Sitting of 24 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS
  ADDRESS FOR RETURN "Of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1968."—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Young Persons in Care (Ward of Court Procedure)
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, after the coming into operation of the Children and Young Persons Act, he will issue a circular to local authorities giving advice to them on the use of the ward of court procedure for young persons in care who make undesirable associations as an alternative to committal to an approved school.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I do not think that this would be helpful. The local authority must judge, on all the facts of the individual case, what action is called for in the interests of the young person for whom it is responsible.
    Miss Lestor: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, does he not agree that large numbers of people were horrified to find that many young people in approved schools had not committed any crime? In an instance of this nature, would it not be advisable to suggest that it would be much better to take action against the man involved in an undesirable association with a young girl who
    2102
    has not committed any crime, or to make her a ward of court, rather than commit her to an approved school, which is likely to be a stigma in her future life?
    Mr. Morgan: As I have explained many times, in these cases the local authority has to balance the question of seeking an approved school order against the possibility that the person concerned will be exposed to very great danger. The question of making such an order as that referred to by my hon. Friend depends also on the attitude of the girl herself. It may be that in certain cases such an order would be appropriate, whereas in others it would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware of the apprehension concerning the operation of Clause 1 of the Bill where it is thought that some inequality of treatment might arise between pool children and others? Will he look carefully at Amendments which may come from another place on this?
    Mr. Morgan: That is much wider than the original Question, but certainly I do not accept my hon. Friend's hypothesis with regard to that provision.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the ward of court procedure has been used by local authorities in the last three years as an alternative to committal to approved schools.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: If the needs of a child or young person for care or protection appear to a juvenile court to call for residential treatment in an approved school, the courts may order accordingly, and have regularly done so for many years. Such treatment cannot be provided by making the child a ward of court.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not that answer reveal that very inadequate use is being made of the ward of court procedure by juvenile court magistrates? Es not that responsible for the fact that there are no fewer than 742 girls in approved schools who have committed no offence whatsoever?
    Mr. Morgan: It is not the juvenile court magistrates who decide whether

    2103
    they shall follow this procedure but the local authorities. I understand that there are six or seven cases every year where such an order is made, but normally they are cases where there is the danger of a child or young person being taken out of the country or where, without an order having been made, there is a danger of the natural parents who are estranged actually taking the child back from the physical custody of the local authority.

    Protection of Animals
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Protection of Animals Act so as to prohibit cruelty to all animals, including those not in captivity.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I doubt whether amendment of the Protection of Animals Acts would be appropriate for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind; but in any event I can hold out no prospect of legislation being introduced on this subject.
    Miss Lestor: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that it is 30 years since we had legislation on animal welfare and about 20 years since the Henderson Committee recommended the sort of proposals contained in the recent Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker)? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the attitude of people towards hunting and many other activities in connection with animals which are called sports has changed enormously over the last few years and that some of us would like to see the Government take a lead in this direction?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Rees: I would remind my hon. Friend that the legislation to which she refers is for domestic and captive animals. I sympathise with her personal attitude, but probably it would be more appropriate to have individual Bills rather than a collective one which would run into great trouble.

    Prisoners (Cultural and Business Activities)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home
    2104
    Department (1) what steps are being taken to assist prisoners, while in prison, to undertake cultural activities such as writing books and for the Press and television, and to develop business activities and contacts in the outside world;
    (2) if he will take steps to allow prisoners to undertake and further businesses and part-time jobs in the outside world, with a view to offsetting the costs of the prison service by remuneration from these earnings.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Prisoners are encouraged to undertake literary and other cultural activities, but not allowed to pursue any form of business activity. The hostel scheme enables suitable prisoners to take outside employment towards the end of their sentences, and the steps my right hon. Friend is taking to make prison industries profitable will help to offset the cost of the prison service.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend not agree that since a vital part of this process is to rehabilitate and readjust prisoners to outside society, every possible contact should be achieved with that society? Does he accept that in some of the instances that I have brought to his attention prisoners have felt that these contacts and training opportunities are not always available?
    Mr. Morgan: The principle of prisons over many centuries is that a person should be withdrawn from society in the hope that he will ultimately be properly rehabilitated. The question of cultural activities is a matter for the governor, in his discretion; he is the one who decides exactly what shall be done in each case. Prisoners are not allowed to profit, save in the exceptional case of the Koestler Award.

    Unsolved Murders
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders known to the police remain unsolved; and how many of these are classified as capital murders.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The latest corrected figure for unsolved murders known to the police in England and Wales from 1957 to 1968 is 186;

    2105
    of these, 35 are estimated to be "capital" offences.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the number of unsolved murders in recent years far exceeds those known to the police before 1964?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, sir. Statistics do not bear out that statement. I have the figures in front of me. I would point out, as a necessary corrective that must be made, that of these 186 no fewer than 67 are murders of children under the age of one year, which might properly, if they were ever solved, be classed as infanticides.

    Released Murderers (Offences)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murderers have been convicted of offences involving violence during the last five years after their release from prison; and how many have been recalled from licence for offences of this nature.
    Mr. Callaghan: Since 1st July, 1964, in England and Wales three murderers released on licence have been convicted of further offences of serious violence. All three had their licences revoked.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Do these include the case of the released murderer who was convicted of a serious crime of violence at Winchester Assizes recently under another name? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his statistics include cases of murderers who are released and are later convicted under other names?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I am certain about that. I have not the details of the Winchester case. There have been 116 murderers released on licence, and a close watch is kept on their activities. I think that we are aware of every one of them.

    Boundary Commission Report (White Paper)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way the procedure adopted for the publication of Command Paper No. 4084 differed from that used for Command Paper No. 9311.
    Mr. Callaghan: I presented the recent Report of the Boundary Commission for England, by command of Her Majesty, for the information of the House. It is not for me to explain the procedure adopted by a previous administration.
    Mr. Onslow: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the title page of Cmnd. 4084 he will see that it is presented to Parliament by himself. Can he tell us, from a comparison with the report of the Boundary Commission in 1954, where the difference in these title pages lies in order to justify the Attorney-General's claim that one was laid under Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act and the second was not?
    Mr. Callaghan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not press me on these matters. I have no desire to explain the errors committed by the last Administration in presenting these documents.
    Sir D. Renton: I appreciate the Home Secretary's reluctance to explain anything in this matter, but is not he aware that precisely the same procedure was followed by him as was followed by the then Home Secretary in 1954?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am aware of that. The difference is that I did it correctly and my predecessor, alas, was wrong.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at an early opportunity.

    Subnormal Suspects (Interrogation)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in procedure he has recommended in the light of the case of Ronald Avard.
    Mr. Callaghan: I can find no grounds for legislation to amend the procedures under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964 or Section 27 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. While I have found nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that the police acted improperly or inconsiderately, I am considering the issue of guidance to the police on the interrogation of suspects who are subnormal.
    Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this man, with a mental age of seven, spent many hours at Rugby police station before making a totally false confession, which has since cost the Home Office £5,000 in compensation? Is it not logical in a case of a person with a juvenile mind to treat him as a juvenile and to have his parents present from the beginning?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows—because it was his persistence which brought the facts to light—the police acted very considerately. They did not take a statement until his father was present. Alas, it was an incorrect statement, and it took my hon. Friend a great deal of diligence, together with others, to reveal that fact. It has now been met quite properly by a payment from the Home Office.

    Complaints against Police (Independent Inquiries)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the results of his review of the desirability of introducing independent inquiries into serious complaints against the police.
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now reviewed the present system for dealing with complaints by individuals against the police; and what proposals he has for change in view of the burden which is placed on the administrative efficiency of local forces in the time taken to investigate each individual allegation.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have at present nothing I can add to the answers which I gave on 19th June in reply to Questions and supplementary questions by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) and Staly-bridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn).—[Vol. 785, c. 679–80.]
    Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many responsible members of the police are a good deal more radical than is the Home Office, and that they wish the Government would make some progress in this matter? Does not my right hon. Friend now accept the desira-
    2108
    bility for this in principle, and will he get down to a detailed examination of possible means of implementing it?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is not always a good way of persuading me to do something to say that someone else wants it done better than I do. Leaving that on one side, I should point out that a number of views have been expressed, including those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself. We have a desire to reconcile the fact that this disciplined service must be supported by the House of Commons with a need for ensuring a proper degree of independent observation, in order to ensure that they are not judges in their own cause.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that complaints against the police are often the last refuge of scoundrels who have no legitimate excuse for the crimes that they have committed? Everybody would subscribe to the idea that serious complaints should be properly investigated, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of valuable police time is wasted on inquiries which prove to be groundless—time which could be better spent on crime detection?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is a fact that the majority of complaints against the police come from those with ulterior motives. The House must remember this in considering the facts. On the other hand, a small number of complaints are justified, and every one must be examined, even if it involves spending a great deal of time. I ask the House to keep this matter in balance. We must protect the police who are dealing with criminals against unfounded allegations that can cause them a great deal of pain and waste a great deal of time.
    Mr. Rose: Might it not assist my right hon. Friend if he were to distinguish on the one hand between the right of a chief constable to discipline members of his force and on the other the need for a public watchdog to ensure that all inquiries are carried out in a thoroughly judicial manner?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me on to the ground that I shall certainly get on to in looking at this matter. I prefer to reserve my opinion until I have looked into the matter further.

    Obscenity (Arts Council Report)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the Arts Council report on censorship; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waddingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report from the Arts Council working party proposing that the Obscene Publications Act and the comparable sections of the Theatres Act should be repealed for a trial period of five years; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: I shall study the working party report with care but my present view is that, although there may be defects in the existing law, I shall need a great deal of convincing that repeal of the obscenity laws would be preferable, and I can see no prospect of time being made available for this purpose.
    Mr. Whitaker: Whatever view one takes, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a good deal more emotional opinion on the subject than factual data? Does he not therefore agree that it would be sensible to carry out some research into the question whether certain literature does or does not corrupt anybody, before embarking on legislation?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should certainly be very happy to see further research carried out into the matter, because I have indicated that I see no prospect of legislation this Session. Certain provisions of the 1964 Act are intended to cover authors, artists and dramatists. To the extent that they succeed in doing so my conclusion is that interference with the freedom of these artists and authors is minimal at present.
    Mr. Waddington: Will the Home Secretary recognise that there is widespread concern in the country at the working party report; and that any change in the present law would be widely regarded not as a step towards a more civilised society but as a step further towards an unduly permissive society?
    Mr. Callaghan: Different views are held on this subject. Everyone should read the report of the working party, be-
    2110
    cause it shows the illogicalities in the existing law. In this matter, I do not want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. My own view is that, whatever the existing defects, repeal would make the situation worse from the point of view of the average person in the country.
    Mr. Maclennan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the best control of licence in society is public taste? Will he look with favour upon any individual efforts at legislation which may give more scope to public taste?
    Mr. Callaghan: If it represented public taste, I would, but I find that a very subjective question. On the whole, matters like taste seem to change from generation to generation.
    Sir G. Nabarro: While expressing myself wholly in sympathy with the view of the Home Secretary, may I ask him to have some regard to the strongly expressed view of 60 of my hon. Friends and myself, and one right hon. Gentleman opposite, in Motion No. 407 on public decency and the Arts Council, placed on the Order Paper of the House during the last three days?
    [That this House rejects the recommendations of Lord Goodman's working party of the Arts Council chat the statutes of 1959 and 1964 (Obscene Publications) and 1968 (Theatres) should be repealed; and calls for the reasonable safeguard of public decency inherent in these statutes to be retained.]
    Mr. Callaghan: I shall be very happy to read that Motion in due course.

    Seebohm Report
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that some local authorities are continuing with changes which will make implementation of the Seebohm Report more difficult, he will now introduce legislation to prevent such changes being put into effect until the Government's decision on the Report has been announced; and if he will hasten to make this announcement.
    Mr. Callaghan: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Mr. E. Rowlands) on 14th July,

    2111
    the Government will reach and announce their decisions on the Seebohm Report as soon as possible. Meanwhile, it is unwise for local authorities to take action that might subsequently prove to be incompatible with those decisions.—[Vol. 787, c. 16.]
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider some reinforcement of the advice he has just given, possibly by the issue of a circular, so that people may anticipate what the Government may do in the matter?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, but I hope that the Governments decision can be announced in the near future. I took the opportunity of a meeting with local authority associations only this week on another matter to remind them of the opinion I have given the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would the Home Secretary accept that the present action by the Association of Child Care Officers in recommending its members not to apply for jobs with local authorities where organisations contrary to Seebohm are being introduced is regrettable and should be forestalled as soon as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think that the best way of forestalling it is for the Government to announce their decision, but I am aware that opinion amongst child care officers is running very high on this subject, and it is important that we should make a statement. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and myself to be able to do so in the next month, at any rate.

    Adoption Laws
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to reform the adoption laws.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce proposals for a review of the law relating to adoption and fostering.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing public concern with the operation of the law
    2112
    relating to adoption and fostering; and what steps he proposes to take to protect children from conflicts between their natural parents and foster parents.
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to set up a review of the law relating to adoption; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided to appoint a committee to consider the law, policy and procedure on the adoption of children and what changes are desirable. The chairman of the committee will be Sir William Houghton. I will, with permission, circulate a list of the members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    It is our intention that the review should include such issues as whether relatives should be able to apply for guardianship instead of adoption, the relation between adoption law and that part of guardianship law which gives the natural father of an illegitimate child the right to apply for custody, and, in particular, the position of long-term foster parents who wish to keep a child permanently, by adoption or otherwise, against the wishes of the natural parents.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say on behalf of hon. Members on both sides how much we welcome the prospect of the appointment of an impartial inquiry to investigate the extremely complex social, legal and emotional problems involved in the adoption laws? Would the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, commit himself so far in advance as to say that he agrees that in these cases the golden rule to be applied is that the interests of the child should always be paramount?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I would accept that view, although I obviously do not wish to commit the committee if it wishes to come to a different conclusion. That has certainly guided me up to the moment.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the committee's method of working? Will it sit in public, take evidence in public, or what?
    Mr. Callaghan: The Home Office has been collecting information for the last

    2113
    two years through a research body. That information will be made available to the committee. It will be for the committee to decide whether or not it sits in public. It will certainly wish to take evidence of a written character, and it will be for the committee itself to decide whether to take oral evidence.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can the Home Secretary say when the committee will start its deliberations? Has he any idea when it will report?
    Mr. Callaghan: I hope that it will start quickly, and as the research team at the Home Office can, as a result of the work that is done, put a lot of information before the committee, I would hope that the committee would not be unduly long in reporting.
    Mr. Archer: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, but will he consider the advisability of making any change in the law retrospective so that some of the existing tragic instances may be reviewed?
    Mr. Callaghan: I will draw that point to the committee's attention. It will then be for the committee to consider whether or not it wishes to say anything on it.
    Following is the list:
    Chairman
    Sir William Houghton, Education Officer of the Inner London Education Authority.
    Members
    Mr. Leo Abse, M.P.
    Mr. W. K. Angus, Clerk to the Reading Justices.
    Mrs. M. E. Bramall, J.P., Director of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child.
    Sheriff Substitute W. J. Bryden, Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire.
    Dr. Christine Cooper, O.B.E., Consultant Paediatrician, Member of the Medical Group of the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption.
    Mrs. I. Goodacre, Assistant Children's Officer, Oxfordshire, and author of "Adoption Policy and Practice".
    Mrs. H. Halpin, J.P., General Secretary of the National Children Adoption Association.
    The Very Reverend Canon P. Harvey, Administrator of the Crusade of Rescue and Chairman of the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption.
    Mr. P. Hughes, D.S.C., Children's Officer, Greenwich.
    Miss J. T. Lusk, Director of The Guild of Service, Edinburgh.
    Miss E. M. Magness, Secretary, Church of England Committee for Diocesan Moral and Social Welfare Councils.
    Councillor Mrs. D. K. Mitchell, Glamorgan County Council.
    Miss J. Rowe, Tutor to the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption and author of "Parents, Children and Adoption".
    His Honour Judge F. A. Stockdale, Ilford County Court.
    Dr. F. H. Stone, Consultant Child Psychiatrist, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow.
    Dame Joan Vickers, D.B.E., M.P.
    Mr. D. T. White, Deputy Children's Officer, Lancashire.
    Assessors
    Home Office:
    Mr. D. H. Morrell (with Mr. A. D. Gordon-Brown as alternate).
    Miss J. D. Cooper.
    Social Work Services Group, Scotland:
    Miss P. A. Cox (with Mr. A. W. M. Heggie as alternate).
    Miss M. M. McInnes.
    Joint Secretaries
    Home Office:
    Miss M. M. Peck.
    Mrs. P. Roberts.

    Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were prosecuted for not having valid road fund licences during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: There were 66,264 persons in England and Wales during 1968.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is not a very great number in relation to licences issued, but it may be the tip of the iceberg. I admit to having driven a car for weeks with an invalid licence, and in that time no one questioned me. Will the Home Office consider either allowing traffic wardens themselves to seek out cases of out-of-date licences, or involving stiffer penalties?
    Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his candour, and I know that he will applaud the fact that whereas in 1963 32,666 people were prosecuted, practically double that number were prosecuted in 1968.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the G.L.C. has admitted that

    2115
    it has taken as much as two years for it to get cases to court; that then, after two years, only very nominal fines of £5 or £10 have been imposed; and that then some offenders never pay the fine or the licence fee, and so go on for years? Could not more positive action be taken? The present situation is an incentive for some people.
    Mr. Morgan: I am glad that my hon Friend has at last appreciated that these prosecutions are for the licensing authorities—the county councils and county borough councils. He will be aware that, on average, the Metropolitan police report about 14,000 of these cases to the licensing authorities every month.

    Constitutional Commission
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission so as to obtain an interim report or reports within the next 12 months.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. But it will be open to the Commission to present an interim report at any time, if it thinks this desirable.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say how the commission is going, and whether or not it has decided to issue an interim report? In view of prospect of a protracted inquiry, an interim report would seem desirable.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have not had conversations recently with the chairman, so I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question. But, if he wishes me to, I will inquire, and let him know.
    Sir D. Renton: When the Home Secretary refers to the possibility of an interim report being published, can he say what he envisaged it might cover?
    Mr. Callaghan.: No, Sir. I do not know, in fact, whether the commission intends to present one.

    Noise Nuisance (Prosecution)
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were instituted by
    2116
    persons aggrieved under Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936 as amended by Section 1(2)(a) of the Noise Abatement Act, 1960 during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: There was none in 1968.
    Mr. Archer: Is not this conclusive evidence that, for reasons of expenditure or otherwise, people are reluctant to avail themselves of this remedy? Is not this a further example of the need to take out of the files the 1963 Report of the Wilson Committee on noise and reissue it.
    Mr. Morgan: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the impression that I am unduly unsympathetic, but any change in the law is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

    Approved Schools
    Mr. ChristopherPrice asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable parents to withdraw their children from religious instruction in approved schools in the same way as they can in other schools.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Wherever practicable, a child is placed in a school of the religious persuasion to which he belongs; and in other cases it would be contrary to the approved schools rules to require a child to receive religious instruction otherwise than in his own faith.
    Mr. Price: May I thank the Home Secretary for moving the child of one of my constituents from one approved school to another? But does he not think it is unsatisfactory that children under the statutory school-leaving age in approved schools run by some religious authority or another should not have a statutory right to be withdrawn and that the matter is simply left to informal arrangements?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is the only complaint that I can trace for a very long time. Therefore, I would not feel it necessary to propose amending legislation when, as my hon. Friend has graciously indicated, it is possible to meet the concern by transferring the child.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the appropriate qualifications for teachers in approved schools; and what percentage of such teachers have these qualifications.
    Mr. Callaghan: There are no statutory requirements, but 99 per cent. of full-time teachers in approved schools in England and Wales possess the qualifications needed for the status of a qualified teacher.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat puzzled by that reply? Could he be slightly more specific about the qualifications to which he is referring?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am referring to the qualifications that a person needs in order to be recognised as a teacher. I am sorry that I cannot find it here, but I promise my hon. Friend that there is a very good definition that I shall be happy to send to him.
    Mr. Price: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on a suitable occasion.

    Anguilla
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent changes of police personnel have been made in the force seconded to Anguilla.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Since 1st June, 1969, 40 police officers have returned from Anguilla and 48 police officers and one civilian have been posted there.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister say whether the police are enjoying this opportunity to indulge in overseas service? Can he say what is now their relationship with the local population, whether the police are training some of the population to do the police job themselves in due course and for how long this will continue?
    Mr. Morgan: These are fascinating questions but they are basically questions which fall to the lot of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by virtue of his powers under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945.

    Drugs
    Mrs. RenéeShort asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that large quantities of Chinese heroin are being smuggled into the United Kingdom, what action he is taking to locate the point of entry and those responsible for its sale and distribution.
    Mr. Callaghan: Traffic in this drug seems largely to be centred on London. While I do not accept all the implications of the Question, both the police and the Customs and Excise are fully alert to the dangers, and all possible lines of inquiry are being followed.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very grave concern at the apparent ease with which large quantities of this disgraceful adulterated drug can be brought into the country, with the tragic effects of which the House is aware? The fact that it is sold apparently at prices about one-quarter of the ordinary price of heroin on the black market makes it even more available to young people, and surely this ought to be a matter of very great concern to the Department? Does my right hon. Friend think that he has enough people in the drug squad, and will he keep an urgent eye on this matter?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think my whole approach to the subject is known to the House. I am very careful about this matter as some of the reports that have appeared have, on the information available to me—I have questioned the police about this—been exaggerated. There have been this year some seizures of heroin from Hong Kong seamen arriving at London docks, but T. can assure the House that no one is lax about this matter in view of the dreadful consequences which can flow from it.
    Mr. Deedes: Arising from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the reports, can he tell us whether we have any international means of discussing this matter with these various quarters?
    Mr. Callaghan: I suppose it would be possible for us to take the matter up with the Hong Kong authorities and I will consider that, but, on the other hand, I think smuggling by seamen is a traditional venture and it would be one that

    2119
    would be difficult for any authorities to stamp out except by normal police methods.

    Commonwealth Immigrants
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants from India, Pakistan and Kenya arrived in this country in May and June, 1969 with a work permit; how many dependants of immigrants arrived in the same period; and how many of either category left this country permanently in the same period, voluntarily or otherwise.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure for dependants coming in during the last two months has been extremely high and that the time has come to take another look at the existing situation to see what can be done to bring down the flow?
    Mr. Rees: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that in the first five months of 1969 the number of dependants fell by 20 per cent.
    Mr. Howie: Is my hon. Friend aware that among some of our community relations departments there is a feeling that the Home Office is applying the rules with undue rigour? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at all applications for entry of immigrants' dependants with his well-known personal sympathy?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are rules to be followed. The present Government introduced the Immigration Appeals Act, which will come into force probably in the early part of next year. It is a great liberalising Act in this sense.
    The following is the available information:

    COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ADMISSIONS IN MAY, 1969

    Employment voucher holders

    Dependants

    Citizens of India

    119

    1,190

    Citizens of Pakistan

    39

    1,582

    Citizens of Kenya

    —

    39

    Special voucher holders

    Dependants

    United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa

    140

    408

    Notes:

    1. The figures of dependants include dependants of immigrants who came to this country earlier.

    2. Figures for June are not yet available.

    3. Corresponding figures for Commonwealth citizens leaving the United Kingdom permanently are not available.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the rate of recruiting in the police force is sufficient to meet wastage; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: During the first five months of 1969 recruiting in England and Wales has exceeded wastage by 503.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no problem of recruiting to the police if he will only give permission to chief constables to raise their targets? Is not this the best way to combat the rising crime rate in this country?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am not wholly sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. If proper standards are to be maintained the police will have to be very competitive to get the recruits they need. They need about 7,500 this year to produce the increase in strength that I want of 2,000. They have got 500 towards the 2,000, so there is plenty of way to go yet.

    Parliamentary Constituencies
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary State for the Home Department what, studies have been made by his Department to determine the maximum size of a Parliamentary constituency, taking into account population and area, to be represented by one Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Callaghan: Sufficient guidance is given in the Redistribution of Seats Acts, 1949 and 1958.
    Mr. Speed: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he considers to be the maximum that can be fairly represented in this House and properly served by one Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: It depends on the Member.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply.
    Mr. Hogg: Will not the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the attack on the criteria that he has just defended coming from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in The Times this morning?
    Mr. Callaghan: I thought that The Times, for the first time since the controversy began, had a fair and impartial statement of the position by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consulations he had with outside bodies, individuals or organisations before introducing the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. Callaghan: None, Sir.
    Mr. Speed: In view of the recent remarks made about the timing of the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals by a noble Lady who is a member of that Commission, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been sensible to discuss this matter with outside bodies before calling in the Redcliffe-Maud Commission as an excuse to delay redistribution.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have little doubt that if the programme of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals is carried through—I believe from an examination of the timetable that it would be possible for this to be done in a reasonable period of time—the Bill which I have introduced will be entirely vindicated.
    Mr. Hogg: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that the account which he has now described as impartial and correct repudiates the Redcliffe-Maud Report as an excuse for the Bill and attacks the Boundary Commissions' criteria which the right hon. Gentleman has previously defended?
    Mr. Michael Foot rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is seeking to reply for the Minister.
    Mr. Foot: Since it is evident that the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)
    2122
    misrepresents the letter in today's The Times, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the letter to be printed in full in HANSARD.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; I undertake to do that as a statement following the answer which I have just given.
    Mr. Speed: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the two replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any precedent for a letter from a private Member printed in The Times being published in HANSARD by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker would require notice of such an erudite question.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. Further to the point of order raised during Question Time by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), would you, Mr. Speaker, consider giving a Ruling at a suitable opportunity on the circumstances in which Ministers can write into the record the private correspondence or speeches of other hon. Members? would be grateful if my speech on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill in Hexham could be written into the record; it is very different in tone and content from the letter which appears in The Times from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
    Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman can persuade the Home Secretary to write his speech into the record, I am sure the world will be edified. It is for the Home Secretary to decide what quotations he makes in the record. I did advise the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) some time ago that this was a very erudite question which I would have to have time to consider.
    Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether I was right in assuming that the Home Secretary was jesting when he made the suggestion?
    Mr. Speaker: I have a shadow of a suspicion of an idea that that might be So.
    Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I quite appreciate the sensitivity of the Opposition about the letter to The Times of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), if it would meet with the general convenience of the House I would be delighted to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you give a Ruling? Is there no limit to what Ministers can have written into the OFFICIAL REPORT, however irrelevant?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman heard what the Home Secretary said. The Home Secretary was saying that if it were the wish of the House—and it is apparently not the wish of the whole House—he would be prepared to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he regards as a valuable letter appearing in The Times newspaper.
    Hon. Members: Vote.
    Several Hon. Members rose —
    Mr. Speaker: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was asking for the wishes of the House. I think that some hon. Members think that it would be a good thing for the letter to be circulated and others think it would be a bad thing.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise hon. Members that I can take only one point of order at a time.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. Have you not yourself, Mr. Speaker, and previous Speakers, given a Ruling that Ministers are themselves responsible for the replies which they give, and if the Home Secretary feels that it is wise to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a reply which he thinks is an answer to the Question, is not he entitled to do so? We have always been told that a Minister is responsible for how he replies and what he puts into HANSARD. If the Home Secretary wishes to do that,
    2124
    is not it with in his powers, and, with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that not even you or the House can decide but that it is the Minister who has to decide?
    Mr. Speaker: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sudden defence of Ministerial powers. The Minister has not indicated that his answer will consist of an extract from one of the morning newspapers.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Only one point of order at once.
    Mr. Shinwell: No doubt you will realise that this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I want to ascertain whether there is any question of a Division on this issue. Why should The Times get preferential treatment? Do you realise, Sir, that The Times is obtaining a cheap advertisement from all this discussion? Before the letter is inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should like to know whether The Times will pay the usual advertising fees.
    Mr. Speaker: I think we might get on with the serious business. We have, I imagine, quite a lot of serious business.

    R.S.P.C.A. Officers (Firearms)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals travel about the country armed with guns with which they are entitled to shoot animals on the spot; and, in view of the potential danger to the public, whether he will introduce legislation to end this practice.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: An officer of the R.S.P.C.A. has no special dispensation from the requirements of the Firearms Act, 1968. He may not possess the humane killers provided by the Society unless he has a firearm certificate, which is granted only if the chief officer of police concerned is satisfied, inter alio, that an applicant can be permitted to have the firearm without danger to the public safety or to the peace. My right hon. Friend sees no need for any new provision.
    Mr. Brooks: Is it not slightly disconcerting that several hundred heavy

    2125
    calibre 0·32 weapons are in the hands of inspectors throughout the country? In view of the obvious risk that these weapons might fall into criminal hands, would it not be more sensible if the inspectors were supplied with the relatively safe but effective incapacitating device which many veterinary surgeons use?
    Mr. Morgan: The 0·32 calibre Webley and Scott pistols are in the hands of only those inspectors to whom a firearms certificate has been issued. I am not aware that there is any reason to suppose that firearms held by R.S.P.C.A. officers constitute a source of danger to the public.

    Prevention of Crime (Hidden Television Cameras)
    Mr. Taneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the police research and development branch has reached from its study of the reports from various police forces on the use of hidden television cameras for the prevention of crime in urban communities.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The results so far are inconclusive.
    Mr. Tilney: Whatever may be thought about "Big Brother looking on", does not the Minister agree that the fear of being found out deters many criminals, and should not every possible modern gadget be used to try to reduce crime?
    Mr. Morgan: The theory proposed by the hon. Gentleman seems sound, but the pattern which emerged from the experiments was in no way a consistent one.

    Electoral Register
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why no advice has been given to electoral registration officers as to where young persons in full-time education at school or university should be registered.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: A memorandum of guidance, dealing with this among other matters, was issued to electoral registration officers on 22nd July. In accordance with my undertaking given on 2nd July, copies have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that when the electoral register is compiled in October, 1969 all persons in dwellings in multiple occupancy are included.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Form A, the form sent to householders in connection with the canvass for the electoral register, includes a question specifically designed to elicit whether in any promises there are separate households which need to be approached. Attention is specially drawn to this in the memorandum of guidance issued by the Home Office to electoral registration officers.
    Mr. Hooley: Multiple occupancy is often a characteristic of student lodgings. Since the qualifying age at elections is now reduced to 18, could not further steps be taken to ensure that a proper, full register is compiled?
    Mr. Rees: I can only advise my hon. Friend that under Section 7 of the 1969 Act it is the general duty of a registration officer to take reasonable steps to obtain information requited by him for the purpose. It is his statutory responsibility.

    Extremist Groups and Militant Organisations (Wales)
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain a report from the chief constables of police forces in Wales regarding connections between extremist groups and militant organisations there; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Callaghan: Chief constables in Wales are keeping a close watch on, and keeping me informed of, any activities which may result in violence; but it would not be in the public interest for me to say more at present.
    Mr. Evans: There is a great sense of shock in Wales over recent acts of violence and, in particular, the tragic injuries to a small boy. Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is becoming a matter of national honour to many Welshmen that the people who are guilty of these outrages should be brought to book and that those who may give aid and comfort to them should be exposed?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend expresses the feelings of the people

    2127
    of Wales as I and many others know them. I promise him that no effort will be spared to try to trace the authors of these crimes of violence.

    Professor Ralph H. Abraham
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a deportation order on Professor Ralph Herman Abraham, a visiting American professor at Warwick University, in view of the fact that he was fined £150 by Coventry magistrates for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act, entailing scooping out a library volume, filling it with cannabis resin and posting it to Western Germany.
    Mr. Callaghan: When Mr. Abraham was convicted on 8th July, he told the court that he intended to return to the United States in about a month's time. He was not recommended for deportation by the court, and, if he honours his statement of intention I should not find it necessary to make a deportation order.

  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for improving and increasing the quality and quantity of Government statistical services, especially those relating to regional policies.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Government's statistical services are being very considerably extended and strengthened. Many of the developments have already been described in Statistical News; and I hope that it may be possible to publish, later this year, a more comprehensive report on progress and plans.
  Mr. Hamilton: Hon. Members greatly appreciate the considerable improvement in the production of regional statistics, but will my right hon. Friend take the matter further, since the Government's record on regional policy since 1964 is extremely impressive?
  The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend would let me know of any further figures which he thinks should be made available, I shall be glad to do what I can to ensure that they are.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Prime Minister look into the question why the statistics given by the Postmaster-General for the time of delivery of first-class mail bear no relation to the experiences of anyone in the West Country?
  The Prime Minister: The Question relates to Government statistical services. I shall be glad to look into any question which the hon. Gentleman cares to send me so that I can see why the experience of himself and others in the West Country seems not to tally with the figures which are available.

  MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Ministry of Overseas Development within the Government's foreign policy.
  The Prime Minister: The functions of the Ministry remain exactly as stated to the House on 10th November, 1964 by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, the then Minister of Overseas Development.
  Mr. Judd: Is it not sobering to reflect that, while our gross national product rose by 60 per cent. or £15,000 million since 1961, the net cost of our overseas aid programme has decreased from £151 million to £150 million during the same period? Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that in their future plans for public expenditure the Government will move steadily towards fulfilment of the 1 per cent. U.N.C.T.A.D. target?
  The Prime Minister: I have answered Questions on this many times in the past, and particularly with regard to the 1 per cent. My hon. Friend will be aware that the matter is kept continuously under review in each review of Government expenditure. I should have thought that he would feel that the fact that so many things had to be cut back last year while the aid programme was not cut back in sterling terms showed the high priority which we give to this programme.
  Mr. Tilney: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that taxpayers' money could be saved if private enterprise investment

  2129
  could be stimulated in developing countries and that this requires some form of political insurance?
  The Prime Minister: I know that this is a matter to which a great deal of thought has been given in the past. There has been a quite welcome increase in private enterprise investment in some of the developing countries, though I think that the problem which successive Governments have had is that far more of it has gone to already developed countries rather than to those where the need for investment in world terms is greatest.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what further discussions he intends to have with the Trade Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry concerning industrial relations.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17th July to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 787, c. 875–6.]
  Mr. Molloy: Now that the T.U.C. has decided to intervene in industrial disputes where trade unions are involved, could my right hon. Friend ask the C.B.I. to intervene where disputes are caused by arbitrary managerial action, and, further, does he agree that the mass media, which could contribute to the restoration of industrial harmony by fair reporting, should drop some of their biased attitudes towards trade union disputes?
  The Prime Minister: When we met the C.B.I. just over a month ago, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I emphasised the need for the Confederation to take powers to intervene in cases of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind, just as the T.U.C. was taking powers itself to intervene. We encouraged the Confederation also to re-examine the proposals made to it by the T.U.C. for joint fire-fighting services for dealing with unofficial disputes.
  As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, that must he a matter for the information media themselves, be they Press or tele-
  2130
  vision. There have in the past, no doubt, been some cases of unfair reporting, but in cases where there has been a dispute which was quite unjustified it has not done any harm that this should be made generally known both nationally and in the area concerned.
  Mr. John Page: During his discussions with the C.B.I., will the Prime Minister confirm that the First Secretary's undertaking that no penal clauses will be included in any industrial relations legislation during the lifetime, of the present Government applies equally to companies as to trade unions?
  The Prime Minister: In any further discussions with the C.B.I. —these will be conducted mainly by the First Secretary—my right hon. Friend will stand exactly by what she said and what I said to the House in the debate.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that since the Government got the T.U.C. to move in the direction in which it is moving it is carrying out a very responsible task? Would he further agree that meetings similar to the one which he had with the T.U.C. should be held with the C.B.I. unilaterally and then collectively with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. with a view to getting industrial relations on the basis for which we are all hoping?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I met the C.B.I. on, I think, the day after the undertaking was given by the T.U.C. But I think that the whole House would want to see both sides get together without necessarily the intervention of the Government. Useful work has been done by them on a bilateral basis, and the whole T.U.C. document and certain statements by the C.B.I. and the concept of the Commission for Industrial Relations are all based on the two sides of industry getting together on their own to improve negotiating procedures.
  Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made publicly that the legislation which we are promised next Session will contain no penalties?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait to see the legislation, and then we can discuss it in the House.

