraft safety it has to control.
It is successful in this for a number of reasons, but two are outstanding. One is that, of all forms of control, the most effective and the least obnoxious is self-control. As I said earlier, the Air Registration Board is unusual, possibly unique, in manifesting a great industry regulating itself. The other outstanding reason is the A.R.B.'s financial independence. In its early days, and with diminution of civil aviation in the war, it had to depend on Government aid to make up its deficit. But for many years past it has enjoyed financial independence through its income from fees for certificates of airworthiness, from contracts proper to its duties, such as for aiding the airworthiness administration of Commonwealth countries, and from certain technical work for the United Kingdom Government. This financial independence has been a source of great strength to the A.R.B. An organisation which stands on its financial feet, like a man who stands on his, develops a different ethos from the recipient of aid, which, like an overdraft, is rarely without strings.
The proposed civil aviation Authority would not be in the enviable position the A.R.B. has achieved. The Edwards Report estimates that it would cost the Government £13 million a year. It is difficult to conceive an organisation such as the proposed C.A.A., in administering a deficit of this magnitude, organising financially self-sufficient units in its midst. It is difficult to conceive its administering a personnel policy which did not affect the development of the A.R.B. staff system, a system which has shown itself singularly well suited to the well defined, and wholly technological, functions of the Board.
But more important even than these considerations, in my opinion, is that in the C.A.A. there would be a mixture of

1085
economic and technical regulatory functions in that the working of the Air Transport Board and the working of the A.R.B. would be under the same direction. But I cannot believe that this is good, and in this I differ from the Edwards Report and, I think, from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The approach of the Air Registration Board in a spirit of creative collaboration with industry, and the approach of the Air Transport Board, essentially judicial and discriminatory, seem to me to be difficult to reconcile. It is this incompatibility which has kept these two functions of licensing and safety in different organisations in the United States of America. If I understood the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, correctly, I think he believed that these two functions in the U.S.A. were in the same Authority; but they are not.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise for being out of the Chamber during most of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, but I do not believe that. I know that the contrary is the truth.
LORD KINGS NORTON: Certainly they are not. In fact the technical function is in the F.A.A. which has not so far been mentioned, and the economic function is in the C.A.B. I know that it is unwise uncritically to copy, or to admire, arrangements in other countries, and I assure your Lordships that I point to the United States arrangement only after careful study. They have evolved their organisation in this field differently from us, but in the matter of principle, as I feel it is, of keeping these two functions apart, they have done as we have. I think we are both right, and that a revolutionary change, as the C.A.A. in this respect would be, is unwise. An evolutionary change which in this case would include a strengthened A.T.L.B. is in my view much to be preferred.
There is a good deal of consideration in the Report of the Edwards Committee of what they call "interfaces". Until I read their Report, I had managed quite well without ever using this word. Now I find that I cannot avoid it. They say clearly, on page 244, that there is no a priori case for reducing the number of interfaces. But they clearly believe, from the arguments they advance, that interfacial liquidation is a good thing.
1086
On the whole I agree. As an engineer, I feel that the fewer moving parts there are in a machine the less likely it is to go wrong, and that is probably true of administrative machines as well But one has to be very careful. If at present there are seen to be interfaces between the A.R.B., the A.T.L.B. and the regulatory departments of the Board of Trade, have we reduced the interfaces by putting these bodies under the C.A.A., or have we increased the total number of interfaces by one? The right number of interfaces, as in an internal combustion engine, is that which gives maximum performance, if possible with minimum lubrication.
My Lords, I believe with other noble Lords that Sir Ronald Edwards and his team have done a remarkable job, and it would be more than remarkable—it would be miraculous—if everyone interested agreed with them. What I found particularly good about their Report was that they displayed alternative organisations before reaching a conclusion to support one of them.
In the matters to which I have been referring, it seems to me that they have done this displaying extremely well, but in my view they have not chosen the best of the possibilities they have outlined. At the risk of boring your Lordships by telling you what you have already read. I should like to recall, from page 245, that they define four possible schemes: (i) the economic regulation in an independent Air Transport Board on the lines of a strengthened Air Transport Licensing Board, the technical regulatory functions being disposed as at present; (ii) both economic and technical regulatory functions in two separate boards outside the Government service; (iii) all regulatory functions within the Government service; and (iv) all regulatory functions placed outside Government in one civil aviation Authority headed by a hoard appointed by the Minister. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for indicating the possibilities of other alternatives. Certainly one of his variants appeals to me very much.
In their subsequent argument in the Report the Committee dismissed (iii)—all regulatory functions under Government—and with this dismissal I agree. They plump for (iv) the Civil Aviation Authority—which is certainly preferable

1087
to (iii), but suffers from the disabilities which I have indicated. I do not say that it is unworkable, but I do say that for it to work well it would require continuing dispassionate judgment of a high order in the selection of its members and quite exceptional skill in administration on their part. Even then, I am sure that strains and stresses would develop. It represents a very big change, and it would have to deal with a future which I find difficult to visualise and assess. I should prefer—and I hope that when the Government have considered this, they will also—administrative evolution with natural selection, so to speak, by interested parties for the formation of the controlling bodies, rather than an inspired choice from above. So, in my view, the alternatives (i) and (ii) in the Report are better. Certainly, let us have an Air Transport Board on the lines of a strengthened A.T.L.B. That, with no other change, would be alternative (i). This would involve, as the Committee recognises, the minimum of change.
I believe we could stand a little more change than that, if it seemed desirable after examination. I believe we could stand a little more without too much upset or the danger of administrative indigestion. In other words, I believe, of all the Edwardian alternatives—and Sir Ronald, like me, believes that one can have more than two alternatives—(ii) is the best, and is worth detailed examination. This would give us the strengthened A.T.L.B. and an A.R.B. type of organisation in which the aircraft safety regulatory functions could be joined progressively by some of the operational safety functions performed by the Board of Trade and others. At a time when operational and aircraft safety considerations are increasingly interdependent—as, for example, in auto-land—it is obviously sensible to examine this. We could go, if necessary, step by step.
As I have said already, evolution is for us, in this country, generally better than revolution. The aftermath of the Gorell Committee was rather revolutionary but I think the circumstances were then more readily definable than they are now, and in the present circumstances I would recommend evolution. First, we could form the new Air Transport Board—the strengthened A.T.L.B. At the same
1088
time, a committee like the old Handley Page Committee I have referred to, which followed the Gorell Report, could scheme a developing combined airworthiness and operational safety organisation, taking account of the criticism which Edwards levels at the idea of two separate boards. I believe that two sensibly constituted boards, which I am sure would be sensibly constituted—a licensing board and a safety board—could readily evolve a method of communication which would ensure that there was no unnecessary duplication or overlapping in the inquiries they would undertake.
To sum up, my Lords, what I fear is my rather specialised view, I think it would be found to be quite satisfactory, whatever changes are made as a result of the Edwards Report, if the A.R.B. were left as it is. Conceivably, it might prove desirable to add to it some of the administrative operational safety functions of the Board of Trade, and this, I am sure, should be examined in detail, with the idea of a possible step by step process in mind. But whatever is done, the identity of the Air Registration Board should not be lost in a larger complex. If it were, I think much more would be lost as well.
4.29 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, in rising to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, I should like to add my own thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this Motion, and to make a short contribution to your Lordships' deliberations. I am hound to say that I found this Report something of an anti-climax. Months, indeed years, of preparation went by. In fact I was one of those who at one stage brought pressure on your Lordships' House—a pressure which I think, in retrospect, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, rightly resisted—for the Edwards Committee to produce an earlier Report than they were at that stage planning or, ultimately, did produce. However, when the Report was produced one rather felt as though one had been present while the elephant went into labour and gave birth to a mouse.
The Report calls itself, Air Transport in the 'Seventies, but I wonder whether it is not more of a historical examination of air transport in the '60s—indeed, I

1089
would pay tribute to the diligence of the Committee's research and to the vast mass of information that the Report gives. I am sure that it will be of great value to all of us in the industry, both now and in the years to come; and in that light perhaps my criticism of its title is unjustified. But I rather felt that the function of such a Committee is to produce concrete proposals, which to some extent surely they do. But I am hound to say that I find them disappointing.
I should like to consider these proposals shortly, and then to comment on one or two thoughts of my own. First, the proposal that aeronautical policy should be decreed periodically by Statutory Instrument I find, to put it bluntly, quite appalling—and perhaps I had better say no more, for fear of becoming un-Parliamentary. But the prospect of having every so often, a quite undefined period of time, suddenly to change course is to me quite unacceptable, and I hope the Government will resist that proposal when they come to publish their White Paper.
Secondly, there is the proposal to create a National Air Holdings Board which, in addition to controlling the bulk of the equity in the State Corporations, would apparently hold some of the equity in what they call a "second force" airline which they suggest should be created. Like other noble Lords, I can find little to recommend that proposal. It seems to me to be only a creation of bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy; and air transport has enough bureaucracy already. I do not suggest that we are at this stage overregulated. Of course we all accept that safety and traffic rights are matters which cannot be left to individual concern, to individual commercial judgment, although perhaps, in the last resort, in some cases they have to be. But, by and large, the present system, in which Lord Kings Norton's admirable organisation controls the safety of operations, or at least the safety of aircraft, the Board of Trade controls the safety of flight operations, as such, and the Air Transport Licensing Board controls the traffic rights and licensing of particular routes, is satisfactory. Those three elements in the system, although they may have individual defects, are quite acceptable at this stage, and ought to be allowed to continue.
1090
But to create a further vast monolithic organisation to have exclusive financial control of the State Corporations and an unspecified amount of financial control in the principal element of the independent sector seems to me unwise.
With regard to the Committee's suggestion to create this second force airline, I wonder whether "second force" is an entirety accurate description, since we already have three forces in the envisaged set-up; namely, B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and British Air Services. So I think perhaps it ought to be called the "fourth force". Whatever we call it, it seems to me to be perhaps less objectionable than the other two proposals, though it needs certain qualification. First, of course, the new force must have a viable route network; and this the Report accepts.
But secondly (and this I believe to be perhaps the most glaring omission from the Committee's Report), it must have access to sufficient funds. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he had been told that a possible candidate for the second force airline had told him that if they had a viable network they could go and get funds from the City. I have some experience of this, and I am hound to say that in general the institutions are unwilling to invest in aviation projects, particularly in the independent sector, although I accept that this may have been because hitherto, at least, a viable network has not been available to them. But there will need to be some radical changes of thinking in the City if a second force airline is to be able to obtain the very large quantities of money that will be required to purchase the new aircraft to meet the commitments which the force will be given on its creation. It may therefore be necessary for the second force airline, as it is called, to have access to Government money if it is to meet its obligations fully; and this, I should have thought, would make it so close to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. as to call in question the need to create it at all.
The fourth proposal made by the Committee is for the creation of a Civil Aviation Authority, and this was dealt with at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. I am bound to say that I thought that what he said made excellent sense because, like him, I should regard with great concern any threat to

1091
the present independence of the Air Registration Board, one of the few elements of the bureaucratic side of civil aviation at the present time that does not make a loss. I think its profit is fairly modest, but at least it keeps in the black, which is more than can be said for the Board of Trade Aviation Department, with particular reference, of course, to their air navigation services.
I should like now to consider briefly the particular proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in relation to the Highlands and Islands. I am bound to say again that the suggestion to convert the whole operation away from fixed-wing aeroplanes to helicopters, with the apparent abandoning of all the radar and runway networks that have been created, sounds to me nonsense. I cannot imagine how we can operate without radar, what must be regular services, because the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, is surely deluding himself if he thinks that helicopters can operate in weather conditions in which fixed-wing aircraft cannot operate, or vice versa.
In my view, my Lords, the answer to this problem is to use short take-off aircraft, smaller aircraft than now in use, operating at a higher frequency, thus providing what I should have thought at present but spread out at more frequent intervals during the day, and so providing what I should have thought would be a better service than has hitherto been provided. B.E.A. have for years grumbled at having to continue the Highlands and Islands services at enormous loss, but one can understand their difficulties, because they are obliged to operate the services with the equipment they have, which I think is not really suitable for that sort of operation. There are a number of aeroplanes now being produced all of which, if operated correctly, could perhaps do a better job than is at present done by B.E.A. Viscounts. The Jetstream and Skyvan are obvious contenders.
Finally, I should like to make one further comment on the proposal that the State Corporations should be allowed to enter into the inclusive tour market. As we know. B.E.A. are about to operate a very substantial inclusive tour company from Gatwick, and for that purpose are proposing, we understand, to delegate
1092
their Comet fleet of aeroplanes and to start operations next summer. The Edwards Committee seem to accept this as a reasonable proposal but, like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I feel that this should be allowed only if the independents are given similar encouragement and additional licences on some of the cream of the scheduled routes. We know that B.E.A. have British United Airways as a competitor on the Belfast route and that until recently they had competition on the Glasgow route. I think competition remains on the Edinburgh route, but it is very restricted. British United and British Eagle (as they then were) had granted to them only a limited frequency for those operations, and it was hardly possible for them to operate a viable service on that basis. If now B.E.A. is going to branch out into the inclusive tour business on a substantial scale, it is only right that the independents should be given some encouragement on the cream of the scheduled services.
That is all I have to say. I was proposing to raise some query about the subsidy granted to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. for the purchase of British aircraft. I understand, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would prefer to deal with this matter on the Committee stage of the Air Corporations Bill, which we shall consider formally on Second Reading after this debate, and I will raise that matter then.
4.42 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the greater part of the Edwards Report and the greater part of this debate have been spent, quite rightly, on an examination of the civil aviation industry and how to make it more efficient. I am not going to enter into that part of the argument, which has been so well discussed this afternoon, except to say that, like most members of the modern Labour Party, I am in favour of more competition wherever possible, and sometimes find that I am more in favour of it than noble Lords opposite. At any rate, I warmly welcome the suggested support given to the second force—that is a form of additional competition—and I warmly welcome some of the easing up of price restrictions which are referred to in the Report.
In particular, I want to talk about two paragraphs along these lines. The first,

1093
is the much vexed question of Provision I, under which inclusive tour operators are forced to charge more than they would want to, or need to, in order to protect the fares on scheduled flights which are agreed upon by the International Air Transport Association. It is clear to anybody who is trying to watch things from the point of view of the consumer that this is a blatantly restrictive practice which must be viewed with the greatest suspicion. Such attempts to avoid economic reality may often lead to sheer silliness, and this is no exception.
If you want to make up a group to charter an aeroplane at the reduced price which capacity allows, it is not enough to get together a number of people who all want to go to the same place; you must show that they have some other interest in common. You must show that they are what is called an "affinity group"—an archeological society, a women's institute or something of that kind, which has really nothing to do with the need to travel. Of course, the result is deceit and mockery, because the difference in fare is so big that people are prepared to go to great lengths to get the reduction. My daughter the other day went to the United States and back for £80. The scheduled flight fare is, I think, £170. I do not know what affinity she claimed, but any system which invites evasion in that way and ignores the realities of economic needs should, in my opinion, be looked at closely.
The Edwards Committee have looked closely at Provision 1, in paragraph 704 and the 30 paragraphs which follow. They explain why some protection and regulation is necessary if the regular scheduled flights which link the parts of the world together to-day are not to be undermined. As a farmer, I have a good deal of sympathy with managed markets and maintained prices, and I do not take the extreme view that regulation in certain circumstances of this kind is necessarily wrong. The Committee certainly have fully recognised the absurdity of the present rules, which may end, as they say, in people with blue eyes qualifying for reduced rates; and they poke quiet fun at the mystical definitions of distances which are elaborated in trying to define affinity groups.
Their final recommendation that such means of protecting scheduled services
1094
should be maintained only on routes where the scheduled services are worth protecting is admirable and I give it full support. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to it earlier. My only wonder is whether it might not have be en a stronger and more effective decision if they had recommended the abolition altogether of Provision 1, with the proviso that it would be reinstated on certain lines where the scheduled services were particularly vulnerable. It is extremely important that the huge economies which the coming of jumbo-jets ought to bring should be passed on to the traveller, and not dissipated in a vain attempt to protect existing fares.
The only other point I wish to refer to is the question of protecting the customer from the financial failure of tour promoters. The Committee refer to this in paragraph 719. They say, rightly that this protection need not depend on price regulation. The Association of British Travel Agents have a scheme called "Operation Stabiliser", and that has gone some way to meet the need, but I agree with the Committee that it is unlikely to be a complete answer to this problem, particularly as I understand that its funds have been severely eroded recently through a number of failures. The Committee say that it may be necessary for the Authority to require inclusive tour licence holders to put up a bond, regulated to the size of their tour programme. I feel certain that that is necessary, and I am sorry that the Committee said only that it may be. I should like to see such provision made compulsory and extended to all holiday travel, not only by air. A further possibility might be to set up a compulsory insolvency indemnity scheme for the whole travel trade. There are, I believe, firms in the City which do business of this kind, and the Consumer Council has been assured that there will be no particular difficulty in arranging it.
I do not apologise for bringing in these rather detailed matters to to-clay's debate, because I honestly think that this is what the whole subject is about. It is no good having a very elaborately organised and highly efficient industry if you do not leave enough competition to let the customer take advantage of the fact and of the possibilities of the savings through modern development. My Lords, apart from these two quite mild criticisms, I

1095
personally support the recommendations. I am glad that they have been so well received to-day, particularly by both Front Benches, and I hope that we shall shortly see Government action upon the Report.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks, along with other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for moving his Motion to-day on the Edwards Report. I would also add my congratulations to him, both for the timing of this debate and for the clear, lucid and concise way in which he introduced it. Having listened to the other noble Lords who have followed him, I think that the noble Lord has some grounds for feeling a little satisfied with the way the debate has gone.
As we have already heard this afternoon, the eagerly awaited Edwards Report has been given, perhaps understandably, a mixed reception. Its recommendations cover a number of delicate areas of the industry, and for that reason have proved, not surprisingly, contentious. The trade union side of the N.J.C. has described it as "an old-fashioned" Report and a "doctrinaire document aimed at creating wasteful competition." The Chairman of B.E.A. has described it as "inconsistent", and (I think this was his personal view) has rejected outright two of its major recommendations. Others in the industry have been more welcoming.
But despite the mixed reception the Report has received, every shade of opinion, I am sure, will agree that the Edwards Report is a most valuable analysis and record of the industry, compiled by a Committee who have been shown to be extremely hardworking and thorough in their investigations; who have travelled the world in search of comparative industries; who have taken evidence from no fewer than 167 United Kingdom individual and corporate witnesses; from 37 foreign witnesses, from Government Departments to independent authorities, spreading over 10 countries, and who have clearly attempted to produce a Report balancing both the good of the industry, on the one hand, with the
1096
good of the country, on the other. For this reason I should like to join with other noble Lords in expressing our thanks to the Edwards Committee and to its Chairman, Sir Ronald Edwards.
Perhaps to some of us the most important general observation made early on in the Report (and I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned this) is that the industry at the present time is in a fairly healthy condition, and that nothing calls, we are told, for really urgent surgery. Having said that, the Report rightly warns us that the industry is bound up in a flexible and changing world, in a fast expanding and fiercely competitive market; and that if it is to retain its impetus and virility, and to hold on to, and even increase, its share of the world markets it must be given the right framework, to include both a clear policy and the right conditions in which to work. Both these prerequisites, of course, lie in the hands of the Government. The ball is now firmly in their court, along with the long-term future prosperity of the industry.
Other noble Lords have already touched on the four main recommendations of the Report: the National Air Holdings Board; the second force; the Civil Aviation Authority; and the domestic route operators under B.A.S. I think it would be true to say of the first of these principal recommendations, the setting up of this new National Air Holdings Board, that this concept has received, both from the industry and from many noble Lords to-day, very little enthusiasm—and indeed, from many quarters, positive hostility. In fairness to the Edwards Committee, I should say that when examining the problem in depth they gave three possible choices to achieve one essential objective, that of obtaining more co-operation between the two Air Corporations without actually merging them into one.
The choice the Committee selected, the National Air Holdings Board, did not by any means appear an automatic choice; in fact, the Committee themselves appeared to be somewhat diffident about it, saying that its success or failure rested largely upon the wisdom of the new Board's members; that is, the wisdom not to interfere with the existing management and yet at the same time to be

1097
directly concerned—and I quote here from paragraph 531:
"with major strategy of the airlines, the quality of their management, financing and investment …"
A slightly conflicting responsibility, many of us may feel. The reaction of the two Air Corporations, as we well know, is understandably critical on this recommendation. The Chairman of B.E.A. is on record as saying:
"Such new superstructure would create a serious weakening and undermining of the management of the Corporation".
Others of us to-day see it perhaps as the first inevitable step to a merger between the two Corporations as surely as night follows day. Both these criticisms, to my mind, have weight, and the birth of the National Air Holdings Board seems a stiff price to pay for closer collaboration.
The problem of collaboration between the two Air Corporations is not, of course, a new one; indeed, as we see from the Report it has been with the Corporations for the last 24 years. The Airlines Joint Chairmen's Committee was set up many years ago to work out the areas of cooperation. Progress has not been barren and the result of their work, we see, has been the setting up of a joint medical centre, a joint pilot training college, a joint pensions scheme, and a joint hostels scheme, amongst other things. The question, of course, that strikes one forcibly on reading this Report is why, in practice, this Joint Chairmen's Committee could not now expand into further areas of co-operation, into the grassy fields which the Edwards Committee see are waiting to be grazed. Such areas as marketing, route patterns, computer programming, hotels—these are but a few examples the Report quoted. Is it a sound argument to say that, just because progress of co-operation over the past years has been slow, it could not be quickened if the Joint Committee were given the proper directive?
May I turn briefly to the question of a merger between the two Air Corporations? The Committee are, I think, to be congratulated on the clarity with which they set out the pros and cons of a merger. The fact that they came down firmly against a merger, and that this only confirmed what previous Committees had
1098
concluded in the past, will I hope convince the Government that more would be lost than would be gained by a merger. The two fundamental conclusions which the Committee reached on this point, and which must persuade many cirtics in this matter, are first, that size does not necessarily mean greater efficiency in the airline business, and, second, that the identities of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are too valuable to be lost. I hope very much that the Government will reach an early decision on this point and so remove what must be a running sore for the Corporations.
The second major recommendation of the Report, the creation of a second force, has already been covered pretty fully in the debate. This proposition opens up the fundamental question of what is to be the future role of the independents in civil air transport. Are they to gain a more viable share of the scheduled services, while perhaps giving away a share of their inclusive tour market—a market, one must remember, which they created and built up so vigorously—or, as we have already heard, are the Corporations to be allowed to hang on to the 90 per cent. of the lucrative scheduled services whilst at the same time being allowed to enter vigorously into the charter market? Are the Edwards Committee right when they call for fair play between the two sections of the industry? In my view, they certainly are.
The recommendation by the Edwards Committee of the creation of a second force is, of course, entering into an area of sensitivity. The Committee in their Report built up, I believe, a pretty convincing case that the formation of a second force would be to the overall benefit, in both the short-term and the long-term future of the industry, and this surely is the ultimate criterion for judgment. They have reached the conclusion, with some confidence, that there is room now for this second force. And, who knows? in this fast expanding industry by the turn of the century there may well be room for yet a third force. The conclusion which the Committee reached cannot have been an easy one, in face of the opposition from the Air Corporations. The Committee have clearly studied the route patterns with some care; have assessed the minimum requirements that a viable second force

1099
would require, and have judged the effect it would have on the Air Corporations.
The success or failure of this second force, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has already said, lies partly in two areas: first, it must be granted a viable route structure, and secondly it must be in a position to invest in the new generation aircraft of the 1970's. As my noble friend has emphasised, this capital investment in these new generation aircraft amounts to a considerable sum: I believe that for the second force it has been estimated at between £70 million and £80 million. Clearly, such an investment can be attracted into this second force only if it can be shown that it is a viable proposition.
The recommendation of the creation of the second force was partly motivated, or so we are told in the Report, by a sense of fair play—fair play, that is to say, to those independents who have ventured in the past in British aviation; who have risked capital to pioneer and build up the charter market. Fair play between the Air Corporations and the independents is, of course, a matter of considerable concern among the independents. So far as the independents are concerned, the Air Corporations appear to be rapidly declaring war on them. Not only do they apparently wish to block any encroachment into the scheduled service market, but they are now setting up to compete in the hitherto independent field of the charter market. Fair competition is something to which few of us would object; but, to the independents, commercial competition with the Air Corporations is very much a one-sided affair.
It is pointed out that the Air Corporations have a considerable pecuniary advantage—an advantage, for instance, in the writing off of over £2 million of accumulated losses over the last five years; an advantage in receiving capital loans at 5½ per cent. instead of at the market rate of, say, 12 per cent.; an advantage of receiving subsidies for operating British aircraft similar to those operated by the independents. Such a situation, which in practice amounts to a commercial feather-bedding of the Air Corporations, must be one good and sound reason to support the creation of the second force.
1100
The third major recommendation by the Committee, of the setting up of a Civil Aviation Authority, has already been dealt with in some detail. In general, the Committee's case for setting up this new central body to co-ordinate policy and prevent overlapping, appears, on the face of it, to be a very strong one. A strong aviation Authority, ready to negotiate international traffic rights, to promote British aviation, to co-ordinate the many and various airports and to include a strengthened independent A.T.L.B. within it, appears very attractive. The only doubt about this proposal which I now have, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and to his persuasive and powerful argument is whether the A.R.B. should be included in this new body.
The noble Lord's intervention this afternoon, which I am sure we all welcomed and valued, introduced what appeared to be two very powerful arguments in favour of retaining the A.R.B.'s independence. The first was its present financial independence and the value of that; and the second was the potential incompatibility between the technical and the economic functions. This latter argument is supported in practice by the Americans. I personally feel that both of those arguments have merit, and I trust that the Government will give careful consideration to what the noble Lord has said this afternoon.
The important and firm conclusions reached by the Edwards Committee about the charter market, the inclusive tour market, are obviously ones to which the Government must pay particular attention. As we see from various tables in the Report, the past growth rate in this area has been very rapid and the future growth looks all set to continue to spiral. If the Committee are right in their forecast this side of the industry will soon be vying with the scheduled services for a major role.
The Committee's proposals to allow a more liberal licensing policy while at the same time keeping out the undesirables by applying rigorously certain qualifications of financial strength and safety are, I believe, sound. The examination by the Committee of the workings of Provision I, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has mentioned, and the effect which it

1101
is now having on certain charter routes was perhaps a revelation to some of us who have never understood the finances of package tours. The suggestion to modify Provision I further, and even to abolish it on certain routes where the growth rate is at its greatest, is a suggestion which the Government must study with some care. The pitfalls of adopting such a course are obvious, but, equally, the benefits to the market and to the public will be very substantial.
The fourth major recommendation of the Committee, the development of the regional airlines for domestic routes under the umbrella of the B.A.S., is again a very important one. I like the concept of the regional airlines operating from local airports; but whether they should all be under the umbrella of the B.A.S. is, again, perhaps open to argument. I believe that the licensing must be strong, and a reasonable period of time—I suggest 10 years—is required in order to give the independent carrier a period of stability.
On the question of the unprofitable local services, the view of the Report that these should be operated with the help of an open subsidy from the public purse, and not hidden in cross-subsidies, will meet with many supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Enchrye, mentioned specifically the Highlands and Islands services, and, as we all know, he is a great supporter of helicopters. If those could be proved economic—and I must say that I was a little surprised when he said that the Isles of Scilly service is economic, because I understood that the North Sea gas contract—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I said that it made an operational profit, not an overall profit.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: In any case, my Lords, if helicopters could be proved economic, I am sure they would act as a very good substitute. But I wonder how often those helicopters will be able to operate in the Scottish mists in winter. I would favour the use of the Britten-Norman Islander on some of those routes, rather than the Viscount which B.E.A. at present operates and which for most of the year must be operating with a very low load factor.
I shall conclude by saying that, however the critics may describe the Report, it
1102
must be considered a most valuable analysis of civil air transport. It weighs up for us most skilfully the balance of choices in the various fields. It reminds us that the industry is both competitive and expanding. It exhorts us to have a clear but flexible policy. It exposes certain weaknesses in the system at present, and it makes certain other recommendations. But, above all, it reminds us, as other noble Lords have said, that the principal objective of the industry is that you and I together should be the people who matter. Along with others, I think that that is a very worthy objective.
5.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the Edwards Committee which laboured very hard and very intensively in this field, must be gratified at what has been said about the results of their labours; that is to say, of course. with the one possible exception of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. We have had a useful discussion, and I thank all noble Lords for the constructive attitude which they have displayed. May I also take this opportunity of expressing appreciation at the ready agreement which I received before we started, to the proposal that we should take the Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill formally, in order not to diffuse this debate, on the understanding, of course, that any particular points arising from that Bill can be raised at later stages.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, I myself have every reason to be satisfied with the way the discussion—and it has been a discussion rather than a debate—has gone. There have been differences of detail, with a different point of view about certain parts of the Report, but by and large we have all had the same general approach. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, emphasised what he called the open-mindedness of the Edwards Committee, which I take it is another way of saying what I said, that it is a fair-minded Report. I hope, too, that he will accept my point, that the very fair-mindedness or open-mindedness of the Committee, and the careful balancing of the arguments, means that it is a little more difficult to come Sown on one side or the other. It is only right, because of the details which they have exposed and the very careful and fair way in which they have balanced all the

1103
arguments, that there should be proper consideration before coming to any final conclusion.
I was especially interested in the support which the noble Earl gave to the idea of a new statutory Authority for decision-taking in the future in this field. I only wish the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had been here last night—if I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, for one moment—when we were discussing the new statutory Authority which we propose to establish in the Post Office, so that he might have lent us the benefit of his very weighty support in the arguments which I tried to advance against those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll.
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had something to say about the idea of back-seat driving in connection with this idea of a holding board over the present two Corporations. I quite agree with him. This is a criticism which can be sustained, and it is one which is now being put by a number of people and, of course, not least by the two Corporations themselves. On the other hand, I should have liked him to give some thought to the possibility of a holding board which was a true analogy to that existing in private enterprise: not back-seat driving by any means, not sitting in the sort of uncomfortable posture which he indicated, but quite potent people able to take decisions, able really to control the two executive divisions beneath them. This is another conception; this is a development of the idea of a holding authority. It is not one which necessarily commends itself to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, but it is one the merits of which I should have liked to have heard ventilated in this House.
The noble Earl looks rather puzzled. I was thinking of the possibility of a holding board composed in part of outside people, underneath which there would be two executive boards, two executive managerial teams, each with responsibility for a division which would be separately accountable and the results of whose work would be seen in the same clear way as that in which we can now judge the activities of B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. In this kind of set-up, the
1104
Hardies and the Milwards would sit on the holding board and not on the executive boards below.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he said I was looking puzzled. I am afraid that it was just the laborious process of thought working itself out. I had in fact given some consideration to the concept which he has advanced, but it seems to me that the analogy with private industry is not really accurate because if, in private industry, you have a set of companies with a holding company on top of it, that company is able to exercise authority. The trouble here is that there will be yet another authority on top of the holding board, and that will be the Minister. It will just be an extra washer, to use the term which I think Sir Anthony Milward has applied. But if it is not that, if it is going to be really potent, with potent people upon it, then I very much doubt that they will use the loose rein that Edwards has described; and it seems to me, then, that the logic of that would be working towards amalagamation—the amalgamation which Edwards has dismissed. It seems to me that there is a dilemma here, and you will sit on this dilemma as long as you have the board.
LORD BESWICK: There are complications here, I quite agree, and I am not suggesting that this is a proposal which is necessarily going to be followed up. I simply say that here is another possibility which one would have liked to have heard discussed in this House.
The noble Earl also had something to say about the possibility of the Corporations, in return for their stake in the inclusive tour field, giving up part of their scheduled routes. He seemed to think that it was proper, if the Corporations went into the I.T. field, that the tour operators should be allowed a share of the present or future traffic of the Corporations. I am not sure that this necessarily follows at all. Indeed, one of the points which comes out very clearly in the Report is that it is very difficult now to draw a clear dividing line between the charter field, the inclusive tour field, and the scheduled services. Another factor which also emerges from the Report is that those independent companies which concentrate exclusively on charter and inclusive tour work are