  U.S.S.R. (ASIAN SECURITY SYSTEM)
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with Commonwealth heads of government about the effect on Commonwealth countries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' proposed new Asian security system.
  The Prime Minister: We are in continuing contact on such matters with the Commonwealth Governments concerned, through diplomatic channels.
  Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister seen the important Izvestia article which speaks of a vacuum of power in the Indian Ocean and Mr. Gromyko's statement to the Supreme Soviet that Russia is now ready to join with Asian states in building a security system? Since these developments vitally affect British interests, does he not think that they may be the result of the Government's policy of scuttle and run from East of Suez?
  The Prime Minister: Taking, as I always do, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seriously—I shall come to the last part in a moment—I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the Izvestia article, which I shall study. But, in addition to Mr. Gromyko's speech to the Supreme Soviet on 10th July, there was the basic speech by Mr. Brezhnev. I would interpret the Russian's concern and what they are saying on this matter to have been motivated not by the very wise decisions of Her Majesty's Government in that area but by their fear of the growing power of China.
  Mr. Richard: Would my right hon. Friend go a little further and say that in his opinion, and in the estimates of the Government, as long as the Soviet Union and China continue to pursue their present course the interest of the Soviet Union in Asia is primarily one of stability rather than the opposite and that any proposals by Russia about an Asian security conference or arrangement should be looked at by us and the West generally very seriously indeed?
  The Prime Minister: That is a difficult matter to deal with at Question Time. It is more appropriate for debate. I remember some debates on this point
  2132
  between the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and myself several years ago. There is reason to think that not only in Asia but in Africa the Soviet Union has reason to fear growing intervention by China. If the Soviet Government have anything concrete to put forward which we could examine—so far everything that they have said has been in general terms—we shall be glad to examine it to see whether there is anything which can be done mutually to bring security in Africa and in Asia, just as we are ready to discuss with them their proposals for European security.
  Mr. Heath: Is it not difficult for Mr. Brezhnev or the Prime Minister to say that a vacuum has been created by the growing power of China?
  The Prime Minister: I did not use that phrase. I think that it came from the other side of the House. Mr. Brezhnev may or may not have used it. I am not answerable for Mr. Brezhnev. He cannot be questioned by hon. Members, would assume, not having seen the full original text, that what he was saying was that where there is a vacuum of an ideological kind the Chinese are very quick to fill it. That is the serious point which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would wish to reflect upon.
  Mr. Heath: Is it not a serious point that the British Government are creating the only vacuum in the Far East and that is the one which the Soviet Government are seeking to step into?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon Gentleman is quite wrong. It is a totally fanciful extension of anything that even he has said to suggest that anything which any British Government could do in that area would be capable of meeting either the military or the ideological and permeating threat of China.
  Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend does not suggest that, for example. the provision of vast quantities of arms from the Russians to the Arab States is not due to their fear of China but is attributable to their desire to intervene in any part of the world where they can cause trouble?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, but I was dealing with a Question which referred

  2133
  to an Asian security system, and, although it is certainly true that what we call the Middle East is known to India and other countries as West Asia, the context of the speeches by Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Brezhnev was in terms of South-East and Far East Asia, not the Middle East, which raises very different considerations, as my right hon. Friend has often made clear in the House.

  EASTERN EUROPE
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister what communications he had with President Nixon about joint Anglo-American policies towards Eastern Europe before the latter's decision to visit Roumania.
  The Prime Minister: I had a full discussion of East-West relations with President Nixon when he visited London on February, and we have since exchanged various messages on the subject.
  Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall the President's pledge that he would consult his N.A.T.O. allies before, during and after any negotiations with the Soviet bloc? Can the right hon. Gentleman say quite categorically whether he knew of the visit to Rumania before it was announced? If not, when he comes to Mildenhall in my constituency next week, will he say to the President while the aeroplane is fuelling that he feels that the British Government should be better informed?
  The Prime Minister: Of course I look forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The second point of his supplementary question falls to the ground because categorically, as he said, I was informed in advance by President Nixon of this visit and his other visits, and so was N.A.T.O.
  With regard to the discussions on a strategic arms limitation, I answered Questions about this the other day when I said that very detailed discussions were taking place on this matter in the North Atlantic Council and that we played a leading part in those discussions.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend ask the President next week to support the Finnish proposal for a European security conference, with
  2134
  American participation, in Helsinki, which is supported by the Rumanians and many other countries? Could he give us an indication of his reply to President Kekkonen's proposal?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this in Questions last week and the week before, following my talks in Sweden with the Finnish Prime Minister and others. I said that I thought that two of the obstacles to such a conference seemed to be disappearing or diminishing. One related to American participation, and it is clear that the East European countries are prepared to agree to that. The other was a problem about thee two Germanys, and I thought that Herr Willi Brandt in Harpsund was extremely helpful. We still would feel that it was necessary to make adequate preparation to ensure that such a security conference is not a place for shouting slogans at one another, but likely to get to grins with the real problems of European security.
  Sir T. Beamish: Since we are cosignatories with the United States, to the Rumanian, Bulgarian and Hungarian peace treaties, and of the Yalta agreement which affects Poland, will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that we have a clear understanding with the United States about our joint attitudes to the occupied countries?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that anything which comes out of President Nixon's visit to Rumania—and he will come straight from there to this country—which has a bearing on this question will be adequately discussed.
  Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent proposals made by Mr. Gomulka for a bilateral treaty between Western Germany and Poland to legalise the Oder-Neisse frontier? In view of the possible bearing that this might have on Western Germany's right at a future German peace conference, will he undertake to discuss with President Nixon the possibility that the Western Powers might give a favourable sign towards this proposal?
  The Prime Minister: There is no change in our position on the question of frontier recognition, which we have always said is a matter for determination in the negotiation of an ultimate peace treaty. Without building too much on

  2135
  what has happened, we all welcome what Mr. Gomulka has said, and it has been welcomed also by the German Government. The House will have noted with great interest, although it has received little publicity, the very successful visit of the Lord Mayor of Berlin to Poland, when some of these matters were obviously discussed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly say whether he has a business statement to make?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I intend to propose that the House should adjourn tomorrow, Friday, 25th July, until Monday, 13th October. The necessary Motion will be tabled today and will be taken as first business tomorrow.
On a further matter in which there is wide interest, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to table today Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, which will not be proceeded with before the Recess.
Mr. Heath: With the Leader of the House kindly say when the business for the first week after the Recess will be announced?
Mr. Peart: I will do it as soon as possible. I cannot be precise about the date, but I will see that all hon. Members are promptly informed.
Mr. Michael Foot: May I take it from the Leader of the House that the postponement of the discussion of the Amendments to the Bill made in another place is being made precisely to enable hon. Members to have sufficient time to study my letter in The Times?
Mr. Grimond: Now that this important matter is to be put off during the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to take advantage of the delay, since everyone is now convinced about the iniquity of gerrymandering, to see whether it is possible to arrange an all-party conference to decide how it can be got rid of in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Peart: Northern Ireland is not concerned in any matter that I am announcing today. I would have thought that the long Recess would enable even the right hon. Gentleman to be cautious about the words that he chooses.
Mr. Driberg: In view of the fact that more than 20 Questions down for reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not reached today, and in view of the increasingly educative and encyclopaedic nature of the Prime Minister's replies, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the Standing Order after the Recess so that we can have a little more time with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Peart: I will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As legislation which, among other things, seeks to indemnify the Home Secretary for his breach of his statutory duty under the Act of 1949 is not now to be proceeded with for some months, can the House take it that the right hon. Gentleman will now do his duty under the Statute and lay the necessary Orders?
Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority, but I would not say necessarily that his view is right. I think that what I have announced is the right course at this stage.
Mr. Frank Allaun: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the other place has made three Amendments to the Housing Bill which are very damaging to the interests of tenants—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask a business Question, but he cannot discuss the merits of anything at the moment.
Mr. Allaun: This is strictly business. One of them has been put right, but two have not, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if there will be an opportunity today or tomorrow to remedy these grave injustices—
Mr. Speaker: Order. They are on the Order Paper for today, I think.
Mr. Peart: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. They are on the Order Paper, and we will have an opportunity to vote on them.
Mr. Costain: Can the Leader of the House say whether there will be time for the usual Summer Adjournment debates before the House rises tomorrow?
Mr. Peart: Tomorrow, yes.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that it is the view of most of his colleagues that it is a good idea to put off discussion of the proposed boundary changes to allow the unelected Chamber three months to cool down and come to its senses?
Mr. Peart: This affords time for reflection, of course.
Mr. Hogg: Are we to take it that the Government are having second thoughts about their iniquitous behaviour in this matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now what apparently we shall be debating some time ahead. We are on business questions.
Mr. Emery: Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to his statement, which has meant the reorganisation of business for today? As we are not taking the Lords Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No.2) Bill, we find that the Development of Tourism Bill is the first Order of Day. Does he realise that this House did not know yesterday whether their Lordships had or had not put Clause 17 into the Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Discussion of the Lords Amendments to the Development of Tourism Bill will take place at some time during the day. We cannot discuss now the debate which we shall be having then. We are asking business questions.
Mr. Emery rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emery. A business question.
Mr. Emery: This deals entirely with the business for today. It is because we did not know yesterday what we would be debating, since there was no Lords HANSARD to inform us, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect this House properly to conduct its business on the Development of Toursim Bill today?
Mr. Peart: I acted immediately. We only got the Bill yesterday—
Mr. Emery: That is the point. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. No backchat.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the completion of the debate on the B.B.C. which was unfinished the other day, with particular reference to my Early Day Motion No. 395 about the Scottish Symphony Orchestra?
[That this House deplores the British Broadcasting Corporation's announcement that it can no longer remain financially responsible for the British Broadcasting Corporation Scottish Symphony Orchestra and hopes that the orchestra will not be disbanded; notes that the Corporation are to consider a proposal from the Scottish Arts Council who are to be congratulated on their initiative in this matter; and calls urgently on both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Government to give all necessary support and to take all necessary steps to save this distinguished orchestra and to maintain the study and exposition of its splendid work without which Scottish aesthetics and in particular music in Scotland would be significantly impoverished.]
Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. and learned Friend's Motion and, as always, I applaud his energy and diligence in this matter. However, there was an opportunity. He must keep pressing Ministers.
Mr. Marten: Is the tight hon. Gentleman aware of the slightly unsatisfactory way in which tomorrow's business has been handled? Can he say when the subjects for debate on the Adjournment will be announced? Secondly, will the Motion to adjourn be tabled tomorrow morning after Questions at 12 o'clock, and can the debate on it run on until 4 o'clock, thereby keeping out all the debates on the Adjournment?
Mr. Peart: The Motion can be taken. It is not an unusual list. There are ample precedents. This has happened before.
Mr. Rose: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 423 relating to the situation in Londonderry, which already has been

2139
signed by 88 hon. Members? In view of the impending Recess, would my right hon. Friend undertake that the Cabinet will keep a firm watch on this very serious situation and, if necessary, report to this House?
[That this House, recognising the highly critical situation in Londonderry and understanding the underlying grievances, calls for full support of the responsible leadership of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland; urges the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to take all the steps necessary to secure peace and justice in Northern Ireland; and calls for the following immediate steps: the presence of Home Office observers in Northern Ireland, and tile withdrawal of the Ulster Special Constabulary from Londonderry and its environs.]
Mr. Peart: I have noted carefully the terms of the Motion. The actual withdrawal of the Special Ulster Constabulary is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will it be possible to have an early debate or chat on the extemely important recommendations put forward by the House of Commons Services Committee on measures to enable hon. Members to discharge their functions more efficiently?
Mr. Peart: This is an important matter. As Chairman of the Services Committee, I am anxious that a statement should be made on this, and there will be opportunities, of course, even tomorrow. There is a question for Written Answer down to me. But I would like to consider this very sympathetically.
Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services be making a statement on implementing the Seebohm Report, which he promised to do before the long Recess?
Mr. Peart: This was answered by my right hon. Friend during Questions.
Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Leader of the House apply his mind to the Writs for the five by-elections outstanding? Does he propose to issue the Writs to-
2140
morrow? If not, is he aware that carrying them over until 13th October or later will mean, in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme, for example, disenfranchisement for a period of 9 months, which is surely a Parliamentary record? Why will not he issue the Writs tomorrow to fill those five seats and return Tory hon. Members for them?
Mr. Peart: The hon Gentleman's question is one that he has often raised. He knows the answer. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, not for me.
Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend explain how it is possible for him to answer Questions about the business for next week when there is none?
Mr. Peart: I agree. There is no business for next week.
Sir T. Beamish: On the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, in order that right hon. and hon. Members may have ample opportunity to study both points of view during the Recess, will the Leader of the House consider following the strange precedent set by the Home Secretary and publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech made in another place by the Bishop of South-wark?
Mr. Peart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to debate this matter, he should read all the speeches in that debate.
Sir B. Janner: In view of the importation of so many dangerous wild animals as pets and the anxiety that has been caused in many parts of the country, will my right hon. Friend take steps to introduce legislation to deal with this matter? Will he particularly keep the matter in mind during the Recess, because of its importance?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter which affects a section of the community, but I cannot find time or promise legislation.
Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman avoided answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the by-elections by saying that this was a matter for the Patronage Secretary. But it is a matter of business that the House is entitled to ask whether the

2141
Patronage Secretary intends to move the Writs before the House rises, in the same way as we may ask the Leader of the House whether a Minister intends to introduce a Bill. It is all part of business. In view of the importance of this matter, I do not think—
Hon. Members: Order, order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman strays from order, I will call him to it.
Mr. Sandys: I am very sorry if I strayed from order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was protecting the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I may continue. What I am pressing the Leader of the House to tell us is a very simple matter, and it is a matter of business, as to whether the Patronage Secretary will move the Writ before the House rises.
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member of an Administration—a distinguished member—and he knows that the Leader of the House never moves it. It is a matter for the Patronage Secretary, who has heard the right hon. Gentleman's views. I do not think that he will do it tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House—and this is the third time this week—that I can take only one point of order at a time.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Would you please give a number of my hon. Friends and myself guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter that has arisen from the controversy of the last few moments? Is it not a fact that Erskine May states that any Member of the House, without notice to Mr. Speaker, may move that a Writ for the holding of a by-election be moved by Mr. Speaker that day?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I ruled on this question—the hon. Gentleman must have missed it—10 to 14 days ago. It is possible for an hon. Member to do so.
2142
If he does, he must let Mr. Speaker know before he proposes to do so, so that the appropriate form in which the notice is given may be followed. But it is a convention of the House that it is usually moved by Members of the party to which the late Member or the Member who has vacated the seat, belonged. It is as simple as that.
Sir G. Nabarro rose
—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might look up the Ruling. I have ruled very clearly. We are on business questions.
Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. You have kindly instructed me, Mr. Speaker, that the Member should give Mr. Speaker notice in the matter. As the House is due to rise tomorrow for more than 10 weeks, would you consider it adequate notice if I gave you notice in writing today that the by-election—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand what I have said. He must come to Mr. Speaker. He must consult Mr. Speaker. He must get the notice that he seeks to move in the correct form, and on this Mr. Speaker will advise him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen who are willing to advise Mr. Speaker must wait. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) can come to Mr. Speaker, who will advise him on the appropriate form. But I would remind him of a convention which has existed for I do not know how many years—I do not know how many centuries. The notice of a vacancy and the appropriate setting in motion of a by-election is given, by a convention of the House long established—and the House likes its conventions and would not wish to break them lightly—[Interruption.] Order. It is very difficult for Mr. Speaker to advise a Member on order if he is being interrupted.
The notice is usually given by Members belonging to the party which was in possession of the seat at the time the vacancy occurred.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Your Ruling a fortnight ago to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, related to a time when Parliament is in Session,

2143
but is it not a fact that completely different circumstances arise if we are in Recess, and that according to the rules of the House if we are in Recess it is possible for two Members to apply for the Writ, a Committee of seven will be set up by you, and that Writ will have to be issued? I think that the House would accept that that would be breaking a convention, and we would be reluctant to do it, but if the Government are tardy in issuing writs in the normal, conventional way, they, not we, are risking breaking the conventions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is on an entirely new point. I had ruled on the point put by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South—[Interruption.] Order. It is very discourteous when Mr. Speaker is ruling on a very serious matter if hon. Members seek to interrupt him.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South had been dealt with by me in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) some weeks ago. The hon. Member for Peterborough has now raised a new point which is quite an important one. According to the Statute, in times of Recess it is possible for any two hon. Members to instruct Mr. Speaker—not to advise, but to instruct him—to declare a vacancy which has happened.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether we might return to business questions.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the information you have just confirmed, Mr. Speaker, is it not up to the Government to avoid the breaking of a convention by acting in the conventional way?
Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the Government, not for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lipton—
Mr. Lipton: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, in order to save precious time—
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) might wait to put his point of order.
Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether—
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am compelled to take the point of order, although the hon. Gentleman is interrupting another hon. Member.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: I apologise for interrupting, but I apprehend that the hon. Gentleman is going on to another topic—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would still have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to allow the other hon. Member to put his question on another topic, without interrupting him on a point of order.
Mr. Lipton: In order to save precious and valuable time of the House, will the Leader of the House look at Motion No. 392, relating to excessive local government expenditure in Lambeth?
[That this House calls upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government to investigate the reasons why the London Borough of Lambeth is spending £2,011 to advertise the post of chief executive officer.]
Will he ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to accept that Motion without debate and just get on with it?
Mr. Peart: The answer is: No, Sir. It is a matter for the local authority. It is open to the district auditor to consider whether expenditure of this kind is reasonable when he conducts his audit. I think that that is satisfactory.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Reverting to the previous subject, I completely accept the existence of the conventions which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but there is one point which should be made quite clear. Am I not right in supposing that Erskine May, contrary to what you have said, states that any hon. Member can give notice of moving a Writ without notice?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member reads Erskine May he will see that it confirms the convention to which I have called the attention of the House.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the Leader of the House request the Home Secretary to

2145
make a statement clarifying the situation that will arise from holding over the Redistribution of Seats Bill until after the Recess? Since the Bill will not become law until after 15th October, when the register is compiled, it would seem that the next register will be compiled on the old basis. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would make a statement which would help registration officers and those responsible for returns.
Mr. Peart: I do not think that there is any need for a statement. First things first; let us wait to see what the Amendments are.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business to get through.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted my Motion No. 422?
[That in the opinion of this House, the summer school for the young subversives to be held shortly at the London School of Economics should not benefit financially from the overall expenditure by the London School of Economics on rent, rates, lighting, heating, cleaning, domestic labour and other services, and no payment from the Organising Committee should be accepted in lieu thereof.]
May I have an assurance that subversion will not be made a charge on the taxpayer?
Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion. The hon. Lady must know that that question is not for me to answer.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can move on.
Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his decision on Redistribution Seats Bill is absolutely right? Since he is being asked to do this sort of thing, will he consider, in answer to business questions, including the independent article by Mr. David Butler in the Sunday Times, which exposes as unfounded the charges of gerrymandering?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions should be real business questions.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the somewhat unusual situation in which we are debating the Adjournment Motion on the last day, can my right hon. Friend say what contingency arrangements he is
2146
making in case the House should vote against the Adjournment, and vote not to go on holiday?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should not be so pessimistic.

MR. GERALD BROOKE (RELEASE)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
Mr. Brooke, the British subject who was sentenced by a Soviet court in 1965 to five years' imprisonment for alleged anti-Soviet activity, has been released and has returned to this country today. Her Majesty's Government have undertaken that a recommendation will be made for the remission in three months' time of the remainder of the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment which was passed on Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kroger in 1961 in connection with the Portland spy case. Upon their release Mr. and Mrs. Kroger will be free to go to any destination of their choice. We have also agreed that Polish consular officials may visit them at monthly intervals until their release.
The Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. provides that consular visits to British subjects in detention in the Soviet Union shall take place "on a recurrent basis". Under Soviet regulations such visits have been permitted not less frequently than once every four months; but the Soviet regulations also provide that offences against prison discipline may be punished by forfeiture of consular visits. At one time Mr. Brooke went for more than a year without a visit, and more recently Mr. Lorraine has been deprived of a consular visit. We have now been assured that even in cases where offences against prison discipline are alleged the Soviet authorities will favourably consider our request that the intervals between visits by British consular representatives should not exceed four months.
The Soviet authorities have undertaken that on the day after the departure of Mr. and Mrs. Kroger from this country Mr. Michael Parsons End Mr. Anthony Lorraine, the British subjects who in 1968 were sentenced by Soviet courts to four

2147
and three years' detention, respectively, for smuggling drugs into the Soviet Union, will be released.
It has been arranged, as a separate matter, that three British subjects who have for some years been endeavouring without success to marry Soviet citizens will, not later than 24th October, be granted visas to enter the Soviet Union to register their marriages, and that thereafter their partners will be free to leave the Soviet Union should they so desire. We have been told that one other British subject in this category may have a Soviet visa at any time.
In deciding to make these arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have had three considerations in mind. The first is that of humanity towards Mr. Brooke. We were informed on 28th April that fresh charges, carrying very heavy penalties, were being prepared against him. His health has not been good throughout his imprisonment, and further years in prison might have had the most serious consequences.
Secondly, the Krogers will have served over 8½ years in prison. They will have paid a substantial penalty for their offences.
Thirdly, the other arrangements which I have mentioned, affecting British subjects, and consular visits, are in themselves desirable and remove an obstacle for improvement in relations between this country and the U.S.S.R.
Taking these considerations into account, and recognising the counter-arguments which can be advanced, I believe that the decision which I have announced is right.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Reaction to the Foreign Secretary's statement must be in two parts. The first is that Mr. Brooke ought never to have received such a savage sentence for a minor infringement of Soviet law and that this release is merely belated justice. It should have happened long ago. Therefore, for him and his wife, who has shown such courage, the House is unreservedly glad that his terrible ordeal is over. The second part concerns Mr. Brooke's exchange for the Krogers. They had engaged in an entirely different order and scale of espionage. This is bound to arouse public anxieties and reservations.
2148
In the first place, the Foreign Secretary should understand that this is an encouragement to the Russians to believe that they can always squeeze Her Majesty's Government in this way. The Foreign Secretary understands, does he not, that they are not in the least inhibited from starving a man until he is ill so as to play on the feelings and humanity of the British people? Their cold and brutish behaviour is part of the Russian make-up in this matter.
Secondly, is there not a real danger that professional spies like the Krogers may not have told all that they know to Her Majesty's Government; that they may have knowledge which could still be of use to the Soviet Union concerning personnel or other matters. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first consideration must be the morale of our own services in a most hazardous occupation?
Having said that, I must point out that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have shouldered a very heavy responsibility. I have not—and I do not think that any other hon. Member has—sufficient knowledge or information to make a considered judgment on this case. That can be done only by the Government and the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must bear responsibility for this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that he has taken all these very grave matters into full account in arriving at his decision.
Mr. Stewart: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have taken very seriously into account all the arguments and counter-arguments that can be advanced. I accept that this is not a matter which any humane or sensible person would think could be decided casually or off the cuff. There are very grave considerations on both sides.
I entirely accept that although Mr. Brooke did, and this is not in dispute, something contrary to Soviet law, it was not something that we in this country would regard as an offence, and we always took the view that the penalty imposed upon him was on any judgment out of all proportion to what he had done.
I accept, too, that the position of the Krogers was very different indeed. The

2149
right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the possible advantage there might be in that information could be obtained from the Krogers. I had to weigh this up, and it seemed to me that with every month that passed the weight of this argument became less and the weight of the argument of humanity for Mr. Brooke became greater.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we have taken this decision very carefully, taking all the factors into account. I believe it to be the right decision both on humanitarian grounds and on the long-term judgment of relations between the Soviet Union and this country, and the security of this country.
Mr. Mendelson: One readily accepts the humanitarian motives of the Government's actions. Anyone who knows the position of Mr. Brooke and the position of his relatives will appreciate that action. At the same time, while accepting that my right hon. Friend must speak with the great reserve placed on him in his position, it should be made quite clear that here there is nothing but contempt and very grave concern for future relations with the Soviet Union as a result of this example of blackmail applied to a man who had obviously committed nothing that would be regarded as an offence in a democratic society; and that there is a very grave danger for future relations when we see the Soviet Union acting in this way. The Russians ought to be left in no doubt about the reactions of all democrats in this country, and in other countries, to the way in which they have acted.
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can at all dispute what my hon. Friend has said, but he will accept that, after he had said it, he did not feel that he could dissent from the decision which the Government had taken.
Mr. Hastings: I have two questions. First, what were the serious consequences to which the Foreign Secretary referred previously in regard to the threat to retry Brooke, and why were those not resorted to long ago to obtain his release instead of having this disgraceful and dangerous deal? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute assurance that no pressure has been or will be brought on Mr. Gerald Brooke by the Foreign Office to prevent him pub-
2150
lishing, should he so wish, in due course a full and unrestricted account of the circumstances of his arrest and his treatment at Russian hands?
Mr. Stewart: We should not dream of bringing any pressure to bear on Mr Brooke. This is a free country and he can say or write what he likes. I merely express the personal opinion that I think that Mr. Brooke, after what he has been through, will probably want to relax in family life and, if I tray say so, find his feet again in this country before he wants to express himself in public at all. But we certainly should not attempt to restrict him.
The hon. Gentleman used, as, I am afraid, he so often does, adjectives like "disgraceful", and so on, which do not really add anything to the serious problem we have to consider. I know the problems that are involved, but I am quite convinced, after looking at all the aspects and weighing them all up, that if we had pursued another course—we could have pursued the course of retaliation and counter-retaliation—this would in no way have helped Mr. Brooke. It would have inflicted such damage on relations between us and the Soviet Union as to serve no good purpose either to Mr. Brooke or to this country, or to mankind
Mr. Moonman: Whilst I welcome the general details of the package deal, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that in the case of people, such as one of my constituents, who are given an opportunity to return to Russia for marriage, such an arrangement as this will not happen again, as it would be serious if it were repeated?
Mr. Stewart: Frankly, I do not think that I can answer for that, but the position of those British subjects who desire to contract marriages with Soviet citizens—and we know that there are three precise cases—is that they will be able to go to the Soviet Union if they wish to register the marriage and, having done so, they and their partners will be free to reside in whichever country they wish. I think that that is the best one can expect.
Mr. Evelyn King: Whilst I deplore the whole sordid deal, does not the Foreign Secretary agree that another embarrassing question arises? If the Krogers are to be released, what is the Government's

2151
attitude towards the other Portland prisoners and, in particular, Ethel Gee, an ageing spinster of 55, now serving a 15-year sentence for a lesser part in that plot? Is it conceivable that the Government intend to release the master in treachery and maintain in prison one who was, in fact, his catspaw?
Mr. Stewart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but this is a question that he must put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Although my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a good deal of support from all on this side for the very delicate decision he had to take, can he confirm that another Government—I believe, the German Government—recently entered into a similar arrangement with the Soviet Union? In view of this, would he consider consulting other Allied Governments on what implications arise for British subjects and subjects of other Western countries visiting the Soviet Union in future?
Mr. Stewart: I should require notice of that question.
Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends well appreciate the difficult position which the Government found, and the difficulties of the negotiations; and that we join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in his expressions of pleasure that Mr. Brooke has been released? But is the Foreign Secretary aware that a deal of this kind, whereby two prisoners are exchanged for one could set a dangerous precedent? Will he give an assurance to the House that in no circumstances will this present exchange be regarded by the Government as a precedent?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that we can regard a matter like this as a precedent in any sense. This was a very particular case. I had to decide what it was right to do in this particular case, taking all the factors into account.
Mr. Moyle: While my right hon. Friend will be aware that I welcome the humanity
2152
of what the Government have done in bringing home Mr. Brooke in these conditions, will he also agree that a promise by Soviet Intelligence to potential employees that if the worst comes to the worst they can be got out of prison in nine years is unlikely to ease their recruitment problem?
Mr. Stewart: I must say that I very much take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is a point of very serious substance.
Sir J. Rodgers: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us on this side of the House deplore the sordid package deal in the release of two arch spies like the Krogers in exchange for Mr. Brooke, who committed a minor crime as compared with that committed by the Krogers? Is he not ashamed to come to the House and say that the Soviet authorities have said that they would favourably consider regular consular visits rather than giving a firm promise? How does he have the nerve to come to the House and to use such phrases?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. Member has faced this problem in his own mind. At one moment he announces his pleasure that Mr. Brooke is coming back and in the next moment he calls it a sordid deal. He cannot have it both ways. He ought to make clear whether he thinks the whole matter is right or wrong. I accept that there are arguments on both sides, and he ought to be able to decide his position. He does not seem to have solved the matter in his own mind. I have to solve the matter, and I have tried to solve it in a way which I think is consistent both with humanity and with the long-term interests of this country.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that, while no one in his senses would envy him in the decision which he has had to make, all hon. Members who have applied their minds to the problem recognise that he has dealt with this matter with great honour and intelligence? Will he further accept that the implications in the questions of some hon. Members opposite are that we should discuss in full in the House the Secret Service. If we are to have partial discussion of those matters, then we will have to have a full debate, with wide-ranging implications indeed.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said. We can say, without arrogance, that our country maintains a very high standard of regard for human rights and dignity, that we are not prepared to inflict injuries on human beings as a measure of retaliation, and that this sometimes makes it difficult when we have to make bargains with foreign governments. In the light of those considerations I have to make this kind of decision. Weighing everything up, I am firmly convinced that this was the right decision to take.
Sir F. Maclean: The Foreign Secretary has spoken of his anxiety to do nothing that might prejudice Anglo-Soviet relations. Will he consider conveying to the Soviet Government that they also have a contribution to make in this respect?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed, I will certainly do that; and I am sure that they will note what has been said in this House.
Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the people who work for us in espionage are honourable people who serve their country, and that this is probably equally true of the Russians? Probably both are right, since the more we know about each other's specific intentions the better. Therefore, if we have an opportunity, without danger to our own country, to release people who have behaved in this way, it should be a matter for rejoicing, not a tragedy.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend in that question raises major philosophical issues to which I would not like to give an answer off the cuff. I would go thus far with him. I accept the proposition that somebody who carries out espionage on behalf of the country to which he has given his own loyalty is in one box, but somebody who has been born and brought up in one country and owes everything he has to that country and then engages in espionage against it is in quite another.
Lord Lambton: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he has received an absolute assurance from the security authorities that the knowledge in the hands of the Krogers could now be of no use to any Power whatever?
Mr. Stewart: In the nature of the case, I do not think that one could possibly give an absolute 100 per cent. assurance, as the noble Lord asks. I considered this matter, and I felt that the value of retaining the Krogers in prison had now so diminished that it was right to do what we have done.
Mr. Archer: While fully accepting that those who care most about humanity are the most susceptible to blackmail in these cases, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will never make this a reason for lowering the standards of compassion which he has shown in this case?
Mr. Stewart: All I can say in reply to that is that I hope not. I will try to do my best.
Mr. Maude: How do Her Majesty's Government propose to ensure that whenever we in this country catch and sentence a Russian agent an innocent British subject is not arrested in order to set up a package deal for the Foreign Secretary? Furthermore, what is the deterrent value of long sentences against spies if this kind of blackmail can be applied to get them off with less than a third of the sentence?
Mr. Stewart: As for the last part of the question, I have already pointed out that they have served a substantial term of imprisonment. The first part of the question raises an important problem, but I would invite the House to notice that Mr. Brooke undoubtedly did commit, and knowingly committed, an offence against Soviet law. In view of what he has suffered I do not want to over-labour this point, but it is important for the House to notice that, so far as I can discover, there is no recent instance of any British subject who has gone to the Soviet Union and who has been careful to observe its laws who has got into any kind of trouble. I think that one can say with reasonable confidence that a British citizen who goes to the Soviet Union and is careful to observe its laws while he is there is not at risk for this reason.
Mr. Dickens: Nevertheless, in view of Mr. Brooke's experience in the Soviet union, and in view of the consequences of which we have heard today, is it not now incumbent of the Foreign Office to make quite certain that visitors from Great Britain to the Soviet Union are

2155
informed of the very serious and severe penalties prescribed by Soviet law for quite trivial offences?
Mr. Stewart: The Foreign Office is always very ready, and has been ready on a great many occasions, to provide visitors to any country with information which might be important to them. I agree that this is particularly true of people who visit countries whose whole concepts of human liberty are different from ours. I should have thought that it is now clear to British citizens who intend to visit the Soviet Union and certain other countries that it is important to carry out strict observance of their laws and that the risks in not so doing are very grave.
Mr. Blaker: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that surrender to blackmail has implications which go rather wider than this particular deal and affect the credibility of British foreign policy in general?
Mr. Stewart: Of course, we considered that matter. When the hon. Member uses phrases like "surrender to blackmail", he must try in his own mind to answer the question whether he feels we ought not to have made this arrangement. If he thinks we ought not to have done so he must understand what that means in the consequences to Mr. Brooke, in the forfeiture of the humane arrangement which we have been able to make and in the permanent injury which this might do to relations between this country and the Soviet Union. That is the question which has got to be answered.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. As a matter of humanity, might I mention a British subject who has been detained for a very long time in Russia because the Soviet Union will not issue a visa for her to come to this country? This has occurred in spite of representations made at ambassadorial level—indeed at a very distinguished level involving Lord Montgomery. Did the Foreign Secretary do anything in the consultations with the Soviet Union to obtain a visa for Miss Natasha Whitehead to come to this country, as she wishes to do and as our people, through our Ambassador,
2156
wish her to do? What has been done about Miss Whitehead since we have heard nothing about her for a very long time?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can answer this question without notice, but I will be glad to consult the hon. Lady about it.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must not be a device to get in an extra question.
Mr. Griffiths: I have no such intention, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to draw to your attention that yesterday I had a Question to the Foreign Secretary asking whether he would make a statement about Mr. Brooke before the House rose. I had no Answer to that Question yesterday and I had no indication today that such an Answer was to be given. As you, Mr. Speaker, said earlier, surely this is against the conventions of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had a Question yesterday, it would have been good of the Minister to let him know that such a statement was being made today.

SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS (WHITE PAPER)
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I have today laid before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for social insurance benefits in the new scheme of earnings-related social security. The Government have already, in 1966, introduced a substantial measure of earnings relationship into the provision for short-term benefits for the early months of sickness, unemployment and widowhood. The changes now proposed for short-term benefits are thus limited to those required to adapt them to the new system of earnings-related contributions and long-term benefits. Stamped cards and flat-rate contributions will be abolished for all employees covered by P.A.Y.E. and the new contributions for them will be collected through the P.A.Y.E. system.

2157
The proposals, with the financial implications, are set out in detail in the White Paper.
The White Paper also describes the new deal for the long-term sick. Short-term sickness benefit under the new scheme will be payable for up to six months. Those who are still sick at the end of this period will be able to receive a new earnings related long-term sickness benefit—to be called invalidity pension. This benefit will replace the present flat-rate sickness benefit for those who are sick for more than six months. For those who are so severely handicapped that they need a great deal of help from other people there will also be available a new attendance allowance announced in the earlier White Paper.
As regards the industrial injuries scheme, the Government are still in consultation with both sides of industry on the consequential changes necessary in industrial injury benefit and industrial widows' pensions; no change is proposed in industrial disablement benefit. Subject to this, the proposals in today's White Paper, with those already ananounced in the earlier White Paper "National Superannuation and Social Insurance", complete the Government's plans for reconstructing the present national insurance scheme. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
Lord Balniel: We are glad that the White Paper on short-term benefits is now being published. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement would appear to indicate that it contains no proposals other than those which have already been outlined in the original White Paper? In particular, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be disappointment that, apart from the attendance allowance, which will benefit only a limited number of severely disabled persons, there is no advance in the provision for the civilian disabled?
I have already welcomed the attendance allowance, but I should like to ask two specific questions. First, is there any reason why the attendance allowance should have to wait until 1972? Could it not be introduced straightaway?
Secondly, will severely disabled children, who have no contribution
2158
record, also be eligible for this attendance allowance?
Mr. Crossman: On the first point about there being nothing new here, the two paragraphs that we had in the original White Paper, as I promised, were expanded. I should think that the announcement of the invalidity allowance was, in a sense, new. We have now added to the short-term six months combination of flat rate arid graded benefit, the first long-term graded benefit for sickness, or, as we say, invalidity benefit. This is new. Though it does not altogether deal with the problem of disability—and I frankly admit this—it is a notable advance in an area where, for a long time before this Government came into office, there was no advance.
Concerning the attendance allowance, I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion that this should be paid straightaway. I was thinking of including it all in the Bill and introducing the whole thing together in 1972. However, I will certainly consider the possibility of earlier introduction.
I should like notice of the special question about children. It is a difficult question and I do not want to answer it today.
Mr. Molloy: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today and, in particular, on his second thoughts, in response to the noble Lord's question, concerning the attendance allowance. This is a serious point. If my right hon. Friend would give the House an assurance that he will not wait until 1972, but give a reasonable promise that there will be some implementation along those lines within the next Session of Parliament, he would be making an even greater contribution than he has now, and many people would be grateful for it.
Mr. Crossman: I cannot go further than I went in my previous answer. I am prepared to consider it. The attendance allowance is a new principle and needs a great deal of careful consideration. I am not going to rush it, because we are introducing a brand new principle into National Insurance. We are giving a small amount of it here. I think we would be wise to wait and do it all together in the big new Bill.
Mr. Farr: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the attendance allowance, I should like to echo what my noble Friend has said about it being brought into effect before 1972.
Will this attendance allowance be sufficient for a person who is severely handicapped and requires a full-time attendant at home to run to that sort of service?
Mr. Crossman: I do not want to add to what I have already said. There will be a full statement about the detailed application of the scheme. Naturally, we have some experience of this with war pensions and industrial injuries pensions, because we have instances of constant attendance allowance in those cases. Exactly how we will apply the principle in this case will be announced in detail later.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend been able to give any attention to the position of Members of Parliament concerning earnings-related contributions and benefits? In particular, has he given any thought to ending the fiction that Members of Parliament are self-employed and, therefore, disqualified from unemployment benefit when they lose their seats, which may be a relevant consideration to many hon. Members opposite at the next Election?
Mr. Crossman: I admit that up till now it has been assumed—perhaps wrongly—that Members of Parliament are self-employed rather than employees. I gather that the matter is now under serious reconsideration.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody will be delighted to see the end of stamps and cards? Would he care to give the House an estimate of the administrative cost saving which will result from their elimination and what the contribution conditions will be for the award of the invalidity pension?
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is earnings-related. Therefore, to qualify for the award, a person must presumably have been in employment at some time. Will this not increase still further the dis-
2160
partity between those who fulfil contribution conditions and those who have been disabled all their lives and therefore unable to do so?
Mr. Crossman: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on the second question. The whole innovation here is that in return for a contribution paid by an employee his wife, for example, can receive the pension although she has not been an employee. Because of this innovation we are being particularly careful in preparing for the scheme.
On the first question, there is no way of estimating the saving on stamps. We have to combine it with the much increased expenditure on the computerisation of the whole earnings-related contribution. I hope that the net result will be that we do not have to have an increase of staff in Newcastle.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view both of the complexity and importance of these matters, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper, not only before legislation is introduced, but before legislation is finalised in form? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are good precedents for this?
Mr. Crossman: I should like to consider that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House. I am prepared to talk to the Leader of the House about this because I, too, should very much welcome a debate on these very important issues.
Mr. Fortescue: Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now able to announce the amplification of some of the proposals contained in the January White Paper mean that the nation wide survey of the chronic sick and disabled referred to in that White Paper has been completed and will be acted upon?
Mr. Crossman: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we were able to extract some information from that, of a partial character, but we have not been able to complete the deductions from it. It will be some months before we can publish them.