1105
in fact among the most profitable. So it is not necessary to compensate them, as it were, with scheduled services if the Corporations engage in the inclusive tour market.
But the point I make here—and it is one which I tried to make earlier—is that this is precisely the kind of thing which ought not to be decided in general in a Chamber of this kind, or even in a political assembly of any kind. This is precisely the sort of thing which ought to be looked at by professional people in the sort of atmosphere in which some people envisage the new Aviation Authority would operate. The decision should be taken on particular routes; not as a matter of political principle but as a matter of statistical judgment, as to what would benefit British air transport in relation to a given route.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, missed out of his historical account of the Air Registration Board the Helmore Committee, which was established just after the war to review the constitution of the A.R.B. I was hoping that he might have made some reference to that because I have such happy memories of sitting on it for some weeks; and since that time I have paid particularly close attention to the work of the Board over which he now presides.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I had to leave out many things or I should have been too long-winded; but it was the Helmore Committee which really stimulated the Air Registration Board into financial independence.
LORD BESWICK: I thought we had improved it to some extent. I doubt whether I can say more about the future of the Air Registration Board, and the noble Lord will quite understand. I simply say again that the considerations he put forward are very much in the mind of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and they will be taken into account before any decision is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was not quite so happy about the Report as a whole. He said he found the prospect of a Statutory Instrument to deal with policy in the future as quite appalling, and he asked to be excused from
1106
not using stronger language. He had no need to use stronger language. Both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and myself had said that we thought there were better ways to deal with this, and I think that on that point, at any rate, the noble Lord can rest secure. I was a little surprised that he should have gone on to say that there is an advantage in an organisation of the A.R.B. type because it makes a profit, as distinct (he said) from the Board of Trade, which did not make a profit. We shall bear in mind what the noble Lord says when we come to consider in the future Orders relating to airport charges. My recollection is that every time we have discussed these matters in the past the noble Lord has criticised any increase in rates. I take it that from now on if there is a claim for an economic charge he will support it.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, put the Corporations' case for separate identity very persuasively. I am not sure whether he gave sufficient weight to the arguments advanced by the Committee for the holdings board. Nevertheless, what he said on this matter will certainly be considered. He emphasised very forcefully the need for fair competition as between private enterprise operators and publicly-owned operators. Certainly I should not try to argue in favour of unfair competition; but the difficulty here, in the context of the national interest and the customer's interest, is to decide in any given circumstance what is fair and what is unfair. Here again I suggest to him and to the House that these are questions which can beat be examined by the proposed civil aviation Authority.
I should have liked to have heard a little more about the possible directive which might be given to the proposed C.A.B. This seems to me an important factor and it would have been good to have had a little more guidance on that. I should have liked to have heard views expressed about that. But, apart from that, I think that we have covered most aspects of the Report very fully and very fairly. Again, I offer my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who put down the Motion.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I will not stand between the House

1107
and further business for more than one moment. I wish only to thank those noble Lords from various quarters of the House who have taken part in the debate to-day and to say that one of the purposes of the debate has been fulfilled: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has heard a lot of different views, which is what he asked for. With regard to the other purpose of the debate, hearing what the Government have to say, my mind can only go to the words of that great statesman the leader of the silent and absent Liberal Party to-day: "Wait and see". My Lords, we wait and we hope we shall see. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
5.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Orders for committal to care of local authorities]:
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("(a)") to ("attains") in line 36, and insert ("when the person to whom it relates").
The noble Baroness said: Under the present law approved school orders run for three years if the boy is not above the age of 16. If he is above the age of 16 they continue until the age of 19. If under the present law a child is com-
1108
mitted under a fit person order to the care of a local authority that order expires when the child reaches the age of 18. The Bill abolishes approved school orders and fit person orders, and the Government have adopted the approved school precedent in fixing the duration of care orders. It would be far more sensible to terminate care orders at 18 with the possibility of extension as provided in Clause 21.
I would remind the Committee that only a few months ago the Government brought forward a Bill to lower the age of majority from 21 to 18 and to allow voting at 18. The case which the Government put forward for this was that to-day everyone is mature at 18. Yet they are now proposing that 18-year-olds should remain under the care of a local authority for an extra year, until they are 19. Quite frankly, it does not make sense to me. I hope that the Government will not quote the Latey Report in support of the strange things they are doing. The Latey Report stated that nothing that they recommended was to be taken as applying to the criminal law. What we are discussing has nothing to do with the criminal law; these are civil proceedings. This Amendment offers the Government a way of getting out of what will otherwise be an absurdity. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: There are two favourable features about the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Baroness. One is that it was moved with her customary brevity and the other that she gave me some engaging and helpful advice—advice which I do not intend to take. But I understand that we are dealing only with Amendment 28 and not with No. 29. Amendment No. 28 would telescope paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of this clause together to read:
"A care order shall cease to have effect when the person to whom it relates attains the age of eighteen".
As the Bill stands, Clause 20 provides that a care order made before the 16th birthday shall expire on the 18th birthday unless previously revoked by the court or extended by the court to the 19th birthday. The care order made after the 16th birthday lasts until the 19th birthday unless previously revoked. Under the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, a care order will expire

1109
on the 18th birthday even if made after the 16th birthday, unless extended under Clause 21(1).
A care order is not a sentence. Its object is care, treatment and control. This fact is basic to all the provisions of the Bill about care orders, including, in particular, Clause 20. Two important consequences flow from this basic fact. The first is that the length of time for which care, treatment or control under a care order is required is bound to vary from one case to another. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that it cannot possibly be foreseen with certainty at the time the order is made. It is essential therefore, in the Government's view, that the law should allow sufficient time for treatment, and sufficient flexibility to vary the actual length of each order according to the circumstances of the individual child. The whole of this Bill is geared to the needs of the individual child.
The agency made responsible for the treatment of the child must be given the necessary powers to carry out that responsibility in accordance with its assessment of the needs of the child. It cannot sensibly be made subject to the dictates of some outside body which has neither the responsibility for the care and control of the child nor the detailed knowledge of the child which is essential to the proper fulfilment of that responsibility. A court is not a treatment agency: its proper function is judicial—that is, to decide whether circumstances justify the making of a care order in the first place, and to decide whether to revoke the order if an application is made by the child, his parents or the local authority.
The short reason why this Amendment is not acceptable is that it is in conflict with this principle. It would make the care order less flexible and less apt for its purpose, and in this way would reduce the power of a local authority to do its job and to fulfil the responsibility placed upon it by the order. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the age of majority is now 18; that it has been argued previously that everybody is mature at the age of 18—the new age of majority—and the inference from that is that the maximum here should be 18, as she desires in her Amendment, unless extended under Clause 21(1).
1110
I can understand the noble Baroness hoping that the Government will not quote the Latey Committee Report, because that Report, far from supporting the point of view which the noble Baroness has put forward, is really against it. The Committee said:
"The general capacity of young people to order their own personal affairs should not affect the criminal or penal field since"—
and this is the important part of it—
"it is the irresponsible, the disturbed and the inadequate who become involved in anti-social behaviour and law-breaking regardless of chronological age."
The Government agree with this. The age of majority is not really relevant to the issues raised by this Amendment. The reasons why Clause 20 provides for a care order to last until the 19th birthday, if made at the age of 16, are clearly given in paragraph 34 of Children in Trouble. If the Bill did not provide this, a care order made when a young person was nearly 17 would last for only just over a year. I submit to the Committee that in many cases this just would not be long enough for the treatment which the child required. The length of treatment required does not automatically diminish as a young person approaches his or her 17th birthday; and if the aim of the care order is to provide the treatment required, which it is, and if that aim is to be realised, the law should allow at least two years in all cases.
The noble Baroness referred, quite properly, to the possibility of an extension under Clause 21(1). This could be done only in very limited circumstances, that is, the circumstances of a young person's mental condition or behaviour. They are the only circumstances in which Clause 21(1) allows a care order to be extended to the 19th birthday. I think it would be wholly wrong that this power should be widely, and perhaps improperly, used to secure extensions of care orders made after the 16th birthday, as would be the case it this Amendment were accepted. We submit that it is far preferable that the law should allow sufficient time for treatment in the first place.
It should be remembered that under the present law, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, a juvenile court dealing with a 16-year-old has the option of making an approved school order which I lasts up to the 19th birthday. Under

1111
the provisions of this Bill that option will disappear. One of the reasons for the very powerful general support which was expressed, in comments not only on the last White Paper and on this Bill, but on the first White Paper, for the idea of abolishing the approved school order, was the rigid time limit attached to approved school orders which have a fixed maximum term and a normal minimum. Provided that there are adequate safeguards—we believe that there are full safeguards—a more flexible care order is much preferable because it allows a longer period of care where necessary and also (and this is important) an earlier return home where justified as compared with the present approved school order.
Under Clause 21 the child, his parent or guardian, or the local authority may apply to the court at any time for the discharge of an order and may repeat the application after three months if it was not successful the first time. This is a safeguard which does not exist in the case of approved school orders. Another safeguard is contained in Clause 25(4) which requires a local authority to review the case of every child in care at intervals of not less than six months, and, if a care order is in force, to consider whether to make an application for the discharge of the order. Yet a further safeguard will be laid down in regulations made under Clause 41. They will require more frequent reviews where children are in secure accommodation and will require the reviews to be conducted by a committee containing at least one independent person.
Care orders under the provisions in the Bill as we have them will be a continuation of a well-established system under which many thousands of children have been dealt with over many years; and it combines the advantages of flexibility with built-in safeguards for the child and parents. I submit to the noble Baroness that this Amendment is not necessary as a safeguard and that, if accepted, it would reduce the flexibility of the care order and cut across the safeguards now in the Bill. In view of this careful explanation which I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: May I ask the noble Lord to clarify a
1112
point which he has just made? I think he said that the cases would be reviewed every six months. As he knows, when a child is put on probation the probation case committee reviews the case periodically during the course of the year. Can the noble Lord explain this to me? Will there be two types of reviewing committee? If a child is put on probation, will the probation case committee deal with the child? If the child is put direct under the supervision of the local authority, what reviewing committee will the local authority set up, and how will these two interact and work together?
LORD STONHAM: I was speaking just now of the approved school order and comparing it with the new system. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there will be an automatic review of the case of each child in care every six months and this will be conducted by the local authority.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Does that mean a special committee of the children's committee, or what sort of committee?
LORD STONHAM: It is a committee set up by the local authority which, as the noble Baroness surmises, will in all probability be a special committee of the children's committee. The exception to this will be when a child is in secure care under arrangements made or approved by the Secretary of State. Then in the case of a review there must be a totally independent person present, so that no child is kept in care of that kind unless the independent person is thoroughly satisfied that it is right.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder whether I may come back to the point which my noble friend has raised? I think she was referring to the fact that when children are placed under probation orders there is an automatic review, which I think involves the magistrates, but I do not know. I should like to bring to the attention of the noble Lord the procedure which obtains at present in Oxfordshire and which has been brought to my attention. It has, I think, a great deal to commend it. It is a procedure by which the child care officers and members of their staff meet at six-monthly intervals with the magistrates to review all fit person orders and supervision orders within their jurisdiction.

1113
Therefore, every child who has been placed under a supervision order or a fit person order under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court has his or her case subjected to a review which is a really independent review; it is not merely a review within the children's department or some internal review. It is a review by the magistrates and the children's department staff. I understand that this experiment has gone very well, and both sides have found it a very useful expedient. Could not this system be introduced and extended? It seems to me to have a great deal to commend it, and since we have reached this point I wonder whether the noble Lord could let us have his views on it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on the question of probation orders, which the noble Baroness introduced for the purpose of comparison (because under the Bill there will be supervision orders), it will be for the court to decide whether or not the probation officer is used as a supervisor.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? This is the point that troubles me. Paragraph 12 says that a child may be put under a probation order by the court only with the consent of the local authority—personally I think that that is a pity. but never mind. If that is the case, there will be two sets of review committees: the probation case committee of the probation office and the other. I should have thought that some sort of amalgamation, such as the noble Earl has suggested, is necessary.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think the Committee will agree with me that we are not on this point at the moment, but in any case I think the noble Baroness is wrong. The position under the Bill is that a child under 14 will be supervised by a probation officer only if the local authority consents and if that probation officer is dealing with the family now or has been dealing with it in the past. I cannot see how this question of who is supervisor affects the six-monthly review and the body by whom this review is conducted.
The noble Earl cited the Oxfordshire Committee. Certainly the local authority will be responsible for the new body,
1114
and I think we can be reasonably confident that it would not be just members of the children's department who would decide these things. I am glad to say that I know something of the quite remarkable work that has been done in Oxfordshire in recent years by the means which the noble Earl has described. He could hardly have raised a more "bull" point for the whole Bill than what has been achieved in Oxfordshire, where, precisely for the reason he stated, there has been a marked and steady drop in approved school orders made by the court and a corresponding marked rise in the work done by the care officers and the local authority. Obviously, this practice in Oxfordshire is excellent and must be studied by other local authorities, which, because of the results, ought to be predisposed towards it. But I have to say that the actual methods followed by individual local authorities are matters for the authorities.
This discussion does not seem to have much direct relevance to the Amendment which the noble Baroness moved. The issue is simply this. We want it to be possible, when a young person is just under 17 and a care order is made, for that order to continue to 19. The noble Baroness wants it to end in all cases at 18, subject only to the possibility of extension under Clause 21(1), which could be only because of the mental health or behaviour of the young person. We do not think that that extension is sufficient.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that I had made a "bull" point for the Bill, but I am not concerned with making "bull" points. I drew attention to what was being done in Oxfordshire because the noble Lord himself, in answer to my noble friend, raised the question of review machinery and agreed that it was useful. I raised it precisely because the noble Lord referred to all the safeguards and mentioned, in particular, that this six-monthly review procedure has been written into the Bill. What concerns us is whether these safeguards are adequate, because we doubt whether this is so with an entirely internal review of this sort. That is why I mentioned the procedure at Oxfordshire where the review is conducted by the staff concerned and the magistrates, thereby bringing in an outside independent body.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the care with which he has answered my Amendment. It was a probing Amendment. I was anxious to find out what was in the Government's mind about this point. To quote his own words, he gave it most careful consideration. I am most grateful to him, and now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.46 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 24, line 37, at end insert—
("Provided that no order shall remain in force for more than three years, but without prejudice to the power of the court to make a further order.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with the subject we have just been discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, congratulated himself and the Government on having been able to bring into the Bill a procedure which had the twin advantages of flexibility and adequate safeguards. I do not dissent from the first point. I think that this is a more flexible machinery, and provided that the safeguards are adequate, I am very much in favour of this. What worries me, and many other people, is whether the safeguards are adequate.
We must remember that as a result of this legislation care orders will be more frequent than in the past, and the range they will cover, and the responsibilities that will be placed on local authorities, will be wider. I am going to tread delicately here, and what I am saying is subject to correction; but my understanding of the position is this. Under the present position, which will obtain until this Bill becomes a Statute a child or young person can be sent to an approved school only if an approved school order had been obtained. In the case of a child or young person in care, if those supervising him find him too unruly, and that some other form of treatment is necessary; and if they come to the conclusion that the best thing is for that child to go to an approved school, there is no question of the child's going to an approved school without a further application to the court.
In future, of course—and I am not quarrelling with this—there will be no
1116
approved schools as such: they will be absorbed into the community school complex. But in practice, of course, they, or something like them, will for quite a long time still exist under another name, although not de jure or by name. Under the Bill as it stands, a local authority with a child in care would not need to obtain an approved school order, or to go back to the court, if it decided that a child entrusted to it needed more secure, more formal supervision. This is clearly implied in Clause 24(2), under which the local authority will not only have the power of a parent or guardian but will be able also to restrict the liberty of the child or young person concerned "to such extent as the authority considers appropriate". That is fairly wide phraseology. The local authority will be in a position to exercise these very wide powers for anything up to eight years. That is not a short period in a young person's life. What worries me is that it will rest largely with the local authority itself, within a department of the local authority, perhaps with one person, whether that child remains in care for the whole of that long period.
It is true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that under Clause 25(4) provision is made for six-monthly reviews of the case to be made to see whether a particular care order should be discharged. But I wonder whether this is really a sufficient safeguard. Most children's departments are extremely conscientious, as I know, speaking from personal experience, and so are almost all children's officers. But everybody in this world is fallible, and some people are less conscientious than others. Mistakes can be made—and we have all seen the Hammersmith case which was reported in the Press yesterday. There could be cases—I would not wish to put it higher than that—with this purely internal review procedure, in which the procedure for review could be operated in a purely mechanical and perfunctory way. Again, the children's officer concerned may well have an idée fixe about the children. It is not only children who get an idée fixe; adults do, too. They might judge that it was in the child's best interest to remain in care, when quite conceivably some other person, equally qualified, or perhaps more qualified, might take another view.
There is, indeed, another side of the coin. In certain cases a child may be

1117
remaining in care against the strong wishes of the child, and it might help the local authority to have the reinforcement of a further order. I know that an application to the court for the review of a court order can be made under subsection (2) of Clause 21 by the child, his parent or guardian. It was argued in another place—and the noble Lord has reverted to the argument—that this constitutes an additional safeguard. I recognise that it is some safeguard, but I wonder whether it is really a sufficient safeguard. Take the case of a child making an application. We all know that many children have a keen sense of justice—some of them, in fact, are embryonic barrack-room lawyers. Do we really expect every person affected in this way, placed under a care order, to carry the precise wording of subsection (2) of Clause 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in his head? One only has to ask the question to see the absurdity of it. Most of us in this House—and we have been looking at this Bill now for some time—have a great deal of difficulty in understanding all the provisions, and it is surely asking a lot of a child to carry them in his head.
Take an application by the parent or guardian. The noble Lord has argued that this again is an additional safeguard. I admit that it is. But is it a sufficient safeguard? The parent or guardian may have moved from the area, and may have forgotten all about the child. Indeed, even by definition, the parent or guardian concerned is likely to be an unsatisfactory parent or guardian; they may not care about the child, and even if it was in the child's best interests for that parent or guardian to make an application to the court for a review of the care order, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be done. I doubt, therefore, whether that particular safeguard is entirely adequate. Indeed, even with well-intentioned parents, they may not know their full rights here; they may not have it brought to their attention either by the child care officers concerned or by the magistrates (this does happen) that they have this right of application.
In these circumstances, given the number of child care orders which are likely to be enforced; given the range of treatment which they are likely to cover;
1118
given the fact that I cannot feel any certainty that the internal safeguard, she internal review procedure, is a sufficient one—and likewise I, at least, can feel no certainty that the safeguard of applications triggered off by the local authority, the child, his parent or guardian can, in all the circumstances, be a sufficient safeguard—is there not a case for an independent review at three-yearly intervals by an independent body? This would mean that the particular child concerned could not remain in care for more than three years without the local authority having to go back to make an application to the court. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to mow.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I should like to support the noble Earl in what he has said. Three years is a long time in a child's life. Cases occurred not so long ago of foster children who had been neglected. We know that the children's department is already overworked. Those of us who have had to deal with children know that the department will have to be reinforced strongly, and possibly with a rather different type of person from those they have at the moment. Until this is sorted out and one feels confident that the children's department is fully and properly staffed to carry out these duties, I should like to support the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved.
LORD STONHAM: May I first deal with one or two things which the noble Baroness has said. Surely she is aware that the relevant parts of this Bill will not be implemented until there is sufficient staff. We have given that assurance often enough. If the noble Baroness will study Clause 32 she will be fully aware of the answer to this point. I would deprecate what the noble Baroness said about additional staff, and perhaps not properly qualified staff.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I did not mean not properly qualified. I think everybody will agree that at the moment the children's department is largely staffed by women officers We shall have a great many naughty boys, and I should like to see a far greater number of men and married people recruited into the service.
LORD STONHAM: This sounds like a reflection on women officers, who are

1119
in the main dedicated people who do wonderful work; and it is against the trend. The noble Baroness mentioned naughty boys. We have a lot of naughty boys in detention centres—at the moment about 2,000 of them doing three months or six months. All the social workers in detention centres are women. We have some even naughtier boys up to the age of 21 in Borstal—nearly 6,000 of them—and, as the noble Baroness may be aware, we have recently decided not only to have women matrons and other women workers, whom we have always had in borstals, but also to have women governors of borstals.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am all for a mixed service, and in a service where there have been only men to import women is a very good idea. If there were only women, I should like to see more men employed—a mixed service. I make no reflection upon the present children's care officers, but I think they are going to have a very big, new and heavy responsibility put upon them. I want to be quite certain that the staff is adequate to the new responsibilities.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, yes, they certainly will have a very big and heavy responsibility put on them. The total trained staffs of the social services, which are being increased at a more rapid rate than ever before—the number of children's officers has been doubled in the past five years, an incredible increase, and the rate will increase relatively faster—will ensure that there will be the people to deal with the situation.
May I come back to the noble Earl's Amendment, and deal exclusively with that and with what he said about it, and with its effects. It may help if I read what the noble Earl wants to do. He wants to say:
"… in any other case, when that person attains the age of eighteen"
the order shall cease to have effect
"Provided that no order shall remain in force for more than three years, but without prejudice to the power of the court to make a further order."
The noble Earl made a very persuasive speech. He agreed that this Bill provided a more flexible machinery, but he said that what worried him was whether
1120
the safeguards were adequate. That worries a lot of people, and it is quite right that it should worry them and that it should be raised in this way. He said that under the existing system you could send a child to an approved school only with an approved school order. That is quite right.
What safeguards have we then? As the noble Earl is aware, the order can last up to the age of 19—I repeat, the age of 19—and there is only one appeal. The safeguards we have now are, first of all; appeals repeatedly and at any time. How much more valuable a safeguard there is in that! I wonder why noble Lords have not been worried about this matter which has been going on over all these years, of only one appeal against an approved school order. Now—and I should have thought this would have been welcome—we are bringing in a system whereby if a child is in a community home, of whatever kind, there is a review every six months, and an appeal virtually as often as you like, without limit. So far as the frequency of reviews is concerned, in the most important cases, although there will not be many of them, for children in secure care there is a review every three months, and an independent person—and it might be the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley—will have to be present to decide those cases. I do not want to name the kind of case, but it is in the minds of all of us here.
The other safeguard is the openness of care. Throughout the community care system there is a great openness—in approved schols, in all but a very few places. I am most concerned about this subject and about the kind of newspaper comment that I saw after our last discussion. I do not have the cutting in front of me, but I was particularly disturbed to see an editorial in the Daily Telegraph, which is a very great newspaper and has always very balanced and informed comment. At the end of the editorial it said something like: Under these new arrangements, once the local authorities get them, they just bung them anywhere. I am not quoting the Daily Telegraph; that is a paraphrase of what was said. It is both misleading and hurtful.
What happens? Take the Bill. A child is brought before the court and is thought to be in need of care. He

1121
can be brought before the court for one of five reasons. If the court decides to make an order, it has these alternatives: the order can ask the parent or guardian to enter into recognisances to take proper care of him—that means sending him home. It can make a supervision order. It can make a hospital order within the meaning of Part V of the Mental Health Act. It can make a guardianship order. All those four can be considered before the court makes a care order. I think it right to say that a court will only make a care order, which in normal circumstances would mean the child would be kept in a community home of one kind or another, if it thought it was necessary. That is not "bunging a child anywhere".
Then we come to the kind of community home. When I hear some of the discussions and read some of the comments I would almost imagine that the members of local authorities, the elected members, were some sort of ogres; that they did not care for the children in their care; that the local authority officials were looking for customers and that they could not possibly bear to part with one. In fact, all those that they can part with, in the sense that they can be released because they have improved, are successes. I do not deny that there is sometimes a misjudgment, but, please, just because we have a Bill in front of us which envisages changes, do not let us talk as if this great system, which has been built up over the years and is constantly being improved, was not somethings of which every one of us ought to be proud.
I would ask the noble Earl to consider this point first of all: the effect of his Amendment would be to parade all children in care, which means from the age of nought to 18, infants in arms, every three years before the courts. Does any of us want that? Does the noble Earl want it? Do you want to create this anxiety among the great majority of children and parents, 20,000 and more of them? We have 20,000 children in care now. Do we want to do all this just to catch one or two cases where a local court might take a different view from the local authority? Assuming they were likely to take a different view from that of the local authority, would they not he likely to do so if the parent, or the child, or the guardian appealed? They
1122
can appeal as often as they like—that is what the safeguard is for.
This Amendment would make a radical change in a system which has been operating very successfully for the past 36 years. A care order under tie Bill corresponds to a fit person order under existing law. There are well over 20,000 children in care under fit person orders, including a substantial number of offenders. Many are children with difficult behavioural problems, and a larger number are committed to care for their own care and protection. There is nothing in the experience of the past 36 years to justify restricting fit person orders to three years at a time.
This Amendment, if it were accepted, would limit all care orders in this way from the age of nought, and I cannot possibly see that this can be justified. If for one moment we thought it was necessary, of course we could have it; but this operates against all experience. Care orders under the Bill will be a continuation of this well-established system under which many thousands of children have been dealt with over many years. The care order combine, the advantages of flexibility with these built-in safeguards for children and parents which I detailed and which are far greater, far more effective, than any safeguards we have now.
I submit to the noble Earl that what is provided in the Bill is a very great improvement on the position we hove at present. The child who goes in future, as approved schools are being abolished, to what he calls the equivalent of an approved school, will, through its parents or guardian, have far greater safeguards against the danger he feared than have children who now go to approved schools So far as these children being "bunged" anywhere (as the newspaper said) is concerned, this is a reflection on everybody concerned. It is a reflection on the courts, which will first of all decide on the kind of order to make; and it is a reflection on the devoted people, voluntary and professional, who will have to make these decisions and decide where, and under what treatment, it is in the best interests of the child that he should be placed. I hope that when he considers what I have said the noble Earl will feel able not to proceed with this Amendment.
6.12 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: Although I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord's explanation, I cannot say that I am at all happy about the matter. Quite frankly, it seemed to me that a large part of what he was saying was addressed to an editorial in the Daily Telegraph rather than to a speech made by myself. The question of the contrast between the present position as affecting approved school orders and the position envisaged under this Bill was at the heart of a great deal of this discussion, I think. I would merely point out that of course a child can remain in care, as the noble Lord himself said, not for the eight years I have mentioned but for 18 years. An approved school order runs for only three.
The noble Lord then referred to the possible gravity of the consequences which lie behind all this. The noble Lord argued that my fears here were incorrect. I do not think they are, because what worries me is that, because of the flexibility which is being introduced (and I should not quarrel with that if the safeguards were there) the courts may well make a care order on a child envisaging some very mild form of treatment, certainly not envisaging the approved school type of treatment, and then for some reason or other—it may not be the child's fault; it may be due to the circumstances; he may not get on with a particular person who is supervising him—there may be an act of rebellion or something of that kind, and the local authority may decide that some far more strict form of supervision is required. In that event, unless the safeguards operate, the whole matter lies within the orbit of the local authority.
The situation then turns on whether the safeguards are adequate. Quite frankly, the noble Lord has not answered my fears here—that is to say, whether the necessary procedure operating the safeguards would be triggered either by the six-monthly review procedure or by the child itself, by the parent or by the guardians, let alone by the local authority, which was very much involved. For these reasons I confess that I am still profoundly unhappy about this particular issue.
One thing, however, inclines me not at the moment to press this Amendment. That is what the noble Lord has said
1124
about the fact that under the Amendment some 20,000 children would automatically, every three years, have their cases reviewed before the courts. That is something which I personally should not wish. What I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. Would he not at least consider introducing the additional safeguard which we are keen to have placed in the Bill, for children over a certain age? If that could be conceded, I personally, and I believe many of my noble friends, would be a great deal happier. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that between now and the Report stage he will consider some such additional safeguard.
LORD STONHAM: I feel strongly that this is not an issue on which the Committee should divide. I believe that we all want the same thing. I have tried to explain as well as I can how much better the Bill safeguards children than does the present position. As the noble Earl will appreciate, the difficulty of acceding to his suggestion lies in the Amendment which the noble Baroness moved a little earlier, by which in certain circumstances children had to be kept until they are 19—is something I have said not understood?
EARL JELLICOE: No; I was asking my noble friend why that was an added difficulty.
LORD STONHAM: Because the noble Earl suggested we might consider bringing in his suggestion at a certain age. Quite obviously, if we are in difficulty already when a child is made the subject of a care order just before it is 17, then we are in difficulty in bringing in what the noble Earl suggests at a certain age. I mention this now only as my first reaction to what he said. But certainly between now and Report stage I will look at what the noble Earl has said and let him know whether it is possible—and I can make no commitment about this—to meet him. If not, of course he will then be perfectly free to raise the matter again at a later stage of the Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that hedged-about offer. I realised that he was not in a position to say anything more at this stage. Certainly I am not anxious unnecessarily to press any matter to a

1125
Division, especially on a Bill of this nature. But I must again tell the noble Lord very frankly that I personally—and I suspect many of my noble friends feel the same—am not at all happy about this position; we are not at all certain that the safeguards are adequate.
It is true that radical changes are being made; and I am not necessarily objecting to that. But when we make radical changes we must be very certain of the effects of those changes. I am not myself by any means convinced that the effects of this particular change, with the added flexibility, have been sufficiently carefully thought through. It is certainly my present intention, if the noble Lord is not able to meet me between now and Report stage, perhaps with an Amendment of his own, to come back to this matter at Report stage with an Amendment which will be specifically directed at the upper age bracket. But, that said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Special provisions relating to interim orders]:
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert ("or (c) the court or justice has dispensed with the attendance of that person.")
The noble Baroness said: It is clearly necessary that where a care order, other than an interim order, is made the boy or girl should be before the court. However, in the case of interim orders attendance is not invariably necessary, because the court can reach a decision on information provided by the local authority, the police or any other authorised person. The provision in this clause merely reflects the existing law (which is Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963), but surely there is no reason why these provisions should not be made more flexible; because to sensitive children attendances before justices can be extremely unsettling. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is himself particularly sensitive to the effect upon children of certain proceedings, and I
1126
would ask him to give the most earnest attention to this Amendment.
Since it will be open to the courts to make interim orders in a wide variety of situations it should also be open to the courts to dispense with the attendance of children where circumstances make this desirable—for example, where routine inquiries as to the home background, the adequacy of the parents, and perhaps the medical history, are proceeding. Surely these are occasions when it may net be necessary to have a juvenile present at the court, and I hope that the Government will consider this possibility for the sake of the children themselves. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Baroness rightly said, I am very sensitive to the effect when any child is taken to court, and particularly if it is taken unnecessarily; and this is especially true in the case of a baby, which is virtually what this amounts to. But I would ask the noble Baroness to consider the position as we see it, and the effect of her Amendment. Subsection (1) of Clause 22, with which we are now dealing, requires a child or young person to be before the court which makes an interim order (we are talking only about maximum 28-day orders) unless the child is under live or cannot be present by reason of illness or accident. The Amendment moved by the noble Baroness would enable the court or the justice to dispense with the attendance of the child or young person in other circumstances, not specified, which seemed right to the court or to the justices.
There is nothing to prevent a court from making an indefinite number of successive orders, in the same way as, in criminal proceedings, the court can make an indefinite number of remands. There are two safeguards against the abuse of this power. One is the right of a person in custody to apply to a High Court Judge for release. So far as interim orders are concerned, this right is contained in subsection (4) of the clause. The second safeguard is that the person is present before the court. He (or his parents) can say to the court, "Is it not time that you came to a decision on this case?".
Under the Amendment the court could make an interim order for twenty-eight days and dispense with the attendance of

1127
a child or young person at the end of that time—this is the danger—when it could make a further interim order. The child or young person would have no opportunity to represent to the court that he should be released if the court was not then in a position to proceed with the case. This is the danger of the Amendment—a danger which I am quite sure has not occurred to the noble Baroness; otherwise it is not the kind of proposal that she would make. The child's only alternative would be to apply to a Judge of the High Court, which is a cumbersome and difficult procedure and ought to be used only when an application to the juvenile court has been refused.
Of course I agree that appearance in court is distressing and unsettling to most children—to all children, probably—and that is why the main object of the Bill, which I have stated many times, is to keep children out of court unless a court appearance is necessary. But surely everyone agrees that liberty should not be infringed without a court order, which is what the Amendment would allow. Liberty can be infringed without a court order: under the Amendment the court can merely renew an interim order without having the presence of the person concerned. We feel very strongly that interim orders should not last indefinitely, and that is why the Bill, like the existing law, provides for a limit of twenty-eight days. If this period of twenty-eight days can be extended from time to time without the child's appearing before the court then, in effect, the interim order becomes indefinite and the child or young person (or his parents) have no remedy except to apply to a High Court Judge. We do not think that this should be the law, and I am quite sure the noble Baroness does not think so, either. We consider that the existing exceptions, relating to children under five and children and young people who cannot be present by reason of illness or accident, go as far as is right. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel that the Bill is right and that her Amendment is not only unnecessary but undesirable.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I am once again most grate-
1128
ful to the noble Lord for having taken considerable trouble to make something clear to a non-lawyer, to a mother of children who might find one of those children being brought up before the court (though I think they have reached an age now when they are beyond that stage) for having made crystal clear the implications of this Amendment. My sole anxiety in moving this Amendment was to try to make it possible, as I said, for some of the more sensitive children to be excused from an appearance in court. However, I am quite content to accept the explanation which the noble Lord has given. I think I know him well enough to know that had there been any way of avoiding this situation he would have made it possible. While thanking the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: Amendment No. 29B is consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("young person") and insert ("person who has attained the age of fourteen").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Remand to care of local authorities etc.]:
LORD STONHAM: Clause 23 deals with the remand of young persons in criminal proceedings. Since children under 14 may be prosecuted for homicide it is necessary to provide for their remand and committal for trial. This Amendment No. 30, does this. The effect is that a child charged with homicide who is not released on bail will be committed to the care of the local authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, after ("court") insert ("—