MR. SPEAKER (LEAVE OF ABSENCE)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that the Bath University of Technology proposes to do me the honour of conferring on me tomorrow the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore ask for the indulgence of the House and leave of absence to enable me to attend the University for that purpose.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating you on this honour.

MR. SPEAKER (LEAVE OF ABSENCE)
  BILL PRESENTED
    PUBLIC OPINION REGISTER
    Bill to establish a published register on which opinions in relation to Government Green Papers and certain other Government policy documents may be publicly expressed and recorded prior to further Government action, presented pursuant to Order [23rd July], and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

  DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
  Lords A tnendments considered.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of backbenchers find themselves in a particularly difficult situation because of the management of Government business. We accept that in matters of emergency the Government have to move, and can move, with great speed, and that it is within their power so to do. I do not think anybody would claim that this Bill is an emergency. We therefore find ourselves in the position that most hon. Members, unless they bad been present in another place at 11 p.m. on Tuesday, would not have known whether the other place had put back into the Bill the whole of Clause 17 in Part III of the Bill. Reference to the minutes of the other place does not show this.
  We have been asked to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill, but we found ourselves in the position of not knowing what Amendments we could or could not amend. The published list of Amendments was not made available at the Vote Office until about 6 o'clock yesterday. This puts the Opposition in a difficulty in trying to deal sensibly with the action that has been taken in another place.
  I wonder whether you consider that the Government, in attempting to rush this legislation through, ought to pay greater attention to the rights of backbenchers, because if they do not, the whole proceedings become a nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting his point of view so clearly. The House, if it likes, could

  2163
  proceed with what Francis Thompson called "deliberate speed". In this case it seems to have proceeded with what Francis Thompson called "majestic instancy". I cannot interfere with the arrangements of the Government. I had to study this morning, after a not inconsiderable amount of time in the Chair during the last 24 hours, starred Amendments made to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. I admit that it has been rather difficult, but it has not been impossible. I note that the hon. Member, or one of his colleagues, has starred Amendments to one of the Bills before us. It is difficult, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair. The hon. Member must make his protest to the Government, to the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

  DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
    Clause 2

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND POWERS.
      Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 36, after "Acts" insert:
      "but subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) of this section".
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): Reluctant as I am to agree with an unrepresentative second Chamber on anything, I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment.
      Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had always understood that there was at least a convention that the decencies were observed and that one House did not go out of its way to slander and denigrate the other. The Minister, without any trace of apology for the headlong haste to which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery) has called attention, rose to his feet with this gratuitous slur upon another place which at least has the distinction of not commanding united support on that nasty Front Bench opposite.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is a tradition and practice of the House not to refer to proceedings in another place during the current Session, unless it is to a Ministerial statement.
      Mr. Rodgers: On a point of order. I do not think that it was a slur on the
      2164
      other place. I said that I found it instinctively difficult to agree with it, which is true; I referred to it as an unrepresentative second Chamber, which is also true; otherwise I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Peter Blaker: I wonder whether the Minister will be repeating his remarks about another place on every one of the eight Amendments from another place, because I expect—I may be taking a risk in so expecting—that he will ask the House to accept them all. Perhaps it would put his remarks into perspective if I pointed out that some are Amendments put down by his noble Friends. It is a pity that the Minister did not explain to the House the purpose of the Amendment. Does he propose to give an explanation of Amendment No. 3 when we reach it, because it would be useful for those hon. Members who have not been following the proceedings closely to be given such an explanation?
      Mr. Rodgers: I will give to the House whatever explanation is required. This is a drafting Amendment, and I hoped that I was saving time by waiting to give the explanation on the substantive Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 44, at end insert:
      "( ) to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions;".
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment states a specific power for the Tourist Boards to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions. The Tourist Boards will have to maintain close links with many interests concerned with providing tourist facilities and amenities as well as with trade, travel and consumer interests. We discussed the matter at length in Committee. They will obviously have to establish appropriate consultative and advisory machinery, and their powers under the Bill as originally drafted were adequate for the purpose. While there is no need to provide a specific power for

      2165
      them to establish committees, I do not suggest that we should disturb this provision which has been inserted in the Bill in another place.
      Mr. Blaker: I am glad that the Minister proposed that we should agree with this Amendment, which was put down by Opposition Members in another place and accepted by the Government spokesman in another place. The point has been in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself during the various stages of the Bill. The relations which will be established between the new Boards and the industry are of central importance, as we said from time to time. The matter is of particular importance because the British Travel Association is about to disappear. It is useful not only to have the powers in the Bill but to stress the importance of the committee system. For that reason, I welcome the Amendment.
      Mr. Emery: May I intervene on a point of order? As Mr. Speaker made no announcement in the negative, I assume that the three Amendments in my name to the Lords' Amendments will be called in due time. It would be possible to introduce part of the subject of one of them on this Amendment. I do not want to do that if I can leave it to the appropriate time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that Mr. Speaker had given an indication. If he has not, I will now state that in fact the three Amendments have not been selected for discussion.
      Mr. Emery: That puts hon. Members in an extremely difficult situation. We have had little notice and have had to do our homework, as Mr. Speaker indicated, late into the night to get the Amendments down. That is due to the indecent haste, and quite unnecesssary haste of the Government. Now we are in the very difficult position that we are not even given the possibility of voting on them.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: This point was dealt with by Mr. Speaker, who suggested that the hon. Member could make his representations to the appropriate quarter. It is not a point of order for the Chair. Perhaps he will resume his speech on the Amendment before the House.
      Mr. Emery: If I have to deal with it in that way—
      Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would not the solution be for my hon. Friend to address the House at considerable length while the Leader of the House is sent for in order that representations may be made to him, because it is not within the power of a junior Minister to alter the order of Government business.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order to discuss only the Amendment before the House—nothing else.
      Mr. Emery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—my hon. and in many instances learned Friend—for his suggestion. Even the Leader of the House cannot alter the selection of Amendments. I am aggrieved that we are not to be able to debate some of the new factors which have arisen and which were dependent on the action which another place took.
      Their Lordships' Amendment permits the establishment of committees to advise the Tourist Boards. This is of major importance. On Report and Third Reading, we pressed the Government to do it. We had to accept that we were in difficulties in Committee because of the Government's reasonableness in accepting Amendments put down by the Opposition on the establishment of an English Tourist Board—a proposal supported by some hon. Members opposite because of the logic of our case. It was agreed by both sides of the Committee that the type of advisory procedure which would be used in the Bill would not be debated in Committee. The difficulty then arose that many of the Amendments dealing with the advisory procedure were not selected on Report, so that even at this late stage it can be said that debate has not taken place on the establishment of the type of committee which ought to advise the Boards in the operation of their duty. This Amendment, therefore, takes on considerable importance, and the Minister of State has not given adequate information on the way in which he expects the Amendment to work.
      I must refer to consultation with regional tourist committees, a point which I should not have mentioned had my Amendments been selected. In my area

      2167
      of the South-West, there was a strong feeling that there ought to be a South-West Tourist Board with statutory authority. I could not support that proposal because I felt that if it were accepted, equally valid arguments could be advanced for statutory tourist boards in every region, and I am against statutory boards being proliferated like waste paper throughout the land. However, once we have an English Tourist Board, it is of the greatest importance to ensure that they consult tourist authorities or committees in regions to obtain regional advice. A number of us tried to have that put into the Bill. May I have an assurance from the Minister that the system envisaged in the Lords' Amendment will provide for a committee with responsibility to consult and co-ordinate the views of the regional tourist authorities or committees and of all the other regional tourist activities? The Minister himself referred to that—many columns of HANSARD are devoted to his speeches—as essential for the proper working of the Act. While we will not have been able to spell out in the Bill the need for consultation, and although assurances from the Despatch Box have not the power of the written word in a Bill, it would nevertheless be of help to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will do his best to ensure that, in the establishment of these committees, there is the type of regional grouping of which I have spoken.
      5.0 p.m.
      Committees have played a major part in the working of the B.T.A. I seek an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the type of committee structure used by the Association is that which is envisaged in the Amendment. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the work done, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on the Historic Buildings Committee of the Association, and of the work of a number of other people, well known in this House and elsewhere, on the publication Committee, the Historic Buildings Committee and other committees. They have been of immense assistance.
      What we have never had from the Minister is an absolute assurance that he wishes this sort of committee structure to be carried on in the new set-up, because,
      2168
      through it, we can draw upon the learned advice and considerable experience of so many people from different walks of life. It is essential to have such an assurance at this time because the new structure will entail small executive managements which will not have the wide experience in executive responsibility enjoyed by the whole Council of the B.T.A. It is specifically because of this factor that it is essential to ensure that this extra advice is available to the Authority and the boards through the type of committee structure I have been advocating. If that is what the Amendment is intended to do, the House will be more than pleased.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: I had not intended to speak but my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made a kind reference to my membership of the Historic Buildings Committee of the British Travel Association. I believe that Committee be of such importance—my membership of it is purely incidental—that it must be fitted into the new structure, and I would like an assurance from the Minister of State on that point.
      The Committee evolved because it was felt that the tremendous tourist potential of the historic buildings in various hands—whether private, public or the National Trust and so forth—was not being properly exploited. I use the word "exploited" advisedly because such houses are a great advantage in attracting visitors from abroad and providing enjoyment in this country. A number of people were called together and others were added later. They eventually became a formal committee of the Association. Under a distinguished independent chairman, all the interests were represented—the owners, the National Trust, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and others who could be helpful with advice and in the co-ordination of the work.
      Without the existence of the Committee, we should never have been able to attack—I mean tackle—various Ministries. I used the word "attack" inadvertently and so I may have given the impression that we have had trouble. We have had trouble occasionally with various Ministries, particularly the Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Transport with regard to signs and so forth. But all these things have been thrashed

      2169
      out in the Committee with the Ministries concerned and reasonably satisfactory results obtained. It could not have been done without the assistance of the Committee. The B.T.A. could not have done it on its own because it would not have had the know-how to set about it.
      I hope that the Lords Amendment means that the work of this Committee and others like it will be continued and that the fund of advice and knowledge built up will not be lost. We have had vague assurances but I hope that, following what my hon. Friend has said so powerfully and what I say more diffidently, we shall get an assurance from the Minister of State even at this late stage, because this is a vital matter.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has given valid reasons why the Minister should give us an indication of the guide-lines on how this part of the Bill will be applied. Our fear about the Bill as it stands is that the small boards which are preferred by the Government will tend, by reason of their very smallness, to be bureaucratic and rather separate from the industry. By implementation of this addendum, by the use of committees, this danger could be overcome.
      The existing set-up does not suffer in that way. It broadly expresses the views of this very big and diverse industry. If these committees are employed as we hope they will be, I should imagine that any dangers arising from the smallness of the boards and the fact that they will not be representative of the industry will be overcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance along these lines.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I, too, want to know from the Minister of State what he has in mind as the functions of the committees proposed in the Amendment. Secondly, I am anxious to avoid unnecessary duplication. Everyone will be desirous of that. For instance, it would be a mistake to have a regional committee set up where there is already a regional body such as the South-West Travel Association, because this would mean an unnecessary expense and a duplication of functions. We would arrive at a slightly anomalous situation where there were regional committees for some areas and
      2170
      not for others, this corresponding to the fact that some areas have regional travel associations of one kind or another and others do not. Therefore, I seek an assurance that, insofar as it is within his power to give advice, the hon. Gentleman will press the merits of using existing voluntary organisations where they exist. This would avoid the expense of a new secretariat for regional committees. It would avoid the possibility of conflicting advice from regional committees formed in one way and from regional travel associations formed in another way, a conflict which could only confound confusion.
      Although I have the greatest desire to see specialist functional committees set up, I am not in favour of area committees. If an area wishes to be represented, if should do so via a voluntary travel association, tourist board, or whatever it may be called. If it has so little interest in its own tourist trade that it canont be bothered to put together such a local tourist body, I do not see why the English, Scottish or Wales Tourist Board should be bothered to do the job for it. In other words, the motive should be to help those who help themselves, not to provide an alternative for people who do not help themselves. That must be the rule right the way through. It is a rule for economy of administration as well as of finance, and it should be observed.
      In local government there has been a tendency towards greater proliferation of committees which then become so diverse that co-ordinating committees have to be set up. There is a danger that that sort of thing can happen with other bodies with a large territorial focus, as, for instance, the British Tourist Board—or British Tourist Authority as it now is. The name has been changed again and again, and I cannot imagine how anyone will remember the correct names of all these bodies. It would Lave been better if the Government had left well alone as the Bill came out of Committee, where it was so exhaustively discussed, instead of introducing the confusion which we now have.
      At a later stage—it would be out of order now—I shall direct attention to a conflict between a provision which the Government propose to insert and one which they intend to leave in. But sufficient unto the day be the conflict thereof.

      2171
      At this point, I want an assurance from the Minister that the giving of power to set up specialist committees, however well-intentioned, will not result eventually in the setting up of a large number of nonspecialist committees overlapping both with one another and with regional and local tourist bodies and travel associations which already exist or which will be set up in the future.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In my view, this Amendment from the other place is unnecessary because the Clause as it stands gives full powers to set up committees in any case. Obviously, the setting up of a new authority does not mean that we shall have an authority without committees. I believe that one of the reasons put forward by the present British Travel Association for changing its own structure was that it wished to improve its committee organisation it felt that it was somewhat hidebound in its committee structure and scope. I understand that it has about seven main committees and several others.
      What concerns me is that by the Bill as amended in the other place we shall be inviting the Authority to set up committees. Authorities are very good at setting up committees without our invitation, and by inviting this Authority to do so we are likely to call forth a proliferation of committees and a growth in the structure around them, since more people will be required to service them and more expense will be entailed.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Gower: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that we have throughout taken the view that the new boards will be rather small and remote bodies unless they are serviced by committees of this kind? I hope that he does not take a contrary view.
      Mr. Lewis: I am taking my own view. My hon. Friend must know that right from the beginning I have been against a great deal of the Bill, I voted against it on Second Reading. Now that we are at the end of the road, I do not intend to take another line. I am prepared to let it go, but nevertheless—
      Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend challenges the idea of committees on the ground of cost. Does he realise that
      2172
      under the present committee system of the British Travel Association—the committees we are talking about—all is adequately paid for by the subscriptions of the members whose interests are involved? The cost of those committees is well covered by subscriptions from members of the individual groups.
      Mr. Lewis: I have some doubt about that. The amount of money given to the British Travel Association by the Government is much greater than that provided from the regions. One of my complaints about the Bill is that, now that we have—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech more akin to a Second Reading speech than one directed to the Amendment before the House.
      Mr. Lewis: We are near the holiday period. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I allowed myself to be led astray by my hon. Friends. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). The present committee structure needs a good deal of improvement. But, apart from the possibility of increased cost, I wonder whether my hon. Friends in the regions have considered that the invitation extended by the new subsection to set up committees may lead to a situation in which the new central powerful authorities set up committees and inflict those committees on them in their regions, where they greatly value the independence of their own committees. Those committees are desirable links with the major authorities, but they may find that there is inflicted upon them a central authority committee which is unrepresentative of their area and which does not provide the sort of publicity services and the like which they want to maximise the number of tourists coming to their area.
      The invitation to set up committees is such that one might almost suggest to the new Authority that there was every justification for having a committee to push the attractions of Rutland as a tourist area. We already have many tourists coming to visit us, but we might well feel that there was need to promote our tourist interest further, and for that purpose there might be a committee. Admittedly, that is not a serious comment, but it highlights the point which

      2173
      I am making. My fear is that we shall have too many of these committees as a result of the invitation which it is proposed to extend.
      I hope that, when the new Authority is set up, it will conform pretty nearly to the kind of committee structure which I envisage, though with certain changes which will probably be an advantage, and that there will he no temptation to overdo the number of committees. The board can work much better if it does not blow itself up with an over-organised structure. I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that.
      Sir John Eden:The Minister of State in another place appeared to believe that this proposed Amendment was unnecessary and that it added nothing to the Bill. Yet the Government, through the Minister of State in this House, has thought fit to advise this House to agree with the Amendment. From that I must conclude that the Government have had second thoughts and decided that there is some valid reason for incorporating the Amendment in the Bill. They must therefore have some valid idea of the function of these committees. I should like to have more elucidation on that from the point of view of hoteliers in my constituency, many if not all of whom are throughly disgruntled about many of the requirements of the Bill and want to have as much clarification as possible of its provisions.
      Is it in the mind of the hon. Gentleman that these committees should be set up to advise the board in carrying out any functions that may be given it under the new Clause which now forms part of the Bill in connection with registration of tourist accommodation? Should the Board seek advice on such matters as annual fees for registration or the display of signs? The whole idea of compulsory registration is absolutely abhorrent to hoteliers. It is nonsensical that they are to be required to pay a fee and to be subjected to penalties of up to £200 if they fail to accord with these provisions. Would advice be sought on this from outside bodies such as motoring organisations, food guides, and regional authorities which are already in existence? If that is the type of advice the board would seek, the establishment of these committees would be wholly acceptable because it could avoid further
      2174
      trampling on the rights of hoteliers and not be subject to the threat of having to pay fees.
      Mr. William Rodgers: I shall not respond to those rather provoking strictures made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). It is not a case of having had second thoughts but of showing generosity. As I tried to suggest earlier, my instinct is not to show generosity to Amendments made in another place, but, that having been said, let us all get together and make as reasonable a structure as we can.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that this Amendment is rather unnecessary. I would have said so had it been moved in Standing Committee. It does not give us further powers, but, if it makes men happy, on this occasion I am prepared to accept it and recommend it to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is an admirable member of an admirable committee. Perhaps that is the committee which sits under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Wontner, and I have no doubt that it does excellent work. Although we may have different views about the new structure, I think it right to set up the Boards and let them get on with the job. I hope that they will not duplicate work properly done on a voluntary basis. I said that in Committee and on Report. These are new statutory bodies which will rely to a substantial extent on voluntary contributions in the industry and on a regional basis.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the committee to which he referred is a national committee covering England, Wales and Scotland. If we were to haw an advisory committee for each country we would get into a mess. We should be able to look at the matter nationally. Will the same work be possible under the new structure?
      Mr. Rodgers: I take the point and I hope that now we have decided on three boards that will not preclude co-operation by which the purpose will be best served.
      As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said, we have established compact, functional boards. They will succeed and tourism will prosper in

      2175
      direct proportion to the way in which all those who are authoritative and play their part in this matter are consulted. In reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, I see no reason why the boards should not find it desirable to consult on matters which he had in mind.
      I cannot see why there should be a separate committee to consult with regional bodies. I cannot give the absolute assurance asked by the hon. Member for Honiton. I do not think he would expect the old B.T.A. structure to be envisaged. We are anxious to get the best structure. I hope that the board will note what has been said today and what was said in Committee, on which there is a large measure of agreement.
      Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the regional question? I spent a considerable time dealing with the need for regional consultation. So did my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). A number of people carrying out day-to-day activities in tourism are concerned about this. The Minister should try to give an indication that the new board will do whatever is possible to co-ordinate work with those people on a voluntary basis.
      Mr. Rodgers: I am absolutely sure that it will do so. I thought I had suggested that in relation to what was said by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lord's Amendment No. 3: In page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to "none" in line 8 and insert:
      "(2A) Only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it but this subsection shall not prevent the other Tourist Boards engaging in such activities on behalf of the Authority. (2B)".
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment was proposed by the Government in another place following some detailed discussion. I think it has presentational advantages although I cannot say that it adds substantially to the Bill. There has never been in our minds
      2176
      any question that the three country boards would be unable to prepare publicity material, not only for use in this country motion missions organised by the British Tourist Authority. We have envisages them being able to join in overseas promotion missions organised by the British Tourist Authority. The three country boards could play a part in overseas promotion activities as agents of the new B.T.A.
      I make that point because there is a question of delicate balance here. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that it was the rôle of the British Tourist Authority to promote Britain as a whole and there would be a danger if separate boards adopted a fragmented approach. By accepting this Amendment we would show clearly the rôle of the British Tourist Authority while not excluding a rôle for the boards of the kind I have described.
      Mr. Gower: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has pointed out that the Amendment makes the general statement that only the British Tourist Authority shall have power to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom. As a general statement, I do not object to that. On the other hand, it is deemed desirable in certain conditions that the tourist boards should have the power to do some of this work on behalf of the Authority. Does the Amendment mean that they will be able to do such work only by direction of or with the permission of the Authority?
      5.30 p.m.
      This could lead to difficulties. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) or the Welsh industrial development body might contemplate a major trade exhibition in the United States or elsewhere overseas. Surely it would be advantageous if the appropriate Tourist Board were able to co-operate with the trade or industrial undertaking. If a trade or industrial exhibition were held in New York or elsewhere in the United States, it might be of the greatest benefit to tourism if the appropriate board had a hand in it. In such a case, would it be necestary for the board to obtain the permission or approval of the Authority? If so, would it readily be given?
      It would be most unfortunate if the boards were not able to co-operate at an opportune moment in an industrial or

      2177
      trade exhibition overseas. I want an assurance either that it will not be necessary for them to get the permission of the Authority or that the Authority will readily give permission.
      Mr. William Edwards: I must make one reservation about handing over power to the Welsh Tourist Board. We do not know who will be on the board. Before giving greater powers to the board and expecting it to carry out advertising abroad, we wish to be sure that there are on it people who are capable of presenting the tourist industry as members of the industry in Wales want it to be presented.
      In the past, the Welsh Tourist Board has, with the exception of one or two names, been totally unrepresentative of the tourist industry. There have been far too many nominees from local government and by the Government on the basis of political and other allegiances and not on the basis of expertise in the industry which they are supposed to administer. If the make-up of the board which we are to have in Wales is the same as the make-up of the board which we have had in the past, I assure the Welsh Office that the people in the tourist industry will not want their industry to be promoted abroad by it.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should like to say a few words about the clumsy way in which the Bill has been drafted and in which it is being amended. There is a conflict between the part of Clause 2 which appears on page 2 of the Bill and the part which appear at the top of page 3. It is always undesirable to have conflicts in Clauses.
      Clause 2(2) provides that one of the functions of each Tourist Board shall be
      "to promote or undertake publicity in any form".
      That is an all-embracing function. On the next page, the Bill provides that
      "only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of"
      subsection (2)
      "to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it …"
      There is an obvious conflict between the two parts of the same Clause.
      As originally drafted, there were paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection
      2178
      (2). It is now proposed to insert subsection (2A), which modifies subsection (2) (a). We can imagine the fun which somebody will have in referring to this provision in court. It is an absolute drafting nonsense.
      The Government should have put the proposed restriction after subsection (2) (a) in line 42. It is wrong to lay a statutory duty on the three Boards
      "to promote or undertake publicity in any form",
      which is a clear, all-embracing statutory duty, and to provide that
      "each Tourist Board shall have power to do anything for the purpose of discharging the functions conferred on it by this section"
      and then to say, in this strange restriction, that the Clause does not mean what it says because
      "only the British Tourist Authority shall have power"
      to do this outside the United Kingdom, although it goes on to say in what will be subsection (2B) that it can do it if it acts as agent for the Authority.
      There is a good living for lawyers here; there is no doubt about that. But this is not the way in which we should legislate. We should legislate clearly and explicitly. But to get involved in this sort of dog's breakfast whereby we put forward an all-embracing proposition and then on the next page proceed to knock it down is not the way to pass legislation which is likely to be with us for some time, because in the queue for legislation tourism will not come up again for several, if not many, years.
      This is my protest against shoddy and confusing drafting. I do not say that if someone is learned enough and is paid enough to spend long enough studying the Bill enough he cannot eventually work out what it means. But the Bill could have been drafted in a much clearer and more specific way. I do not believe that any hon. Member, reading Clause 2 as it will be if we accept the Amendment, can believe that it is other than a piece of drafting which we should be ashamed to pass into statute law.
      Mr. Blaker: This Government Amendment illustrates the force of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in an earlier debate about the difficulties which are caused to hon. Members by the speed with which

      2179
      we have been compelled to take the Lords Amendments. This is due solely to the mismanagement by the Government of their programme. I hope that the industry will take note that once again, while the Opposition Members commend but criticise the provisions of the Bill, we are, nevertheless, facilitating its progress in the interest of the industry.
      The Minister says that the Amendment does not change or add to the position under the Bill. That is not my impression. Owing, however, to the timetable, I have not had time to check back on all our debates which are relevant to the subject. Hon. Members who have been following the Bill in the course of its debates will know that this has been one of the most important provisions which we have debated at all stages and that it was debated also in considerable depth in another place. It is a surprise to me to hear the Ministry say that the Amendment does not change the position under the Bill or add to it.
      Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend will also, no doubt, agree that although we have attempted to obtain the right interpretation of this sort of Amendment, none of us has had time to go to the experts for their interpretation or to be able to consider or challenge what the Minister has said? There was no reason for this rush. It was purely the result of mismanagement by the Government Front Bench.
      Mr. Blaker: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the drafting of the Bill simply confirm that it would have been valuable, in the interests or the industry and of good legislation, had we had reasonable time to consider these Amendments.
      Hon. Members know that in Committee we put down and carried an Amendment, which was relevant to the point we are now considering, regarding the promotion overseas of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. In another place, noble Lords on the Opposition side put down an Amendment which went less far than the Amendment which we in this House carried but which, nevertheless, went
      2180
      further than the Amendment with which we are now faced. However, I take the view that this is a step forward. It recognises that there will be occasions when the attractions of the constituent parts of Britain should be presented in their own right. Therefore, so far as it goes, I welcome the Amendment.
      My final question to the Minister is to ask who will pay when the tourist boards engage in these overseas promotion activities on behalf of the Authority. Will the cost have to come out of their budgets or will it be the responsibility of the B.T.A.?
      Mr. William Rodgers: I am sorry that everybody is upset about the speed with which the Bill is making progress. It is an important Bill. I understand that the industry wants it. We wanted to get it on the Statute Book by the time the House rose for the Summer Recess. Judging by the number of inquiries which we have had under Part II of the Bill, anybody would believe that in seeking to get it on the Statute Book we were acting in the interest of the industry.
      We have had 70 hours of discussion of the Bill. Its passage through the other place might have taken longer than some people expected. In view of my sentiments about the other place, it is for me to complain about that. It is not for hon. Members opposite to regret that the Lords have done what they believed to be their duty.
      Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, but this is uncharacteristic of him. He should not go into the question of who is filibustering at any stage of the Bill, because the only filibustering has come from his own side. Perhaps the Minister will concede that it is for the Opposition to criticise a Bill and make sure that it is a good one. When it becomes law, the industry may feel that it might have been better drafted. Nevertheless, we are doing our utmost to see that it becomes law as soon as possible.
      Mr. Rodgers: I have complaints about no one. I thought that others had complaints about me. If they have, it is reasonable that I should seek to reply. I am not complaining at our discussion today or in Committee. The Bill is making progress, it is getting better all the time and it will be valuable for the inustry.

      2181
      I think that there is a large measure of agreement on the Amendment. The position as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) saw it was broadly correct. The Boards will act as agents for the British Tourist Authority. I certainly hope that there will not be sharp relations between the boards and the Authority in pulling different ways, nor do I believe that there will be difficulties with finance.
      5.45 p.m.
      To the extent that the boards act for the Authority, one would expect it to be on the basis of finance provided by the Authority. On the other hand, if there is action by the boards which the Authority is prepared to see but is not necessarily very enthusiastic about, it may be that the budgetary provision will be made elsewhere. This can be sorted out to the general satisfaction. Certainly, there will be no impediment of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Barry about co-operation with industrial and trade exhibitions overseas. This is important and worthwhile and I would hope to see it extended.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a point with which, he may he surprised to know, I agree. Legislation as a whole is incomprehensible to the layman and I am sorry. I do not, however, think that the Bill is more incomprehensible than other Measures. On the contrary, it is rather easier to understand. The first of the Lords Amendments, which I accepted and referred to as a drafting Amendment, was designed to meet the point raised by the hon. Member, although I cannot claim that it necessarily met his full satisfaction.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 25, after "consultation" insert:
      "with the other Tourist Boards and".
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The House will recall that the present subsection (4) of Clause 2 was inserted on Report in this House on 23rd June because we felt it important to draw the attention of all four tourist boards to the importance of consultation with the many interests and organisations concerned
      2182
      with tourism, an aspect on which we have commented earlier this afternoon.
      To work successfully, all four boards will rely to a large extent on establishing close links with the tourist industry and other bodies concerned in every way with tourism, including the regional bodies. We expect the boards to consult one another. This is a matter of common sense, because they will have a great deal of common interest and concern of national importance and they can do so to each other's benefit. The fact that the chairmen of the English, Scottish and Wales Boards will he ex officio members of the B.T.A. will provide an obvious avenue for consultation and exchanges of experience, but this will not be the only way in which consultations take place between the boards. I hope that consultation will be frequent and continuous at all levels, not only at chairman and board level, but at chief officer level, too. As I have said before, harmonious relations of this kind, pulling together rather than apart, will produce the result which we all want to see.
      It was, however, felt in another place that as subsection (4) points to the desirabilty of consultation wit h other organisations and interests, it should also refer to consultation being desirable between the boards. This I regard as an obvious point. As it is obvious, I see no reason in present circumstances to do other than suggest that we agree with the Amendment.
      Mr. Emery: The insertion of these few words makes it clear that it will be possible to obtain consultation in this matter, not only to deal with the functions dealt with in the Clause but, because part of the Clause covers also Part III and Clause 17 of the Bill, it will also be possible for consultation to take place between the boards and the British Tourist Authority on the matter of registration and compulsory grading.
      It is to me an extreme pity that their Lordships, who, in Committee, took out the whole of Clause 17, were persuaded to restore it on recommittal. This was their decision. I am sorry that we have not been able to debate that matter now because many of us feel that the compulsory aspect is one of considerable concern and much against the wishes of

      2183
      hoteliers and the restaurateurs. Therefore, it seems worth while making the point now that the discharging of the functions under this part of the Bill will allow consultations by the boards and the Authority with everybody on the matter of registration and grading. The Minister has himself said that, while he wishes these to be stand-by powers, they are not to be brought in unless on the advice of the new B.T.A. He will realise that the subjective judgment on the grading of hotels or the starring of hotels is open to considerable criticism if this is to be done by a nationalised Government agency.
      Therefore, I hope it will be made quite clear that consultation can take place under Part III about the powers given in Clause 2 to ensure that the tourist boards will consult with the new B.T.A. on this matter. I feel very strongly that they will not only want to but will have to before any action can be taken on either registration or grading.
      Mr. Blaker: This Amendment was made in response to a suggestion from the Opposition side in another place. This is a point to which we have attached importance all the way through our discussions on the Bill in this House. My hon. Friends and I put down Amendments which would have gone rather further than this one does. Nevertheless, so far as it goes, we welcome it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4

      EXECUTION OF PARTICULAR TOURIST PROJECTS
      Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 9, after "except" insert:
      "(a) after consultation with the company in which the shares or stock are held, and (b)"
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The ability to acquire shares to aid a particular tourist project under Clause 4 is seen as a means by which, in appropriate cases, the tourist boards could assist such a project by taking an equity interest rather than by making a grant
      2184
      or loan. One would expect this ability to be very rarely used. We had in Committee some discussion of the circumstances in which it might be desirable or at least acceptable.
      In the rare case of a tourist board taking an equity interest in a company the board would, obviously, keep in touch with the company about the progress and success of the project. Since a tourist board will be concerned to help get a tourist project off the ground and to see it successful, obviously no board will act precipitately thereafter to harm the enterprise which it has helped. Common sense suggests that, should a tourist board wish to dispose of any holding, it would be likely to discuss the possibility with the company concerned. If a board has a holding in a private company, then there is bound to be some restriction on disposal and transfer of shares written into the company's articles of association.
      This Amendment will require a tourist board to consult the company concerned before disposing of any shareholding in it, and though I doubt whether, on the face of it, such a provision is necessary, I cannot see any objection to it.
      Mr. Blaker: Once again, this Lords Amendment meets a point made by the Opposition side in both Houses. We would have liked here also to have gone further and to have struck out the ability of the Boards to take shares or stock in companies, but, if that is not to be the position, then we think it right that, at least, consultations should take place with the companies concerned. Therefore, we welcome this Lords Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      GRANTS FOR PROVISION OF NEW HOTELS
      Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 6, line 43, after "provided" insert "at reasonable times".
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The requirements in Clause 7(2) amount to a definition of the kind of hotel which is to be eligible for assistance

      2185
      under Part II of the Bill. These requirements are to apply in the case of grants for new hotels under Clause 7 and for extension and improvements to existing hotels under Clauses 8 and 9.
      The requirement in Clause 7(2)(b) is that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for guests staying at the hotel. Thus, the hotel must have facilities and equipment for this purpose on the premises, which may embrace more than one building. The requirement is intended to exclude from eligibility establishments which only provide bed and breakfast or self-catering facilities or which merely make arrangements for guests to eat at a nearby café or restaurant which is not part of the hotel premises. This is something we argued about in Committee and I am sure that we do not wish to pursue it further now.
      The Amendment makes explicit that the provision of meals is only required to be "at reasonable times", and its purpose is to allay any fears which paragraph (b) might otherwise mean that an hotelier could be required to serve breakfast and evening meals at unreasonable hours. Although we do not consider that any such construction could be put on paragraph (b) as it stands, this Amendment was proposed by the Government in another place to remove any further concern on the point, and I would ask the House to endorse it.
      Sir Charles Taylor: I never really know what "reasonable times" means. I feel that this needs some further elucidation by the Minister either by an Order or otherwise. What are "reasonable times" for breakfast or an evening meal? Some people would think that it would be reasonable to have breakfast at 6 o'clock in the morning. Other people would think 9 or 9.30 would be reasonable. There could be disputes between hoteliers and their customers about what are "reasonable times" for breakfast or what are "reasonable times" for an evening meal, which some people would think it reasonable to have at 5.30 or 6 o'clock, though some other people would think 10 o'clock in the evening an even more reasonable time. So I do feel that there has to be some elucidation of what are "reasonable times".
      2186
      I dislike the word "reasonable" because the interpretation of "reasonable" is always unreasonable.
      Mr. Emery: The Minister has referred specifically to the self-catering unit being excluded. I am sorry that an Amendment of mine was not selected, because then the House could have considered this matter more advantageously. The reason why the Minister is in difficulty in this matter is that today the tourist is a person who travels by car and travels by car at many different and varying hours.
      A tourist will very likely have young children with him, very likely with a baby asleep at the back of the car. He frequently travels at times when the traffic is least heavy. So by one reason or another he arrives for an enjoyable holiday in the West Country at possibly a late hour at night, or, alternatively at an early hour of the morning, and, of course, he requires either a late evening meal or an early breakfast, as the case may be.
      It seems that by inserting the words "at reasonable times" we are doing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) said—putting in a limitation which is bound to give rise to widely varying interpretations.
      Much of the new tourism which is growing up is represented by the person who uses his car to take his family away where previously he has taken his holidays at home. That is the kind of person who wants the self-catering facilities which are the most modern aspect of hotel improvement. It is a considerable weakness in the Bill that the Government have turned their faces against giving grant assistance for improvements or rebuilding to deal with what is the biggest single new factor affecting the tourist industry. I am more than sorry that we shall not be able to have this properly dealt with by the Government.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Blaker: The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and my hon. Friend for Honiton (Mr. Emery) illustrate the disadvantages of the system of so-called hotel incentives which the Government

      2187
      have adopted, and we have criticised the system in depth in our past debates.
      Assuming that the system is to be adopted, we thought that the Amendments to the Clause should go a good deal further than this one does. We did not think that it was necessary for a hotel to provide an evening meal before it qualified for aid. However, as clearly we have been unsuccessful in convincing the Government of that, this small Amendment is in the right direction, and I welcome it.
      Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I would like all establishments to provide meals at unreasonable times. We all dislike arriving late at an hotel and being told that we cannot even have a sandwich. We hope that a generous welcome will be given to travellers at all times, because real hospitality will make tourism grow.
      That having been said, and conceding that the success of tourism depends on the initiative and astuteness of those running our hotels, I believe that the tourist boards will interpret this provision wisely and that it is to be welcomed. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said that it illustrated the disadvantages of the system. I do not say that the system is not one that cannot be improved at some time. There is always the element of experiment in any scheme. However, I am sure that the House wishes it all success.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 7. line 4, leave out "the normal hotel services (such as" and insert
      "hotel services appropriate to the establishment (hut including in every case"
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The requirement in paragraph (d) of Subsection (2) was designed to exclude establishments where guests have to look after themselves. The requirement for normal hotel services with room cleaning and bed making given by way of illustration was not intended to be exhaustive. Nor was it intended to describe or enforce
      2188
      qualitative standards of hotel services. For example, it is not intended that a modest hotel in a rural area should be denied a grant because it does not provide all the services which are normal to a "four star" hotel.
      I recall that some concern was expressed when we discussed the Bill in Committee in this House that the reference to normal hotel services might be construed too rigidly by the tourist boards. The effect of this amendment is to refer to appropriate services, making quite clear that the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds are essential services which must be provided in every case. It is a necessary part of the requirements about which tourist boards are to be satisfied so that assistance is confined to the kind of hotel for which the hotel incentives scheme is designed, whatever other reflections there may have been on the point.
      I recommend the House to agree to the revised wording of paragraph (d).
      Mr. Blaker: Once again, I take the view that the Amendment represents a modest improvement on the previous position. We have said in our previous debates that we think that "normal" is the wrong word to use about hotel services. It ignores the fact that there is a great variety of establishments which can be called hotels, and the variety is increasing constantly. We would have been content simply to have the words
      "hotel services appropriate to the establishment",
      without including any specific services.
      Subject to that comment, I welcome the Amendment.
      Mr. Emery: May I ask the Minister a question? There are some hotels, especially in ski-ing areas, where the accommodation might be described as fairly rough in comparison with a four star hotel. Bunks are provided without bedding, and a visitor is meant to bring a sleeping bag. However, such an establishment is still described as an hotel. If the Minister wanted examples, I would give him two references to this type of accommodation. Does not the Amendment mean that an establishment providing that type of accommodation will not qualify for grant?
      Mr. Rodgers: The answer is that the Amendment does not exclude what the

      2189
      hon. Gentleman calls fairly rough hotels. The sort of hotel which does not qualify under the Bill as drafted is excluded.
      Mr. Emery: That is brilliant.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 8

      GRANTS FOR EXTENSION OR ALTERATION OF EXISTING HOTELS
      Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 7, line 38, at end insert:
      "and any bathroom or bathrooms appearing to the Board to be provided in association with the bedrooms".
      Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Subsection (3) of Clause 8 provides the tourist boards with a necessary discretionary power as a precaution against abuse of the provisions of Clause 8, and we discussed this in Committee.
      In the generality of cases, expenditure eligible for Clause 8 grants will include all expenditure which the tourist boards consider to be of a capital nature. Thus capital expenditure can cover only constructional and fixed equipment costs of the actual bedrooms but also expenditure on extending or improving other facilities such as bathrooms, lavatories. lounge, dining and recreation areas, and kitchens.
      It is necessary to guard against the provisions of Clause 8 being abused in order to obtain more grant for the mere improvement of hotel facilities than could be secured under Clause 9. A simple example would be the case of someone merely designating "staff bedrooms" as additional letting bedrooms in order to obtain grant.
      Subsection (3) provides the tourist hoards with discretion to exclude expenditure not attributable to the provision of additional bedrooms in cases where they are partly provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. It is a necessary power but the tourist boards will obviously want to see additional bedrooms provided freely since this is the main purpose of this hotel incentives scheme.
      2190
      Concern has been expressed lest this essential discretionary power might be applied too rigidly as regards bathroom facilities provided in conjunction with extra letting bedrooms. I understand that the other place was much concerned with adequate bathroom accommodation. Following discussion in another place, the Government proposed this Amendment to cover the bathroom point, without detracting from the essential purpose of the discretionary power in subsection (3) I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Blaker: This Amendment is made in response to suggestions by Conservative peers and I welcome it. It is rather curious that it has to be left to the Conservative peers to convince the Government of the importance of bathrooms in the modern hotel industry.
      Sir C. Taylor: Before we say goodbye to the Bill, as many of us have spent a great amount of time on it, I think that it is fair to say that we have received from the other place eight Amendments which have been accepted. On behalf of those who are apt to pour scorn on the work of another place, I think that we should express our gratitude for its attempts to improve the Bill in this way.
      Question put and agreed to.

  TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
    Clause 6

      GENERAL POWERS OF EXECUTIVE
      Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 6, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert:
      "(a) to carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on any read within Greater London, and with the consent of the Minister on any road outside Greater London, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this paragraph unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the Executive should carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on a particular route outside Greater London;
      (b) to carry passengers by contract carriage on roads within Greater London, and where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families or friends, within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross;
      (bb) to carry passengers by any form of rail or water transport (including hovercraft) within, to or from Greater London and, so far as is requisite in connection with the

      2191
      exercise of their powers under this paragraph, between places outside Greater London."
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The effect of this Amendment and Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 35, leave out "or (b)" and insert "(b) or (bb)", carried on a Division by the Opposition in another place is to alter completely the arrangements proposed in the Bill for the operation of bus services by the new London Transport Executive. Under the terms of subsection (1)(a), as originally drafted, the Executive will have a capacity power to carry passengers by
      "any form of land or water transport"
      within, to or from Greater London, and under subsection (1)(b), as originally drafted, it will be able in certain limited cases to carry passengers to points outside Greater London. The Amendment leaves the provisions relating to railways and water transport virtually untouched, but would limit the carriage of passengers by bus very substantially.
      In relation to regular bus services, the power to carry would be tied to Greater London itself, with the consent of the Minister required for operation on any road outside Greater London—with the proviso that the consent should be given only if there are exceptional circumstances which make operation on a particular route desirable. In relation to contract carriage services, the power to carry would again be tied to Greater London, with an exception for parties of the G.L.C.'s employees, who could be carried within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross. In general, the carrying powers of the Executive would be tied to Greater London in rather the same way that, at the moment, under provisions deriving from the 1933 Act, they are tied to the London Passenger Transport area.
      This limitation is quite unacceptable. Its effect would be to place on the L.T.E. restrictions that at the moment apply neither to the P.T.E.s nor to local authority operators under the terms of the 1968 Act. As a matter of basic principle it must be resisted on the ground that the L.T.E. has a duty, in the light of the policy guidelines laid down by the G.L.C., to provide such services as are required
      2192
      to meet the needs of Greater London, and this cannot be discharged by an unrealistic limitation on its commercial and operating freedom. As the White Paper made clear, there should be no formal or geographical limits to its powers of operation.
      Greater London certainly has transport needs outside its own area. The catchment area for commuter travel is wide, and the L.T.E. should have freedom to develop its services to meet these needs. No one intends that it should run all over the country. But Ministerial consent for running on any route outside Greater London would be a massive limitation upon it. The issue of what services the Executive should seek to develop is one for the Council and the Executive to work out, and not one on which the Minister should intervene in the way proposed.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: I did not find the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary any more convincing today than on the previous six or seven times that I have heard it—although he reads his brief better now than he used to do. It would be futile for me to repeat the arguments which fully justified their Lordships in the stand that they took. I therefore merely repeat that we do not agree with the Minister. We believe that their Lordships are quite right. Although we shall not ask hon. Members on this side of the House to vote, we are totally convinced that the case that we have argued still stands.
      Amendment disagreed to.
      Further Lords Amendment disagreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 8. line 12, after "(d)" insert "(i)".
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The effect of the Amendment is to place upon the London Transport Executive an obligation, in exercising its manufacturing powers conveyed under the Bill, to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. Without going into the details of the proceedings in another place I can say that the situation that has now arisen is that the

      2193
      Government, while accepting that some further safeguards should be applied to ensure that the Executive does not compete unfairly, are not prepared for this to be achieved by way of the application of the commercial obligation contained in the Amendment. The Government feel that the right course is to taken action on Clause 12 to require the publication of financial results of this sort of trading by the Executive and also to lay this activity open to the possibility of Ministerial intervention.
      Mr. Heseltine: I do not wish to detain the House. Once again I say that in this Amendment their Lordships are quite correct. We have argued this case at great length, and although I do not wish to divide on the Amendment I must point out that we have no reason to change the views that we have already expressed.
      Lords Amendment disagreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Mr. Bob Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her colleagues for facilitating the business of the House in the way they have this evening.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Terence Boston, Mr. Bob Brown, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Michael Heseltine, and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      GENERAL POWERS OF EXECUTIVE

        HOUSING (SCOTLAND) MONEY (No. 2):
        Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
        Resolved,
        That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to prescribe a tolerable standard for houses and to make provision for the treatment of houses and areas, and for payments in respect of houses purchased or vacated, which do not meet that standard
        2194
        and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise any increase in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 attributable to any provision in the Act of the present Session to amend the meaning of 'financial year' for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 2.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendment No. I agreed to.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 18

      RIGHT TO AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
      Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 13, line 9, leave out "or closing order under section 15" and insert:
      "under section 15 or a closing order under section 15 or 18".
      6.20 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Dr. Mahon: The normal way of dealing with payments where a closing order has been made is under Clause 18 and Schedule 1, which is a transitional provision. This Amendment brings in a listed building or a building subject to any preservation order under the planning Acts. In other words, the purpose is to close a lacuna in the legislation.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 50

      APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 30, line 8, leave out from "to" to end of line 9 and insert:
      "any change in the state of the dwelling between the date of the issue or refusal of the certificate and the date of the hearing,".
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

      2195
      This Amendment was made in another place to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) during our discussion on Report. He was concerned that the Clause as originally drafted would require the sheriff to be satisfied as to the state of the dwelling at the time both of the local authority's decision and of the hearing of the appeal. The Amendment makes it clear that he need only consider any changes in the state of the dwelling between the two dates.
      If there has been no change the sheriff has only to consider the facts which led the local authority to grant or refuse the certificate. If there has been a change—for example, if in the interim the landlord has carried out repairs or the dwelling has deteriorated—the sheriff can take into account the new circumstances, but new evidence need only relate to the change in circumstances. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, for pointing out this defect.
      Mr. N. R. Wylie: I thank the Minister for promoting this Amendment in another place. I am sorry that the defect was not spotted earlier, and was raised only on Report. I appreciate that this was the only way to deal with it. I am also grateful to the Minister for writing to me about it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 56

      SUPPLEMENTAL
      Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 32, line 44, at end insert:
      "(2) The power of the Court of Session under section 17(1) as read with section 18 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to make an act of sederunt and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of that Act shall extend to sections 50 and 55 of this Act."
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Court of Session to make an act of sederunt governing the procedure in sheriff courts in cases under Clauses
      2196
      50 and 55. Section 17(1) also enables proceedings to be conducted in private, and this Clause would be desirable in relation to applications under Clause 55, since the means of the tenant would be one of the matters under discussion.
      Mr. Wylie: I endorse the Amendment. It is admirable.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause "A"

      AMENDMENT OF MEANING OF "FINANCIAL YEAR" FOR PURPOSES OF S. 2(2) AND (3) OF ACT OF 1968
      Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 37, line 42, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A. At the end of section 2 of the Act of 1968 (aggregate cost contributions) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(6) For the purposes of the construction of subsections (2) and (3) of this section after 31st March. 1969, "financial year" means a period of twelve months beginning on 1st April, and in any order made under this section which comes into operation after 31st March, 1969. "financial year" shall be construed accordingly."."
      Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 11.
      This Amendment seeks to make a change of procedure regarding the calculation and application of the representative rate of interest. Local authorities have been content to keep to the financial year as presently prescribed, but the suggestion is that matters should be put in order in this regard, and that we should not have the old swings and roundabouts position. The local authorities wish this change, and we are grateful to another place for the proposal.
      Mr. Alec Buchanan-Smith: We discussed this subject the other evening in respect to the subsidy order. Could the Minister now say how the Amendment affects housing associations, which are also affected by the dates? Does it have any influence on their position in relation to the subsidy rate of interest?
      Dr. Mabon: I could not, without notice, give any figures, but the influence is only marginal, I am advised. The

      2197
      primary concern is that local authorities which have been content to accept the balance of the gain on one year with the loss in another, which I have referred to as the swings and roundabouts position, now feel that six weeks is rather long for them to be affected by the lower or higher rates of interest prevailing in one particular year. They wish this change, and the Government think it only fair to make it. The influence on housing associations is important, but marginal. I will later seek to give the hon. Gentleman the figures he wants.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 61, line 6, at end insert:

      "14 Geo. 6. c. 34.

      The Housing (Scotland) Act 1950.

      In section 125, the proviso."

      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment closes a very small gap in the arrangements for controlling the rents of improved houses. It ensures that if a landlord improves a controlled house with grant but does not apply for a qualification certificate, which would enable the tenancy to be converted to rent regulation, he will be able to increase the rent by no more than 12½ per cent. of his expenditure.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

  HOUSING BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

  HOUSING BILL
    Clause 32

      GENERAL POWERS EXERCISABLE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL IMPROVE MENT AREA.
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 18, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert:
      "Where a local authority have declared an area to be a general improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section 28(1) of this Act ".
      6.30 p.m.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Amendment, we were to take Amendment No. 4.
      These Amendments will limit the power of local authorities to have compulsory purchase outside the general improvement area, and the phrase now adopted by another place makes it clear that it is not intended to have a wide area but just marginal land.
      Mr. Graham Page: These Amendments follow an Amendment proposed by the Opposition in Committee four and a half months ago. We are grateful to the Government for conceding them, but I wish that the Government would understand that the Opposition are always right.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 35

      DISPOSAL AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND
      Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
      "(1) Where any land for the time being vested in a local authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act—
      (a) consists of or forms part of an open space; or

      2199
      (b) has been compulsorily acquired under this Part of this Act;
      the local authority shall not dispose of it except with the consent of the Minister."
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment makes clear that an authority's discretion to dispose of land is limited in the sense that it has to go to the Minister for approval. There is no point, therefore, in laying down limits on such discretion at an earlier point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 19, line 42, after "or" insert:
      "subject to subsection (4) of this section".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 14, at end insert:
      "and the consent of the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall not be required to any letting for a term not exceeding seven years".
      Lest the information has not reached the Opposition, I take this opportunity to announce that I have selected their two Amendments, that is to say, to the Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 16.
      Mr. MacColl: These two Lords Amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, relax slightly the conditions governing a local authority's letting of land. They deal mainly with short lettings for periods not exceeding seven years, in which cases it may not be so easy to define what is meant by the best rent obtainable. The Amendments will make it easier to deal with shorter periods in respect of land.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 49

      APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE
      Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 26, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert:
      2200
      "(3) The following provisions shall apply on an appeal under this section, that is to say—

      (a) the court shall have regard to the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing as well as at the time of the issue or refusal of the certificate; and

      (b) the court".

      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members opposite were anxious to have these matters split. It was not possible to reach agreement on the form in which it should be done, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we would look at it again. The Amendment is the result of further consideration.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I only complain again that we were not given this Amendment at once. It was such a simple thing. However, we are grateful for it now.
      Mr. Julius Silverman: Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the effect of Amendment No. 8 on the Clause? Does it mean that, although the premises were not fit at the time of the issue of the certificate in the first place, a certificate may be granted subsequently by the court, and, if so, what will happen regarding any costs at the hearing of the case?
      Mr. MacColl: The Amendment does not alter the content of the Bill. The court has discretion as regards the state of the building and costs under the Bill as drafted. Those discretions are treated separately in this way. On the general point which my hon. Friend raises, it is within the discretion of the court.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 50

      POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES OF EFFECT OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE
      Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 27, line 19, leave out "January 1971" and insert "April 1970".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take, at the same time, the following two

      2201
      Lords Amendments: No. 10: In page 27, line 22, leave out "July 1971" and insert "October 1970".
      No. 11: In page 27, line 26, leave out "January 1972" and insert "April 1971".
      Mr. MacColl: This matter has been fully discussed on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in this House and there is no doubt that there is a strong divergence of view. The Government—and, I hope and believe, the majority of the House—take the view that the arrangements we reached under the Bill were the fairest arrangements as between the two different points of view, the two views being that represented by some of my hon. Friends who thought that this whole procedure of bringing property in good condition into regulation was completely misconceived, and that represented by those who thought that we ought to make it easier and move more speedily.
      Principally, it is a question not of policy but of administration. The main purpose of the Bill—one keeps repeating this—is to bring property into improved condition. It is a Housing Bill for that purpose. Therefore, that should be the first call on the time of rent officers, and they should not find themselves with a back-log of cases of dwellings already in the required state which floods them so much that they have no time to do the work which is intended under the Bill.
      The other place has not challenged the principle of postponement; it has sought only to reduce the periods of time, inserting April, 1970, instead of January, 1971, October, 1970, instead of July, 1971, and April, 1971, instead of January, 1972.
      The effect of trying to speed matters up in that way would not be wise. It would mean that, comparatively soon after the passing of the Bill, which we are anxious to see, there would be opportunity for these dwellings to be subject to application for registration. My advice is that we go back to the original view, which was no snap judgment but was the result of discussion, argument and vote at every stage. It was a considered view taken after a great deal of earnest discussion on both sides.
      I invite the House to disagree with these three Amendments.
      Mr. Graham Page: The principle of the part of the Bill in which Clause 50 falls is to give fair rents for fit premises. That principle was breached when the Government introduced the delaying Clause. We fought the whole proposal to delay conversion from controlled to regulated property when property had been improved, that is, when improvements had been installed before the commencement of the Bill. This delay is contrary to the principles of Part III, fair rents for well kept property. At this stage, unfortunately, we must with reluctance accept the proposal in general and try to bring some sort of justice and fairness into its application.
      When I watch television plays and thriller serials, I always have difficulty in distinguishing between the "goodies" and the "baddies". I find myself cheering "baddies" and booing "goodies". The Government have fallen into the same error. Here, the "goodies" are the landlords who have put improvements into their properties, when they were receiving only controlled rents and only the low level of grants. The "baddies" are those who have waited for the Bill to become law, who receive the increased grants, and who allowed their property to go unimproved up to the present.
      It is right, perhaps, that the Government should be a sort of father of the prodigal son and encourage what I call the "baddies", but they need not do it at the expense of the "goodies". They are doing it at the expense of landlords who have improved their properties, because they say that there are not enough rent officers to make the decisions and the rent officers must be reserved for those who will improve their properties in future. But, while saying that, they take full-page advertisements in national newspapers, telling people to go to their rent officers, with pictures of rent officers across the top of the advertisements, and so on.
      According to Government figures, the estimate is that 200,000 houses are affected by the Clause, that is to say, 200,000 applicants for a fair rent. I do not think that they will all need very much time with the rent officers, but even if they take up the same time as the present cases before the rent officers

      2203
      the figures show that the rent officers can take on that number of cases.
      There are at present 263 rent officers doing 44,000 cases a year. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that every rent officer does only three or four cases a week. I believe that they could deal with four or five times that number and cope with the 200,000 applicants over a shorter period of time.
      The Parliamentary Secretary nearly "came clean" over this. It is not the fear of a revolt by rent officers that worries the Government, it is this extra-
      ordinary fear of a revolt by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his hon. Friends, who object to the whole principle of moving from "controlled" to "regulated". The Government should stand up to them and say that the rent officers can cope with this and so give justice to the landlords.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 144.

      Division No. 345.]

      AYES

      [6.40 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Archer, Peter

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Molloy, William

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Moonman, Eric

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Barnes, Michael

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Beaney, Alan

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hazell, Bert

      Murray, Albert

      Boston, Terence

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Neal, Harold

      Boyden, James

      Henig, Stanley

      Newens, Stan

      Bradley, Tom

      Hooley, Frank

      Norwood, Christopher

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oakes, Gordon

      Brooks, Edwin

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Oram, Albert E.

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

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Orbach, Maurice

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

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Orme, Stanley

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Palmer, Arthur

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Coleman, Donald

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Park, Trevor

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Johnson,Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lawson, George

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dell, Edmund

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Randall, Harry

      Dewar, Donald

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Rees, Merlyn

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Richard, Ivor

      Dobson, Ray

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Luard, Evan

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rose, Paul

      English, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Ensor, David

      McCann, John

      Ryan John

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      MacColl, James

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Macdonald, A. H.

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

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

      Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silverman, Julius

      Fernyhough, E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Slater, Joseph

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Ford, Ben

      Manuel, Archie

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Fowler, Gerry

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Tinn, James

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Tomney, Frank

      Gardner, Tony

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Tuck, Raphael

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Millan, Bruce

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Weitzman, David

      Willey, At. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Winnick, David

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Whitaker, Ben

      Williams, Cilfford (Aberttillery)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Dr. M. S. Miller and Mr. Alan Fitch.

      Whitlock, William

      NOES

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Grieve, Percy

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

      Gurden, Harold

      Peel, John

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Percival, Ian

      Balniel, Lord

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bessell, Peter

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Blaker, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Pym, Francis

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Body, Richard

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Heseltine, Michael

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Royle, Anthony

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Burden, F. A.

      Hordern, Peter

      Scott, Nicholas

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hunt, John

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

      Chataway, Christopher

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Smith, John (London & W' minster)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Speed, Keith

      Clark, Henry

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kimball, Marcus

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Cooke, Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Corfield, F. V.

      Kirk, Peter

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Costain, A. P.

      Kitson, Timothy

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Crouch, David

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Dance, James

      Lane, David

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Lawler, Wallace

      Waddington, David

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      du Cann Rt. Hn. Edward

      Longden, Gilbert

      Wall, Patrick

      Lubbock, Eric

      Walters, Dennis

      Eden, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Wiggin, A. W

      Farr, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Fisher, Nigel

      Maginnis, John E.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Fortescue, Tim

      Marten, Neil

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Foster, Sir John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wright, Esmond

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wylie, N. R.

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Murton, Oscar

      Goodhart, Philip

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gower, Raymond

      Neave, Airey

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Grant, Anthony

      Nott, John

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 27, line 28, after "elsewhere" insert "of a value"
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment remedies a printing omission.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 56

      SUPPLEMENTAL
      Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 30, line 38, at end insert:
      "(2) The power of the Lord Chancellor under section 106 of the Rent Act, 1968 to make rules and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions specified in subsection (3) of that section shall extend to sections 49 and 54 of this Act."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to Lords Amendment, in line 5, leave out 'and 54'and insert '54 and 55'.
      The new subsection to Clause 56 gives the Lord Chancellor power to make rules in connection with Clauses 49, 54 and 55. In Committee we raised the matter of rules under Clause 49. Clause 54 deals with the application to county courts if a tenant refuses to consent to improvements. Clause 55 was a modification of that introduced on Report. It deals with the production of a certificate by the rating authority to the county court in the course of proceedings requiring the tenant to give his consent to improvements being carried out. It provides for a certificate to be deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.
      It may well be necessary for some procedure to be prescribed to notify a tenant of his rights to produce such a certificate to the court and in relation to the way in which it should be pleaded as a defence. Unless there are some rules in this matter, there will be a serious gap in procedure. The Government may be advised that it is unlikely that rules will be unnecssary under the Clause, but it is possible that they may be necessary. There is no harm in the Lord Chancellor having power to makes those rules should the occasion arise.
      Mr. Skeffington: I regret that I must advise the House not to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I do so not for any doctrinal reason, but simply for the reason that it is not necessary—in fact, it cannot be done.
      Lords Amendment No. 13 prescribes the rules in specific cases in relation to Section 106 of the Rent Act, 1968, in the making of regulations. This is proper in regard to Clause 54, because these are matters which may come before the court; but Clause 55 deals with the procedures in the rating office and I am advised that the Lord Chancellor cannot make rules to deal with that.
      I have had the point carefully checked. There is a general power in any event for the Lord Chancellor to make rules. We thought it advisable to have the Amendment in relation to Section 106 since that deals with specific matters. There is a general power. The lawyers
      2208
      have looked at the matter carefully and they are of the opinion that the Lord Chancellor is not in a position to make these rules. For that reason, rather than any doctrinal reason, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
      Question, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Lords Amendment agreed to.

    New Clause "A"

      INCREASE OF FINE UNDER S. 170 OF HOUSING ACT 1957
      Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 42, line 7, at end insert new Clause "A":
      "A. Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 (power of local authority to require information as to ownership of premises) shall have effect, with respect to offences committed after the commencement of this Act, as if for the words 'five pounds' there were substituted the words 'fifty pounds'."
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment is designed to increase the penalty of £5, which has remained unchanged since 1930. In cases of multiple occupation certain people have been prepared repeatedly to pay a fine of £5 and not divulge the information which would enable the local authority to make the necessary order. This point was originally raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am sure that the House will welcome the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause "B"

      RIGHT TO TERMINATE PERIOD FOR WHICH OPTION NOTICE HAS EFFECT
      Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 45, line 25, at end insert new Clause "B":
      "B.—(1) In section 24(3) of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, the following shall he inserted after paragraph (vi)—
      '(vii) the taking effect of a notice under section 26A of this Act.'
      (2) After section 26 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
      '26A.—(1) Where an option notice has been given in respect of a loan the person or persons in whom the rights and obligations under the repayment contract are for the time being vested may by notice to the

      2209
      lender bring the period for which the option notice has effect to an end on 31st March of any year not earlier than 1973, but only if not less than five years have then elapsed since the date of the repayment contract.
      (2) A notice under this section must be in writing and in such form as the Minister may direct and must be given not less than three months before the date on which it is to take effect.' ".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is in the form of new Clause B, and deals with a matter which was discussed both on the Housing (Subsidies) Bill in 1967 and on this Bill. The House will remember that on Report we introduced a new Clause which provided power for my right hon. Friend to make Orders to extend the option mortgage scheme. Both Front Benches thought it desirable to have some degree of contracting-out.
      The difficulty was that the lending agencies found great trouble in doing so. Originally, in 1967, they agreed to contract in in cases of hardship, but it was not possible to reach agreement about contracting out. We promised that we would continue our discussions, and I am happy to say that we were able to reach agreement to have a five-year period at the end of which a borrower may contract out of the scheme. It is a once-and-for-all choice. He does not get a period of grace every five years on his mortgage. We feel that this is a desirable addition to make to the Bill.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Walker: I can understand the halting and hesitant voice with which the Minister proposed the new Clause. If ever there was a case of a Government constantly saying that in their view something was impossible and the Opposition saying that it was not and that it could be done, it is mortgage options.
      Last October we stated in a policy statement that this would be our policy. There was an immediate reaction from the Government saying that it was absurd and could not be done.
      In a censure debate in January the Minister of Housing and Local Government—we are all sorry to hear that he is ill in hospital, and I am sure that both
      2210
      sides of the House wish him a speedy recovery—waved a paper at me and said that it was impossible and how wrong were my promises to the electors in this sphere.
      On Report, we were again told that it was impossible. Finally, due to the constant efforts of the Opposition, the Government gave way. We are delighted that they have given way, but we do not think much of the way that they have done it. Many people with mortgage options feel that they have been swindled by the scheme. I believe that 1973 is not soon enough. When we are returned to office in the near future, we will allow those who have already taken out mortgage options to exercise an option before 1973 and thereafter, if considered right and appropriate, we will keep the five-year timetable.
      As this is an improvement and an acceptance of the principle of the Opposition's policy, we welcome the new Clause.
      Mr. MacColl: A strong Government does not need to be worried about being ragged over a matter like this. We have always said that we were not against it in principle. We had a diplomatic undertanding about getting the lending agencies to agree, which was not helped by the demagogic activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But by good humour and calmness, we reached agreement. The hon. Gentleman can have his crow, but we are interested in getting on with the job that we want to do.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 79

      OTHER LONG TENANCIES
      Lords Amendment No. 16: In page 46, line 20, leave out from "it" to "be" in line 21 and insert:
      "Schedule 7 to this Act shall apply and, if the tenancy was granted before the commencement of this Act,".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing".

      2211
      I propose to make a unique speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box by saying that this is a drafting Amendment.
      Mr. MacColl: I am glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not intend to say that this is in their election manifesto. We are willing to accept the Amendment because it makes a cleaner draft of the Bill.
      Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 46, line 26, leave out from beginning to "it" and insert:
      "within twenty years of the date when".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I have no hesitation in paying tribute to this Amendment, because it came from the Law Society, not the Opposition, and it is an improvement.
      Mr. Peter Walker: It was pointed out on Report.
      Mr. MacColl: It was pointed out on Report, but the Law Society suggested a way in which it could be done. Our difficulty was finding a way of doing it. This does it and I think that we should accept the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 18: In page 46, line 28, after "granted" insert "before the passing of this Act or was granted".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss Lords Amendment No. 21.
      Mr. MacColl: These two Amendments deal with the conditions under which Clause 79, dealing with premiums. operates.
      The first has the effect that this condition will be imposed only for leases granted from now on. This is because of the difficulty which has arisen over leases already in existence and the great variety of terms which the fertile brains
      2212
      of conveyances in different parts of the country have produced to get over various problems. We decided that the way to do it was to apply Clause 79 to future leases, not to those already in existence. By a strange coincidence another place came to the same conclusion.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 19: In page 46, line 36, after "underletting" insert:
      "of the whole of the premises comprised in the tenancy"
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This, again, is a point that the Law Society made to us, that it is not uncommon for leases to permit the assignment of the lease of the whole premises let while prohibiting assignment or subletting of part of them only.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 46 line 40, leave out from "term" to "offer" in line 41 and insert:
      "requiring in connection with a request for consent the making of an"
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The last of the three conditions in Clause 79(2) is that it must be possible to assign or underlet the tenancy and, in connection with this, the Clause provides that a tenancy with a term
      "making a request for consent dependent on a previous offer to surrender the tenancy"
      would not satisfy this condition.
      The Law Society pointed out that it is not necessarily the request for consent which is dependent on a previous offer to surrender. This is a drafting Amendment to meet that situation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 80

      PRICE PAYABLE ON ENFRANCHISEMENT OF LEASEHOLD HOUSE
      Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 47, line 14, after "tenant" insert:
      "and members of his family who reside in the house"
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take Lords Amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Skeffington: On Report, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) all stressed the importance of giving further consideration to the new formula to make sure that the Government had now got it right. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out that the Government's new Clause excluded the tenant himself from being a bidder in the market, but not members of his family who were living with him.
      I undertook to consider the representations made from both sides of the House. As a result, these Amendments provide for members of the family of the enfranchisee who reside in the house The definition is in relation to family as it appears in Section 7(7) of the 1967 Act. This is a welcome decision. I hope that the House will agree with the recommendation.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause "C"

      AMENDMENT OF RENT ACT 1968 s. 46
      Lords Amendments No. 24: In page 47, line 18, at end insert new Clause "C"—
      "C. At the end of section 46 of the Rent Act 1968 (determination of fair rent) there shall be added the following subsection:—
      '(4) In this section "improvement" includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting.'"
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This new Clause deals with one of the old thorny problems of Rent Act legis-
      2214
      lation, namely, the distinction between improvements and repairs.
      Section 46(3) of the Rent Act, 1968, requires rent officers and rent assessment committees, when determining the fair rent, to disregard improvements carried out by tenants otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy. Although it is not expected that in the majority of cases the Amendment will make any appreciable difference to the amount of the rent, it is considered fair and just that a tenant who pays for work which adds to the comfort and convenience of his house should not have to pay additional rent as a result of it, and that the landlord who does improvements can get increased rents. In the case of repairs the landlord is assumed to fulfil his obligations and therefore they are not separately treated.
      It was found, when the Housing (Scotland) Bill was going through, that a Government Amendment was made to deal with replacement. It seemed sensible to have the same provisions in this Bill as in the Scottish Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 83

      INTERPRETATION
      Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 48, line 32, leave out from "capacity" to end of line 34.
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment removes the restriction on the cost of works carried out by housing authorities—works for improvement and standard contributions and for contributions towards environmental improvements.
      The restriction in the Bill as drafted followed that applicable to contributions under other legislation. It does not seem necessary to have it, and the Amendment will remove the restriction from the local authority. For this reason, I think that that is to be welcomed.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 88

      CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Lords Amendment No. 26: In page 50, line 1, leave out from "Act" to first "the" and insert:
      "except sections 78 to 80, shall not come into force until".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment applies to three important Clauses, Clauses 78, 79, and 80, which deal with various aspects of long leases. It provides for all three Clauses to come into operation immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and not, as is the case with the rest of the Bill, one month later. I do not think that it is necessary to make the case for saying that it is desirable to bring them into operation as quickly as possible, because they are holding up agreements and it is desirable that people should be able to operate quickly on them. They do not involve, as most of the Bill does, some fairly complicated paper work in the way of forms, and so on, and therefore there seems no reason why we should not accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      RESTRICTION ON RENT INCREASES
      Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 56, line 7, leave out from "of" to end of line 13, and insert "two years delay".
      Mr. Speaker: There is a Motion to disagree with this Amendment and the next two, Nos. 29 and 30, so I think that we might debate them together.
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This, again, is a matter which has been discussed at all stages of the Bill. Unlike the previous case on which we invited the House to disagree with the other place, the Amendment deals, not with postponement, but with the phasing of rent increases which have been registered. The point is common in relation to council rents. Where there is a sudden
      2216
      sharp increase in rents, even if the original rent was not high, this could lead to the dislocation of the arrangements of the household, and it is desirable to phase the increase over a period so that people can get used to it and adjust to it.
      That principle is not challenged in the Amendment, but what is proposed is that the period of the phasing should be reduced. This was debated in Committee and defeated on a Division. It was debated again in the House, and again defeated on a Division. I think that the House indicated that we had got the phasing right, and, therefore I invite the House to assert again that it wants to keep the original proposal.
      Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we are debating Lords Amendment No. 28, and discussing the next two Amendments with it.
      Mr. Graham Page: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that for the purpose of debating the Amendment we are accepting a phasing, but not a different phasing for different landlords. What we object to is the distinction between the landlord who has improved his property in the past, and the landlord who will improve his property in the future.
      The landlord who has improved his property in the past will not get his full fair rent for five years. The landlord who improves his property in the future, on the basis of the increased grant, will get his fair rent phased over a period of only three years. Their Lordships endeavoured to bring some sense and justice into this by reducing the period from four years to two years, and to apply the same rule to both kinds of landlord. This surely is the sensible way to do it. There cannot be any logic or moral in making this distinction between two different kinds of landlord.
      7.15 p.m.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the increase would be too sharp on the tenants. Would it be too sharp if it was spread over two years? Why should the tenant of a landlord who improves his property in the future be less able to bear the increase than the tenant of a landlord who has improved his property in the past? This sharp phasing over two years will apply to tenants who have their property

      2217
      improved in the future. Why should the landlord who has improved his property in the past have to wait five years? What encouragement is there in this?
      The Minister has said that it is impossible to maintain property on controlled rents, and yet he is arguing that landlords who have improved their property on controlled rents in the past should maintain them on controlled rents for a further period. This is illogical, unfair, and unjust.
      Mr. MacColl rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must have the leave of the House to speak again.
      Mr. MacColl: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might say that the hon. Gentleman has misinstructed himself. The distinction is not between controlled property brought into improvement, and controlled property already in improvement. This applies to registered regulated rents where the increases are less and they have been brought up before. It is not a distinction between two types of control.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 134.

      Division No. 346.]

      AYES

      [7.18 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Archer, Peter

      Gardner, Tony

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Barnes, Michael

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Baxter, William

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mendelson, John

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Millan, Bruce

      Bessell, Peter

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Grimond, Rt, Hn. J.

      Molloy, William

      Boston, Terence

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Boyden, James

      Hannan, William

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bradley, Tom

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Moyle, Roland

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Hazell, Bert

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Murray, Albert

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

      Henig, Stanley

      Neal, Harold

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hooley, Frank

      Newens, Stan

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Norwood, Christopher

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cant, R. B.

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Ogden, Eric

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Oram, Albert E.

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Orme, Stanley

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Oswald, Thomas

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Johnson,Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Park, Trevor

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Dell, Edmund

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Pentland, Norman

      Dobson, Ray

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Lawler, Wallace

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Lawson, George

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Randall, Harry

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rees, Merlyn

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Richard, Ivor

      Ellis, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      English, Michael

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Ensor, David

      Lubbock, Eric

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

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McBride, Neil

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McCann, John

      Rose, Paul

      Fernyhough, E.

      MacColl, James

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Ryan, John

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      Foley, Maurice

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Silverman, Julius

      Forrester, John

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

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Fowler, Gerry

      Manuel, Archie

      Slater, Joseph

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Wallace, George

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Weitzman, David

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. Georgo

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wyatt, Woodrow

      Tinn, James

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Tomney, Frank

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Tuck, Raphael

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. loan L Evans and

      Varley, Eric G.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Dr. M.S. Miller.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      NOES

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Grieve, Percy

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Gurden, Harold

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

      Pym, Francis

      Balniel, Lord

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Bell, Ronald

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Blaker, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hay, John

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Heseltine, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Royle, Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Scott, Nicholas

      Burden, F. A.