(a) remands or commits for trial a child charged with homicide or remands a child convicted of homicide; or

(b)").—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Powers and duties of local authorities etc. with respect to persons committed to their care]:
6.30 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 28, line 21, at end insert—
("Provided in the case of a care order that no person's liberty shall be restricted under this subsection for a continuous period of more than seven days without the express permission of a juvenile court.")
The noble Earl said: The point to which this Amendment is addressed is fairly close to the one we discussed at some length just now. As I said then, under Clause 24(2) a local authority not only has the same authority over a child or young person under its care or control as the parent or guardian of the child, but also the power to restrict his or her liberty to such extent as the authority consider appropriate. Again we wish to strengthen the safeguards available for those persons who are subject to care orders. I should like to make it clear that I am not pro-court or pro-magistrates or pro or anti local authority in this matter in any way; I think I have already made clear my admiration for the work which the local authorities do in this area. Yet, as we all know, mistakes in human society do occur, and here we are dealing with a very delicate field of restriction of liberty. Parenthetically, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, when he replies, would tell us rather more about what is involved here: the type of case involved and the type of restriction of liberty to which this clause is addressed.
In dealing with this general point—although not with this precise Amendment—at the Committee stage in another place, the Under-Secretary who was in charge of the Bill said that the decision to move the person in care to secure accommodation would not necessarily or even usually involve keeping him there for more than a few days or even hours, and it was only a question of dealing with a sudden outburst. That I accept. I believe that emergency powers of this sort are necessary. Anyone who has been at all acquainted with these matters knows how a child can become suddenly very severely disturbed, and unless action is taken can do dam-
1130
age to himself or herself and can throw out of gear the whole operation of the community or home in which he or she may be. I quite understand the question of emergency action covering a few days or even hours, to quote the Under-Secretary's words.
But then he went on to say the t in a few cases the local authority may consider it necessary to keep the person in secure accommodation for a longer period, without specifying what that longer period might be; and it is that which concerns us. It is very close to the point we were discussing on Amendment No. 29. We feel that in such cases there should be a chance of an independent review, and this Amendment is designed to see that such a person could not be kept in secure accommodation and have his or her liberty restricted for more than seven days without a juvenile court specifically sanctioning it.
I know of the rights of appeal which exist, but I feel that they are not watertight, and I have yet to be convinced on that point. But I do not wish to dwell on this argument again. I am also aware of the safeguards which exist in Clause 41(2)(c), under which regulations will be introduced requiring the approval of the Secretary of State for the arrangements for secure accommodation. But those regulations, I should judge—I speak subject to correction from the noble Lord—will be really concerned with the conduct of the community homes or the secure parts of them; they will be concerned with their internal administration, and not with the safeguards involved. It is in order to reinforce the safeguards, which in this area we consider still to be too flimsy and inadequate, that we feel some such proviso as is proposed in this Amendment should be introduced into the new machinery. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl said, this Amendment is a further expression of the anxieties which have been expressed in our previous discussions about the safeguarding of the liberty of the subject and the feeling which at least some noble Lords have that the powers which the Bill gives the local authorities are excessive where they enable an authority to restrict liberty in the course of providing necessary treatment for a child who, by order of the court, has been committed to their care.

1131
The effect of the Amendment would be to make it impossible for a local authority to accommodate a care order child or young person in secure accommodation for longer than seven days without applying for and obtaining the permission of the juvenile court. The Bill as it stands makes the use of secure accommodation a matter for the local authority by giving them, under subsection (2) of this clause, express powers to restrict liberty without relying on the powers which it also gives to them to exercise the rights of the parent. The local authority are vested by subsection (2) with the same powers and duties with respect to the person who is in care under a care order as his parent or guardian would have but for the existence of that order, and the local authority may, even if a parent would have no such power, restrict the person's liberty to the extent which they consider appropriate, but subject to the regulations which will be made under Clause 41(2)(c) and (e) governing the use of the accommodation in community homes approved for this purpose. I appreciate that when we are talking of a clause which gives regulation-making powers it is not possible for us to have fully informed discussion without seeing the regulations, but I assure the noble Earl that it is my right honourable friend's intention to see that there are full safeguards in the matter.
But the chief issue in this Amendment is that it would destroy the main principle of the Bill, which is that a local authority should be fully responsible for the welfare and control of a child or young persons committed to their care. The children or young persons committed in this way will, of course, include some persistent absconders or some with such aggressive habits that the authority, unless they are free to place the child in secure accommodation, either cannot care for him at all, in the case of the absconders, or cannot protect others from injury, in the case of the aggressive ones. It is perfectly proper for a court to relieve the authority of responsibility by discharging the order.
I know the noble Earl said we have already been told about that safeguard; but it is there. It would be quite unreasonable and unworkable to give the authority responsibility by maintaining
1132
the order in force and at the same time to deny them the power to discharge it by overriding their judgment as to the measures called for in a particular case. The noble Earl is well aware from his own Ministerial experience of the crises, the difficulties, that occur, not only in the care of adults who are in custodial care but also with children in care, and this duty which he would place on local authorities, that they can deal with a child for only seven days without getting another order of the court, is going to raise acute difficulties. I submit that it is certainly not necessary, and certainly is wholly wrong, for the court itself to give a local authority this responsibility and this duty and then to override it in this way within seven days.
It is not as if there were no safeguards against the ill-judged or negligent use of powers by a local authority. The additional safeguard was added on the Report stage in another place, as the noble Earl is aware, at the behest of the Opposition, who expressed themselves well satisfied that this addition had been made. They particularly welcomed this in another place.
I would say to the noble Earl that the power that he now wishes to give the court is a power such as no court now possesses. I know that he will say that that is no reason why we should not start now. But if you are going to create a complete precedent in this kind of way there has to be convincing evidence that it is necessary. Care orders in future will apply to children and young persons who, under the present law, may be the subject of approved school orders, and eventually those under 17 who may be sent to borstal. Some approved schools and some borstals provide secure accommodation. When that accommodation is to be used in a particular case, or for a particular time, is not decided by the court. It is not decided by the court now. It is quite properly decided by the authorities responsible under the court order for the welfare and control of the child who is the subject of the order.
As I said in a previous discussion, the subject of a care order under this Bill will have more rights than the subject of an approved school or borstal order; namely, the right to apply to the court for the discharge of the order. I regret that once more I cannot accede to the noble

1133
Earl's argument, but I feel that there is good reason for not doing so.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Can my noble friend tell me, in all the years that local authorities have been looking after children in their care, whether there ever have been any difficulties arising from lack of an arrangement such as this?
LORD STONHAM: In answer to my noble friend, I may say that during my own years as a Minister I have come across cases of children in approved schools who I think have been there far longer than they need have been, and they have then been released. But I must remind my noble friend that as of now there is only one appeal for release from an approved school. When this Bill becomes law, there will be not only the six months' review, but appeals without limit, which of course is the safeguard.
6.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I seem to be having a bad day with the noble Lord to-day because he keeps expressing the hope that I will he satisfied with his explanation, but—this sounds awfully churlish—once again I am forced to say that I am not satisfied with the explanation. I was anxious to learn what was really involved here. This I have not yet got at because the Under-Secretary in another place said that the type of restriction of liberty concerned would not necessarily or even usually involve keeping the person concerned restricted for more than a few days, or even a few hours. I was wondering what form of restriction was involved, in what type of community home; how often there would be cases in which there would be a longer period envisaged, and in what type of accommodation that would be. It is most important for us to know what we are talking about. If we are talking about locking up a young person for two or three years, and that power is being vested subject to the safeguards—which I think are too flimsy—in a local authority without any reference back to a court, then I am seriously disturbed, and I remain seriously disturbed. And the noble Lord, in failing to respond to my invitation to let us know more about what was really involved in practice, has not alleviated my disquiet.
He again referred to the fact that at the present time the authorities in approved
1134
schools or in borstals have the power to confine those in their charge in specially secure accommodation. Of course, both he and I know that that is the case. But this does not really meet the point which worries us at the present time, because to me it seems possible that a court may make a care order on a young person or a child appearing before it, thinking it may have been marginal whether a care order would be appropriate in the circumstances, or whether it should be a recognisance under subsection (3)(a) of Clause 1 or a supervision order. These things can often be marginal—thinking that some quite mild care regime is all that is required, and not envisaging for a moment that the result could be that the child or young person concerned could have his or her liberty restricted for a period of years.
It turns of course on whether the safeguards are adequate. Here, at the risk of wearying the noble Lord, I must say that I have yet to he convinced that these safeguards are adequate. I only hope that when he reads the inadequate remarks which I must have made in that respect in addressing myself to the previous Amendment, Amendment No. 29—I know how thorough he is in following up these matters—some slight shade of doubt may cross his mind as to the amount of adequacy there is in these safeguards. I ask the noble Lord to do that. But because this Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 29, and in the light of the highly qualified assurance which I received from the noble Lord on that Amendment that he would half consider it between now and the Report stage, I shall once again give him the benefit of the doubt and not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I remind him that I did mention the regulations to be made under Clause 41. Under the regulations proposed to be made for secure accommodation, short-term locking up will be limited to seven days; but for longer periods express permission in writing will have to be obtained. As the noble Earl is aware, this long-term custodial care (I will call it that for the moment) would have to be reviewed every three months, with independent participation. May I just add this? Of course the noble Earl is absolutely right that, with the great majority of children in

1135
respect of whom a care order is made, there will be no question of what the world would understand as "locking up". A great many children will be with foster parents; some will be in special boarding schools; others will be in the wide variety of community homes that we already have—though they do not call them "community homes"; cottage homes under a house mother, and so on.
I would also remind the noble Earl, since he is quite rightly thinking of the more serious cases—the minority: the more difficult cases—of a discussion in a debate we had some 18 months ago about approved schools. That was, of course, long before this Bill was introduced. In that debate I outlined our thinking on approved schools, and pointed to the fact that at present in quite a number of approved schools—perhaps most—we have a minority of exceptionally difficult children, disturbed children, who of course have a bad effect on the remainder, and that it was rather hoped that we could have a few special schools with special treatment for children of that kind. We shall hope to achieve that objective through the regional committees.
Much accommodation, of course. will be supplied by local authorities in their own areas and in their own right, but in the more rare types of accommodation it will be for these regional committees to consider what is to be provided. When we talk of secure conditions I am not thinking only of, perhaps, the one or two notable homicides; I am thinking also of the rather larger, but still relatively very small, number of seriously disturbed children for whom special arrangements will have to be made. This is the kind of thing we have in mind, and it will be for the regional committees to get together with their local authority constituents, make their plans, and submit them to the Home Secretary for approval. This is the kind of set-up that we envisage.
EARL JELLICOE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that further information which, after some gentle teasing, we have elicited from him. I should like to ask him one question on what he has said about the range of people in secure accommodation which is envisaged. Does he envisage that children or young persons who require restrictions on their
1136
liberty (and I am now talking about the really disturbed young people who need special treatment) would be able, under this particular clause of the Bill, to be transferred to the special psychiatric units to which we referred at Second Reading?
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the further information about the sort of regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under Clause 41(2)(c), but I am afraid I did not fully catch the import of what he said. I think he said that for short-term confinements, as it were, nobody could have his or her liberty restricted for more than seven days without some express permission.
LORD STONHAM: Without written authority.
EARL JELLICOE: Without written authority, and that for a longer period there would have to be some review with independent participation. Could the noble Lord let me know who would give that permission when it is a question of the short-term restriction, and what form of independent participation is envisaged?
LORD STONHAM: The local authority would have to give written permission for longer than seven days. As regards the independent participation in a review, this is written into the Bill and it is a three-months interval. There is no dubiety about that at all; this is in relation to secure conditions.
I confirm what the noble Earl said about admission to special establishments, but that admission is only with the agreement of the Secretary of State, so there is that very implicit control. So far as the extreme cases are concerned, we are dealing with very small numbers. I can think of only two girls, two children, in such accommodation at the moment. There are rather more boys, but we are, as I say, talking in terms of just a handful of children. The fact that there are only a handful is no reason why they should not have complete safeguards. But the noble Earl will agree that if psychiatrists and everybody else feel that these children should be in secure accommodation (this does not mean unpleasant accommodation, or anything like that) they should not be free to walk out at any time, though even in that accommodation they do go outside.

1137
In fact, the very case I am thinking about—a recent case—concerns a boy who had improved, and of whom everybody had high hopes. He had not left the place, but he was on an outing, and he just "pushed off". This is the kind of thing that happens. If I have given the idea of something like a grim fortress from which there was no egress, I must make it plain that this just is not the case. The treatment is always the same; it is all given in the hope that the children can be released as stable and useful members of society.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the further explanations he has given, and in view of them and in view of what I have previously said, but reserving my right if I am not satisfied on reading our discussion, to come back to this on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
Clause 26 [Detention of child or young person in place of safely]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 30, line 32, after ("warrant") insert ("otherwise than for homicide").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32. With this Amendment I would ask your Lordships to consider Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36. All these Amendments deal with children charged with homicide. A child under fourteen arrested for an offence is dealt with in Clause 26(4). If he is not released the police are required to arrange for his detention in a place of safety. Except in a case of homicide, any proceedings brought will be care proceedings, and when the child appears before a court, if the court does not release him, the court will make an interim order. Clause 27 deals with the arrest of young persons for an offence. Since proceedings will normally be criminal proceedings, the clause provides that if they are not released they are to be brought before a court, with a view to remand. The object of the Amendments is to exclude children under 14 arrested for homicide from Clause 26 (which is appropriate to
1138
care proceedings) and include them in Clause 27 (which is appropriate to criminal proceedings). This is a consequence of retaining the prosecution of children under 14 for homicide. As regards the places in which children can be detained, as opposed to the circumstances justifying and the authority for detention, there is no significant difference between the two clauses.
The first Amendment, No. 32, excludes children arrested for homicide from Clause 26(4). The second Amendment removes the reference to a belief that a child has committed homicide from the grounds on which the police may authorise detention in a place of safety in Clause 26(4)(b). The opportunity has also been taken to remove the reference to "a grave crime" and substitute a reference to the nature of the alleged offence. The third Amendment excludes a child arrested for homicide from Clause 26(5), which deals with the period of detention in a place of safety. The fourth and fifth Amendments apply Clause 27 to children arrested for homicide. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This seems to be a fairly clear straightening-up and transposition of these provisions from one clause to another, and there are only two points which I should like to make. The reference to "another grave crime" must, I think, be, among other things, a reference to the crimes for which long periods of detention can be imposed upon children under the 1933 Act. I think the noble Lord suggested on Monday that it was only homicide that was left in this category, but he is not right. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm still comes into this category, and this is a matter to which I think we shall have to revert at the Report stage. I am sure the noble Lord did not intend to do it purposely, but he suggested that it was only in cases of homicide that there were special powers to deal with children, and I do not believe that that is an altogether accurate description of the situation. So I should like to come back to that at another time.
My other point is simply one of drafting. If your Lordships will look at Clause 27(1), you will see that the Amendment will insert another paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), so that we shall have two

1139
sets of paragraphs (a) and (b). I do not think that is altogether felicitous. It is going to make references rather difficult, and it may be that this confusion can be dispensed with by some other method of drafting, or by changing the lettering in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord would look at this point, because it seems to be slightly less evident than is usual in cases of this sort.
LORD STONHAM: I was thinking only this afternoon that it might save a lot of time if the noble Viscount could have a talk with the draftsmen before I table Amendments. This is in relation to a matter which he raised the other night, on which I quite agree with him. But on the first of his points, I do not think the position is quite as he stated it. In fact, my noble friend Lord St. Davids raised a similar point, about which I am writing to him, and I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is quite correct. But as these legal points are rather difficult, I would rather not be committed now and would ask him to let me look at this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to ("make") in line 40 and insert ("considers that he ought to be further detained in his own interests or, in the case of an arrested child, because of the nature of the alleged offence,").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 2, after ("warrant") insert ("otherwise than for homicide").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Release or further detention of arrested young person]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 18, leave out ("appearing to be a young person").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, after ("court") insert ("then if either—

(a) he appears to be a child and his arrest is for homicide; or

(b) he appears to be a young person and his arrest is for any offence,").—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question. Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD STONHAM: Such is the speed and efficiency of the Department which I have the honour to represent that I can tell the noble Viscount now that the present paragraphs (a) and (b) in Clause 27(1) will become sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), and that this can be done as a matter of reprinting. Another victory!
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transitional modifications of Part 1 for persons of specified ages]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 36A, which is consequential.
Amendment moved
Page 36. line 4, leave out ("22(5) or")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 36B.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 8, after ("that") insert ("section 22(5) of this Act shall have effect as if for the reference to the age of fourteen. or")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Approval and variation of regional plans]:
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved Amendment No. 36C.
Page 40, line 35. at end insert—
("( ) Before agreeing to any modification pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to the effect that a community home should be provided by any of the relevant authorities or that a voluntary home provided by a voluntary organisation should be designated as a

1141
controlled or assisted community home, the committee shall obtain the consent of the authority or voluntary organisation by which the home is or is to be provided and, in the case of a home which is to he designated as a controlled or assisted community home, the consent of the local authority which it is proposed should be specified in the instrument of management for the home.")
The noble Baroness said: Un till now, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has been playing the part of the lady in the famous duet, who constantly replied, "Oh, no John, no John", and I am hoping that the moment is coming when, perhaps, we are going to get an affirmative rather than a "No", because this Amendment is really a machinery Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I have said "Perhaps" once or twice.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: In respect of the community home system, it is the intention of the Government that no local authority or voluntary body will be required under a regional plan to undertake an obligation to provide a home unless that authority or voluntary body has previously agreed to accept the obligation. Clear provision is made in subsection (5) of Clause 34 that before any obligation is inserted in an original plan the authority concerned shall have agreed to accept the obligation.
Clause 35(1), as drafted at present, does not seem to make it clear that a regional committee, after submitting a plan, must again obtain the consent of authorities or voluntary bodies before agreeing with the Secretary of State upon a revised scheme which alters obligations. If he proposes any modifications which place a new positive obligation on individual authorities, it is essential that a regional planning committee should not agree until the local authority or voluntary body concerned has agreed. This Amendment is designed simply to ensure that regional planning committees obtain the consent of authorities and voluntary bodies to any modification which imposes obligations, in the same way as subsection (5) of Clause 34 places a duty on the regional planning committees to obtain the consent of authorities and voluntary bodies before submitting their original development plan. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Baroness made clear, this Amendment concerns the effect of modifications to
1142
the plan made by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the planning committee, as envisaged in subsection (1) of Clause 35. I know that the Amendment has powerful backing, because it is desired by the Association of Municipal Corporations. But, despite that, I have to say that it is superfluous, because it is clear from the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 34—the clause which we have just agreed to—that the duty of the committee to obtain the necessary consents from individual local authorities and voluntary organisations relates to any original plan. Consents in relation to further regional plans are governed by Clause 35(5)(c).
There could be no question of the Home Secretary making a modification to a plan which materially altered the liability of an individual local authority or voluntary organisation to provide or manage a home, without the committee having obtained their consent to this variation in their liability. But I can give your Lordships an assurance that, in view of the doubts expressed and in view of what the noble Baroness has said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will advise the committees on this point in a special circular. So I feel that, in any case, the point of the noble Baroness is fully met and that the Bill is adequate.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I am most grateful for that assurance from the noble Lord. I am still hoping that the moment is going to come when I shall hear "Yes", rather than a suggestion that all is well, without being quite so firm as an affirmative. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Provision of community homes by local authorities]:
7.10 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved Amendment No. 36D.
Page 40, line 39, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("take all reasonable steps to provide that home and to manage, equip and maintain it.")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, again, is a piece of machinery. As the clause is drafted at the moment, the

1143
duty of a local authority to provide a community home once a regional plan is in operation is an absolute one. Authorities are not likely to try to evade an obligation which they have freely undertaken, but an obligation expressed in absolute terms may raise legal conflicts. For example, an authority may agree with a regional committee to provide a home of a certain size in a certain place and then, through no fault of its own, may fail to acquire the land or fail to obtain consent to borrow the money. The application might have been accepted originally on the assumption that the necessary land could be acquired by agreement. If that assumption turns out to be false, the authority should not, because of what is said in Clause 36, be obliged to make a compulsory purchase order.
There is the added difficulty that where an authority is obliged to make a compulsory purchase order with the object of discharging the duties set out in Clause 36 the Home Secretary, as confirming authority for the compulsory purchase order, may be in a difficult position because he will be aware that the duty to provide is an absolute one, unless, of course, the original plan is amended. Clearly, original plans can always be amended, and no doubt will be whenever obligations cannot be carried out. But obligations which may depend for their success on being able to acquire land or raise money should not, I submit, be expressed in absolute terms in an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I, too, wish I could have the pleasure of accepting an Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, but the time is not yet. The only thing I can suggest is that we might get together and draft one between us. That might stand a better chance—but I am afraid I cannot accept this one. I know that the Association of Municipal Corporations think that this clause is drawn too tightly because it imposes an absolute duty on a local authority to provide and manage a community home—and I would ask the noble Baroness to mark this—which it has previously consented to provide and manage under subsection (5) of Clause 34, and which has been included in an approved regional plan. We are talking about something that the local
1144
authority has already approved; and it is already in an approved regional plan. In a sense it is their home, although it does not perhaps yet exist.
I think that perhaps the anxiety which has been expressed so clearly by the noble Baroness is based on a misunderstanding as to the intended form and content of regional plans. Discussions have not started yet, but discussions will be held on this subject with the local authority associations, including of course the Association of Municipal Corporations, a little later this year. We do not expect any conflict to arise between the regional plan and the local authority's duty to provide a new home because of, for example, a failure to obtain planning permission or to obtain a compulsory purchase order or to obtain loan sanction—all of which, as the noble Baroness is aware, may be beyond the local authority's control. If they cannot get these things and they cannot provide the home—very well; they cannot provide it.
As regards the provision of new homes and facilities, the plan is expected to deal with the following matters: the nature and purpose of the new home: its probable location if no site is available, and its actual location if a site with planning permission has already been acquired; and the target dates for its construction and bringing into use. There is of course an inevitable time lapse, often of several years, between the time of deciding to provide additional facilities and the time when the facilities actually come into use. It could not be argued that a local authority was in breach of a statutory duty simply because something they had agreed to do was not provided immediately—or, it may be, cannot be provided at all—for reasons beyond the local authority's control.
Clause 36 is merely the local authority equivalent of Clauses 37 to 40 in their application to voluntary homes. In both cases it may turn out that something frustrates the execution of some provision in the original plan, and to this extent the plan may eventually have to be altered. Nevertheless, there are no grounds for qualifying the duty of local authorities to provide, manage, equip and maintain their own homes—because, after all, it is their own homes that they are worried about. But I think that if any anxieties linger, even after what I have

1145
said, they will most certainly be resolved as soon as we have our discussions with the local authority associations.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and in view of his assurance that authorities will be expected to do only those things which are within their own control, I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Discontinuance by voluntary organisation of controlled or assisted community home]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 49, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the Secretary of State may by order direct that for the purposes of any provision specified in the direction and made by or under any enactment relating to community homes (other than this section) the home shall, until the date or earlier date specified as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) of this section, he treated as an assisted community home or as a controlled community home. but except in so far as the Secretary of State so directs, the home shall until that date be treated for the purposes of any such enactment as a community home provided by the local authority;")
The noble Lord said: This new, alternative paragraph is a minor Amendment to the provisions which apply when a voluntary organisation whose premises are being used as a community home, controlled or assisted, give notice to withdraw the premises from the community home system and the managers declare that they wish no part in the management of the home during the period of notice. In this situation, subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to require the local authority to manage the home during the period of two years' notice, or a shorter period if that would be appropriate, as a local authority home.
The Amendment inserts a new paragraph (b) in place of the present one. The effect is to make clear that a voluntary community home which is being temporarily managed as a local authority home (the voluntary organisation having given notice that it is quitting the com-
1146
munity home system) may continue to be treated as an assisted or controlled home in such respects as the Secretary of State may direct. This provision might be used, for example, to enable building work, which the voluntary organisation had undertaken under promise of a grant under Clause 62(1), to be completed. If the home were treated in all respects as a local authority home, a grant under that clause could not be made, so they would lose money. I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I found the clause rather difficult to follow and I certainly found the Amendment rather difficult to follow, but in this case I have not found the noble Lord at all difficult to follow. I find his explanation entirely satisfactory.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Provision of accommodation and maintenance for children in care]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, to leave out "60 of this" and insert "61 of that". I could not resist reading that out. I immediately thought that this amounts to "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." And that is precisely correct. This is a drafting Amendment. The reference should be to Clause 61 and not 60 of the Bill, and since Clause 47 contains a new Section 13 of the Children Act 1948 a reference therein to a provision in the Bill cannot be a reference to "this Act". I am only sorry that the noble Viscount did not see it first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 10, leave out ("60 of this") and insert ("61 of that")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Accommodation of persons over school age in convenient community home]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JELLICOE: I am not quite certain of the effect of the new clause. There are a couple of points on it that I should like to ask the noble Lord about. He will recollect that we discussed the question of hostel accommodation for young people at Second Reading and the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, replied to that point. I believe that this is a serious lack in some places; but I know there is a difference of opinion as to precisely how serious that lack is—although I am glad to say that the provision of hostel accommodation for young people by local authorities is increasing. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this sort of hostel accommodation will be available to young persons who are not in care as well as to those who are in care, and whether provision for hostel accommodation—and I assume that this will be the case—will be included in the planning of the children's regional planning bodies.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this point. I will tell him at once that Clause 48 in this Bill replaces the present Section 19 of the Act of 1948 which is the section which empowers local authorities to provide hostels for certain purposes.
We require a clause of this kind because it is a principle of the Bill that a single statutory class of residential establishment community homes should supersede the various classes of establishment which at present have separate statutory existence. It is the case that under Section 1 of the 1963 Act persons not in care may use Section 48 accommodation (as it will be now) as well as people in care. I did not complete writing the noble Lord's last question when he sat down.
EARL JELLICOE: I understand that the children's regional planning committees will have a whole range of accommodation under the Bill——
LORD STONHAM: I remember the question. The existing Section 19 of the 1948 Act requires the Home Secretary's approval to the provision of hostels under that section and the new Section 19 does not have any analogous requirement since the relevant regional plan will have specified the nature and purpose of each community home and the proposals contained in the plan will have the approval of the Secretary of State. So these hostels for
1148
young people up to the age of 21, whether or not they have been in care, will be included in these plans. I think that will he extremely satisfactory for all of us.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Extension of disqualification for keeping foster children]:
7.26 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This is a minor Amendment to rectify an omission. It prohibits a person who has been refused registration of any premises under Section 1(3) of the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948 from maintaining foster children unless he has disclosed this fact to the local authority and obtained their consent.
Section 6(e) of the Children Act 1958 already requires the disclosure of the cancellation of the registration of any premises under Section 1(4) of the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948 and it is desirable that the local authority should also know whether registration was refused in the first place. Such a refusal is not a complete bar to the keeping of foster children but necessitates the local authority's consent to the keeping of foster children. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 5, after ("offence";") insert—
("( ) in paragraph (e), after the word "subsection" there shall be inserted the words "(3) or") and for the words from "refusing" onwards there shall be substituted the words "refusing, or an order under section five of that Act cancelling, the registration of any premises occupied by him or his registration";").—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is just a drafting Amendment, as I appreciate. I think that Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are consequential upon it in the Keeling Schedule. Is that not so? I wondered whether anybody had complimented the noble Lord on the Keeling Schedule. If not, I should like to do so now, as it happens to be a thing upon which I am particularly keen. I think that these Keeling Schedules, nuisance though they may be with consequential Amendments, are of great value. The Keeling Schedule is cross-referenced as being applied by Section 68(4). The reference now should be

1149
69(4). There is a small mistake in the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful. In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I wonder whether I can include Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 in this discussion so that when we come to them there will be no further discussion. This reinforces what I said earlier, that the noble Viscount must really come at an earlier stage of these proceedings so that we can get these things right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This new clause is designed to apply the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 to certain offences concerning children. I have a speech to make here which is some seven pages long. Unless the Committee want me to do so, I do not propose to make it at all; but merely to beg to move Amendment No. 39A.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Extradition offences
".—(1) There shall be included—

(a) in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870; and

1870 c. 52.

(b) among the descriptions of offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967,

1967 c. 68.

any offence of the kind described in section 1 of the Act of 1933 (which relates to cruelty to persons under sixteen) and any offence of the kind described in section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.

1960 c. 33.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as derogating from the provisions of section 17 of the said Act of 1870 or section 16(2) or 17 of the said Act of 1967 in their application to any provisions of those Acts respectively as amended by the preceding subsection."

—(Lord Stonham.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The last thing I want to do is to hold up the Committee stage. But may I ask the noble Lord to read the conclusions on the last page or something like that? It is a somewhat unusual thing, I believe, although it does happen from time to time, to introduce new offences into the Fugitive Offenders and Extradition Acts.
1150
I know it occurs from time to time, but I think it perhaps requires the briefest possible explanation.
7.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I cannot read the last page because it says, "For use if raised". But this is a splendid Amendment and I would have explained it at greater length but for the last minute note from the Box to the effect that "Only the first paragraph matters—do not read the whole speech". I had decided before that that it was an excellent Amendment which we should both have enjoyed.
The first subsection of the new clause refers to offences relating to children and young persons. The first is an offence of the kind described in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and it applies to:
"any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
It then goes into detail and provides:

"(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or alternatively or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months;

(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor;"
It is of course a very old Act. It continues:
"(b) where it is proved that the death of an infant under three years of age was caused by suffocation (not being suffocation caused by disease or the presence of arty foreign body in the throat or air passages of the infant) while the infant was in bed with some other person who has attained the age of sixteen years, that other person shall, if he was, when he went to bed, under the influence of drink, be deemed to have neglected the infant in a manner likely to cause injury to its health.

1151
(3) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—

(a) notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health, or the likelihood of actual suffering or injury to health, was obviated by the action of another person;

(b) notwithstanding the death of the child or young person in question."