      Hunt, John

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

      Campbell, B, (Oldham, W.)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Chataway, Christopher

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Speed, Keith

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Clark, Henry

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kirk, Peter

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Cooke, Robert

      Kitson, Timothy

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Corfield, F. V.

      Lane, David

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Costain, A. P.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Crouch, David

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Waddington, David

      Dance, James

      Longden, Gilbert

      Walker,Peter (Worcester)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      McMaster, Stanley

      Wall, Patrick

      Drayson, G. B.

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Walters, Dennis

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Eden, Sir John

      Maginnis, John E.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Wiggin, A. W.

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

      Monro, Hector

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Farr, John

      More, Jasper

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Fisher, Nigel

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fortescue, Tim

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Foster, Sir John

      Murton, Oscar

      Wright, Esmond

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wylie, N. R.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Neave, Airey

      Younger, Hn. George

      Glover, Sir, Douglas

      Onslow, Cranley

      Goodhart, Philip

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gower, Raymond

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Reginald Eyre.

      Grant, Anthony

      Peel, John

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Percival, Ian

      Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords A mendments agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords Amendment No. 33: In page 66, line 18, leave out "and 16 "and insert" 16 and 21(1)".
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      2220
      This part of the Schedule takes out the old definition of multiple occupation. There was an omission of a reference in the 1961 Act which the Amendment puts right.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 68, line 18, at end insert:
      ".In section 57(4) of that Act for the words from section 4' to 1958 ' there shall be substituted the words 'Part I of the Housing Act 1969'".
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment substitutes for a reference to the Acts of 1958 and 1959, under which grants are at present being paid, a reference to Part I of the Housing Act, 1969.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 9

      SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Lords Amendment No. 38: In page 69, line 27, at end insert:
      ".The repeal by this Act of section 49 of the Rent Act 1968 does not affect the operation of that section in relation to any dwelling-house while such a condition relating to the rent of the dwelling-house as is mentioned in that section requires to be observed."
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment deals with transitional procedures where there has been an application under Section 49 and before the new provisions come into operation. This was originally provided for in the Bill but this case was missed out.
      Mr. Graham Page: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. It applies to cases where conditions have been imposed on properties. In future, when the same circumstances arise, there will be no conditions. I would have thought that the Government might have taken the opportunity to dispose of these conditions altogether. There will be confusion between the old conditions and the new in relation to property which is continuing under conditions while property in new circumstances will not have these conditions. This will cause anomalies.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 10

      REPEALS
      Lords Amendment No. 39: In page 70, leave out line 10 and insert:
      "In section 59, subsection (3) and the words' or (3)'in subsection (4)".
      Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is consequential on the repeal of certain redevelopment area procedure going right back to the 1935 Act. That procedure is now dead following the extension provided by the Schedule.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. MacColl, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Skeffington, Mr. Peter Walker, and Mrs. Eirene White; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. MacColl.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

  MID-HANTS RAILWAY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
  7.34 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I feel that I should start this short debate by an apology to you, Mr. Speaker, to the staff of the House and to the HANSARD reporters for keeping all of you here even for a few minutes more after so many middle watches were kept last night. I will in the circumstances be very brief indeed. Of course, it lies within the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's power to bring the proceedings to a halt within a moment by saying, "O.K. you can have your railway".
  There is great concern about the future of the mid-Hants railway running from Alton to Winchester. Many people fear that the line is doomed anyway. There was a notice of closure in November, 1967, and they fear, from the run—down state of the railway and the way in which the line is run—I am not criticising the local staff—that the decision seems already to have been taken. I wrote

  2223
  recently to the Chairman of Southern Region—
  "…the suspicion is voiced by many of my constituents that a decision in principle has already been taken and that the services have 'purposely' been badly run in order to produce bad statistics and to prove that the line is not a paying proposition …I am not myself suggesting this machiavellian intent but …I do feel that a fresh appreciation of the whole problem should be made …"
  Another factor which causes suspicion arises from a recent reply by the Minister to a Question from me: I asked him what estimate of the additional revenue he took into account in reaching his decision that a halt at Kings Worthy would not be a significant factor for the future of this railway line. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "No detailed estimate is necessary to show that revenue from a halt at Kings Worthy could not he a significant factor in reaching a decision on the future of the line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 212.]
  This is an extraordinary reply in the case of a suggested halt in a district whose population is growing much more quickly than in any other part of the area used by the railway. My first question to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, is whether he will look again with a completely fresh mind at this question of a new halt at Kings Worthy.
  I am not urging the Minister to keep open a railway which is definitely substantially uneconomical in the long run. I am too good a Conservative to suggest any such thing. But my case is that the railway is viable and if run properly could be a profitable little line. In deploying a case of this sort, one has to produce some statistics. It is difficult to bring them into a short debate like this so I shall produce the minimum of figures to support my case.
  The latest figures for this line, given to the Ministry by British Rail, are that the total running costs annually are £125,000, less an earnings figure of £29,000. British Rail deduces a deficit of £96,000—a tremendous figure for a small line like this. But these figures are contested, both as to total costs and earnings, by the local authorities, headed by the Winchester Rural District Council, which has done some very useful and detailed research. I will give one or two quick examples of why the figures produced by British Rail are suspect.
  2224
  British Rail has admitted that the figures are unduly high for some of the costs. The earnings figure is given as £29,000. This is very suspect—indeed it appears to be outrageously wrong. British Rail claims that passenger traffic has reduced since the main Winchester line was electrified, but a local census taken by a rural district council official shows that passenger traffic on the small line has actually increased.
  The number of passengers on this small line has increased since the much more convenient revised time-table has been introduced, and commuters can make the connection which suits them at Alton when outward bound or inward bound.
  In arriving at the figures for earnings it seems almost incredible that British Railways have not included the proportion of income from through tickets bought further up or down the line. The R.D.C. believes that 60 per cent. of the total passenger traffic is through traffic and should therefore be included as contributory income.
  To sum up the statistics, it seems that the figures on earnings should be much more like £36,000 of direct income and £50,000 is direct contributory income, making a total of £86,000, which is much more like a viable railway. There is in existence a copy of a confidential memorandum, for the railway staff, which gives the figure of £85,000 for contributory income alone, excluding direct income. Has the Minister seen that memorandum? It has been forwarded to his Ministry.
  My third specific plea to the Minister is that, as the Ministry is responsible for providing accurate figures in deciding a case like this, the railway should not be closed down for financial reasons except on figures agreed by the local authorities. The local authorities are very much taken up with this problem.
  I turn to a couple of much broader aspects of the future of the line which I hope the Minister will consider when making his decision. The area served by this railway has a population which is growing very rapidly. Many categories of travellers will be affected, not only in villages where there are stops or halts on the railway, but in the whole agricultural community spread over the large area served by the railway. Not only are stops

  2225
  and halts in my constituency affected but also stations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) and Alton and Winchester itself.
  There are some special features about the type of passengers who use this railway. In a letter which the county education officer wrote to the Ministry of Transport it was stated:
  "The public transport situation has changed considerably since the proposed rail closure was brought forward for reconsideration about two years ago.
  Throughout the county there are increasing difficulties in arranging for the conveyance of children to and from school. The bus companies are unable to maintain their full staffs for a variety of reasons of which no doubt the Minister is well aware. One local bus company near Winchester has recently been discontinued and the services which the company provided have not been taken over by the major public bus company … whose resources are already fully extended. The education committee have with considerable difficulty been able to make alternative contract arrangements but the cost has been more than doubled.
  The road transport industry is unable to convey at appropriate times the passengers who would be displaced if the rail services are withdrawn. It is believed that owing to the labour situation the education authority could provide special transport for these scholars only at a very high cost and additional public expenditure and not benefit other rail passengers who would be displaced."
  This is a very strong case, in broad and general terms, that the total cost to the public funds will be greater in respect of serving these schools.
  On the subject of hardship, an inquiry was held by the transport users consultative committee. It was held in April this year in Alresford and the committee
  "expressed the opinion that the closure would cause considerable hardship to travellers from in the period 1st April to 31st October, 1968. journeys over the line to Eastleigh or Southampton by reason of additional travelling time. They considered that the incidence of delays to buses arising from traffic congestion in the Winchester area would often aggravate this hardship, as well as causing inconvenience to local passengers to and from Winchester …They also expressed the view that the developments envisaged in the South Hampshire Study, coupled with the need for road improvements in the Winchester area, made the closure proposal premature, and that based on such financial information as they had any financial gain would be outweighed by the hardship caused."
  Does the Minister recognise the hardship referred to in this report from which I have read extracts?
  2226
  Alternative road communications are inadequate and are getting worse. A comparison of the bus timings shows that anyone wishing to travel from Alresford to Eastleigh can do so in 23 minutes by rail on the present timetable but it would take 102 minutes by two buses even if the buses were not delayed in Winchester traffic as they almost always are.
  The fifth point which has a direct bearing on the future of the railway is that the congestion in Winchester, the natural capital of the area, where people who live beside this railway have to go for shopping and so forth is very bad indeed. I had a letter from the city clerk which emphasises how extremely serious this problem is and how much worse it is likely to become every year. Will the Minister write to the town clerk of Winchester and ask his views on the effect of the closure of this railway on parking, road access to and from Winchester and traffic congestion within Winchester? It would be right for the Minister to have a report from the city council about how this would affect the city.
  There is a wider issue for the future. "Strategy for the South-East" the Government's overall plan, which is the latest of many plans for orderly development of the south-east of England, speaks of a huge so-called "Solent City" and envisages many growth points to the south of the countryside served by this railway. The map on page 36 of this Green Book, "Strategy for the South-East", shows the railway quite clearly as one of the transport arteries which served this vast conurbation we are expecting to see in the future. I feel strongly that people from the hinterland will want to get into this enormous Solent City daily for employment. That is inevitable. Equally important people will want to escape at weekends to country places to keep themselves healthy and sane.
  It is not too much to say that if public expenditure must be made on maintaining this railway, it would be better spent on that than in providing additional new mental hospitals in the Solent City! I urge the Minister to take a long-term strategic view and not to be fobbed off in his Ministry by short-term financial considerations. This is a brief summary of what I feel about the future of this railway. I end with a quotation made

  2227
  by the town clerk in a recent letter he sent to me:
  "Anybody who signs away any item of public transport in this area will qualify for a grave in the close of Winchester Cathedral —beside that of Ethelred the Unready."
  7.50 p.m.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: I support most warmly everything that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) has said. I will not recapitulate on his arguments, which were excellent. However, there is a certain oddity about this issue which has given rise to considerable public disquiet. If there was a case of the handling of an issue lending it a certain oddity, this must be a prime example.
  When the Minister considers the application of British Railways, may I point out to him that there is one group of railway users which my hon. and gallant Friend did not mention. This group of people need the railway to get to their institutions of advanced education in Southampton. There is no other way in which they can get to Southampton from the Alton area in my constituency, Many scholars need the railway in order to undertake their daily schooling. Should the line be closed there would be no alternative means of transport for them. They would not be able to continue in the institutions in which they are studying.
  It is not my intention to prolong the debate unnecessarily, although I believe that it is possible to go on until 10.30. Therefore, the Minister is fortunate that all the Hampshire Members have not seen fit to attend the debate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take a very long look at the application of British Railways in respect of this line. I urge him to consider the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend advanced. I urge him to consider the various reports including "Strategy for the South-East", and the future development of this area and then consider what would be the consequences of the closure of this line.
  7.52 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I, too, am grateful that other Hampshire Members are perhaps
  2228
  as tired as I am. Last evening I had to deal with two items under the Consolidated Fund Bill which were separated by eight hours. I am therefore grateful that not all the Hampshire Members are present.
  I need hardly say that I have been aware for some time of the great interest which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has expressed in the proposal to withdraw all passenger services from the railway line between Alton and Winchester. That interest has been shared by several other Members and the speeches we have heard tonight cannot have failed to impress by their genuine and reasoned concern.
  Under the relevant provisions of the Transport Act, 1962, it is the Minister who is responsible for deciding whether or not to give his consent to this closure proposal. As in all cases of this kind, the process of consultation and consideration is extremely lengthy and detailed and I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising the care which is devoted to the examination of these proposals and which accounts, in large measure for the time which has elapsed between publication and decision. I assure hon. Members that a decision has not yet been taken.
  Apart from the voluminous information provided by the Railways Board at every stage of the inquiry, the Minister receives the advice of the Transport Users Consultative Committee on hardship matters, of the Regional Economic Planning Council on planning and development considerations, of other Departments of Government which have a special interest and of his own Divisional Road Engineer on road traffic and congestion. He also takes into account the views expressed by local authorities and other organisations and I would like to pay a special tribute, in this case, to the efforts made on behalf of present and potential users by the Winchester Rural District Council, representing the local authorities concerned in the case, to ensure that no relevant consideration is overlooked. All the information assembled in this way is subjected to the most careful analysis by the Department's administrators and economists before the decision is taken.
  The Mid-Hants railway is a single track line about 17 miles long. It was shown as a "grey line", that is one not selected

  2229
  for development as part of the basic system, in the Railways Network for Development Map which, it will be remembered, was published jointly by the Minister and the Railways in March, 1967. The closure proposal was published in December, 1967, and the Minister received the Transport Users Consultative Committee's report in August last year. The report concluded that closure would give rise to hardship due mainly to increased journey times and difficulties caused by road traffic congestion in the Winchester area if buses had to be used instead of trains. Five weekly counts of rail passenger usage had been taken between April, 1967, and June, 1968, at different seasons of the year, but at the Minister's request a further census was taken in October, 1968. These counts showed a general decline in usage after April, 1967. However, the latest tendency shown by single day counts in April this year is towards a return to April, 1967, levels.
  We have given a good deal of thought to the question of whether buses would provide a satisfactory alternative to rail services. We are particularly aware of the problem posed by road congestion at peak hours in Winchester. We know, too, that routeing between Alresford and Winchester presents some difficulties. We have been told of recent changes in existing bus services in the Winchester area. We have discussed with the Department of Education and Science how schoolchildren, who account for about half of the regular daily users, could be catered for, possibly by contract bus services. Our conclusions on these matters will strongly influence the Minister's final decision and if he were to decide to give his consent to closure he would ensure that the necessary conditions were attached to his consent which would have to be complied with before the train service could be discontinued.
  As announced last January, the Minister is paying an interim social grant for the maintenance of the present service on this line under Section 39(4) of the Transport Act, 1968. If the Minister were to decide that the service should be retained a grant of the order of about £90,000 a year would have to be paid under Section 39(1) of the Act. This would amount to a deficit of over 6d. a passenger mile. This figure is cal-
  2230
  culated in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group on the assumption that the line would be maintained in perpetuity, that full provision would be made for depreciation and renewals on a replacement cost basis and that provision would also be made for administration and interest. The estimated deficit is based on a revenue of about £30,000 which accords with the railways latest traffic figures, but is a good deal lower than figures of earnings quoted in the past.
  The Minister cannot ignore the fact that this service is losing a considerable sum of money annually, that the deficit has to be met by the taxpayers and that because this 17 miles long track is already singled there is little scope for major economies.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the grant which is paid takes into account the contributory income to which I referred? The figure of about £30,000 for income which he has given obviously does not include the contributory income by "through" passengers.
  Mr. Carmichael: We have some difficulty in convincing people about certain figures, but the fact is that on the figures of which I have spoken, the Government already pay the railways £90,000 a year.
  I was discussing the question of providing alternative public transport, the extent to which road congestion in Winchester and Alton can be relieved by new roads and the possibility of some growth in the number of potential regular rail users in the area. These are all matters which in the last resort must be analysed and assessed by the Minister. But he is most anxious that the factual evidence on which his decision will be based is reliable and is seen to be reliable.
  We have paid special attention to the information and the arguments brought to our attention by the local authorities acting on behalf of the users of this line. We are by no means convinced that they have made out a case for the retention of a passenger service on the basis of the facts which have so far been assembled. But we think that they have argued sufficiently strongly to justify our asking the Railways Board to carry

  2231
  out new counts of users during typical summer and winter weeks. The Minister has also decided that when this new information is available he will ask the transport users' consultative committee for the South-Eastern area to make a further report to him on the proposal. The committee will, moreover, be able to take into account any revised proposals for alternative bus services and any change in circumstances such as the effect of new road improvements on the problem of traffic congestion in and around Winchester when compiling their report to the Minister.
  I know that claims have been made that the census figures previously provided by the Railways Board are unreliable. I do not accept this, but I am most anxious that those concerned should have no cause for complaint even if their suspicions are unfounded. I intend therefore to ask the Board, when they carry out the new census this summer and during the winter, to invite the local authority to be associated with the passenger counts. I hope that this will make sure that whatever is the Minister's final decision there can be no dispute about the traffic figures on which it is based.
  Since the Minister has decided to ask the T.U.C.C. for a fresh report, he also intends to ask the Board to review all the financial information which they have previously provided, taking into account whatever estimates of future usage may seem reasonable as a result of these further traffic counts.
  Miss Quennell: When the Minister asks the Railways Board to provide further financial information will they do
  2232
  so on the basis of Report No. 72 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
  Mr. Carmichael: There is some confusion. The Railways Board were given authority under another report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes to charge commercially for their services —in other words, to charge market prices for the services. Of course, they are looking to the future, not simply looking at a static position. They are looking at the question of increased traffic. If the loss-making is relatively small and a reasonable increase in fares is likely to counteract this loss or to bring it within a reasonable figure, then obviously, not only in this case but in all cases, that is considered. Hon. Members frequently say to me, "Will it not help if fares are increased?" Unfortunately, in a large number of cases—I am not commenting on this case—the increase in fares would need to be astronomical to make the service a going concern.
  To sum up, we shall not reach a final decision until the Minister is entirely satisfied that he has full and accurate information on all aspects of the case. I hope that what I have said will assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friend that all this information is being assembled and analysed, even at the cost of prolonging the time before a final decision can be reached. I am sure that that is the right thing to do and that, although perhaps it will take longer, we shall ultimately reach a decision of which we can say that at least everyone will be clear about the basis on which it has been reached.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Commission on the Constitution
  Commission on the Constitution
  Crimes of Violence (Manchester and Salford)
  Crimes of Violence (Manchester and Salford)
  Detention Centres and Borstals
  Detention Centres and Borstals
  Electoral Register (Y Voters)
  Electoral Register (Y Voters)
  London Airport (Indian Businessman)
  London Airport (Indian Businessman)
  Pets (Dangerous Animals)
  Pets (Dangerous Animals)
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Pornographic Circulars
  Pornographic Circulars
  Blundeston Prison (Escapes)
  Blundeston Prison (Escapes)
  Crime
  Crime
  London (Organisation of Public Events)
  London (Organisation of Public Events)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Metropolitan Police (Rover 3·5 Cars)
  Metropolitan Police (Rover 3·5 Cars)
  London School of Economics (Conference)
  London School of Economics (Conference)
  Gaming Club Licences
  Gaming Club Licences
  Aliens (Deportation)
  Aliens (Deportation)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Regional Development (Memorandum)
  Regional Development (Memorandum)
POST OFFICE
  London Airport (Computer)
  London Airport (Computer)
  Post Office (Buckhurst Hill)
  Post Office (Buckhurst Hill)
  Obscene Publications (Invitations to treat)
  Obscene Publications (Invitations to treat)
  Postage Rates (Decimal Coinage)
  Postage Rates (Decimal Coinage)
  Giro
  Giro
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Licence Fee (Differential Scales)
  Television Licence Fee (Differential Scales)
  B.B.C. Orchestras (Cost)
  B.B.C. Orchestras (Cost)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Brent
  Brent
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Launceston)
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Launceston)
  Exchange Equipment (Cheltenham)
  Exchange Equipment (Cheltenham)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Manpower and Productivity Service
  Manpower and Productivity Service
  Mexborough and Wombwell (Employment)
  Mexborough and Wombwell (Employment)
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye (Unemployment)
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye (Unemployment)
  Employment (Scotland)
  Employment (Scotland)
  Safety, Health and Welfare Legislation
  Safety, Health and Welfare Legislation
  Transfer Schemes (Benefit Payments)
  Transfer Schemes (Benefit Payments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schoolchildren (Political Indoctrination)
  Schoolchildren (Political Indoctrination)
  Educational Facilities (Availability)
  Educational Facilities (Availability)
  Musical Education
  Musical Education
  Museums and Art Galleries (Report)
  Museums and Art Galleries (Report)
  New Schools (Mexborough and Staincross)
  New Schools (Mexborough and Staincross)
  Building Programme (Northern Region)
  Building Programme (Northern Region)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Research Councils (Expenditure)
  Orchestras
  Orchestras
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Special Schools (Corporal Punishment)
  Special Schools (Corporal Punishment)
HOSPITAL
  Rampton Hospital
  Rampton Hospital
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Montague Hospital, Mexborough
  Montague Hospital, Mexborough
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Seebohm Report
  Seebohm Report
HEALTH
  "Health Trends" (Cost)
  "Health Trends" (Cost)
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
  Seebohm Report
  Seebohm Report
  Spectacles (Mrs. Challis)
  Spectacles (Mrs. Challis)
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
  Postgraduate Medical Education
  Postgraduate Medical Education
TRANSPORT
  Invalid Carriages (Speed Limits)
  Invalid Carriages (Speed Limits)
  Liverpool Parking Rates
  Liverpool Parking Rates
  Motor Cars (Horns)
  Motor Cars (Horns)
  Drink and Driving (Fatal Accidents)
  Drink and Driving (Fatal Accidents)
ROADS
  Newhaven Swing Bridge
  Newhaven Swing Bridge
  Road Accidents (Report)
  Road Accidents (Report)
  M1 (Accident)
  M1 (Accident)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Rockwell Ltd., Camberley (I.D.C.)
  Rockwell Ltd., Camberley (I.D.C.)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Special Development Areas (Factory Rents)
  Special Development Areas (Factory Rents)
  Factories
  Factories
  Office Development (London)
  Office Development (London)
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Cigarette Filter Tips
  Cigarette Filter Tips
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Rover 3·5 Motor Cars
  Rover 3·5 Motor Cars
  Hercules and Phantom Aircraft
  Hercules and Phantom Aircraft
WALES
  Road Expenditure
  Road Expenditure
  Mineral Survey
  Mineral Survey
  Passenger Transport Authority (South-East Wales)
  Passenger Transport Authority (South-East Wales)
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1967
  Welsh Economic Council
  Welsh Economic Council
  Heath Service Dentists
  Heath Service Dentists
  A55 Trunk Road
  A55 Trunk Road
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  House of Commons (Lifts)
  House of Commons (Lifts)
  Foreign Office Building, Whitehall
  Foreign Office Building, Whitehall
  Royal Park Lakes (Safety)
  Royal Park Lakes (Safety)
  Sponsored Committees
  Sponsored Committees
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tonga (Oil)
  Tonga (Oil)
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  UNITED STATES MILITARY AIR BASES (SECURITY)
  UNITED STATES MILITARY AIR BASES (SECURITY)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  ANGLO-FRENCH NUCLEAR DETERRENT
  ANGLO-FRENCH NUCLEAR DETERRENT
  >CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  >CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS
  DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES)
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL AND WARSAW PACT COUNTRIES
  NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL AND WARSAW PACT COUNTRIES
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  STATISTICAL SERVICES
  STATISTICAL SERVICES
  PRESIDENT OF FINLAND (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT OF FINLAND (TALKS)
  MEMBER'S LETTER
  MEMBER'S LETTER
  ACHIEVEMENT IN SPACE
  ACHIEVEMENT IN SPACE
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  EAST AND WEST RIDINGS (ROAD COMMUNICATIONS)
  EAST AND WEST RIDINGS (ROAD COMMUNICATIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (25th ANNIVERSARY)
  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (25th ANNIVERSARY)
  STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION (TALKS)
  STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION (TALKS)
  OVERSEAS AID (LETTER)
  OVERSEAS AID (LETTER)
AGRICULTURE. FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Support (Cost)
  Agricultural Support (Cost)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Micro-Filming Services
  Micro-Filming Services
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Gerald Brooke (Release)
  Mr. Gerald Brooke (Release)
  Diplomatic Service and Missions
  Diplomatic Service and Missions
  British External Policy
  British External Policy
  United Nations (Anniversary)
  United Nations (Anniversary)
  Laos
  Laos
  Seabed Resources
  Seabed Resources
  South Africa (Cambridge Dryden Society)
  South Africa (Cambridge Dryden Society)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Investiture (Security Precautions)
  Investiture (Security Precautions)
  Breathalyser Tests (Wales)
  Breathalyser Tests (Wales)
  Hampshire Police Authority
  Hampshire Police Authority
  Imprisonment (Suspended Sentences)
  Imprisonment (Suspended Sentences)
  Released Murderers
  Released Murderers
  Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres
  Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres
  State Management Scheme (Workers' Pay)
  State Management Scheme (Workers' Pay)
  Boundary Commission Report
  Boundary Commission Report
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Mortgage Lending (Limit)
  Mortgage Lending (Limit)
HOUSING
  Post-war Houses
  Post-war Houses
  Agricultural Dwellings (Betterment Levy)
  Agricultural Dwellings (Betterment Levy)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Catering
  Catering
  Members' Facilities (Report)
  Members' Facilities (Report)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nationalised Industries (Research)
  Nationalised Industries (Research)
  Natural Gas (Supplies)
  Natural Gas (Supplies)
  Eastern Electricity (Bulk Supply Tariff)
  Eastern Electricity (Bulk Supply Tariff)
  National Coal Board (Finance)
  National Coal Board (Finance)
SCOTLAND
  Population
  Population
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Rates
  Rates
  Post-war Factory Buildings
  Post-war Factory Buildings
  Post-war School Buildings
  Post-war School Buildings
  Post-war Houses
  Post-war Houses
  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
TECHNOLOGY
  Naval Air Department, Bedford
  Naval Air Department, Bedford
  Micro-filming Hardware
  Micro-filming Hardware
  Metric Unit Measurements
  Metric Unit Measurements
AVIATION
  Heathrow Airport (No. 1 Passenger Terminal)
  Heathrow Airport (No. 1 Passenger Terminal)
  Airports (Weather Minima Regulations)
  Airports (Weather Minima Regulations)
  Aerodromes (Designation)
  Aerodromes (Designation)
  Flight Data Recording
  Flight Data Recording
  European Air Tours (Control Prices)
  European Air Tours (Control Prices)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wales and England
  Wales and England
  Taxation (Administration)
  Taxation (Administration)
  Demonetised Coins
  Demonetised Coins
  National Savings
  National Savings

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

T.V. AND RADIO LICENCE EVASION
LORD MOYNE: 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 the estimated annual loss to the B.B.C. from unlicensed viewers and unlicensed listeners and whether they will not introduce legislation to make dealers in television or radio sets responsible for seeing that their customers have licences.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General estimates the loss of revenue from television licence evasion at £7½ million annually. He has no reliable estimates of the number of sound licence evaders. Her Majesty's Government consider that the arrangements which Parliament has provided in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, under which dealers send the Post Office the names and addresses of customers to whom they sell or rent television sets, are preferable to the noble Lord's suggestion that dealers should themselves enforce the licensing requirements.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask four brief and, I hope, constructive supplementaries: one, whether the powers which already exist ought not at this time of difficulty for the B.B.C. to be used to call for returns of existing T.V. hire agreements dating from before 1968; two, whether it would not be fruitful for dealers to have to inform customers that a return is being made about them; three, whether the purchaser's licence number ought not to be put on the dealer's form; four, whether statutory
1068
power ought not at least to be sought to call for returns of new radio sets sold?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having a talk with me this morning. The answer to his four questions are as follows. First, the Post Office could not deal with this additional information because the grade of staff dealing with this work is badly under strength. Current notifications are coming in at the rate of 2 million a year. Secondly, I understand some dealers already do this, but I will convey the noble Lord's suggestion to my right honourable friend. Thirdly, not all customers would have their licence with them when they bought their sets. Conscientious dealers who enforced such a requirement might lose custom to more accommodating competitors. Fourthly, the system depends on having a register of dealers. Radio sets are sold by such a wide range of shops that it would be quite impossible to compile a satisfactory register of radio dealers.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what the cost of collection of licence fees is at present, and also the cost of detection?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords, I do not think so, because that does not seem to arise out of this Question.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, my noble friend said that the present arrangements were preferable to an arrangement under which the licence has to be produced by the customer at the time of purchase. He did not give any reason for that. Can he tell us why it is preferable, and why this very simple device that the customer produces the licence is not a cheap and economical way of saving £7½ million?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my idea was that the salesman who exacted as a condition production of the licence would find that the man would go somewhere else the next day.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, might there not be a little co-operation between the B.B.C. and the national Electricity Board, that the licence should be displayed near the electric meter, to be checked once a quarter when the electricity meter reading is

1069
taken? It seems to me that that would get over all our difficulties.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I will certainly pass that suggestion on to my right honourable friend.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would it be correct to say that numerous orchestras in this country are likely to be slaughtered because it is impossible to collect these fees in full?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the collection of the fees is going up very fast each year.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton? If this were a requirement, how would the purchaser do any good by going elsewhere? He would be subject to exactly the same difficulty as he was in the first place.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, all dealers are not equally decent. Some would insist upon this in a nice way, others in a nasty way. It is obviously the duty of any salesman to say, "Of course, you will have to take out a licence on this set, and no doubt you will be hearing from the Post Office in the next four or five weeks".
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, surely the whole point is that if it were mandatory upon the person, compulsory that the purchaser produces the licence, no dealer would be at a disadvantage, because they would all be working under the same rule.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I have thought about the matter this morning, and I think that people who are in the habit of evading payment for any kind of licence or instalment would be likely to go to a second-class dealer rather than a first-class dealer.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that this is an extraordinary confession of failure: that because there may be some dishonest dealers therefore thought that by this device it would be he is unable to bring in a simple device to save £7½ million? I should have quite possible to deal with dishonest dealers.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my noble friend, as a magistrate, knows that it is quite impossible also to deal with all tax evaders.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that that does not prevent attempts to enforce the collection of taxes?
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the loss is £7½ million? Could I be told how he arrives at that figure?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we know how many television sets there are in existence and we also know how many licences are taken out. By a simple process of subtraction we can find the figure.

BRITAIN AND PARLIAMENT OF EUROPE
2.43 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the speech made by the Foreign Secretary supporting a supranational type of Parliament for Europe represents Government policy.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Chalfont): My Lords, I believe my noble friend is referring to certain remarks made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary during hi; visit to Brussels on July 15. My right honourable friend in fact made no public speech during that visit. What he said at the meeting of M. Monnet's Action Committee—I hope it is in the context of my noble friend's Question—was fully in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government accept that Britain must join a developing community; we accept the political implications of the Treaty of Rome; but they do not include federation.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that there is so much double talk in the air that I should like the Government to "come clean" on this issue? The

1071
facts are that the Leader of the Liberal Party, who was at the Monnet meeting, said that the Foreign Secretary accepted without reservation the political implications of federalism. The Prime Minister does not accept that. Are we not entitled to say that before we hand over the sovereignty of the British Parliament to a European Parliament the people of this country ought to be allowed to determine that issue?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course my noble friend is right. This is a most important issue. But in the first place let me say that whatever was said about the proceedings of the Monnet Action Committee, that Committee was engaged in confidential discussions, and therefore anything that has been said about it publicly ought to be regarded in that context. I can only repeat that there is a clear policy of Her Majesty's Government in this context. As my noble friend says, that policy has been made clear by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion. What the Foreign Secretary said at the meeting of the Monnet Action Committee was not in conflict with that policy.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there would be small point in trying to exercise some democratic control over the whole machinery of the Common Market through a Parliament with no powers composed entirely of national representatives?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be inappropriate to enter into a debate in your Lordships' House at this stage on supranationality. I can only say that there is of course nothing supranational about the proposal for an elected European Parliament. As I say, I think it would be the wrong time to enter into a discussion about the powers of that Parliament. But let us be clear that there are two concepts being discussed here: one is federalism—and there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about that—and the other is the direct election of a European Parliament which does not involve either federalism or supranationalism.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Dr. Luns, who supports the Government, has stated that
1072
this is Britain's last chance, and the last chance was because of the opposition by the anti-Common Marketeers? That was followed by the private speech of the Foreign Secretary. I hope I shall not get the reply that he was a delegate of the Labour Party, because he still spoke as Foreign Secretary; and I think that this double talk is monstrous.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I really do assure my noble friend that there is no question of double talk. I, too, was present at this meeting as a Labour Party delegate, and I can assure my noble friend that, whatever has been said elsewhere, the Foreign Secretary said nothing that is not in full accordance with the Government's policy. We have not accepted federation because we are not required to accept it under the Treaty of Rome.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if it is a case of handing over the British Parliament, would not the House of Lords alone be enough?

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS AND ENTRY CERTIFICATES
2.47 p.m.
LORD FOOT: 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 under the extra-statutory arrangements announced in early May to enable the voluntary organisations concerned to assist the dependants of Commonwealth immigrants in Britain to get entry certificates in their countries of origin and before embarkation to the United Kingdom, and how many appeals against the refusal of such entry certificates have been received since those extra-statutory arrangements were instituted.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in a Written Answer on July 15 to a Question in another place, announced the appointment of Sir Derek Hilton to inquire into the provision of advice for Commonwealth dependants overseas. It will be open to the voluntary

1073
organisations and anyone else interested in the matter to make their views known to Sir Derek. Three appeals have so far been received.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. In view of the practice of the Government in recent days of trying to draw up hypothetical timetables for the implementation of Reports, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is able to give any estimate as to when Sir Derek Hilton will make his Report, and when thereafter his Report might be implemented? Further, is it not a fact that the Government have from the beginning recognised that it is essential that these voluntary bodies should be brought in to advise immigrants' dependants upon their rights under these extra-statutory arrangements? Have not the Government repeatedly recognised that it is essential for them to provide financial assistance to those voluntary bodies if they are to carry out that task? Also, have not the Government recognised that it is a matter of great urgency that these extra-statutory arrangements should be brought into effect at the earliest possible date?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when the Government consulted voluntary organisations we had views expressed, and estimates given, by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, by the Committee on United Kingdom Citizenship and by the International Soviet Social Service of Great Britain. Those views and interests were in many cases dissimilar, and it is this fact that prompted my right honourable friend to ask Sir Derek Hilton to undertake this task, having regard to his great and important experience in East Africa, and having regard also to the fact that we should get a view independent of the Government which would be generally respected. There has otherwise been no movement from the statement that I made from this Bench on behalf of the Government in May. So far as the date is concerned when Sir Derek may be expected to complete and to present his Report, we expect that to be early in September, some six or seven weeks hence.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, in the meantime is advice being provided in the countries of origin?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, and I would add that these new arrangements did not start until May 16, so that June was the first full month for entry into this country requiring entry certificates. In the month of June this year there were admitted for settlement at Terminal 3 London Airport 2, 092 immigrants, compared with 3, 138 in the month of June, 1968. As the noble Lord is well aware, at Third Reading—this was before the new procedure was brought in—I mentioned that the number had declined very considerably. So the fact is that there are virtually proportionately as many coming in now under the new arrangements as were coming in under the old before the new ones were introduced. I think that is evidence that they are working, that the advice is being given, and that nobody is being deprived, although understandably they may perhaps be somewhat delayed.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I ask this purely for information and not to harry the Government in any way, but is the noble Lord saying that the voluntary bodies have been provided with financial assistance to enable them to give advice in Pakistan, India, and the Caribbean to these immigrant dependants?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, of course I am aware that this advice is being given, and this is one of the dissimilarities. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants asked for a grant of some £22, 500 for six months for the provision of advisory services covering India, Pakistan, the West Indies and Guyana, with offices in various towns in this country. The Committee on United Kingdom Citizenship have submitted estimates for the provision of an advisory service with offices in London, Nairobi, Kampala, and Bombay at a cost of £16, 675 a year. These are some of the things that have to be looked into. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary thought that if we had someone with the standing and immediate current and recent experience of Sir Derek Hilton to look into these matters, to talk to these bodies and to advise us, we get an objective view which, as it were, would collect the voices. We want to get it right before the statutory arrangements come in. I am sure I carry the noble Lord with me in this: let us get it right now. Just be patient for another six or seven weeks and we

1075
can then rely on the advice that is given to us.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that all of us, whatever our view about Commonwealth immigrants, wish these new arrangements to be carried out humanely and without cruelty? Is it not the fact that these new arrangements were announced without any provision being made at all for the assistance of the immigrants from India, Pakistan, and other countries to get advice as to how far they should appeal? Is it not a fact that in three months, as my noble friend himself said in reply to me last week, there has been only one applicant? Are we to go through another six or seven weeks before there is machinery by which these wretched people, mothers and dependent children, are to have an opportunity of knowing what their rights are?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, it is not right that we have gone three months. The new arrangements started on May 16, and to-day it is July 24; that is somewhat less than three months, in my reckoning. Further, the fact that only three appeals have so far been received is not evidence that the appeals will not come through in sufficient numbers, because all applicants who have been refused have three months in which to appeal, and two of the three appeals have been received only this week. The one case that has been decided came from Ghana, and it was an appeal by a lady who alleged that she was the wife of a gentleman in this country. Apparently the gentleman disputed that, and the lawyer who decided the appeal refused entry. These matters are being considered carefully, and I hope my noble friend will have regard to the figures I have quoted, which prove that under the new system the numbers coming in where entry certificates are compulsory are very little, if any, less than the numbers that were coming in before, when the entry certificates were not compulsory.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does my noble friend see this situation? An illiterate woman and children in a distant village, first having to go to a local district centre to get police permission and then having to go to the centre to get the exit permit, not knowing in the
1076
least what the provisions are and having to wait days and days—often having to sleep on the pavement. Surely Her Majesty's Government can do something to humanise this process?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am well aware of these things. Indeed, had I not been aware I should have known from my noble friend, because he has mentioned them on a number of occasions. These conditions are indigenous, as it were, to the countries where so many of the population are illiterate. The point that I am making is that arrangements were existing at the offices of the High Commissioners when we started. We augmented those arrangements for advice immediately, sending very skilled people out from the Home Office to augment that advice, and the fact remains—and I ask my noble friend and your Lordships to accept this—that the numbers coming in are virtually the same since the new arrangements as before. I think that this could be accepted as reasonable evidence that the arrangements are working properly and humanely, and that no one is—or, at least, if any, very few people are—suffering any additional hardship.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I shall be making a Statement about the Summer Recess at 3.30 p.m. to-day. At a convenient moment after that time my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making a Statement on Mr. Gerald Brooke, and this will be followed by a Statement on Social Insurance Benefits by my noble friend Lady Phillips. May I add the reminder that dinner will be available this evening from 7 to 8.30 p.m.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. IRISH PEERS
On November 24th 1966 the House endorsed the opinion of the Committee for Privileges

1077
"that the right to elect Irish representative Peers no longer exists".
In the light of this decision, the Committee have considered Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, which purport to regulate:—

(a) claims to a right to vote at elections of Peers of Ireland;

(b) the procedure for treating the claims to Irish Peerages in abeyance.