That is what I might call the 1933 Act part of it. The second offence is of the kind described in Section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. That provides that:
"any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a terra not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both".
This offence is analogous to the offence of indecent assault which is already an offence under the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. Subsection (1) of this new clause refers to offences of the kind described in the relevant enactment and I think that the noble Viscount will be very interested in this particular point, as I was myself. The reason for using these words is that the offences need to be identifiable not only for the purposes of our law but for the purposes of other laws as well.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is the point.
LORD STONHAM: Both for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 and the Extradition Acts it is necessary that the offences should be applicable to the laws of British Dependencies. Accordingly it would not be possible to refer in the Bill to the offences created by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960, because British Dependencies will have similar, but not the same, legislation. The wording of the new clause overcomes this difficulty by referring in a generalised way to these offences.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Perhaps I may cut the noble Lord a little short here. I am entirely following him, and indeed on subsection (2) of the new clause I am perfectly content. I understand it very well. What I am interested in was the first offence under
1152
the 1933 Act and I want to know whether there are, as it were, reciprocal offences in a large number of other countries which cover the same sort of ground. I should have thought that here we had a rather particularised offence and I wondered whether there were parallel offences in the various other countries with which we have extradition treaties.
LORD STONHAM: Most certainly there are. They would not be in the same language—they are not in the same Acts of Parliament. The language is rather archaic in our 1933 Act. Obviously it stems from earlier Acts. But certainly there are comparable offences in other countries and I am sure that the noble Viscount will remember our discussions about the Fugitive Offenders Act which were led, for the Opposition, by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. What it really means is that if people abuse, neglect or hurt children, or commit acts of indecency with them in the manner described, and then they go abroad, if we find them, wherever they are, we can "yank" them back and punish them accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Contributions in respect of children and young persons in care]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 39B:
Page 61, line 40, leave out from second ("amount") to end of line 2 on page 62 and insert ("which will represent the average weekly cost to the local authority of maintaining all children and young persons who are in the care of that authority provided that the maximum contribution shall not exceed the actual cost of maintaining the particular child or young person if in respect of that child or young person the actual cost is less than the average cost.")
The noble Earl said: I must detain your Lordships for a minute or two on this Amendment, which the noble Lord may recognise as being of particular interest to the Association of Municipal Corporations. It refers to what parents should be asked to contribute, or should be expected to contribute, when a child is in care of a local authority. As I understand the present position, there is no maximum contribution laid down, although in practice the contribution orders are usually for pretty small amounts because most of the parents of

1153
children in care are people without very large means. The cost of keeping a child in residential care may be very high—it can be anything ranging from £10 to £20 a week—and the Bill would, as I read it, lay down that the parent would be expected to contribute only the same amount as if the child were boarded out. What foster-parents receive is a pretty small sum—for historical and understandable reasons which go back to the fears of society about baby farming. As a result, I think the average boarding out payment is in the range of £3 10s. 0d. to £5 a week. This would be the yardstick written into the Bill, and that is what worries some people including the Association.
When this matter was discussed in another place the Under-Secretary in charge of the Bill resisted an Amendment similar to this. The basis of his argument was that, because a parent of a child in care had no control over the decisions of the local authority, or of the expenditure incurred on behalf of his child, it would be quite wrong for him to be charged with the cost of treatment which he had no part in choosing. I would straightaway grant that there is some force in that argument. But I should like to point out that the Amendment does not suggest that parents should be charged unlimited sums, but only that they should be charged a maximum based on the average cost of children in care of a local authority; and with the proviso that, where that average cost is not exceeded in a particular case, the smaller sum should be paid.
It is possible that there are already children in care, and children who will be coming into care, from richer homes, with parents who could well afford to pay a great deal more than the standard which is in force. If that is the case, it seems wrong that wealthy or comparatively wealthy, parents should not be asked to make a contribution which has some real relation to the expenses incurred. That is the purpose of the Amendment. It would give the courts rather more discretion to have regard to the means of parents than the present wording of the Bill provides; but, as I have explained, the parent would never be asked to pay more than the average cost of maintaining a child and would be ordered to do this only
1154
when it was clear to the court that his or her means would justify going above the boarding-out expenditure. In the event of the actual cost being les; than the average, then the actual cost would be payable and not the average. This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable Amendment; and because the noble Lord is an eminently reasonable man I am sure that it will strike him as eminently reasonable. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said, this is a very reasonable proposition, but whether its reasonableness is based on its merits or on the noble Lord's persuasive powers, I am not sure. But I should like to explain the Government's position. The average amount received in respect of each child in care, including children in respect of whom no contribution is paid at all, is less than 10s. a week. This is because in the great majority of cases the parents' means are such that the contribution order is for a very small sum, or no contribution is asked for at all. Clause 59 provides that the maximum amount of a parental contribution which may be ordered in respect of a child or young person in care should be a weekly amount which the authority normally pay to foster parents in respect of a child or young person of the game age. The noble Earl's Amendment would substitute the average cost of maintaining a child in care, or the actual cost of maintaining that particular child, whichever is the less.
The existing law fixes no maximum. The practice of local authorities varies. Some do not attempt to recover more than the cost of maintaining the child, so that the parent may be asked for a greater contribution if a child is in a children's home than if he is boarded out with foster parents. Other authorities take the view that this is inequitable, because the parent has no control over the decision where the child in care should live. Some have maximum charges for all children, whether boarded out or in children's homes. These maxima vary from about £3 10s. to £5 a week. In the case of children committed to approved schools, where the only responsibility of the local authority is a financial one, the maximum charges are often higher. Examination of the contribution orders made by all courts in

1155
two months in 1966 showed that the great majority of contribution orders of more than £5 for a single child were made in respect of children in approved schools.
The object of the clause is to secure greater uniformity of practice and equity of treatment, on the basis that the parent should be required, if his means permit, to pay for the child's board and lodging, so that he is no better off as a result of the child being in care—and that seems to me fair enough—but should not be required to pay for any additional treatment which his child requires, since he has no control over the local authority's decisions about the treatment of his child, and extra payments for special treatment would produce a thoroughly inequitable situation.
It may be argued that if the parent can afford it he should be asked to pay for expensive treatment, because that is what a good parent who could afford it would do. This assumes that the good parent would make private arrangements of his own accord for the child to be accommodated in some kind of establishment analogous to a community home. I do not think that this argument is realistic.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states on page (ix) that the effect of Clause 58 may be to reduce the total recovered by way of contributions by about £50,000 a year. The total amount at present recovered, even though it is an average of less than 10s. per child, is some £11 million a year. The noble Earl's Amendment might reduce this reduction by about £20,000 a year. I think that the noble Earl will accept that while this amount is not to be sneezed at, it is minimal compared with the total amount paid in contributions; and in the Government's view we should not be justified in departing from what we regard as the right principle on which this matter should be decided: that the parent shall be liable for a board-and-lodging charge, so that he is no better off as a result of the child being in care, but shall not be liable for the additional cost of any particular form of treatment.
It may be argued that it is undesirable that foster parents should make profits out of maintaining children and that
1156
the amounts paid to them are therefore on the low side. It could be argued from that and I think the noble Earl did argue, that the amount normally paid to foster parents is not the right amount to fix. Our reply to this is that the amount a local authority pays to foster parents must surely be enough to cover the cost of maintaining the child and that it would be wrong for an authority to ask parents to pay, as a board-and-lodging charge, an amount greater than it pays to its own foster parents. There are some foster parents who, because they like children and because they can afford it, take in children at less than the ordinary fee. The Bill covers this by providing that the weekly amount shall be that which the authority would "normally" be prepared to pay, thus disregarding cases where foster parents are prepared to accept a smaller sum and also cases where a special supplement is payable in relation to a particular child.
I would sum up by saying that I thought the noble Earl's argument was reasonable, but, in view of the figures I have quoted, I do not think it is sufficiently reasonable or would be of sufficient advantage to justify altering the principle that we have so far found to be acceptable to the local authorities.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply but I am a little puzzled, because he said that the principle was acceptable to the local authorities. It is in fact the Association of Municipal Corporations, who perhaps represent the strongest body of local authorities in the country, who are concerned about this matter. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord a question. He quoted figures which I find rather surprising: that the total recovered by way of contributions will be reduced by about £50,000 a year by the application of Clause 59 as it stands. I was wondering whether the noble Lord has the figure for what the board and lodging averages out at. It is my understanding that the average contribution which foster parents receive at the present time is in the range of £3 10s. 0d. to £5; and if the figure on which this estimate has been based is in that range it would seem to me that a wealthy parent, who spends a great deal more than £3 10s. 0d. to £5 on his son and daughter for board and lodging if

1157
she or he is not in care, would be receiving a subsidy, as it were, for having his child in care. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could let me know what the figure is on which this is based.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry that did not give the noble Earl the figure when I first spoke. I have it here, but I did not want to go on for too long. The average cost of maintaining a child in care is £7 2s. 6d. a week. This will increase when children in approved schools are included among those in care. I did say to the noble Earl that the cost of keeping children in approved schools was higher. The noble Earl said that the cost was anything from £10 to £20 a week. I cannot confirm that. The average cost of maintaining a child in care is £7 6s. 2d. a week and, apart from any other factors, it will go up when approved schools are included.
EARL JELLICOE: Is the figure the noble Lord has given the actual global cost, and not just the cost relating to board and lodging? I assume that it includes treatment—if that is the right word to use.
LORD STONHAM: I understand that this is the total cost. I was giving it to the noble Earl as the total average cost of maintaining children in care. I think what the noble Earl may have in mind is that the higher cost includes not only schools, but other special forms of care. I am giving the average figure.
The noble Earl, quite rightly, referred to the powerful advocacy and importance of the Association of Municipal Corporations in this matter. However, I would point out the not less important fact that the County Councils Association are fully with the Government here, and therefore we have some might, as well as right, on our side.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not wish to get involved with the noble Lord in a town and country argument. I propose to withdraw my Amendment, but I must confess that I am net entirely happy about this matter. It seems to me that the rich parent may be getting away with a payment which it would be wrong for him to get away with. I reserve the right to come back to this point at Report stage.
LORD STONHAM: I will look at it again, too.
EARL JELLICOE: I thank the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved Amendment No. 39c:
Page 62, line 3 after ("shall") insert ("normally").
The noble Baroness said: It may be convenient to discuss this Amendment and Amendment No. 39D together. As a fairly practical person, I much enjoy trying to provide the noble Lord with the nuts and bolts to try to make the machinery work. So far he has resisted all my efforts to help, but I will make one last attempt. It is sound practice to attempt to reach a voluntary arrangement with the families as to the amount of a contribution order. But there are situations when it is quite clear, at the outset that the parents will not contribute to the upkeep of their child as, for instance, when a child has been wilfully neglected or when the child appears to have been rejected.
In such cases it would save much time and effort if local authorities were given a discretion to apply for an immediate contribution order without having to attempt to give notice to the contributors and then wait a month. Local authorities have this discretion at the present time, and I believe that many authorities use it, particularly in the large towns, where there are many families moving in and out who are known to have no intention to meet their responsibilities. These two Amendments would render the procedure easier, and I cannot see how they would do any harm to anyone. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting that she might take these two Amendments together, as they are on the same point. As the noble Baroness said, they will enable the court to make a contribution order at the same hearing as the court makes a care order. There are two main difficulties about this. The first is that the local authority would have no opportunity of proposing an amount to the contributor, and the court would have no information about the parents' means and

1159
liabilities on which it could base a decision as to the appropriate amount for any order, or whether indeed to make an order at all.
The second difficulty is that the court, having disposed of the case and made a care order, is not likely to want to start to inquire, on what must be adequate information at this first hearing, into the proper amount of the contribution. If the parent contested the matter at the time when the care order was made—as many would be likely to do—the court would have to adjourn. If the parent was not objecting to the making of a contribution, then it is probable that the court would not need to make a money order at all, because the parent would agree without any pressure. The normal course at the present time is for the local authority to ask the parent for a contribution, after getting from him a statement of his means, and, if the contribution is not forthcoming, to make application to the court. And, as the noble Baroness is no doubt aware, the court to which the application is made with regard to the order need not be a juvenile court. This, in our view, is a better system than for a very busy juvenile court to try to settle this money question in the middle of a list of cases.
I know it can be and is argued that some local authorities proceed in this way at present. If they do, I am bound to say that we do not regard it as a satisfactory way of proceeding, and from what I have said perhaps the noble Baroness may be inclined to agree. It can also be argued, with some superficial reasoning, that it is useful in the case of families always on the move. But is that really the case? The difficulty is likely to be in getting the money under the order (for example, by attachment of earnings) rather than in the making of the order. If the parent does not reply to the authority's letter within a month, the authority can go to the court. With people who are always on the move, as we well know, the prospect of getting anything out of them is very small, and will not be added to by the fact that a money order can be made at the time when the care order is made.
We have looked at this matter carefully. I am extremely sorry that even at the last throw the noble Baroness has
1160
not brought down a coconut, but it is not because I have not looked at her points and tried to be sympathetic with them. I am sure she is aware that sometimes we cannot agree, however much we should like to, and I have tried to give valid reasons for not agreeing every time.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I am disappointed that at the last stage the noble Lord is unable to meet me more than half way, but I can see the validity of his argument. At the same time, it always distresses me when people who really ought to be making a contribution manage to get away with it time and time again. I was hoping that this might be a means whereby one could ensure that those who wished to throw up their responsibilities so far as their children were concerned would not be able to do so. As it appears that this is not going to be achieved under my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Returns of information and presentation of reports et cetera to Parliament]:
8.1 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 39E.
Page 62, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) The clerk of each juvenile court shall, at such times and in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, transmit to him such particulars as he may require with respect to the proceedings of the court")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 39E. This new subsection places on the clerk of a juvenile court a duty to provide the Secretary of State with such particulars of court proceedings as he may require. The purpose is to enable statistics of care proceedings to be compiled and published. At present statistics of care, protection or control proceedings are included, rather incongruously, in the Criminal Statistics. As with criminal proceedings, the information is obtained from returns made by the police. The Adams Committee on Civil Judicial Statistics, which reported in July last year, recommended that the publication of statistics of non-criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts in the

1161
Criminal Statistics be discontinued, and that the courts, rather than the police, should be responsible for supplying the information on which the statistics are based.
Clerks of juvenile courts are already required to maintain a separate juvenile court register, and the information which will be required under this subsection will already be in the register. We are in consultation with the Justices' Clerks Society about the best way this information can be provided, whether by a copy of the register or otherwise. This will give us fairly useful information without a great deal of additional labour being placed on anyone, and we shall also have the statistics in and from the right place and compiled by the right people. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There is only one question I wanted to ask on this Amendment. When proceedings are brought under Clause 12E—that is to say, on the commission of what would normally be an offence if it was not a child—are they going to be split up in accordance with what the offence would have been if it had been an adult, or are we simply to have all cases under Clause 12E lumped together? It would be interesting, and it might be valuable, to know what offences the children and young persons are committing. Under this Bill as it stands they will not necessarily be specified as such. It may be better to classify them according to crimes of violence, or in whatever way the Home Office normally does this. I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought about that.
LORD STONHAM: I am not sure whether I have all the refinements, but certainly these figures will be split up. These figures of children who come before the courts and in respect of care orders will be analysed in a way such as the noble Viscount has suggested. I think he is asking whether they will be split up into A, B, C, D and E, according to the way they are dealt with by the court. The answer to that is "Yes". In addition, we shall continue to get figures of the number of alleged offenders cautioned by the police. They will not come before the court at all. We shall be given particulars as to whether they were dealt
1162
with by prosecution, care proceedings, caution, or by reference to the local authority children's department. When this Act begins to operate, or to be operated, we shall begin to have an increasing volume of sophisticated statistics which should tell us a very great deal.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think the noble Lord has quite got my point. I know it will be A, B, C, D and E: but under E will it be split up into the sort of crime, or what would be a crime if anybody but a child or young person was involved in the incident? One does not want to know just how many offences, or alleged offences, have been committed and have been dealt with, either by caution or by care order or something else. One wants to know what sort of offences would be involved. I do not wish the noble Lord to pursue the matter now, but it is something which I think will be worth thinking about.
LORD STONHAM: I believe the answer to the noble Viscount is "Yes", but I will confirm it to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 70 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Children's Regional Planning Committees]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 72, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment, just to knock out a sub-paragraph of Schedule 2. There may be a simple explanation why it should stay in. At first blush, this particular sub-paragraph of the Schedule appears to be extraordinarily restrictive. All of us would favour co-option of outside members to these important children's regional planning committees. Clearly, those committees are going to have a big job to do and will wish to draw all possible expertise into their planning. In particular, I think the voluntary bodies and volunteers would have an important contribution to make. These committees will be planning the provision of a whole range of accommodation for the children in the regions concerned. I am quite

1163
sure that voluntary organisations will have a big part to play here, and therefore there will be many people whom the regional planning committees will wish to co-opt to the committees, and from whose help they will benefit.
My fear is that if we let this subparagraph stand we shall be putting off those people, and not encouraging them to play the part which they are fully able to play in these regional planning committees. They are being treated not as second-class citizens but as 10th-class citizens, because, subject to any direction by the relevant authorities, they will not be able to vote, if the nominated members think they should not vote after they are co-opted; they will not be allowed to speak, and they will not he allowed to attend. I am not quite certain what they will be allowed to do. I do not know what,
"subject to any directions given by relevant authorities"
means. I do not see how those words could possibly be more restrictive. All this is only in relation to such matters as specified by the nominated members. I cannot think the nominated members, whoever they may be, would wish to adopt this extraordinarily restrictive attitude towards volunteers and others, and experts, whom they wish to bring into their consultations.
I am prepared to be told that this extraordinarily restrictive procedure is the normal procedure. If I am told that, I shall be open to persuasion, but my belief is that normally in local authorities when people are co-opted to a committee they assume the full responsibilities as a member of that committee. There is no question of their not voting; there is no question of their not speaking; there is no question of their not attending. If you want them, there does not seem to be much point if they are not allowed to attend or to speak or to vote. I hope that I have made the purpose of my Amendment clear. It is exploratory, but if the exploration discloses the position as I think it is, then I think it is rather more than exploratory.
8.11 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I hope from the noble Earl's concluding words that he is not going to start a revolution at this
1164
time of night. I admit that he has put up a remarkable case. The offending words are these:
"Where any persons are co-opted to serve as members of the committee for a planning area in relation only to such matters as are specified by the nominated members then, subject to any directions given by the relevant authorities, the extent to which those persons shall be entitled to attend, speak and vote at meetings of the committee shall be such as may be determined by the nominated members."
I would ask the noble Earl to note particularly the words:
"subject to any directions given by the relevant authorities".
The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment by removing this paragraph from the Schedule would be to remove any specific reference to the power of the nominated members on the planning committee—this concerns a planning committee—to limit the voting. speaking and attending rights of co-opted members who have been co-opted for limited and specific purposes.
The noble Earl asked, not without justification: What are these people going to do? What are they there for at all? Why have them? Of course, we have to have regard to the common sense of the nominated members in making this provision work. Notwithstanding the general power which paragraph 4 gives to ensure that local authority members—not necessarily nominated members—are in the majority at all times, it is considered necessary to give the nominated members a clear power to define the extent to which they require co-opted members to make their contribution. Co-opted members have no statutory responsibility for the consequences or the implementation of the committee's decisions. Everything rests ultimately on the individual local children's authorities in their responsibility for accommodating and treating children in their care and for meeting the cost of facilities for supervision. It seems only right that the provisions of the Schedule should recognise this responsibility, financial and otherwise.
I think the decisive point that I put to the noble Earl is this. If the Amendment were accepted, it would then mean that the planning committee would have to request the relevant authorities at regular intervals to make directions about

1165
co-opted members under paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. It was to avoid this step that paragraph 3(2) gave the power to the nominated members of the committee. I read this paragraph to the noble Earl because it refers to, "such matters as are specified by the nominated members". In other words, it applies only to people co-opted for limited and specific purposes, and does not apply to all co-optees. I do not know whether there was a misapprehension on the noble Earl's part. If that was so, then I can assure him that that is not the case. If he will look carefully at these words he will see that they are:
"serve as members of the committee … in relation only to such matters as are specified by the nominated members".
The provision is very limited. In other words, someone is asked to come on the committee for a specific purpose, or for specific purposes, and really he is there to give advice and help for only those particular purposes. It is only to those people co-opted for a limited purpose that this restriction would apply.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: I find it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that this provision is not straightforward nonsense. In view of my work for boys' clubs in Kent and some of the approved schools I suppose I could be co-opted to a committee for a specific subject. But if I went I should want to know that I should be allowed, first, to attend; secondly, to speak, and thirdly, to vote. The only occasion when a provision of this kind would apply would be if I were paid not to do so!
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord has helped a little in pointing out the qualification here, but I am still a little puzzled. May I take it that those members of these regional planning committees who are to be co-opted over the whole range of the regional planning activities will have no such restriction placed upon them, save that I think they will be in a minority? May I take it that that is the case?
LORD STONHAM: The co-optees?
EARL JELLICOE: The co-optees.
LORD STONHAM: Yes.
EARL JELLICOE: They will have full powers to attend, speak and vote? There-
1166
fore this restriction applies only to those who are co-opted for special and specific and limited purposes. If that is the case, then I should have thought it would be far better if those who were co-opted—I can see the distinction here—for specific, limited purposes had it made absolutely clear that they would have the right to attend, speak and vote at meetings at which those particular subjects were discussed and were, if necessary, to be voted upon. As I read this provision the way it is drafted, this would not be the case, because even within that specific area they may not be able to attend, speak or vote. I may have misinterpreted this, but perhaps the noble Lord will say.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Earl is quite right when he says that those who are full co-optees will be able to attend, speak and vote. But if one is appointed for a limited purpose—if, for example, one is co-opted solely to represent the Boy Scouts—one really cannot expect to decide upon, for instance, local authority expenditure on community homes. You are asked to advise about the Boy Scouts, and you might be asked about some other related youth matters. But these committes are going to decide matters which affect a whole region. There are very important matters of expenditure involved, and we surely just could not have numbers of co-optees who were asked to come on for a limited period given this right.
This limitation very often applies. There are a number of cases where people are nominated to come and help—people come in attendance perhaps to give expert advice. They might be co-opted for a particular subject and they might be co-opted for one or two meetings to settle particular points. But they must be treated differently from the nominated members and the co-optees who are there for other purposes at all times. I will read what the noble Earl has said and consider it again, but I think we have this one right and that it is in accord with normal practice.
EARL JELLICOE: It is very strange practice. I certainly cannot remember any such Schedule, but my memory for Schedules of Bills is not encyclopædic. Nevertheless, I would be much happier, if the noble Lord wishes to insist or this distinction between those co-opted for

1167
general matters and those co-opted for specific and more limited matters (and I appreciate that distinction), if it were made clear, which could easily be done by a minor drafting adjustment, that those who were co-opted for a limited range of matters at least had the right to attend, speak and vote on that limited range of matters. The noble Lord has nodded affirmatively, so I take it that he agrees.
LORD STONHAM: I will just nod verbally.
EARL JELLICOE: Having dotted that "i" I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
8.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 81, line 10, at end insert ("or from being dealt with under any of those Acts.")
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment to make it clear that the prohibition in Clause 4 on proceedings for offences committed by children does not extend to proceedings under the Armed Forces Discipline Acts in respect of acts or omissions which took place overseas. Would the noble Viscount like me to continue?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, please.
LORD STONHAM: The position is that certain provisions of the Service discipline codes apply to civilians, including children, who accompany Servicemen on overseas postings. Under these provisions a member of a Serviceman's family can be dealt with by the appropriate British Service authorities. Whether or not this is the most desirable way of dealing with a British child overseas who is in trouble, it may in practice be the only alternative to his being arraigned before a foreign court. It may, in certain circumstances, be much better "to look after our own" and, in these circumstances, the Service authorities' jurisdiction over the children
1168
and families of Servicemen overseas is in their own best interests. I hope your Lordships will agree. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, leave out line 12 and insert ("in respect of a person before the date on which the information was required by virtue of that section to contain a statement of his age.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 81, line 18, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—

("5.—(1) The coming into force of section 7(1) or of an order under section 32(1)(d) of this Act shall not affect any sentence of borstal training passed before the date when the said section 7(1) or the order came into force or any committal for sentence before that date under section 28(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952; but a sentence of borstal training shall not be passed on any person (including a person to whom such a committal relates) if on the date of the relevant conviction he had not attained the minimum age which is for the time being specified in section 20(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.

1952 c. 55.

(2) Nothing in section 7(2) of this Act affects a probation order made before the coming into force of the said section 7(2).")

The noble Lord said: Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 is a transitional provision which preserves sentences of borstal training passed, or probation orders made, before the coming into force of Clause 7. It also preserves a committal for sentence under Section 28 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, under which a magistrates' court may commit to quarter sessions with a view to a sentence of borstal. This may be interpreted as giving quarter sessions power to pass a sentence of borstal training even although borstal for young persons of that age has been abolished. The amended paragraph 5 makes it clear that, while the committal to quarter sessions is not affected by the coming into force of Clause 7, quarter sessions may not pass a sentence of borstal on a young person who, at the time of the conviction, had not attained

1169
the new minimum age for borstal. Quarter sessions will be able to deal with him by making a care order or any of the other orders available in the case of juveniles. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This is a technical Amendment to paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 which provides for the "conversion" of approved school orders into care orders. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A person who is the subject of a care order by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph and who was unlawfully absent on the specified day from an approved school in which he was then required to be shall. until the local authority to whose care he is committed by the order direct otherwise, be deemed for the purposes of section 30 of this Act to be duly required by the authority to live after that day in the premises which on that day constituted the school.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendmendment No. 46:
Page 87, line 17. at end insert—

(". In section 43(1) of the said Act of 1948 for the words from "Parts IV and V" onwards there shall be substituted the words "the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 to 1969, the Adoption Act 1958 and the Adoption Act 1968".")

1958 c. 5 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2. 1968 c. 53.

The noble Lord said: Section 43 of the Children Act 1948 enables the Secretary of State to appoint an Advisory Council on Child Care for the purpose of advising him on matters connected with the discharge of his functions in England and Wales under the 1948 Act and a number of other enactments dealing with children and young persons. The effect of the Amendment is that the purpose of the Advisory Council is to advise the Secretary of State on matters connected with the discharge of his functions under all the enactments dealing with children and young persons and with adoption. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the prohibition on prosecutions of children under the age of 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 1, at end insert—

(". In sections 2 and 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, after subsection (3) of each section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

1967 c. 80

(3A) In the case of a statement which indicates in pursuance of subsection (3)(a) of this section that the person making it has not attained the age of fourteen, subsection (2)(b) of this section shall have effect as if for the words from 'made' onwards there were substituted the words 'understands the importance of telling the truth in it.'")—Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.28 p.m.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 92, line 7, leave out paragraph 49 and insert—
". After section 44(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A supervision requirement imposing a condition as to the place where a child is to reside in England or Wales shall be a like authority as in Scotland for the person in charge of the place to restrict the child's liberty to such an extent as that person may consider appropriate having regard to the terms of the supervision requirement".
. In section 97(1) of the said Act of 1968—
(1) after the words "that is to to say—" there shall be inserted the words "section 44(1) (except head (b)) and (1A)",
(2) after the words "Part V" there shall be inserted the words "section 98(3)".
. In section 98 of the said Act of 1968, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3) An order under this section may make such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or of any provision of this Act

1171
then in force as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient for the purposes or in consequence of the operation of any provision of this Act before the coming into force of any other provision of this Act or of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
. In Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 19, after the word "children" there shall be inserted the words ", for the word "offenders" there shall be substituted the word "children", and for the word "offender" in the three places where that word occurs there shall be substituted the word "child"".
. In Schedule 7 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 1(1)(a), for the words "section 63" there shall be substituted the word "section 62".
. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 7—
(a) for sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
(1) In section 87, for subsection (1), there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(1) Any person detained in a training school under the the law in force in Northern Ireland may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, be transferred by order of the competent authority in Northern Ireland to such place in Scotland as the Secretary of State may direct for the purposes of under-going residential training, and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 as if the order sending him to the school in Northern Ireland were an order for committal for residential training made under section 58A of this Act made upon the same date, and as if the order were an authority for his detention for a period not exceeding the period for which he might he detained under the training school order made in respect of him.;

1963 c. 39.

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph at the end there shall be inserted the words "; and in section 87(2) and (4) the words "England or", wherever they occur, shall be omitted";

(c) in sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph the words "to such" shall he omitted;

(d) after sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
(4) In section 87(5) the words "in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and," shall be omitted.
(5) In section 87 subsection
(6) shall be omitted.
. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 9(2), for the word "for" there shall be substituted the word "of".
. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 10, at the end there shall be inserted the following words—
"after the definition of "Street" there shall be inserted the following definition—

'Training school order' has the same meaning as in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'".

1968 c. 49.

. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 17(1), for the words "in Scotland" there shall be substituted the words ", within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".

1968 c. 49.

. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 38, for the words "In section 15(4)" there shall be substituted the words—
"(1) In section 15(3), for the words "the last mentioned order" there shall be substituted the words "or to the care of a local authority by a care order (other than an interim order) in force under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the fit person order or care order as the case may be".
(2) In subsection (4)".
. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 51, for the words from "include" where it secondly occurs to the end of the sub-paragraph there shall be substituted the words '"include"'; and paragraph (e) shall be omitted."
. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, after paragraph 59, there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
Criminal Justice Act 1961 (c. 39)
59A. In section 32(2), after paragraph (g), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

(h) section 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

1937 c. 37.

. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, for paragraph 74(1), there

1173
shall he substituted the following sub-paragraph—
74.—(1) For section 11(1)(a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(a) during which his or her residence in a residential establishment is required by a supervision requirement made under section 44 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, and the child is not absent from the residential establishment under supervision;".

1968 c. 49

in paragraph (b), for the words "the said Act of 1937", there shall be substituted the words "the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937", after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

1937 c. 37

"(bb) during which the child is liable to undergo residential training under committal by virtue of section 58A of the said Act of 1937, and is not released under that section;",

and for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(c) during which the child is accommodated by virtue of rules made by the Secretary of State under section 45 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".".

1968 c. 49.

. In Part I of Schedule 9 to the said Act of 1968, in the entry relating to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, in the third column, after the words "Sections 68 to 86" there shall be inserted the following words—

1937 c. 37.

"In section 87(2) and (4) the words "England or" wherever they occur, in subsection (5) the words "in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and" and subsection (6)."

. In Part I of Schedule 9 to the said Act of 1968, in the entry relating to the Children Act 1958, in the third column, for the words "Section 2(6) and (7)" there shall be substituted the words—

1958 c. 65.

"In section 2, in subsection (4) the words from "or by virtue of" to "of an approved school", and subsections (6) and (7)."

. In Part I of Schedule 9 to the said Act of 1968, in the entry relating to section 15(3) of the Adoption Act 1958, in the third for the words "or the Children' to "1937"" there shall be substituted the following words "fit person by' to 'care of a' and the words 'fit person order or' and 'as the case may be'".

1958 c. 5 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2).

In Part II of Schedule 9 to the said Act 1968, in the entry relating to the Children Act 1958, in the third column, the entry relating to section 17 shall be omitted.

1958 c. 65.

. In Part II of Schedule 9 to the said Act of 1968, in the entry relating to the Family Allowances Act 1965, in the third column, for the words from "11," to "(2)," there shall be substituted the word "11(2)"."

1965 c. 53.

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment adds to Schedule 5 a number of paragraphs—I believe 18 in all—making Amendments to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. These are either directly consequential on the provisions of the Bill which is before your Lordships or are verbal and minor drafting adjustments designed to clarify the provisions of the 1968 Act.
No significant policy changes a:-e involved if this Amendment is given effect to by your Lordships, and I have assumed (I hope correctly) that your Lordships would not wish me to go through in detail all 18 of the additional paragraphs sought to be added to the Bill. If your Lordships have any questions to raise upon any of them I shall do my best to answer, but as will be appreciated some of them involve less problems of law and interpretation than problems rather of the nature of a kind of drafting jigsaw puzzle. I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: There is one point I should like to ask the noble Lord about and it is to be found on page 7 of the Schedule. It is the last paragraph on page 7, and it relates to the transfer of persons detained in training schools under the law in force in Northern Ireland to Scotland. I did not know about this transfer from Northern Ireland to Scotland, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten us on what it is all about.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: I shall try to do so. The position, as I understand it, is that paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 of the Act of 1968 made certain changes which were consequential upon the abolition of approved schools in Scotland, which was effected, as your Lordships know, by our 1968 Act. The changes which were made were in Section 87 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. That dealt with the

1175
transfer to Scotland of children in approved schools in England and Wales, and in the equivalent, as I understand it, training schools in Northern Ireland; and the changes proposed in what will become, if your Lordships approve it, paragraph 54 of Schedule 5 are consequential upon the abolition of approved schools in England and Wales.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not wish to pursue this particular matter, but it is one with which I am not familiar. On the face of it, it seems strange that there is this authority to transfer children from Northern Ireland to Scotland. I do not necessarily expect an answer now, but I was wondering whether there are effective safeguards here. It seems quite a drastic step, and I was wondering whether the parents or guardian of the child concerned, or the local authority, or the child itself, has a right of appeal if such a transfer is to be made.
LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE: Without at all intending to be facetious, I am a little surprised that the noble Earl should see anything strange in the transfer from Northern Ireland to Scotland but not from Scotland to England. There have always been cross-Border provisions governing children on probation or in care as between Scotland and England, and so far as I am aware we have always had them in Scotland so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. But I will look into the matter further, in view of the noble Earl's concern about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 (Repeals):
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 92, line 14, at end insert—

("1894 c. 60.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

In section 183(3), the proviso.")

The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment providing for the repeal of a provision under which the Secretary of State could have received sums deducted from a seaman's wages in respect of parental contributions due to a local authority in whose care the seaman's child was. The repeal confirms the right
1176
of the local authority to retain sums of this kind. The provision has been redundant and anomalous since the reorganisation of grants payable to local authorities in 1958. The repeal is a delayed consequence of that reorganisation. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Surely no Children and Young Persons Bill would he complete if its repeal schedule did not refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 (Section 1 to 6 and 14 of the Children Act 1958 as amended.)
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 6, after ("subsection") insert ("(3) or")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 104, line 8, leave out from ("refusing") to end of line 11 and insert ("or an order under section five of that Act cancelling, the registration of any premises occupied by him or his registration;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, and as this is the last Amendment I should like to express my grateful thanks to the noble Earl and his noble friends for their great help and co-operation, which has enabled us to deal with so many Amendments quite satisfactorily and expeditiously. I should like to say a particular word of thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, not only for the immense care with which he studies these Amendments, which I find very helpful, but also for the fact that on this occasion, although he mentioned that we brought in the Merchant Shipping Act, we did not bring in Henry VIII. I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: I should very much like to reciprocate and thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and also to congratulate him on his stamina through this Committee stage. He said that it had been not only speedy but also helpful. I am afraid we have not gained all the points we should like from the noble

1177
Lord opposite, but of course we will have a chance of doing that at Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

LEVER PARK BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: RATEPAYERS AND RIGHT TO VOTE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: RATEPAYERS AND RIGHT TO VOTE