The Committee have taken note of the fact that Standing Order 68 has been used as a means of validating routine claims to the succession of Irish Peerages, as distinct from Peerage claims that would arise on petition to the Sovereign.
The Committee understand that, notwithstanding the decision of the House, taken on November 24th 1966, in regard to Irish representative Peers, the Lord Chancellor is nevertheless prepared to continue to consider and decide such routine claims to succession in the Peerage of Ireland as may be submitted to him.
In these circumstances, the Committee recommend that Standing Order 68 should be amended by leaving out the words "A claim of a right to vote at elections of Peers of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom" and inserting in their place:—
"A claim to any Peerage of Ireland".
They see no reason to amend Standing Order 69.
2. DIVISIONS: INSUFFICIENCY OF TELLERSM
The Committee have considered the procedure to be followed in cases in which, after a Division has been called, a single Teller only is forthcoming. In such a case the terms of Standing Order 47 cannot be complied with, and the Committee recommend that the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair (as the case may be); shall then declare that the question is resolved in favour of the majority; and that the following form of words be used:—
"My Lords, Tellers for the Contents [Not-Contents] have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47. A Division, therefore, cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents [Contents] have it."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, that the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LATE NIGHT REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment): Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Gardiner): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is another Consolidation Bill for which we are grateful to the Joint Committee, who concluded their Report by saying that they.
"… are of the opinion that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and minor improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 and they consider that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.1 p.m.
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Llewelyn-Davies.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BELSTEAD: On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, told the House that Section 14 of the Architects (Registration) Act 1931 obliged the Architects' Registration Council to devote 50 per cent. of its fees to a scholarships and grants fund. The noble Lord further said that the benefits of the Education Act 1944 so reduced the calls on this fund that substantial sums had accumulated, which I entirely accept has been unavoidable.

1079
For this reason, Clause 2 will repeal Section 14 of the 1931 Act. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us further information now about the sums of money which have hitherto accumulated in this fund?
LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for asking this question, which gives me an opportunity to give your Lordships a little more information than I gave the House on July 8. The sums to which he referred, which have been accumulating under the Act as it now stands, have risen steadily since the year 1935, and particularly, of course, since the passage of the Education Act 1944. In 1968, which is the last date for which information is available to me, they amounted to almost £72, 000. This may seem a comparatively small sum when compared with others which have been in our minds recently, such as the cost of placing a man upon the moon. But in relation to the sums which we have to spend on promoting education and research in architecture, they are substantial and useful, and one of the benefits of the Bill now before your Lordships is that they would be freed for use in constructive and valuable ways.
LORD BELSTEAD: I thank the noble Lord for the information which he has kindly given, which strengthens further the arguments in favour of this Bill which has received support on all sides of both Houses.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a and passed.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
3.6 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Proof of breakdown]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("since the celebration of marriage")
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("since the celebration of the marriage")
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("since the celebration of the marriage")
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("since the celebration of the marriage").
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would be to the convenience of the House if the first four Amendments in my name were all taken together. They all raise the same point, to leave out the words "since the celebration of the marriage" where those words appear in paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e) of Clause 2 (1) of the Bill. I referred to this matter in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that he would consider it. I have put down these Amendments because it seems to me that the inclusion of these words really serves no useful purpose; and, indeed, their omission from paragraph (c), if they are in all the other paragraphs, might lead to difficulties.
I do not suppose that anyone would think that a divorce founded on adultery could possibly be granted on adultery if that adultery was committed before the marriage. Therefore, in relation to paragraph (a), it really seems unnecessary to have the words, "since the celebration of the marriage", included in relation to adultery. It might be, I suppose, that someone could be regarded as having committed adultery through cohabitation with a married person before marriage. But if anyone, after this Bill is passed, had the temerity to seek to base a petition upon that ground, I should think that it would have very short shrift indeed.
With regard to paragraph (b), it seems to me that the language as it now stands is open to misunderstanding. That paragraph reads:
"that since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent".
The inclusion there of the words, "since the celebration of the marriage", would make it appear that to come within that particular provision you have to find conduct which commenced on or shortly

1081
after the celebration of the marriage. I know that that is not the intention of the promoters of the Bill, but it seems to me to be a fair or possible interpretation of the language used. Therefore, I think that the words would be better left out of paragraph (b).
When one comes to paragraph (c), it is curious that the words included in the other paragraphs are not included there, and I think it shows that there is really no need for them at all. But when one comes to paragraphs (d) and (e)—the living apart provisions—there is a specific reference to the parties to the marriage living apart for different periods, and it really is otiose to say that the parties to the marriage must have lived apart since the celebration of the marriage. These are really drafting points, and I should therefore like to move that those words be omitted. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the thought that he has obviously given to this matter, and for the trouble he has taken in framing the Amendments and putting them on the Marshalled List. The advice that I give to your Lordships is that they will improve the Bill and remove uncertainty, and I hope that your Lordships will accept them.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, we are asked to accept all four of these Amendments in the same spirit. But is there not a difference in the significance of the words, "since the celebration of the marriage" in the respective paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e)? I would myself have no objection to deleting them from paragraph (a); similarly, with regard to paragraph (d). But let us look at paragraph (b). It may come to the knowledge of the wife that her husband, ten years before the marriage, had been living a homosexual kind of life. Is she to be deprived of the opportunity to bring that up and say, "I cannot continue to live with him."? The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, may have an answer which will explain that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I think I have a very short answer to that point. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph (d) again, he will see that it reads:
1082
"that since the celebration of the marriage the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years being a period immediately preceding the presentation of the petition … "
LORD LEATHERLAND: No, my Lords; I am referring to paragraph (b).
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: As to paragraph (b), I would certainly say that conduct prior to the marriage should not afford a ground for divorce, and I do not think that there is any risk of that happening as a result of the dele ion of these words. If these words are kept in as they are now, it seems to be arguable, to say the least, that you can come within paragraph (b) only if you find that the conduct complained of had started fairly soon after the celebration of the marriage.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that in the calculation of the period of at least five years for the purposes of section 2 (1) (e) regard shall not be had to any period during which the parties to the marriage lived apart prior to the time when one party decided on account of matnmonial difficulties to live separately from the other.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to provide a much more complete and, I think, more satisfactory definition of "living apart" than is at present contained within Clause 2 (5). Its particular application is to Clause 2 (1) (e), the matter of living apart for five continuous years affording grounds for divorce, and, to some lesser extent, to Clause 2 (1) (c), the matter of desertion for a period of two years. Your Lordships will remember that we had an interesting and quite important debate during Committee stage on an Amendment somewhat similar to this. At the end of it, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, undertook to go carefully into this definition and to do his best to come back to the House with an improved clause. However, the noble Lord has not succeeded, for reasons which he has, with his invariable courtesy, indiciated to me and which he will doubtless explain to your Lordships in due course. But it remains true that the problem of the definition of "living apart" contains what the noble Lord himself has described as "an extremely difficult point". I think those were his words.
The point, my Lords, is this. It is not enough to say, I submit, that a five-year separation is sufficient by itself to prove that a marriage has irretrievably broken down; and I suggest that it is important to bear in our minds those words which have been put forward by the noble Lord and others as the basis of this Bill—that irretrievable breakdown is the only acceptable basis for divorce. A five-year separation is not enough in itself to prove that such a breakdown has occurred. It must be necessary also to show, I submit, that that separation was brought about by causes which themselves arose from a difficulty of a matrimonial kind; or, to put it in another way, that the people concerned had been living apart for five years because, for one reason or another, they could not bear to live together. In other words, they must have been undergoing some conditions of estrangement, to put it at its mildest, for the whole of those five years. This notion of estrangement is at present totally absent from this part of the Bill, and the Amendment is designed to bring it in.
At the risk of being repetitious, the intention is clear. The five-year separation must, to be effective, provide proof, or must amount to proof, of breakdown of the marriage. Does it in fact prove anything of the sort? I think the answer is "Yes" if the petitioner can satisfy the court that the whole separation was brought about by matrimonial difficulties. The onus rests upon him, as it must upon any petitioner, of showing that that is so; and showing in this case that the five-year period began at a particular point, that point having arisen or occurred when the matrimonial difficulties became such that one party to the marriage decided that he could no longer live with the other. That is probably clear. May I, for the sake of brevity, refer to that period of five years, beginning with a matrimonial whim, as period A? It will save a lot of words later on if your Lordships will accept that idea.
Now what happens if these people have already lived apart for other reasons, or were living apart for quite other reasons, when period A, the five-year qualifying period, began? Are we to add that earlier period of separation, which had nothing to do with the breakdown of the marriage, to period A, the breakdown
1084
period, thereby putting the beginning of the five-year period back to an earlier starting point in time? The Bill, in Clause 2 (5), says "Yes", for the Bill, or that part of it, is interested only in the total length of living apart and is not interested in any way in the reasons why those people were living apart. Therefore, the whole of the period, however caused, may be taken into account as a part of period A, and qualify as grounds for divorce. I say it ought not. If I may—I hope, again, in the cause of simplification and not of complication—refer to that period as period X, I say that period X must not be added to period A.
Let us consider what period X consists of. This is separation which has arisen through causes quite unattributable to any kind of marital breakdown—and they may be causes which are either voluntary or involuntary. On the Committee stage we discussed only involuntary ones, such as imprisonment or overseas postings, but voluntary ones must be thought of as well—where, for example, the husband, with the full agreement of his wife, accepts a job overseas. They agree to this, looking forward to a happy reunion at the end of it, perhaps in more prosperous circumstances. He may have been able to take a job at more money than he is getting for the one he is doing. Or the husband may perhaps elect to sail around the world. The wife approves and is perfectly happy. This is something of which we have heard quite a lot lately. Is that kind of separation to be included in the five-year period qualifying for divorce? Surely not, my Lords.
Now involuntary separation, which we have already touched on in the earlier debate; that is to say, separation quite unattributable to rift in the marital lute, brought about by circumstances quite outside the control of either of the parties—such as, for example, a man who finds himself in prison or in hospital, or a regular soldier sent to Hong Kong, or an airman, or a sailor on patrol in a nuclear submarine, or a policeman in Anguilla. Are these periods apart to be included as well in the qualifications for divorce, in period A? Again, my Lords, surely not.
One answer to this question has already been advanced with considerable cogency by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. He

1085
says, "They should be added", and he puts forward this particular argument. What will happen if a person is separated from his wife, or one is separated from the other, perhaps for a long period of years in prison, and then it turns out that the one who is left outside, probably the wife, concludes that she cannot possibly look forward to a reunion at the end of this long period of separation? Is she then to be prevented from starting the five-year period simply because the other person is not there?
The answer, I concede at once, is, No. if we take the ground for starting this five-year period as being one of matrimonial difficulty, which is the phrase used in the Amendment, it is open to the potential petitioner to say, and to make it perfectly plain, that she would not have a temporary reunion with her absent partner on any terms. She is able to do that, or should be able to do that, Whether that person was living in the next room or sitting on the next chair, or was in prison or in Siberia or in Australia or anywhere else. The point is that a matrimonial difficulty has occurred which is established by the fact that one partner cannot go on; and therefore the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the five-year period, begins to run from that time.
The petitioner is protected against the difficulty which has been argued reasonably by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, of being unable to initiate the qualifying period A for divorce, the five-year period, simply because his or her partner has been absent, whereas the other person who is presumably the respondent is in turn protected from receiving the extra punishment of finding himself liable to divorce, of finding his marriage being destroyed, in addition to the punishment he has already received by being in prison or in Australia—which is manifestly unjust to him. By this means I think that both parties to the marriage will be protected from injustice and unfairness and at the same time the divorce will become possible at the end of a five-year period for the reason that is laid down—and I will repeat this again—on the basis that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and is seen to have been in a state of having broken down for five continuous years.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley—and perhaps other noble Lords, but particularly Lord Henley—suggested that there are already safeguards in the Bill to prevent things going wrong in the way that I have suggested unjustly to the absent partner. He adduced his argument in support of this contention from the provisions of three subsections already in the Bill. The first is contained in Clause 2 (3) which says that if the court is not satisfied that the marriage has broken down it shall not grant a divorce. That is to say, to quote the noble Lord, they could refuse a divorce. The noble Lord said:
"… if there is an unwilling respondent who has been absent for more than five years and is being divorced against his wi11, the duty of the court is to refuse the divorce … under Clause 2 (3) … "—[Official Report, 11/7/69, col. 1358.]
This, in fact, is no safeguard, because the court may be satisfied that the marriage has broken down and therefore will be required to grant a divorce. But under this clause the court will no; have to be satisfied that the marriage has been in a state of breakdown for five continuous years. All it requires is that the people should be living apart—perhaps one is in prison—and that the marriage has broken down; and that can be after a period of breakdown lasting only one year. The petitioner can say that his marriage is totally dead and that he refuses to live with this woman. Simply because of this decision—which, perhaps, he came to only two weeks ago or, say, three years ago—there is no difficulty in obtaining the divorce because in fact the partner has been away for five years. So Clause 2 (3) provides no safeguard at all.
The second argument that the noble Lord adduced was based on Clause 3 (2) which provides that if the court feels that "there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation" the court may adjourn the proceedings for that reason. Here, again, it may be plain to the court that there is no chance of reconciliation whatever. It does not need five years to establish the fact that there is no chance of reconciliation. Any petitioner can say, "I will not hear of a reconciliation". If he says that, then the court is bound to accept his word that there is no possibility of reconciliation and the divorce must be granted simply on the evidence

1087
that they have not lived together for five years—for no matter what cause. So there is no protection, no safeguard under that subsection. The third safeguard that the noble Lord claimed to exist was in Clause 4, which deals with the financial or other hardships. Clearly, it is not reasonable to suppose that in any particular case there will be hardship of any kind. Divorces can come about between persons who are exceedingly affluent and entirely prosperous. There need be no hardship whatever to the respondent in the divorce; and, in fact, the question of hardship need not enter into the case at all.
My Lords, here we have three alleged safeguards, none of which can be expected to operate in any particular case—and probably not in the majority of cases. I submit that those three safeguards are totally disposed of by these arguments. There is no safeguard whatsoever in the Bill to prevent a divorce being secured under the five-year rule even though the marriage has not broken down for as long as five years. The words in the Amendment as introduced, "matrimonial difficulties" I have already referred to. I submit that with those words in the Amendment we have a safeguard against precisely the difficulty that it is intended to meet.
I will put this difficulty in a slightly different way. It is this. The Bill—and I repeat it again—is devised explicitly to allow divorce only after proof of total breakdown of the marriage. Despite that express intention, it provides divorce on the demand of any one person who may apply for it after living away from the husband or the wife, for no matter what reason, for five years. I believe that this Amendment, or something like it, will effectively reduce the danger of a total breakdown of the law of divorce—a law which is required not only to provide divorces in certain circumstances but also to prevent divorces in circumstances in which they are not required or just. We should not merely make divorce easy but also make marriage more secure. In my submission, this clause undermines the institution of marriage. I therefore commend this Amendment to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we have debated this aspect of
1088
the Bill before; but on reading Hansard I was very disturbed at the expressions used by my noble friend behind me. I am quite sure that he has not given enough thought to this aspect of the Bill. If I may remind him, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said on Committee stage:
"If I might offer advice to the Committee, I should say that the clause as it stands, with the existing definition contained in subsection (5), would in fact include the case in which a person is sent to prison. In other words, the time that he is in prison would count as part of the five years."—[Official Report, 11/7/69, col. 1345.]
Then he said, in reference to a noble Lord:
"I believe he was thinking of somebody sent to prison for six months, and he thought that should not count. I think it should count."—[col. 1346.]

I want to bring to the attention of the House the position of the women prisoners. Holloway, I believe is only half full; and I am given to understand most of the women there are first offenders. If a woman has been convicted of a certain number of petty larceny offences, she might perhaps be sentenced to a year or two; an abortionist might get a five-year sentence; a woman who has forged a signature could, I suppose, get two, three or four years. May I remind the House that we are not talking about hardened prisoners, because I am told that there are few recidivists among women. Here we are telling a woman, when she is sentenced, not only that she is not only going to be given the period of imprisonment which has been thought appropriate by those people who consider what is the appropriate sentence for a certain crime but also that the time spent in prison will count if her husband decides to divorce her.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I again put the position of the woman. We cannot equate the position of a woman in prison with that of a man in prison. The woman has left her family. She may have committed some crime, but no one can deny that the woman may be an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. One has only to go to the maternity ward in Holloway Prison to be convinced of that. If this matter is left as it is, a woman will have another sentence. Not only will she be sentenced as decreed by the law, but she will have

1089
to endure a sentence which stems from this Divorce Bill. Surely, my Lords that is not our province. A woman will be told that if she is in prison for five years her husband can divorce her although she has not been guilty of a matrimonial offence.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? Cannot such a woman just claim that the marriage has not broken down? According to Clause 2 (3) she has only to say that and the other party has to prove that the marriage has broken down.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am coming to that. The noble Lord must not think I am so simple as all that; I have been involved in these matters for many years. I want to explain that very often when a woman is convicted her husband, quite understandably, has to find another woman to look after the home and the children; that is the norm. A woman, perhaps from up the street, may come to look after the home. She knows when the wife is coming back from prison. We are now introducing a provision which the woman from up the street will know all about; and she may say to herself, "If I make myself of such great use to this husband that he feels that everything is happy, he will not want to get rid of me." If the woman responds to the husband's invitation to sleep with him, of course the marriage will break down and we are enabling this to happen. The wife has not the slightest chance of effecting a reconciliation. She is in her cell and it is no good for her to say, "When I get out I am going to start again anyhow, and in my home I will try to be a bit better"—if she has had trouble with her husband. Here we are helping to establish not only the breakdown of the marriage (because the newcomer will know that a divorce can be automatic); we are encouraging the husband to divorce his wife.
It is not a question of the wife's having to serve a long sentence. All the small sentences are going to add up. This is utterly cruel. I plead with your Lordships that, for a woman, a home is a different place than a home as seen by a man who is in prison. It is her life. Her
1090
maternal instincts are bound up with her home; and we are saying that she is not only to spend a number of years in prison but that this may involve her in a divorce which she is quite helpless to avoid because it will be impossible for her to effect a reconciliation. My Lords, I ask my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, whether it is our province to put a provision into the Bill which would not only make a sentence imposed upon a woman doubly hard but which would threaten to undermine the whole of the kind of life to which she attaches so much importance. Therefore I ask my noble friend once more to take back the Bill and think what he can do to alter its provisions in order to avert what I consider would be a grave injustice.

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.35 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be convenient at this point if I said to the House that it is proposed that the House should adjourn to-morrow, Friday, July 25, until Monday, October 13? On a further matter, about which there is wide interest, may I say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary proposes to table today certain Amendments in lieu of the Lords' Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, and I understand that they will not be proceeded with to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip, for giving us that information. It would seem from that that we shall not then be receiving the Bill back from another place until the spill-over after October 13. I think that your Lordships—certainly noble Lords on this side of the House—will widely welcome this as evidence that the Government are seriously considering the Amendments which your Lordships passed earlier this week.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, needs to be careful as to the conclusion which he draws. None the less, I appreciate his conciliatory approach.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
3.37 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lady Summerskill to clear up one point in her speech which I did not follow? She seemed to suggest that it would be possible in regard to a woman who has received a number of short sentences for them to be added up, whereas presumably the clause relates to a continuous separation. A woman may be sentenced to six-months' imprisonment and go home after serving that sentence; and she may be sentenced to another six months and then go home again. That is not a continuous separation, and very few women get a continuous sentence of five years.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if I said that, it was a verbal slip. I was talking about short sentences and describing sentences given to women. If short sentences as well as long—
BARONESS STOCKS: If they are short sentences they are not continuous—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I see that my noble friend Lord Silkin is in the Chamber and he reminded me the other day about the procedure on Report stage. It might therefore be in order for me to remind the House that on Report the only person who has the right to speak twice on an Amendment is the noble Lord who moves the Amendment. In view of the large number of Amendments which we have on the Marshalled List I hope that the House will feel that we should strictly obey that particular rule.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is in order for me to answer a question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gathered that the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, asked my noble friend whether she would answer a question and I thought she did it in the context that my noble friend Lady Summerskill had not resumed her seat; but I think it would
1092
be going a little too far if my noble friend Lady Stocks were to ask a second question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed that this is a very difficult matter and the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment have a certain force. There is, however, another side to it which is equally difficult. What this Amendment really requires is that when a separation occurs, whether it be voluntary or involuntary, one of the two parties must decide at once that it is going to be a separation because of a matrimonial difficulty; that is, that the five-year period shall start to run. I think it would be most unfortunate if any pressure whatsoever were put on the parties to a marriage to declare at that early stage that the parting was to be for ever, but this in fact is what the Amendment would do. If one of the parties came to a solicitor about a maintenance order, or whatever it might be, the solicitor would say, "Yes, certainly; but, you know, if you want your five-year period to run you had better say now that it is for ever." I think that most people who get into this kind of matrimonial difficulty do not want to do that. They may not yet have made up their minds that it is forever. Probably they hope—it may be even hope against hope—that somehow or other matters will come right. And then they do not come right. This Amendment says that in two years' or in three years' time a person must go and say, "Because of matrimonial difficulties, I can never go back to my husband "—or wife, as the case may be—and then the five-year period starts. I cannot see much sense in that.
There is a further difficulty—about prisoners. We see the amount of injustice where the separation has been quite involuntary. Consider this case. A man is sent to prison for five or seven years, and although the wife, for the sake of the children, may be determined at the end never to have him back, she feels a duty towards him while he is in prison to visit him and write to him, and she does this. Then her solicitor may say to her that she had better be careful, because the judge may say that because she has visited her husband and written to him, and he has written to her, there has not been this continuous separation

1093
and therefore the marriage has not broken down. The solicitor might add, "So, if I were you, I would keep away. Have nothing to do with him." My Lords, this is monstrous. And I believe that this is what would happen if this Amendment were carried. Therefore, though I perfectly understand and sympathise with the arguments in favour of the Amendment, I feel that I must vote against it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I oppose this Amendment because it seeks to qualify the definition of living apart and to make exceptions. The very fact of trying to make exceptions only leads to confusion. And let us not forget—and here I speak to my noble friend Lady Summerskill—the court has the final power of discretion, and in the cases she quoted I do not believe that the court would grant divorce. To qualify this definition is to remove the scaffolding which supports the major feature of this Bill: that is, that separation, and not just a marital offence, is the fact from which breakdown of a marriage is inferred. Separation is both the symptom and the cause of breakdown. In this Bill we accept that separation, voluntary or involuntary, can lead to breakdown of marriage. That is a very sad but a very true fact.
When we discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill the Amendment which incorporated this idea, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, accused me of being very unrealistic about the position of the Forces in war and in peace. It is about the Forces that we are mainly or mostly concerned. I must confess that I was very ignorant, but I have sought out the facts about the Forces and here they are, straight from the mouth of the Ministry of Defence. The maximum unaccompanied tour abroad to which we commit Servicemen at present is 15 months. This would be in the case of the Royal Navy only and it applies equally to shore or afloat service. The R.A.F., for their part, have some unaccompanied tours of a maximum duration of one year. These are in such places as Goose Bay, Gan, Meshad and Shahabad. The normal tour abroad for unaccompanied Army personnel would be nine months. In the Gulf, however, a 13-month tour of duty is standard, although this carries an entitlement to a
1094
free return flight home to the United Kingdom for a month's leave during the period of foreign service. There will, of course, be occasions when men on an unaccompanied posting experience some delay, due to accommodation difficulties, before their wives and families are able to join them. I myself am greatly reassured by these figures and I hope that your Lordships are, too, when it comes to the Divorce Reform Bill.
If we analyse the kind of jobs that have built-in dangers to marriage, because they involve periods of separation, we must include the Forces and the Diplomatic Service—and even jobs with nightwork, if you like. So I oppose this Amendment strongly, despite the fact that the clause as it is has anomalies, including anomalies for prisoners. When a man or woman commits a crime, there is the danger that it may result in the breakdown of his or her marriage. So I would say that this Amendment should not be accepted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. She has made her point of view clear. I regret, though, that it appears to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 2. If the Amendments which were moved to that provision had been carried, there would have been great force in her observation that the courts would always have a discretion to refuse to grant a divorce and that the final power of discretion would rest with the court. If she will read that subsection again, she will see that it is expressed in the following terms.
"unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, … "
the court
"shall … grant a.. divorce."
So the court has no discretion unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down. If the issue is in doubt, subsection (3) will not operate.
The noble Baroness gave us some reassuring information about the length of absence due to Service duties now, but the situation may change, and I would ask the noble Lady to consider not only the situation in peace time but also the situation in war time. There may well

1095
be very prolonged absence during a time of war, and, as the Bill now stands, that period of absence will count and is bound to count towards the five years. There can be no doubt about that. And I assume that this Bill is meant to operate in times of peace and in times of war.
Many of us had qualms about supporting Clause 2 (1) (e). I supported it for this reason: that if the parties have been living apart voluntarily for five years then, even though one of the parties may not agree to the divorce, it is clearly established that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I voted for that because I do not think that recognition of that fact should be held up because one of the parties to the marriage refuses his or her consent to a divorce. But the more we narrow that period of separation because of matrimonial difficulties, lack of harmony in the home and all that, the less does the inference arise that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has made quite clear that, whatever the cause of the initial separation, be it voluntary or due to the husband having to work abroad in climates which the wife could not stand or because the wife remained in this country to bring up young children—no matter how long the period of separation by agreement for any of those reasons may be, nevertheless that period will count towards the five-year period for the purposes of subsection (1) (e) if, say within six months of the end of the five-year period, one of the parties says that he or she is not prepared to resume living with the other.
So if your Lordships accept this subsection as it stands, to my mind you will be completely destroying the inference that arises from subsection (1)(e). You will be making divorce obtainable against the consent of the other party, when the separation, though in fact for five years, is only for a very short part of that time, possibly due to matrimonial difficulties, by one saying that she or he will not live with the other. So I think there is great force in what the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has said.
I disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter when he says that this would mean that the petitioner would have to make up her mind at
1096
once directly the separation occurred. I do not see it happening in that way. It may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said, that because of the long separation the marriage gets on the rocks, and one party will reach the conclusion that he or she cannot or will not again live with the other. The time should run from then. That need not be at the commencement of the separation. In the case of a prisoner, it may come after he has been in prison for some time. When the right reverend Prelate says that the sending of letters by the wife to the husband in prison, or by the husband in prison to the wife, or a visit by the wife to the prison would amount to living together in the same household, I can only say that I completely disagree with him. Within the terms of subsection (5) it is clear that they would be living apart.
I think there is here a vital issue between the promoters of the Bill and those of us who have supported paragraph (e) in the belief that the period of five years would be a period of separation due to one party not being able to live with the other through his or her own desire; that is to say, five years after the marriage has gone on the rocks. On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, if I understood him correctly, said: "Oh no; not at all, so long as there has in fact been five years' separation, no matter what the initial cause, and no matter how long that initial cause has operated, that five years will count, and on that you will get a decree against the will of the other party."
I certainly did not appreciate that the Bill went to that extent when we had it before us on Second Reading, and I very much hope that, if this form of words is not entirely satisfactory, a form of words will be found to make it clear that the only period that should count is the period after rifts have occurred in the marriage.
3.53 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, there are, I believe, many of us in your Lordships' House who see much that is good in several of the provisions of this Bill, but at the same time we see one or two things which we think are very bad indeed. I have been very much impressed by the noble Earl, Lord Cork

1097
and Orrery, in his effort to draw a distinction between that portion of the five years during which the people are friendly and that portion of the five years after an open declaration of war has been delivered.
One of the delightful things about debates in your Lordships' House is that we find so many noble Lords who have had experience of different facets of life. My mind goes back more than fifty years to the day when I was a company sergeant major in France. One of the men in my unit was a Polish Jew who had lived in London for three or four years. He was able to understand the spoken English word and was able to speak the English language; he was able to obey orders that were given to him. But he could not read or write English. So I was called in to act as the letter writer between him and his wife, who was in London. Week by week he would come to me and say: "Sergeant major, I want to write another letter to my wife." I would say to him: "How shall we start it?", and he would say, "Dear Wife "—and with such literary ability as I possessed I was able to keep up this loving correspondence between the Pole and his English wife for over 12 months. I also had to read back her letters to him. When the final letter came, after about 12 months, I noticed that the warmth of her affection seemed to have cooled a little. I read the letter to him, and he said: "Sergeant major, I want you to write back straight away." I said: "Very well. Shall I start off 'Dear Wife '?", and he said: "No. You start off, 'You old Cow'." At that moment I would apply the interpretation that the marriage had broken down. But it certainly had not broken down during the 12 preceding months. They were then corresponding and on perfectly friendly terms. I think it is right that we should draw a line of distinction between any absence which was quite voluntary and friendly, during which, indeed, the heart may have been growing fonder, and any absence which subsequently was on a hostile basis.
We now come to the text of the Bill, which says in subsection (5):
"For the purposes of this Act a husband and wife shall be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household."
1098
We have to realise that there are many husbands and wives who have to live physically apart, because of work, soldiering, prison or for other considerations. I feel that, so long as friendly relations have subsisted between them, it is not right that that period should be included in the five years so-called separation.
3.57 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, what I object to about this subSection is that it is treating human beings as digits without any opinions or emotions of their own; as though, if somebody goes abroad for five years for some reason, automatically the chances are that the husband or wife will divorce the other spouse. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, possibly the quality of the letters failed in the end to keep the couple together.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am a pretty good love-letter writer.
BARONESS BIRK: As we have heard my noble friend Lady Gaitskell point out, so far as service abroad is concerned, this is not very relevant. The point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that we should have a divorce law which really covers the extremities of wet, does not seem to me to be the way in which one should create Statutes.
So far as the question of prisoners is concerned, I was a prison visitor and lecturer at Holloway Prison, and from my close contact with prisoners at that time I would say that where the marriage was stable and on-going, it did not break down, but where the marriage was adrift, then it usually did break down. To argue that this is an extra punishment, seems to me to be absolute nonsense. This is a question between husband and wife, if a man or a woman is in prison for that length of time. But I think I should point out that the sentence has to be a quite considerable one—I should have thought more than 15 years, counting the time off for good behaviour, and other time off—for anyone to serve a five-year sentence to-day. I cannot remember the number offhand, but I think there are about 3, 000 women prisoners in the country, and the number of long-term sentences served is very small. It seems to me that if a man or woman feels that

1099
his or her marriage has broken down because of the absence of the other partner in prison, then it is a matter for them. In fact, the courts have bent over backwards in order to give divorce on the grounds of cruelty when a woman has petitioned because her husband has been in prison. In one case the premarriage record was taken into account by the court, and the court decided that there was cruelty because the woman did not know about it.
It is for this reason that up to now we have not had imprisonment as a separate ground for divorce in this country. Every example that has been brought up is dealt with completely in this Bill. The court has power under several different clauses to turn down the petitioner's decree if it thinks that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down. Taking the cases cited by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and others, if the husband or wife tries to "clock up" the five years of separation (as the noble Earl called it, involuntary separation) then it is up to the respondent to prove that during a great deal of that period the marriage was in existence. It would be quite easy for the respondent to prove that. There are all the opportunities for this to be done in court.
What worries me is that if this proviso is passed it is going to detract enormously from the Reform Bill—I use the word "Reform" specifically. What this Bill is doing is cleaning up our divorce law, taking away a lot of the hypocrisy, the collusion and many of the things which create sensational news but are very undignified to human beings. If this proviso is carried it will lay open the opportunity for people to try to trick the courts and for those far more clever or who perhaps have rather more cunning lawyers to get an advantage over the more honest, ignorant and poorer people. I go back to my first point in saying that it is an insult and humiliating to men and women not to accept that human beings should make up their own minds whether they want to stay married to their spouses. They should not be treated in this spoon-feeding and quite unpleasant way.
4.2 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the reform that this Bill seeks to introduce is
1100
divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage rather than divorce on the ground of a matrimonial offence. Clause 2 specifies five indications of breakdown by which the court is to be guided. This is not, we all agree, the ideal way to establish breakdown, and it is not the way that the Archbishop's Group has recommended. It is agreed, however, to be the only practicable way, and the Bill has been drafted accordingly. These are crude, rough-and-ready indicators. A single act of adultery is certainly a crude indication of breakdown. It may not lead to breakdown, but certainly in every case it is a sign of something badly amiss. I submit that a period of apartness does not necessarily have any bearing whatever on the fundamental state of the marriage. It can only serve to breakdown or matrimonial trouble if it arises from the free choice of the partners to live apart.
I listened to and have since re-read our extensive debate on this point at Committee stage. I have listened with great attention to this debate, and particularly to the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, whose arguments I must admit have considerable force. But I am not convinced that it is impossible to distinguish in law between living apart by personal choice and living apart for other external reasons, such as service abroad, prolonged illness in hospital, or custodial sentence, none of which has anything to do with matrimonial trouble. A failure to make this distinction in this law will result in quite absurd anomalies.
Take, for example, the prison case. A long sentence to prison may virtually amount to a death sentence on the marriage as well. Our policy behind our penal system up to now and, in my view, an enlightened, correct and merciful policy, though not enjoying particularly large popular support, is that immediately on sentence the Probation Service, both outside and inside prison, with the help of volunteers if they can be had, visit both the prisoner and his wife and children, and come into action immediately in order to help the prisoner and the wife to bear the strain of separation, to mitigate the hardship of the sentence upon the family, and to pave the way for the offender's rehabilitation into his family and into society. What on earth is the sense of all this effort if after a

1101
prisoner is released that period in which all that sustained, skilled case work, all that care and patience by friends and neighbours, all the hope that has rested in his children while he has been in prison, can suddenly be stood on its head and called in evidence, as it can be under Clause 2 (1) (e) and Clause 2 (1) (f) as breakdown of marriage? A law that can have that effect surely must be an ass and we ought not to enact it. We ought rather to support the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, if he decides to press his Amendment, or adopt something better if anything can be devised.

RELEASE OF MR. GERALD BROOKE
4.7 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I intervene and, with leave, repeat a Statement on Mr. Gerald Brooke being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Brooke, the British subject who was sentenced by a Soviet court in 1965 to five years' imprisonment for alleged anti-Soviet activity, has been released and has returned to this country to-day. Her Majesty's Government have undertaken that a recommendation will be made for the remission in three months' time of the remainder of the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment which was passed on Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kroger in 1961 in connection with the Portland Spy Case. Upon their release Mr. and Mrs. Kroger will be free to go to any destination of their choice. We have also agreed that Polish consular officials may visit them at monthly intervals until their release.
"The Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. provides that consular visits to British subjects in detention in the Soviet Union shall take place 'on a recurrent basis'. Under Soviet regulations such visits have been permitted not less frequently than once every four months; but the Soviet regulations also provide that offences against prison discipline may be punished by forfeiture of consular visits. At one
1102
time Mr. Brooke went for more than a year without a visit, and more recently Mr. Lorraine "—
your Lordships may recall that Mr. Lorraine is another British subject in custody in the Soviet Union—
"has been deprived of a consular visit. We have now been assured that oven in cases where offences against prison discipline are alleged, the Soviet authorities will favourably consider our request that the intervals between visits by British consular representatives should not exceed four months.
"The Soviet authorities have undertaken that, on the day after the departure of Mr. and Mrs. Kroger from this country, Mr. Michael Parsons and Mr. Anthony Lorraine, the British subjects who in 1968 were sentenced by Soviet courts to four and three years' detention respectively for smuggling drugs into the Soviet Union, will be released. "It has been arranged, as a separate matter, that three British subjects who have for some years been endeavouring without success to marry Soviet citizens will, not later than October 24, be granted visas to enter the Soviet Union to register their marriages, and that thereafter their partners will be free to leave the Soviet Union should: hey so desire. We have been told that one other British subject in this category may have a Soviet visa at any time.
"In deciding to make these arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have had three considerations in mind. The first is that of humanity towards Mr. Brooke. We were informed on April 28 that fresh charges, carrying very heavy penalties, were being prepared against him. His health has not been good throughout his imprisonment, and further years in prison might have the most serious consequences.
"Second, the Krogers will have served over 8½ years in prison. They will have paid a substantial penalty for their offences.
"Third, the other arrangements, which I have mentioned, affecting British citizens and consular visits, are in themselves desirable, and remove an obstacle for improvement in relations between this country and the U.S.S.R.

1103
"Taking these considerations into account, and recognising the counterarguments which can be advanced, I believe that the decision which I have announced is right."
4.11 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for repeating that Statement. I think everyone will be glad that Mr. Brooke is back in this country. He may have been silly but he certainly was not a criminal and he surely has paid more than enough for what he did. I do not think that anyone except the Government can know all the facts and the background of this case. For example, I do not think we can know how much use the Krogers can still be to the Russians. I know from personal knowledge—as I was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the Portland spy case, in which they were concerned—how important they were as the centre of an espionage ring. I do not think I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that they have paid a very high price for the damage they did to this country. But that is eight years ago, and the Government may be right that they have outlived their usefulness to the Russians, though it must surely be an encouragement to other Russian spies that they have served only a third of their sentence and have been returned in this way.
I must say that I have misgivings about this deal in the sense that it really is a giving in to blackmail of this Government on behalf of a misguided, if innocent. or moderately innocent. man. But, as I said, only the Government can, and perhaps in this case should, know all the facts; and although I have these doubts I do not think, speaking for myself, I would wish to press the matter any further.
There is just one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and it is this. Are the Government really satisfied about the arrangements for these consular visits? I notice that we are going to allow Polish consular visits to the Krogers every month, while we have only been told that the Soviet authorities will favourably consider requests that intervals between visits by our representatives should not exceed four months.
1104
Are the Government really satisfied about this?
4.13 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, may I say that of course we quite see that there was a very strong case for doing our best on humanitarian grounds to secure the release of the unfortunate Mr. Gerald Brooke, and that we greet this release with much relief and pleasure. Mr. Brooke, however, as we all know, was savagely punished for an offence which would not have been an offence at all in this country and which, even in other totalitarian States, would probably have resulted only in deportation or in a short period of detention. But, worse still, my Lords, it is now admitted in this Statement that the Soviet authorities were actually going to re-try him in a bogus trial on trumped-up charges, and to condemn him for a further long term of imprisonment which would no doubt have endangered his life—killed him—unless we released some acknowledged, and indeed quite justly condemned, Soviet spies.
We all know that espionage exists and that spies are sometimes exchanged, but this particular deal—and here I think I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—really leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth, even given the facts that the Krogers have served a quite substantial part of their sentence, and that there are, so to speak, certain fringe benefits involved in the deal as a whole. I am afraid I can only say, speaking personally, that I greatly fear that it may lead to trouble in the future. It is said that the deal will improve our relations with the Soviet Union. My Lords, I wonder. The sad fact is that we are dealing, not with the splendid Russian people, but with a soulless regime for whom friendly gestures have absolutely no meaning.
4.15 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, having had some experience of these matters in the Soviet Union myself, I hope I am not out of order in saying a few words. First, I think we certainly have to be very sure of our ground before we take a decision which will break a man's life and health.

1105
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether he considers that the presentation of the case in these few words is roughly in accordance with the facts. There is, as he said, a strong humanitarian aspect involved. The arguments against making the exchange are really two. First, we are giving way after a long battle. That, of course, is to some extent true. One does not make a bargain of this kind without giving way on some point. I think we shall all agree that the British Government were quite right in refusing this exchange five years ago; that was very different. But now the Krogers have served a very substantial part of their sentence and we have a much greater humanitarian interest involved on the other side.
The second point is whether this matter will affect the position of other visitors to the Soviet Union. I believe, and I think others also who have served in the Soviet Union would think, that this matter will not affect their position. There have lately been many precedents for exchanges which have set a pattern, whether we like it or not—French, American, German and British. These exchanges were, I believe, mostly exchanges of spies. Brooke was, I believe, never a spy; but he stated in 1965 that he was the courier for an anti-Soviet organisation, which publicly confirmed it. This would be regarded by the Russians as something worse than spying, so that he would be regarded by them as being in a particular category—
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am sorry to do so, but our Rules with regard to Statements are in fact that only questions ought to be asked, although the practice has grown up that particularly the representatives on the Front Benches are allowed to comment. I am very sorry to intervene because I know that the noble Lord has great knowledge of this subject, but I would ask him to put his remarks in the form of a question. It is very clear that we ought not to debate these matters, and I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I must apologise. I had said that I should like to know whether what I said was regarded as a fair representation of the facts. I would only add, on the par-
1106
ticular question of a new charge, that obviously we cannot comment, but it is prima facie improbable. My only point is to stress my view that one cannot definitely say that the position of the normal tourist in the Soviet Union has been made any worse than it was so far by the Government's agreement to the exchange, however distasteful it may be to us. May I therefore ask whether, although it was clearly a difficult decision, it was not on balance the right one?
4.19 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I wonder whether I might answer some of the points raised so far. First of all, let me say how grateful I am to the three noble Lords who have spoken so far for their restraint and for the constructive way in which they have treated what is clearly a very controversial matter. We know that there are arguments on both sides here. The choice was a difficult one. We believe we have made the right one, and I am most grateful for the indulgence and sympathy shown by the noble Lords who have spoken so far.
I recognise the peculiar interest of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, particularly, in the case of the K"ogers. As to his one question about consular access, I can go no further because of the confidential nature of all the exchanges that went on with the Soviet Union (for reasons with which the noble Lord will be familiar) than to say that we are satisfied with the nature of the assurances that we have received about future consular access.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was equally statesmanlike in his approach to this subject. I would simply make one comment for the record and to clear any misunderstanding there may be from what he has said. When one uses the words "trumped up" and "bogus charges", I would point out than; those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and not mine. All we know about the charges that were to be laid against Mr. Brooke—the extra charges that we were told about on April 29—is that they involved preparation for espionage while under detention.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I then ask why he was not charged on that basis in the first instance?
LORD CHALFONT: Because he was not then in detention, my Lords. We can only find out the true facts from Mr. Brooke, and we shall do so, but the extra charges were believed to be based upon a charge that he was preparing for espionage while he was under detention serving a sentence on his first conviction. I leave noble Lords to form their own conclusions about it but I would say that I did not use the words "trumped up" or "bogus charges".
The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who I think succeeded in framing a very constructive statement, at least theoretically, in the form of a question, has unrivalled experience of these matters and of Soviet matters generally. I wish to make only one comment on what he has said, which is to confirm that the humanitarian aspect of this was a strong one. Mr. Brooke has been a sick man while he has been under detention and I think any people who saw his appearance on television to-day would realise that they were looking at a man who had been under considerable mental and physical strain. It was on these humanitarian grounds, as well as the others that I have mentioned, that Her Majesty's Government made this decision.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask one question? Why is it that Polish consular officials are paying these visits? Are Her Majesty's Government now saying that the Krogers are Polish citizens? I ask the question because the Press has hitherto said (and I thought it was the contention of Her Majesty's Government) that they were United States citizens.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always regarded the Krogers as United States citizens. The request for access by the Polish consular officials has of course been the subject of consultation between us and the United States authorities, and the latter have made it clear to us that they regard the handling of the Krogers as being entirely a matter for us to decide.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he was moderately satisfied with the consular arrangements: can he say whether any arrangements have been made about the first time when a consular official can approach anyone who has been arrested?
1108
Is it four months before he can see a Consul—that is, 120 days? The most important thing when a man gets into difficulties is to see an adviser as soon as possible. Has any progress been made in that direction?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, no progress on that particular point has been made in the context of these discussions and arrangements. I will certainly undertake to look into the point. My understanding is that whenever a citizen is under detention in the Soviet Union the usage is that consular visits may be made at intervals of not longer than four months. But I will undertake to look further into it. May I say, again for the official record, that I did not say I was "moderately satisfied" about the future prospects of consular access: I said that I was satisfied, and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the House not agree that an appeal should go out from this House to the Press and the television authorities to allow a peaceful time for Mr. and Mrs. Brooke in order that they may now take up their married life together again?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord in making that intervention. He may have noticed that in the interview at the airport with the Press, Mrs. Brooke particularly said, "I hope you will now allow us to go away in peace". I have great sympathy with that.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us whether any undertaking has been required from Mr. Brooke that he will not reveal anything of the conditions under which his sentence has been served?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if the noble Lord means have we imposed upon Mr. Brooke any such undertaking, the answer is "No". Whether anyone else has tried to impose such an undertaking upon him I do not yet know; but that of course we shall discover.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, anyone at all familiar with the happenings in Soviet Russia knows that the Soviet Union can easily bring such pressure to

1109
bear upon individuals within their control as to require undertakings of the kind I have mentioned.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, happily Mr. Brooke is now back in this country, where such pressures are unknown.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that many noble Lords feel that the Government have acted with extreme judgment in a very difficult situation?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that comment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what will happen in such an event as this: if Mr. Brooke is approached by a newspaper with an offer of many thousands of pounds for his story, will the Government ask Mr. Brooke to give prior consideration to the Government in anything he discloses?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that is one of those easy questions to answer because it is a hypothetical one and I can say that I will not answer it. However I would point out that Mr. Brooke, now that he is back in this country, is a free man.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, say how much of their sentences Mr. Lorraine and the other young man have to serve, and how sentences for drug-running in Russia compare with those one might expect to receive for similar offences in this country?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be dangerous for me to make any kind of comparison. I believe that, normally speaking, this kind of sentence tends to be more severe in the Soviet Union than in this country, although I am not making any kind of value judgment on these particular cases—or indeed any kind of legal judgment. So far as the amount of time that they have to serve is concerned, I think I had better check the facts and let the noble Duke know, but my recollection is that they were sentenced to something like four and four and a half years respectively, and that was in 1968. But I will confirm that and let the noble Duke know.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
4.29 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope I am not out of order in asking to make a brief comment on the Report stage of this Bill. I wish to do so as I have not yet spoken, and I did speak during the Committee stage. I want only to refer to two remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, with both of which I agree—with qualifications. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, particularly mentioned criminals; the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the object of this Bill was to clean up divorce. I entirely agree with her, if that means to clarify i:, and I suspect that in this Report stage the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify what this particular clause means. That is why I supported an Amendment of this kind at the Committee stage, and nothing I have yet heard makes me disinclined to support it now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, put forward a point of view with which I entirely agree, although I am no: sure how practical it is: that criminals would be well advised to give up crime as a profession before they marry. Would she apply that also to actors and artists? I feel there is a good case to be made out for both those professions, and for saying that an actor should be wedded to his art and not to a wife. But we have to face the fact that criminals do not always give up crime before they marry and that actors and actresses do marry. Sometimes they change their marriages with unpleasant frequency; sometimes, as in the case of Dame Sybil Thorndyke, the marriage goes on.
I think that one point raised by Lord Cork and Orrery's Amendment is this. If an actor married to an actress, or even to somebody in some other profession, goes off, quite with the permission of his wife, on some not disreputable mission, say, representing the British theatre in some advanced play or unadvanced play, Shakespeare even, I do not say for five years—let us suppose it is for only one year—does that year count, even though the actor and his wife had been on the best possible terms before? I do not

1111
want to make this a question of sex war, or to attack actors or criminals as guilty parties, as the noble Baroness seemed in danger of doing, but I do feel we need to be quite clear on this point. As I was accused by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, of raising only frivolous examples of astronauts or traffic blocks on the motorway, I would seriously put this for the House to consider as an example of what the result of the Bill will be with or without the Amendment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not wish to make another speech. I simply wish to say to the noble Lord who has just sat down—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I apologise. With the permission of the House, I simply wish to say that the noble Lord accused me of saying something I did not say. That is all.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Baroness if I did that. I certainly did not mean to accuse her of anything. I thought she was implying that criminals should think twice before they marry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the real issue between us is a fairly simple one. It is, are we to treat an involuntary separation as being such a separation as to justify the assumption, as it does under paragraph (e) of Clause 2 (1), that the marriage has broken down, whether in fact it has or not. What we are saying is that once two people have been separated quite involuntarily, it is at the discretion of either party to say, "The marriage has broken down and I want a divorce." I think that is utterly wrong, and it is not what most of us intended when we supported this Bill and the particular provision in paragraph (e). While I am not sure whether the Amendment of the noble Earl is satisfactory—I should be surprised if it were—nevertheless I do think that something of that sort ought to be written into the Bill, to make it quite clear that when we talk of separation for five years we do not mean an involuntary separation brought about by imprisonment or serving abroad or any other circumstances of that kind. I
1112
would only say to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who made a very good speech, as usual, that this does apply to husbands as well as to wives; husbands sometimes are sent to prison for more than five years as well as wives, and the same would apply to them.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend, Lord Silkin. Obviously, unless the marriage has completely broken down on one side there will not be a petition for divorce, and therefore it is quite clear that on one side it has broken down. On the other side, of course, the problem in cases of this sort has always been the fact that the prospective respondent, either for reasons of revengeful feelings or in other cases for reasons of religious conviction, is standing out against the idea of a divorce. The fact that there has been a long period of separation is perfectly clear in all these cases, and what we are really trying to do is to deal with the case where, either for the purposes of revenge, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has frequently underlined in this type of argument, or for reasons of religious conviction, the other party—the prospective respondent—is not prepared to agree to the divorce.
It seems to me that we are not getting anywhere at all by just adding an extra year, or whatever it may be; it is simply going back to this idea of the matrimonial offence, which keeps breaking out in unexpected places during these discussions. In effect, you are saying that, although it is perfectly clear that one of these parties is so satisfied that the marriage has gone that he or she is bringing a petition you are going to keep them together, in theory—because quite obviously you are not going to do it in practice—for another extra period simply to satisfy revengeful feeling or because of religious conviction. It seems to me it boils down to this, and it is really just sentimental nonsense to insist on having an Amendment of this kind.
The sort of argument one gets into is well exemplified by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Are we going to waste all this money that we spend on social workers in attempting to keep a marriage going while somebody is in prison? Of course not. It is right and proper that it should be done; and in many cases the effort will succeed and

1113
it will be money well spent. But surely in cases of the kind we are discussing the money will have been lost, because the petitioner whom the social workers have been trying to keep in touch with the other spouse would not bring the petition. In a case like this you write off the money that has been spent and the effort that has been made and recognise that it is one of the cases where the attempt at reconciliation, a very proper and praiseworthy attempt, has failed. I cannot myself see that any real case has been made out for this Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think this Amendment may be a bad thing for prisoners, and I am particularly interested in this aspect. The marriages of men sent to prison for any length of time are at very high risk anyway. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, painted a rosy picture of society's frantic action to help them. A little is done here and there, but I think it is a great deal less than should be done. What I am worried about here is that if a marriage is pretty rocky anyway, and the man gets seven years, though the probation officer and everyone else do their best to keep the parties together, the wife's friend is going to say to her, "Look here, you had better give notice straight away. Otherwise, if you pack up after two years you will have lost two years of your five-year period, and you will have him hanging around for two years after he comes out." This is a difficult situation. I do not think it applies to a man in the Services but it applies strongly to a man—or a woman—in prison. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. This is the kind of Amendment which is not necessary, although one can see a possible reason for it. But in this particular case I think it will have sufficient bad effect for me to be inclined to oppose it.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I ask for some perspective in this Statute? The fundamental point is that for a divorce to be granted the marriage must have irretrievably broken down. The five-year separation is only evidence of it, and the case which has been put before us, of the person in prison, is a very special case. It can be met perfectly well when it is remembered that the five-year separation is only evidence and that
1114
the judge, when he comes to consider the whole case, will decide whether or not the marriage has irretrievably broken down. If it has, let the principle of this Act apply. I would be against the Amendment.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, may I ask one very short question, purely for guidance? Are the five indications of breakdown of marriage referred to in this subsection intended to be taken as indications in that they are causes which one may assume would lead to the breakdown of marriage; or are they to be taken as indications in that they are results from which one may assume the marriage had already broken down? If they are indications in that they are results of breakdown, this Amendment is obviously necessary, because the five years living apart as a result of breakdown must begin at the time of the breakdown.
4.40 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords may I in the first place express the hope that your Lordships will believe that I did my best to comply with the undertaking which I gave on the Committee stage of this Bill, that I would most carefully re-examine the problems which had been thrown up in our discussions at that stage. I most carefully re-examined the whole subject, together with the expert advisers whose assistance I have previously had and I was thoroughly convinced that the Bill as presented is in the right form and that the Amendments suggested, including the noble Earl's Amendment, ought not to be accepted. I hope that your Lordships will accept that assurance.
May I now answer the question just put? What the Bill does is to pose certain factual situations upon proof of which it shall be assumed, unless the evidence as a whole points to a contrary conclusion, that the marriage has broken down. That is what the Bill does. May I make one or two general observations? First, supposing somebody comes and says that A and B have been apart for five years—not for one, or two, or three years, but for five years—and that A has approached the divorce court to ask for a decree of divorce, I should have thought that any reasonable person would say: "Well, if there is one thing

1115
which is patently obvious it is that the marriage between A and B has broken down." He will not start asking why they were apart for five years. He will say that once two people live apart for five years it is not at all unlikely that one will fall out of love with the other and want to be free from that other person. That is, unfortunately, the ordinary case. I should have thought that most people would rarely bother in the slightest as to why they were apart for five years; the thing that matters is that they were apart for that five years. That is the situation which the Bill acknowledges and recognises.
May I add this? It really is a fundamental misconception for the noble Earl who moved this Amendment to put the matter in this way: aye or nay, does five years' separation spell breakdown? With respect, that is not the question. The question is: does living apart for five years, followed by an application by one of the parties to the divorce court for a decree of divorce—do those two things conjoined together—spell the breakdown of a marriage? I should have thought that in the ordinary course of affairs it is almost impossible to say that when these two situations are conjoined marriage has not come to an end. Even when they are conjoined, there is still the provision in Clause 2 (3) requiring the judge nevertheless to look at all the circumstances; and if those circumstances convince him that, in spite of the conjunction of those two most telling situations, the marriage has not broken down, he has still to refuse a divorce. That is the issue. I should have thought that one has only to state the question in that form to make it fairly obvious that it does not really matter why the spouses were apart; the question is whether or not they were apart, and whether their separation led one of the two to approach the divorce court and ask for a decree.
I make this further comment. What does the pronouncement of a decree do? It does not break up the marriage. All it does is to recognise, formally and officially by the decree of the court, that the marriage has obviously broken down. What happens, unfortunately, is that there is a separation, one party gradually comes to the conclusion that he or she wishes for a divorce and then, after five years, asks for it; and all the court does
1116
when it pronounces a decree is to recognise that that is the pre-existing situation which has led to the breakdown of the marriage.
May I make this further observation? When one is legislating, one can pass only legislation which fits most cases. Cases differ so infinitely in their circumstances that it is quite impossible, without unreasonable complication, to devise a form of words that will cater for each and every separate unusual case. The ordinary case is that in which the separation takes place because the two parties cannot get on together. It is impossible numerically to compute cases of compulsory separation but I should have thought it was the rare case. It is not the ordinary case. The ordinary case is the one that is reflected in the letters which I am sure noble Lords must all have received, of people who have been apart for years and want the court formally to recognise the fact that their marriage has long since terminated.
But may I ask your Lordships to look at the situation of compulsory separation? My noble friend Lady Gaitskell dealt with the situation of the Services. It is only in the rarest case that a soldier or sailor has to be away for five years. That is a tremendously long time. A situation of that sort befalls people in the rarest of circumstances. I cannot follow the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, who says that we should disregard that because the Army or Service authorities may at some time abandon that most human system which they at present operate in curtailing the separation of the husband and wife, and adopt a much less human system; or that there may be another world war which may involve separation for five years. I say that we should not adjust our judgment by reference to that sort of situation.
I have taken some trouble to ascertain what the position is in all possible spheres of separation. At the Foreign Office service abroad is up to four years, but the man usually has his family with him. At frequent intervals of time, which differ according to the circumstances, he has home leave. Then I had inquiries made from one or two of the great companies, which I need not mention by name, having employees overseas. The general tour of duty abroad is for a maximum of two years, and they do their level best to

1117
get their employees back within that time to visit their families if the families are not with them. I should have thought that anybody who has had any experience of the Services knows perfectly well that a commanding officer who has reason to think that the marriage of another rank or an officer under his command is going astray, does his level best to see that that other rank or officer gets compassionate leave to try to straighten things out.
I respectfully submit that in this matter it cannot be too strongly emphasised that what happens is not that the marriage is broken up by the making of the decree, but that the marriage breaks up because of the two parties; they themselves fall out of love with each other. That is a situation no doubt eventuating as a result of the separation. I do not wish to repeat myself, but the divorce court does nothing to bring that separation about; it simply recognises it when it has taken place. Some noble Lords have expressed considerable dislike of the idea that compulsory separation should count. It has been part of our law ever since 1937. Those noble Lords seem to forget that since Sir Alan Herbert introduced the measure which became the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, insanity and the requirement of care and treatment for a period of five years has been by itself a ground for divorce. That applies in the case of compulsory separation where either the unfortunate husband or wife is stricken by insanity and is compulsorily put away from their spouse. It is a most clear and obvious case.
So this is no change in principle. It is following a principle that we have recognised, without any complaint, for years. I may say that such complaint as there has been of that provision, which is now to be found in Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, is in a contrary direction. It is that the existing provision is too restrictive. For example, the case has arisen where it could not be proved that the spouse was incurably insane because medical evidence showed that he was rather subnormal and could not be said to be insane. Or it has been criticised on the ground that it cannot always be proved that the individual has needed care and treatment for five years. Sometimes the process to which he has been subjected is a process of training rather than of care and treatment, so the peti-
1118
tion has failed on that ground. What has been said over and over again is that that existing provision of thirty years' standing is not wide enough. There is nothing new in this; we are simply following an existing path which has been trodden over and over again and which is thought now to be too narrowly bounded.
I ask your Lordships to say that it would be very unfortunate if this Amendment were accepted. It would go far to wrecking this provision. Many noble Lords have spoken of the prisoner. I have had some experience and have talked with and tried to understand the thinking of dozens and dozens of prisoners up and down the country in personal contact with them. What is the position? To begin with, you normally get one-third off your sentence for good conduct; and, since the Act we passed in 1967, in addition to that normal good conduct remission of one-third, i: you behave yourself you now qualify for a further one-third off your sentence, at the discretion of the Parole Board. So if you are a well-conducted prisoner, with any luck you will serve one-third of your sentence. The only prisoner who runs a risk of being separated from his family for five years is the prisoner who is serving a very long sentence indeed. If he gets two-thirds off, I suppose he has to be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, which is a very rare sentence. Therefore, they are very rare cases one is dealing with.
I hate to talk about my own experience, but I must do so for a moment. If you have a man who has, unhappily, been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, he can get one-third off, and now one hopes that he may get another third off. For a man to be away from his family for four months is a terrible thing. It is a tragedy for him, and one's heart goes out to him. Anybody who has had anything to do with that sort of situation knows that the one way of enabling a man like that to pull himself together, to get on the right lines again, is to have the hope of coming out to a wife and family. That is the ordinary case.
What is the way to deal with that kind of case? The way the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, described: do everything you conceivably can through the prison administration, who are most helpful

1119
and eager to co-operate in this matter, to keep him in touch with his family. That is the right approach in a civilised society. You should have better interview rooms; get away from the old grill system; the conversations out of earshot; circumstances in which it will not be frightening for the children to come; home leave in due course when the prisoner qualifies for that; ample facilities for correspondence; and the best possible welfare services. That is the right answer for a civilised community to give to the problem of the unfortunate man in prison who is anxious because he is separated from his family.
I should have thought it was common experience that the person who is really anxious is the man who has to be away for four months, six months, or nine months. When a man gets into the sort of state in which he is liable to get 15 years' imprisonment, very often his mode of life has not been such as to fit into a normal family existence. It would be grossly unfair to say that the people who receive those sentences are not concerned with their families, but it is not unfair to say that they are less frequent when you are talking about that sort of prisoner than if you are talking about a prisoner doing 12 months, or even up to three years.
That is the right approach; do your level best to keep them in touch. But in spite of every possible endeavour, and whatever the divorce courts say, when the two people are apart, especially when there is all the indignity and stigma of a prison sentence, marriages are under strain. It is up to the prison administration to do their best to alleviate that strain, but the divorce court cannot affect it one way or the other. Therefore, I should have thought that the argument based on the prisoners' situation cannot carry much weight.
I do not wish to make an invidious remark, but when one talks about compulsory situations, it really is not obligatory on anybody to commit a crime in this country—far less obligatory upon him to commit, or to go on committing crimes which will result in his being sent to prison for 15 years, or that sort of sentence. He need not be sent to prison for 12 months if he behaves himself, as the vast majority of his fellow citizens do.
1120
So it is really compulsory only in an indirect sense. Equally, if you accept an appointment overseas for five years you are not bound to serve it. If for reasons of promotion or reward, you think it appropriate your wife may agree to your doing so. So it is really a misnomer to call these separations in any real, factual sense compulsory.
Suppose one did accept the Amendment. I thought, if I may respectfully say so, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter put his finger directly on the point: that one is anxious to keep marriages together and not to let them collapse. Take two wives—if I may take wives instead of husbands. The separation takes place; they have been on bad terms and for one reason or another they part. She may go to stay with her mother for a holiday and not come back, or whatever the situation may be in different cases. One wife will say to herself, "I hope that nevertheless we shall be able to patch this up and build this relationship up again." There may be children involved, and she will fight hard to try to keep that marriage in being. She will not give up hope perhaps for months, perhaps for years, and perhaps for many years, and only at the end, after the lapse of many years, will she decide that the matter is hopeless.
If this Amendment is accepted the time will run only after those many years, when that unfortunate, conscientious woman has given up hope. Another woman, when a rift comes, perhaps no more severe than the rift in the former case which I mentioned, will just throw her hands up and say, "The whole thing is over; I am not going to bother". In her case she is at a great advantage. She can get her decree, if she wants it, five years from that moment. Therefore, I should have thought that those who propose this Amendment would be achieving a result precisely the opposite of the sort of result we all have in mind; they are making marriage more brittle, not less, and they are invalidating it.
I go further. I say that if the Amendment is carried, one is playing right into the hands of the less scrupulous wife, or the less scrupulous husband, whichever is the petitioner. If a wife goes to a solicitor, and the solicitor says, "Your five years dates from the time when you decided you would separate" the less

1121
scrupulous petitioner—I believe she is sometimes called the more sophisticated—would say, "I made up my mind as soon as we parted". The more honest wife would try to really think when it was she made up her mind. So it would be playing into the hands of the less honest petitioner, and would disadvantage the more honest.
Then there is another and I should have thought a fundamental objection. As has been pointed out, this Bill is plastered over with machinery to try to promote reconciliation. If one looks at Clause 3 (5), in calculating the five years you disregard any six months that they have been together during that five years. A solicitor can say to a woman when five years have really gone, "Why do you not make one more attempt to join up with your husband?" and she can join up with her husband, say for a week or a fortnight, to see whether they can come together again. It may be unsuccessful. As the Bill is at present drafted that joinder, if it is not for over six months, will not count. If this Amendment is carried, I suppose the five years dates from the time when the wife has unsuccessfully tried to reintegrate the marriage by going back to her husband for a limited time. So the whole of Clause 3, I suppose, would have to be jettisoned. The whole of the system of reconciliation on which this Bill is founded would be completely aborted and would have to be cancelled.
For all those reasons, I greatly hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. It would mean that heaps and heaps of people, who have been waiting and waiting, would have to wait for another five years. How on earth can you tell when people make up their minds? Do they have to make up their minds and never change? Supposing they make up their minds after three years of separation—have they got to stay of the same mind? Supposing they change and then again make up their minds? I suppose the five years has to run from the second period. For all those reasons, I very greatly hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
5.0 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, as one would expect of him, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has given a fair and
1122
accurate statement of the problem, which is simply this. Does anything else matter except the desire of "A" for a divorce, and the fact of separation? The noble Lord says that nothing matters, and that is the issue between us. I know from my conversations with him, and from what he has said in this House, that he and those behind him who are helping him in this matter have given the most anxious consideration to some form of definition of "living apart".
It was pointed out, on one of the occasions when this matter was debated in the House, by some of those such as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who supports my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, that it really is no good at all trying to define "living apart "—I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, took the same view—and that any attempt to define "living apart" is almost impossible. I shall not read out the relevant provision in the Bill, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is a pretty hopeless definition. It says that a husband and wife are living apart if they are not living in the same household. But of course they can live apart in the same household. I know of one couple who have lived apart in the same household for over ten years. I believe they have never spoken to one another all that time, although they drive about in the same car and live in the same household. But according to this Bill they would not be living apart. However, that is rather by the way.
I should like to mention what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said, about the difficulty of starting the period of five years. I agree with him that, if one had to look at the matter from the same point of view as he does, and one started off by saying, "I am never going to live with that man again", it would be a most futile situation. But the judges look at this question of living apart without definition, and I think my noble and learned friend Lord Denning will agree with me—he has already made remarks to this effect—that you can leave the matter to the judges without definition. Over the years, the judges have had to deal with this question of living apart not only in connection with matrimonial disputes, but also in revenue case;. The question of whether a man is living with his wife is irrelevant. It does not mean

1123
living with his wife factually; I might almost say it means living with his wife emotionally. They are living together in law if they are separated by circumstances, whether a person is serving abroad and whether a person is insane.
I do not understand the illustration which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill gave about insanity. What has that to do with this problem at all? Some of us may be sincerely shocked that insanity is a ground for divorce. Why should mental illness be a ground for divorce any more than any other illness? Ideally I should have thought insanity would not be a good ground for divorce, but, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, with the hardness of our hearts these cases have to be decided and relief has to be given by law to people who are in difficult positions.
I sincerely wish to emphasise the cleavage which exists between those who take opposite views on this matter. There are those who take the factual view, like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who said, "If they are apart, then they are apart. What does it matter why they are apart? If you say that you want a divorce, then you want a divorce. Of course the marriage has broken down, and there is no means of denying it."
Some of us sought to support an Amendment to Clause 2 (3), which puts the burden on the one who opposes the divorce to say that the marriage has not broken down. We sought to say that it should be proved that the marriage had broken down. But the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others, pointed out that this only brings back the wretched idea of an inquest, which would be quite intolerable. So the position now is that you do not have to prove breakdown at all. "Breakdown" is only one of those words which are tossed about. You have to prove that you have had five years' separation, and you have to say that you want a divorce. But of course it has broken down, if you want a divorce. That is all you have to do. In my submission, it is really essential that this question of living apart should be decided on the basis that the living apart means that there is a real division, a real cleavage, between husband and wife; not a factual separation, whether voluntary or involuntary.
1124
I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, is not particularly wedded to this form of words. I, for my part, think that he has been exceedingly clever in producing a form of words which will get on its legs at all. I should prefer to leave the matter without the present definition, and to ask—I hope not in vain—my noble friend. Lord Stow Hill, who has been so good in trying to meet problems of this kind which have been put before him, to find a definition which is less harsh than leaving the matter as if the intention is quite irrelevant; because I am quite sure he takes the view that the intention behind the separation is quite relevant. I support this Amendment.
5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I begin by attempting to deal with one or two misapprehensions? I begin with one which was voiced by one or two noble Lords, who mentioned the length of what I choose to call period X—the preliminary voluntary or involuntary separation which has nothing to do with the breakdown of marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is still wedded to the case of the long-term prisoner. In attempting to advance the case for this Amendment, I think I made no reference to the length of service, the length of imprisonment or anything else, and the principle which animates this Amendment applies equally, whether the length of preliminary separation is 15 years or 15 days.
My contention is simply that it ought not to count in the running period of five years which would qualify for divorce. Therefore, when the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, quotes figures from the Ministry of Defence as to what is likely to be the length of overseas service for a soldier, sailor or airman, then my answer, as politely as I can, is to say that I simply do not care. All I am interested in is whether they are taken away by one means or another, or whether they are separated because they are fed up with the company of each other. That is all.
Several noble Lords have referred to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who made almost the only cogent argument in opposition

1125
to the Amendment, although it is something of an argument in a corner, a rather private field, which is not a very widely represented one in this situation. I refer to the possibility that, if the Amendment came into force, a wife who was otherwise devoted to her husband—loyal, attending to him, visiting him and writing to him—might be discouraged from doing that by her solicitor. He might say, "Look here, if you go on doing this you will find it very difficult to prove—if you want to prove it—that you have been living apart all this time, and that the marriage has broken down."
I do not think the right reverend Prelate really meant that that would alter the evidence of living apart. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, took him up on that, so I think we can drop that one. But such an event might scotch the idea that the marriage had broken down, if we brought in the Amendment. However, I think it is very unlikely to be a very important factor because, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and others have pointed out, there are very large and powerful factors which are operating the other way. If it is possible for a solicitor to convince a wife, who is still trying to do the right thing by her husband, that she would do much better to give up and reconcile herself to the idea of getting a divorce in five years' time, then I can say that that combination of solicitor and wife would be a pretty rare one and ought not to weigh too heavily in this argument.
May I say straight away that of course I accept without the slightest reservation the assurance of the noble Lord, 'Lord Stow Hill—and, indeed, I accepted it almost in advance—that he has done everything he can to reconsider this matter and, if possible, to come up with a new form of clause; and I quite understand that he has been unable to do so. But, if I may turn to the noble Lord's own remarks, I venture to say, with the greatest diffidence and respect, that he has introduced one or two irrelevancies into these arguments. I have already referred to one which is irrelevant to me, at least, and that is the length of service—such matters as he took up from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell.
But he has also said that a period of attempted reconciliation will invalidate
1126
the preceding five years—that is bow I wrote it down. I am not quite sure whether I got it right, but I thins the argument is this. Suppose at the end of a period of five years, or whatever it may be, the potential respondent is suddenly persuaded to take the other party back again for bed and board for a period of six months, and then finds it is a failure, that attempt would in itself invalidate or cancel all the preceding 4½ years, or whatever it might be, and the period would have to start again. But that is not so. If your Lordships look at the Amendment, you will see that it says that in calculating the period of at least five years
"regard shall not be had to any period during which the parties to the marriage lived apart prior to the time when one party decked on account of matrimonial difficulties to live separately from the other".
If they should decide later to come together again for a short time, and that should fail, it makes no difference, because that clearly it is not a time prior to the time when they decided to live apart. So that has nothing whatever to dc with the argument. Once the time starts 10 run it runs on and nothing can stop it.
Then the noble Lord said—and I paraphrase him again—"Does not a five-year separation followed by a petition for divorce spell breakdown?". That, I think, is the key to the noble Lord's argument.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it is not customary in your Lordships' House for anybody to speak twice, but the noble Lord will not perhaps mind my intervening to correct a misapprehension as to what I said. The kind of case I was taking was that of a wife who is undecided for five years but she is very much inclined to think that the marriage is at an end. She goes to her solicitor at the end of five years. Under the existing Bill he can say, "Go and try. Go and live with him for a fortnight and try to reconcile yourself". If the Amendment is carried, then if she does that the five years has to start from then.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear—I tried hard to do so—that that is exactly what would not happen. The only period that is left out of account is the period earlier than that. I shall be exceedingly brief now; I am sure noble

1127
Lords want to press on. I will continue with the quotation that I was making from the noble Lord when he asked, "Does not a five-year separation followed by a petition for divorce spell breakdown?". He considers that it does. I say, "No, it may or it may not". That is the whole point of this Amendment: it is about nothing else. It may spell breakdown or it may not. If it spells breakdown, the marriage may have been broken down for a year or it may have been broken down for five years; but there is no knowing whatever that it has broken down within the terms of Clause 2 (1) (e), which is perfectly plain. That says that the marriage shall be said to have broken down—which is what this Bill is about—if the parties
"have lived apart for a continuous period of five years".
That is what we are trying to change by putting in this qualification—and I think it makes a great deal of difference. They must have lived apart on purpose. It is perfectly simple.
Several noble Lords—I will not identify them particularly—have said that there is a safeguard in Clause 2 (3) against this matter going wrong. I was at some pains to try, at any rate, to dispose of this safeguard in my earlier speech, but I must come back to it now, because I do not see that there is any discretion at all left to the judge. This subsection is perfectly plain. It says that unless the court—that is, the judge—is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down, it shall grant a decree. There is no discretion left to the judge to say, "The marriage has not broken down, and
therefore I will not grant a decree". If we had carried the Amendment which was proposed during the Committee stage, that would have been so, but it was not carried. Therefore, the judge has no discretion, and the Bill as it stands now says that if people live apart for five yeas and the judge is not satisfied that the marriage has not broken down then he shall give a decree. I and those of my noble and my noble and learned friends who support me in this matter say that that is wrong.
We do not say that this Amendment is necessarily the total answer, but it is a step towards it, and I think it is better than what we already have. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, is quite likely to be right in saying that we should do much better to take the definition out altogether. Let us, I suggest, take this first step of trying to insert this Amendment, and then if, for one reason or another, it is not entirely successful—if, that is to say, either your Lordships do not choose to accept it or, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has a better idea which he brings up at a later stage—then let us fall back on the big guns remaining in the background, in the shape of Amendment No. 5 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and blow the whole thing to pieces on Third Reading. But in the meantime I think that I must insist upon this Amendment.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 91.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Hodson, L.

Abinger, L.

Denham, L.

Ilford, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Devonport, V.

Leatherland, L.

Audley, Bs.

Dilhorne, V.

Longford, E.

Balerno, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Barnby, L.

Dudley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barrington, V.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Boston, L.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Bourne, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Moyne, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Pearson, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Gray, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

St. Helens, L.

Silkin, L.

Swinton, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Stamp, L.

Terrington, L.

Sandford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Selkirk, E.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Platt, L.

Arwyn, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Atholl, D.

Gifford, L.

Popplewell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Goodman, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Balogh, L.

Gowrie, E.

Robbins, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, L. [Teller.]

Birk, Bs.

Henley, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Holford, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Jessel, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Citrine, L.

Killearn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cole, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Strang, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Crowther, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denning, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Truro, L. Bp.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Wade, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Walston, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Meston, L.

Williamson, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Mitchison, L.

Willis, L.

Falkland, V.

Molson, L.

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morris of Borfh-y-Gest, L.

Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne, L.

Foot, L.

Morrison, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to

SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with permission I would repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made in another place on the White Paper on Social Insurance Benefits. The statement is as follows:—
"I have to-day laid before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for social insurance benefits in the new scheme of earnings-related social security.
"The Government have already, in 1966, introduced a substantial measure of earnings relationship into the provision for short-term benefits for the early months of sickness, unemployment and widowhood.
1130
"The changes now proposed for short-term benefits are thus limited to those required to adapt them to the new system of earnings-related contributions and long-term benefits. Stamped cards and flat-rate contributions will be abolished for all employees covered by P.A.Y.E. and the new contributions for them will be collected through the P.A.Y.E. system. The proposals with the financial implications, are set out in detail in the White Paper.
"The White Paper also describes the new deal for the long-term sick. Short-term sickness benefit under the new scheme will be payable for up to six months. Those who are still sick at the end of this period will be able to receive a new earnings related long-term sickness benefit—to be called invalidity pension. This benefit will replace the present flat-rate sickness benefit for those who are sick for more than six months. For those who are

1131
so severely handicapped that they need a great deal of help from other people there will also be available a new attendance allowance announced' in the earlier White Paper.
"As regards the industrial injuries scheme, the Government are still in consultation with both sides of industry on the consequential changes necessary in industrial injury benefit and industrial widows' pensions; no change is proposed in industrial disablement benefit. Subject to this, the proposals in today's White Paper, with those already announced in the earlier White Paper, National Superannuation and Social Insurance, complete the Government's plans for reconstructing the present national insurance scheme. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. May I ask one or two questions about it? First, may I take it that the White Paper, as well as stating the benefits, will on this occasion also state the contributions and the cost involved? That seems to be specifically stated in regard to short-term benefits but not in regard to the others. The invalidity pension is something for which the Government have been pressed for a long time and we shall be very glad to see that. May I take it that industrial injuries are mentioned in the Statement because consultations are still going on? May I ask the noble Baroness whether this is the only matter on which consultations are still continuing? In particular, may I ask her whether consultations on the question of an occupational pension scheme and contracting out have yet been completed? I was under the impression that they were still going on, and I hope that this is so. Perhaps the noble Baroness can answer those points.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for repeating the Statement. We shall of course have to study the White Paper. I welcome the proposal to abolish the stamping of cards; this was advocated by a Liberal Committee some years ago. May I ask a question about the handicapped? What
1132
form of benefit is proposed for them, apart from the attendance allowance? I have in mind those cases where the disability is so great that a person has not been able to earn, and therefore there are no earnings to which any payment could be related. Is any form of benefit intended for such cases?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have put questions. I should prefer to give replies in writing to the factual questions, particularly those relating to consultations on the matters not mentioned specifically in the White Paper. As noble Lords will appreciate, we shall need to study this Paper very carefully. The actual proposals for legislation will come of course in the next Session, but I will see that both noble Lords receive replies to the questions which they have put this afternoon. In this White Paper we are considering particularly short-term benefits. The long-term benefits, to which I think the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, relates, were discussed in the earlier White Paper. But I will see that both the noble Lords who put questions receive replies.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it regrettable that the noble Baroness is not in a position to answer the question about occupational pensions. This matter has been canvassed a good deal in the Press, and I think that the House would have liked to know the answer to that question. May I ask a question arising out of a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Wade? He said, if I understood him right, that the stamping of cards was to be completely abolished. But is that so? I understood the noble Baroness to say that it was being abolished for employees. Does this not mean that the stamping of cards will continue for the self-employed and the non-employed? If that is so does it mean that the present system, what might be called the "Newcastle" system, will have to be maintained and that the whole operation cannot be completely computerised? I have been under the impression that the whole thing was to be computerised. Is that not so?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not press me on this matter. After all, it deals with a rather narrower issue than the very much wider

1133
issues in the White Paper. I can tell the noble Lord that consultations are still going on in connection with the second point that he raised, about occupational pensions. Regarding the abolition of the cards, I think that I must rest on the Statement. Stamped cards for flat-rate contributions will be abolished for all employees covered by P.A.Y.E. I think this may be interpreted as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has interpreted it; that it does not apply to the self-employed.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
5.34 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are purely drafting, and consequential on the adoption by this House of the word "consents" instead of "does not object" in Clause 2 (1) (d). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("section 2(1) (d) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (1) (d) of this section")—(Lord Stow Hill.)
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("if he wishes to oppose") and insert ("to indicate that he consents to").—(Lord Stow Hill.)

Clause 4 [Decree to be refused in certain circumstances]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 36, after ("divorce") insert ("or the ground stated in section 2 (1) (e)")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This clause was closely examined in Committee and I do not intend to go over in any detail the ground then covered. But I should like to remind the House of the extent of the clause. As it stands at present, any respondent to any petition for divorce may invoke this clause. He can do it whether the facts on which the petition are based relate to adultery, cruelty or desertion; or indeed where there is a period of two years' separation with con-
1134
sent (the respondent is not likely to do it then; because he or she would not consent) and also where it is based on a five-year separation. So this clause may be brought into operation by a respondent over the whole field covered by Clause 2 (1). That could happen in respect of a very large number of petitions.
Secondly, every time a respondent takes action to bring this Clause into operation it means that the court will have to consider
"all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and the interests of those parties and of any children or other persons concerned",
and whether there will be "grave financial or other hardship," and whether it would be "wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage".
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who was present in the Chamber a few moments ago, said a great deal during the Committee stage about a "mini inquisition". The point I want to make, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will contest it, i:; that this process may be invoked at the option of the respondent in any divorce petition. Then you are going to get that inquisition in every case. No matter how scandalous the adultery; how grave the cruelty; how long the desertion—nevertheless, a respondent, by invoking this clause, can at least postpone, and may prevent, the making of a decree nisi; I say "postpone", because there is bound to be delay in view of the investigation which will have to be made by the court. The respondent may be able to establish that the clause should operate and the petition be dismissed.
My Lords, the delay might be long and, with the clause as wide as it is, it seems to me that there is a not inconsiderable possibility of it being abused; that some angry respondent of either sex may invoke Clause 4 just out of spite, to hold up the making of a decree nisi. I do not think anyone wants that to happen. As I understood the discussion during the Committee stage, the real case for Clause 4 is in relation to divorces based on the facts stated in Clause 2 (1) (e); that is to say, a five-year separation. The other matters, surely, could be left to be dealt with after the decree nisi as they are now—that is questions of maintenance. In the other cases, surely

1135
there is no need and no case for saying, as I understand it, that the decree should be refused and the petition dismissed. The purport of this Amendment is to limit the operation of Clause 4 to cases in which the petition is founded on a five-year separation; that is Clause 2 (1) (e).
It was suggested to me that it should be limited to cases of that character where there was no other charge in the petition; where the charge, if you like, was not accompanied by a charge under paragraph (c) of desertion. I think it would be better—although I do not hold any strong views on it—to say that Clause 4 may be invoked when one of the grounds on which a divorce is given—even if there be other grounds—is Clause 4, because if we did not provide that, it seems to me that there is an appreciable risk that people will try to obtain a decree on the ground of desertion and fight that issue to avoid the possibility of the respondent, if proceeded against under Clause 2 (1) (e), invoking Clause 4. I think we want to guard against that. With the Clause in its present form, it gives opportunities to respondents—and some of them are not always very accommodating—to delay the granting of a decree, and I do not think it serves any useful purpose because respondents in petitions under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) can be dealt with, so far as maintenance is concerned, after the decree nisi has been granted. I hope that I have made this clear and that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, will agree that she has had no difficulty in understanding it. I beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on the lucidity of his explanation? I find myself in the unaccustomed position, and it is a great pleasure to me, not only of understanding him but also of agreeing with him, so that I should like to support this Amendment.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I, too, wish to support this Amendment, subject to one minor qualification. I am not entirely clear what the noble and learned Viscount intends in relation to a situation where there is more than one ground (though of course they are now not grounds but justifications) inserted in the
1136
petition. I do not think it is appropriate that Clause 4 should be restricted exclusively to cases where a decree is granted under paragraph (e), and nothing else, because that appears to be the only case of a completely innocent respondent who is entitled to invoke this clause. It should be right to invoke it in other cases. If that is what the noble and learned Viscount has in mind, the House may be well advised to accept this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. I think it is quite retrograde. We are asking the court on a petition to consider all the circumstances arising out of the alleged breakdown of the marriage. Why it should be restricted to the particular case where the parties have separated for five years I cannot understand. Why should not the court look at the conduct of the parties, the position of the children, the possibility of grave hardship, in all these other cases? They are just as relevant to the question of a decree. Why should not the court, for instance, look at the case of a petition on the ground of adultery of one of the parties? Why should it not be possible for the respondent to say, "You have been just as bad; you have been worse. In fact you have driven me to this course of conduct; you have even condoned it"? Why should he not be able to say that? The noble and learned Viscount is not able to speak again but I hope that he will think again and try to appreciate why it is not right that Clause 4 should apply only to one sort of case and not to all the others.
5.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must confess that though I supported the noble and learned Viscount on other occasions, and he has supported me, I am utterly puzzled by this Amendment. He is completely destroying the clause. The most careful thought was given by the promoters of this Bill, and those who advise them, when they drafted this clause. I had a feeling that I heard a murmur behind my back which indicated assent from my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. Is he going to rise up and accept this Amendment? Surely not. He has been so difficult and dug his toes in so strongly on everything else. Now the noble and learned Viscount comes along and seeks to emasculate Clause 4,

1137
which is one of the most important in the Bill. He seeks to make it apply only to cases under paragraph (e). This really is an amazing attitude to take.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin, who has much more legal experience than I have. I approach these matters only on the ground of common sense. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment, which is of such a destructive character that it would do injustice to a large number of respondents.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I express sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because in all cases under Clause 2 (1) (a), (b) and (c), we are not to have discretion statements in future. The petitioner may be far more guilty than the person who has committed adultery or behaved in the way complained of. The petitioner himself may be exceedingly guilty, and yet paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) may be satisfied. The real basis of the whole position is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and I should have thought that Clause 4 could stand as it is and not have this Amendment. After all, the court cannot tell guilt or innocence, and if it is restricted to paragraph (e), it follows that in all other cases, though the petitioner may be very guilty himself, the court is not to inquire into other matters, such as hardship and finance. I would ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I must admit to feeling critical about any Amendment at this stage because I feel, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning said, that we stand in such need of a better system of divorce than prevails at present that we should not quarrel over minor matters. But I do not think that this is a minor matter. I do not see how, on the language of this Amendment, the point that was first made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, can be answered. What happens to a petition which is founded on several grounds? That is what we are talking about at the moment, and we are talking about it at the stage when the petition is lodged.
In my view, the most difficult position is going to arise if somebody alleges paragraph (b)—-which deals with the
1138
question of conduct of living together—as a ground for the breakdown of the marriage. How the court could disregard the provisions of this clause when considering a case under paragraph (b), I find it difficult to understand. I think that a good many of your Lordships feel that the real trouble about the present divorce system is the amount (to be blunt) of dodging and lying that goes on. I feel that if this Amendment is passed, we shall get people putting in a petition under paragraph (b) when the real trouble comes under the other paragraphs. I think that it ought to be a general provision—and I say this in no controversial spirit. I believe that it would be much better if the clause were left as it is, and therefore I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I find Clause 4, as drifted, totally illogical, and the Amendment seems to put the matter right. I cannot understand why, simply because a petitioner may also be guilty of certain marital offences, it should be open to the respondent, who is also guilty of such offences and probably worse ones, to evoke Clause 4—that if a decree is granted, he or she will somehow suffer hardship. Any husband divorced by his wife primarily on the ground of his adultery could certainly plead that he would suffer, as a consequence, considerable hardship. He loses his housekeeper; he may even lose now, under the noble Baroness's ideas, his house. Of course he is going to suffer hardship. If he is able to evoke this clause then he could stop the divorce.
This seems to me quite extraordinary. I have always understood, when we were discussing these things before the Bill was drafted, that these rather exceptional provisions in Clause 4 were drafted with Clause 2 (1) (e) in mind and nothing else. They were drafted in order to try to reassure people who, understandably enough, feel the greatest objection to Clause 2 (1) (e) and divorce against one's consent, that everything possible would be done to avoid injustice and hardship. This clause makes sense only if it is restricted to that one point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not intend to say anything about the merits of this Amendment, but, as drafted, it gives rise to one or two

1139
difficulties, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider them. It starts off by adding to the words "the respondent to a petition for divorce" the words "on the ground stated in section 2 (1) ((e)". There is no such ground. If the Bill goes through at all, we are abandoning the matrimonial offence and we are basing the law of divorce on a recognition of the fact that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and ((e) are not grounds for divorce. Clause 1 is in perfectly clear and simple terms, and it says:
"After the commencement of this Act the sole ground on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to a marriage shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably."
Therefore, paragraph (e) is not a ground at all. There are five situations which are to constitute a prima facie case that the marriage has broken down. So that is open only to rebuttal.
The second difficulty is this. Different views have already been expressed as to whether, if Clause 4 is to be limited in some way or other, it is to be limited where the only situation relied on is paragraph (e), or whether it should be limited to cases where paragraph (e) plus other situations are involved. Different views have been expressed—and I think particularly of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—as to which of those two positions ought to apply. I do not wish to express any opinion on that; it is a question of policy. But I find it impossible to know how any court would construe this provision. I can envisage a great deal of argument, with some people saying that this Amendment obviously means that Clause 4 applies where the only situation relied on is paragraph (e), and its being equally cogently argued on the other side that it may not mean that at all: that it may mean paragraph (e) but that other situations may be relied on as well. I am not in any way opposing what the noble and learned Viscount wants to achieve, but the actual wording of this Amendment seems to me, with respect, to give rise to considerable difficulties which I hope he will take into account.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I appear in a rather unusual role, in that
1140
I wish to align myself with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I have frequently complimented him on his lucidity; I always understand what he says, and I have on this occasion. I hope that he will press his Amendment, subject to this: that he has heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said on the question of drafting, and he might be prepared to give some further thought to the actual wording he has chosen for the purpose of his Amendment.
I must say, with respect, to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is in principle, absolutely right, whatever the actual situation should be if alternative grounds are alleged. I see the points he has in mind with regard to that. But this is a matter, I should have thought, of giving consideration to the wording. If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, if we are cutting away the matrimonial offence, it would not be desirable, again by a side wind, to re-introduce the old discretionary bars. That is not what Clause 4 is intended to do, nor is it so worded.
The main case, as it appears to me from what the noble and learned Viscount has said, is this. It would be quite ridiculous if a wife petitioner appears before the court and complains for example, of conduct under paragraph (b), and says: "My husband hit me on the head with a hammer; he threw all the plates in the kitchen at me and cut my nose; he then kicked me out of the house and starved me and then abused me. He has done that for six long months, and I really cannot stand it any longer", that he should then be able to say: "Nevertheless, I pray in aid Clause 4. I want the court to say that I have suffered grave hardship and that, in spite of my behaviour, my wife should not be allowed to obtain a decree."
Equally, one can think of profligate cases of adultery. It seems to me that when one spouse complains that the other has behaved rather like a rabbit in his sexual activities, it is a little unreasonable that that other should be allowed to claim that Clause 4 should prevent him or her from obtaining a decree of divorce on the ground of that profligate conduct. That, if I interpret it correctly, is what

1141
the noble and learned Viscount principally has in mind. I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter put excellently what I am trying to put in less adequate form. I very much hope that, while the noble and learned Viscount may wish to reconsider the language he has chosen and to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in any fresh language that he selects, he will invite the House to support him in the principle of this Amendment, which I feel is quite acceptable.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, this is indeed an unusual experience. I have made new allies, and I fear that I have made some new enemies. It is the first time in the course of this debate that I have incurred the ire of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the clarity with which he expounded the reasons behind this Amendment. I listened with interest to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I think he had it a little wrong in thinking that one was concerned here with questions of guilt or innocence. I was concerned with this possibility, which I am sure would weigh with him: that if you are going to allow Clause 4 to operate over the whole field, you are putting a very powerful weapon in the hands of every respondent, male or female, to hold up the grant of the decree nisi; and you are putting a heavy additional burden on the courts to investigate every single case in which Clause 4 is invoked. I think that would be a very serious detriment. I can see no advantage, because provisions for finance, maintenance and all those matters in other cases can be dealt with after decree nisi.
I cannot have made myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Perhaps I dealt with this point too shortly. I said I realised that there was a difficult question as to whether you can make Clause 4 apply only when the petition is based on paragraph (e) or whether you should make it apply when it is based on paragraph (e) and other paragraphs. I do not feel strongly about this question, but I have tentatively come to the conclusion that Clause 4 ought to apply whether the petition is on paragraph (e) alone or paragraph (e) and other grounds. The reason I
1142
put forward that argument is that if it is on paragraph (e) alone there will be a great temptation to other petitioners to by-pass Clause 4 by adding some other allegation—for example, desertion or cruelty—in the hope of avoiding the operation of Clause 4. I do not feel strongly about this matter, but that was the reasoning behind why I wanted it to apply every time that paragraph (e) was relied on, whether alone or in conjunction with some other ground.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has criticised and, if I may say so with great respect, rightly criticised the drafting of this Amendment. It leaves a lot to be desired. The word "facts" ought to have been used instead of "ground", and it should have been made clear it was intended to apply to paragraph (e) standing alone or with paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I do not know whether there is a great division of opinion—I hope there is not—about this point. I am in two minds as to the best course to take. I want the wording to be right.
If it would please the House, and if the House would think it the right course, I would withdraw the Amendment and table for Third Reading another Amendment which I hope I shall be able to agree upon with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Perhaps that course would be the best one to take. Alternatively, if there is a real division of opinion, we could get an expression of it now, and I would undertake to move an Amendment later on to put it into the wording which would meet with the requirements of the draftsmen. If there is a division of view and people want to test it perhaps we had better test it by voting and get the Amendment correct later. But I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment and move it again on Third Reading. I think the view of the House is that I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount does ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I wonder whether he could tell us precisely the spirit in which he approaches this matter. Frankly, I believe that not only paragraph (e) but paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) also should be included in this provision. Is it his intention, when he brings forward his

1143
redrawn Amendment, to make it all-inclusive in the manner I have suggested?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, no, I cannot say that it is. I am intending to limit Clause 4 to cases based on Clause 2 (1) (e), whether based only on Clause 2 (1) (e) or on Clause 2 (1) (e) in conjunction with other paragraphs. In my view the other cases, so far as the financial provisions are concerned, can be dealt with after decree nisi. We ought not to open the door to action by respondents in those other cases under Clause 4, because if we do we shall run a severe risk of completely clogging up the machinery. I do not believe there is much use in debating this matter further. I should like to have the opportunity of consulting with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, before Third Reading, and I hope to get the aid of the experts in drafting, so that at the next stage we can put down an Amendment which will not be open to criticism from its language, although there may be some criticism for what it in fact achieves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert: '
("(2) If a petition for divorce is presented more than twenty-five years from the date of the celebration of the marriage and the respondent does not consent to a decree being granted, the court shall dismiss the petition.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment because I find it hard to believe that if a marriage has lasted for 25 years or more you can say that it has irretrievably broken down. Twenty-five years—or perhaps 30 years—is a long time for the parties to make up their minds about this, and I should like to see this Bill so amended that any divorce after 25 years of married life should be by mutual consent. My real object in putting down this Amendment was to try to give some protection to the fair sex. Although I like certain aspects of this Bill, I would say that, on the whole, it appears to be slightly biased in men's favour. Therefore, it is not entirely fair.
It is true enough that during 25 years of marriage a husband and wife are bound to have appalling rows; they might get very bored, and have all sorts
1144
of differences of opinion. But is marriage to be reduced to a point of total selfishness? If so, it will not be a fit institution in the future in which to bring up a new generation. I have always regarded the family unit as a basis of our civilisation—in fact the basis of any civilisation. Mr. Jenkins, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave us, I understand, a little lecture the other day on civilisation. He told us that in his opinion the present age in this country was the most civilised age we had ever seen. How he arrived at that conclusion I find it hard to understand, with the great increase in crime and drug-taking.
Although I am all for freedom of thought, freedom that becomes licence is something with which I disagree. If this Bill goes through as it is at present drafted then marriage as an institution, and the ties of marriage are bound to be weakened. To my way of thinking you should strengthen the wife's position and not seek to diminish it. We all know that on the whole it can be said that women, especially if they have had children, may age more quickly than men. Whereas a man of 55 or 60 years of age can go and find an attractive young wife, it is not so easy for a woman of 55 or 60 years of age to marry again. Therefore under this Bill she is at a great disadvantage. It is quite possible, of course, that the respondent may be a man, but on the whole, after 25 years of married life the respondent is more likely to be a woman. This Amendment will help to protect the woman.
A man who has had a wife for 25 years or more can, under this Bill, abandon her, though she has probably devoted all her life to bringing up his children. We have clauses in the Bill, I agree, to provide for her financially and so on, but money is not everything and it is no compensation for loneliness. To-day especially children grow up very quickly. There are improved means of travel and they like to be independent, and they are therefore liable to fly away abroad, and there is no guarantee that the deserted wife will have the companionship of her children. In any event, it is not a fitting duty for children to take the place of, or to give the same companionship as, her life's partner, As I have said before, money is no compensation for loneliness. One cannot buy oneself out of moral responsibilities.
I see a number of right reverend Prelates opposite. What do they really think the marriage lines are for? For better or for worse; in sickness or in health.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be a little more explicit? Is it the intention of this Amendment that the husband should be locked up with the wife; should be forced to remain in the household night after night?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No, my Lords, of course not. I will come to that point in a moment. The noble Lord has jumped the gun.
One can almost say that the marriage lines will have to be re-written. I think that under this Bill they will appear to be rather a confidence trick. However, the point is that the elderly or middle-aged woman may have her husband go away and be separated from him, but she has the legal protection and prestige of having a husband. I have known some sad cases of elderly women whose husbands have gone off, and if these women had had their husbands with them they might not have been swindled and suffered other unpleasant experiences.
Marriage is a woman's whole life. In some respects it could be called a career, but it is certainly a woman's whole life. This Bill is going to bear rather hardly on some women, and as I am always very pro the fair sex I do not want them to be unfairly treated. If this Bill as drafted becomes law it will surely negate the great sense of security in marriage that women have. If women feel that marriage is no longer secure and can no longer offer them security, they may even abandon marriage altogether. Some people might find certain aspects of that attractive, but of course I am speaking seriously. That would obviously be a disastrous thing for the State and for civilisation. I think that if we do not give women security in marriage there will probably be a great crusade for equal pay for equal work for women. So we shall not have it all our own way. As I say, if women cannot have 100 per cent. security in marriage they will want to stand on their own feet, and they can do that only if they get equal pay for equal work, which of course
1146
they have been trying to get for a considerable time. I say again that I introduced this Amendment because I want to see justice, and I am rather frightened because certain aspects of this Bill appear to me to be rather unfair to women in certain categories. I beg to move.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, although I think the views of the noble Viscount are very gallant towards women, I cannot support his Amendment, because the cases he is thinking of are the less usual cases. In most cases if a marriage lasts for 25 years there is a pretty good chance that it will make a century. The noble Viscount said (my noble friend Lady Summerskill was not here a: that moment, but if she had heard it I think she would have risen up in arms) that marriage is the whole of a woman's life.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think that for most women it is. I agree with the noble Viscount.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I dc not think that that is the way the world is going. Women have other interests and other concerns than just the family, because they are in a very bad way when they become older if their interests are restricted to only the family. But I have known cases where a woman has waited until all her children have grown up, and even married, and has then divorced her husband (he has usually been not a very good husband) and has lived more happily ever after.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I say just one word, because it was so delightful to hear the noble Viscount being so gallant? It is very unusual, and it was very refreshing. It is perhaps significant that when he was paying a tribute to marriage I popped out of the Chamber to tell my husband that I should be late for dinner. I can only say this to the noble Viscount. I fully appreciate his point, but I have not stressed it throughout the passage of this Bill, or during the discussions that have been taking place during the last two or three years, because one cannot compel two people who loathe each other to live together. Therefore, the only logical approach to that position is to say that if the circumstances described by the noble Viscount arise after 25

1147
years of married life, during which the wife has devoted herself to the family, if divorce then comes, at least she should be assured of some adequate financial provision. I have stressed the financial side, not because I approach marriage in a materialistic way in any sense at all but because I feel that this is the only logical approach.
6.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I feel that I must enter a small protest against my noble friend's Amendment bcause what he is really saying is that men regard women as merchandise, and when they have had the merchandise for 25 years it is very likely that they want a change. I repudiate that; I think it is most unfair. So far as I can see, my noble friend does not understand that the charms of women who have gained in experience, and probably in beauty too, are very great indeed.
What the noble Viscount is saying is not fair. He is putting forward a kind of Indian Summer Amendment, and I object to that very much. On the other hand, there may be occasions—and in fact I know of one—where a man and wife remained together for 25 years because of the children. They were determined that their children should not realise (if you like to put it this way) that they had fallen out of love, and they went to remarkable lengths to give their children an upbringing in an unbroken home. But after all that, is it not reasonable that in such a case they should have the same chance as people who have not been through all that long period because they believe precisely what my noble friend believes in; namely, that a family ought to be kept together, and particularly while the children are there? It is not fair to charge the male sex with having this almost universal feeling that after 25 years it would be nice to have a change, if we could.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. I listened with the greatest interest to the fascinating, analytical and philosophical approach of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to this difficult social problem. I go with him a long way. I also am pro the fair sex. I also accept that money is not
1148
everything, and I agree with him that marriage should not be abolished. However, those considerations do not lead me to think that this Amendment is one which should be supported.
I think the case that has sprung to the mind of all the speakers on this Amendment is very much the same sort of case as that mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. One constantly comes across the case of a man and woman who do not get on but who have children. If there were no children they would long since have fallen apart, their relationship would have ended in divorce and they might have made other happy unions, but in an unselfish desire to maintain the family unit together until the children have reached adult age, they have stayed together for that one reason for over 25 years. That is highly meritorious on their part.
The effect of the Amendment would be that those very people who, perhaps, when they have discharged what they rightly regard as their duty towards their children, would like to separate in a real sense and lead their independent lives, will not be able to do so. I hope the noble Viscount will agree with me that that would be a most unfair result. It is not as if—at any rate so far as our debates on this Bill have gone—the principle has not been accepted that after five years there should be divorce at the instance of one party despite the wish of the other. That has been accepted, but the noble Viscount wants to ensure that it should not apply where the marriage has lasted for 25 years. The result would be that the meritorious cases that I have described and which have been referred to by previous speakers would be put at a great disadvantage and would not be able to achieve the wish they have harboured secretly for so many years. I hope that for that one consideration the noble Viscount may feel that it would not be right to press his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I wish to make only a brief comment. Of course one can only get a divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. There may be cases where it has irretrievably broken down even though the parties have been married for 25 years, but it is not very likely. The very fact that they are together would be at

1149
least presumptive evidence against the marriage having irretrievably broken down. But might not one of the by-products of this Amendment be that the party who wants a divorce would say, "I really must get in before the end of the 25 years "? He might consult a calendar and say, "I will start my divorce proceedings a month before the 25 years are up, otherwise I may be too late".
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, regarding the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I did not in fact mean that all women regarded marriage as their whole life and career, but I think a considerable number do. In regard to the question of financial provision, I think we are all inclined to look at this Bill from our own point of view. The average man in this country cannot afford to keep two or three women, and I am afraid that when financial provision comes to be made the man will not have any money to make proper financial provision for his wife. It is all very well if you are a rich man, but the average man is not rich.
There is another point, that the single woman, the woman who has remained unmarried, has presumably had a career and has managed to amass some money. She probably has some capital, so she will be far better off than the married woman who has been deserted after 25 years; and if she has been deserted by a poor husband she will not get any worth while money from him. She will have given her whole life to him, after having borne his children, and presumably the remainder of her life will be void. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, quite rightly said that there are some extremely attractive women of 60 and over, but to be fair—
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, he referred to single women. Surely he is not suggesting that there should be divorce for single women?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously misunderstood me. I was saying that if women had not been married they had an opportunity to amass some money, whereas the married women have not had such an opportunity. At least, they might find it difficult.
1150
I will of course withdraw the Amendment, but I wanted to bring out those points. I still maintain that to my way of thinking this Bill may turn out to be unfair to some women, and I think that would be a pity. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Power to rescind decree nisi in certain cases]:
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, this Amendment No. 11 is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("not to object") and insert ("to consent").—(Lord Stow Hill.)
Clause 11 [Short title, constriction, commencement and extent]:
6.29 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from ("on") to end of line 36 and insert ("1st January, 1971").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage a similar Amendment to this was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and after an important debate it was withdrawn for further consideration. During the debate at the Committee stage a number of speakers expressed apprehension that we were intending to pass a measure to make divorce easier without satisfying ourselves that suitable financial arrangements would be available to the respondent, or what I suppose used to be called the "innocent party". This was particularly worrying—and I can understand it—to certain noble Lords who seemed to believe that the Law Commission will come forward next year with a measure that will fundamentally affect the results which may be expected to flow from this Bill.
Because of this concern various suggestions were put forward, which are represented in other Amendments which follow mine on the Marshalled List. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, wanted to be certain that the operation of this measure would be delayed until what we might call the new Matrimonial Property Bill came forward or, indeed, was safely on the Statute Book

1151
—or shall I call it the Financial Provisions Bill which is envisaged? And he wanted to do this whether it was earlier or later than January, 1971.
There was a further proposal, again represented by an Amendment on the Marshalled List, that different parts of the Bill should come into operation at different times. And the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, proposed that the Bill when it becomes an Act should not operate until an Affirmative Resolution had been passed by both Houses. Faced with that, I thought it right to put down this Amendment again, to see whether the date of January 1, 1971 was an acceptable compromise. I make no secret of the fact that I should prefer to see this Bill operate at an earlier date, but in deference to those who have misgivings I have put down this later date of 1971 in the hope that the House may accept it.
I want to make only two main submissions, because the debate in Committee was a full debate, and far better speeches were made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, than I can hope to make. First, I think that we ought to agree to set a firm date, a date by which those members of the public affected by this new Bill when it becomes an Act will know that it will be in operation. Many people are living in misery and they have been in that state for some considerable time. In my view they are entitled to know that Parliament has set a term for their frustrations and that they will not have to continue to live in a state of very unhappy uncertainty. While I fully appreciate the compassion and praiseworthy motives of those who seek to satisfy themselves on the financial protection, all those proposals which have been made and are being made do impose delay, and they do prolong uncertainty.
The suggestion that the date of commencement of the Act should be subject to an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in my view makes the position of those involved even more worrying, because the Bill could be prevented from coming into operation by a vote of either House; and I do not
1152
think it fair that the people who are waiting should feel that even at that stage the Act could be snatched away from them by a vote in either House. I should not like to think we should be a party to encouraging this doubt to hang over legislation, a doubt which in itself prolongs human suffering.
As to the protection which may or may not be afforded under any new measure which comes forward next year, I am no less concerned than the next noble Lord. I want to see the situation improved very much along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and others in all parts of the House, and I would certainly support the whole idea. I am particularly concerned with the position, for instance—and I have recently come across such cases—of married women who are deserted by their husbands who go abroad. The husband transfers all his assets abroad, takes up with another woman; and at the present time, I am advised nothing can be done about it. I want to see that situation put right. The parties to the divorce, especially the respondent, have a right to expect better protection than they have at present, and I am quite sure the Law Reform Commission will come forward with important proposals.
I think we must recognise that the financial provisions of this Bill are far better than anything we have had up to now; and certainly under Clauses 4 and 6 what are called the Draconian proposals go a very long way to improve the situation. I will not quote this part of the Bill; noble Lords and noble Baronesses know it. But it says that the court shall do everything in its power virtually to see that there is proper protection; and in the last resort the best job that can be done in the circumstances is done.
I think that many speakers have given the impression that any new Bill which comes forward will be able to do far more than in fact it can do. Where we are dealing with the sort of case I have quoted, of the man who goes abroad and takes his assets, we may be able to devise a fairer system, by arrangements between different countries, and similar steps. Where there is a family with a reasonable income and some property, the Bill can provide for fairer apportionment and reasonable arrangement; but where the family income is a low one, any financial

1153
arrangement is bound to create the most difficult problem, as it does to-day. Some noble Lords have given me the impression that they thought that under some new Bill to come forward next year the court might be empowered to increase the family income in some way, or to create new assets, or print money. I am quite sure this is absolutely impossible.
I do not believe that anybody is going to take seriously the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, that we should have cash awards to people in low income groups on the sole ground that they wish to get a divorce. I do not think there would be much public sympathy for a policy of that sort. The fact is that, whatever is done, any redistribution of income in the £10 to £15 a week class is bound to cause some hardship. Under this Bill, I believe it is right to say, provision has been made so that the courts will be able to do the best they can in very difficult circumstances. I think it is therefore up to us not to prolong uncertainty but to do the best we can for the people who are suffering at the present time. I would ask the House to accept this as a compromise measure. By 1971 we shall know a great deal more about the proposals to be made, but even if we do not, I do not see that we can go much further in this measure than we have done at the moment. I beg to move.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, thought fit in the course of moving his Amendment to refer both to the Committee stage and also to the other Amendments now upon the Marshalled List. He has put forward his suggestion as a compromise. My difficulty is that I do not think it is a very satisfactory one. I can see no reason myself why a great deal of this Bill should not be brought into force at the earliest possible moment after its enactment. I can see no reason why, for instance, the provisions relating to divorce on the facts stated in Clause 2 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) should not be brought into operation immediately. Where there is a special case for delay is where the divorce is based on the fact of separation for five years and it is brought against a person who is, or is said by many to be, wholly innocent.
1154
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has received a letter which has been referred to many times in this debate, giving certain assurances. My criticism of Lord Byers's Amendment is that it does not give the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, much room for movement. It is to give him that, which I hope he will accept, that I have put down the Amendment which is No. 13. That would enable him to bring different parts of the Bill into operation on different days. I say straight away, in case it may save time, that the Amendment may be entirely wrongly drafted, but I took it from an existing Act; so I hope that in this case the wording is right. The idea is to enable the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to do that. After all, why should one delay the operation of the greater part of this Bill to an arbitrary date, January 1, 1971? It seems to me unnecessary, and it seems to me unnecessary to be so specific. Suppose the Government get on with their legislation more quickly than they have done in the past; suppose the Bill is introduced, enacted and brought into operation months before January 1, 1971. I think that is not impossible. Then can we really justify the delay? I feel that there is a strong case for a measure of flexibility here. It may be that January 1, 1971, will be too soon; one cannot tell.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, talked about the hardship of petitioners who have been separated for so long and who cannot get a divorce against someone who under the existing law has not committed any matrimonial sin. One is perhaps apt—I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers was—to look too much at one side of the picture. I should not like to see that kind of decree granted until the best possible provision, financial and otherwise, had been made for the divorced spouse. It is true that in Clauses 4 and 6 this Bill seeks to make such provision as can be made. But, as I understand it, the Act we are concerned with deals with other matters which depend not upon the husband's income but the various related benefits under our social services schemes, and all that.
I am trying to take this point shortly and to speak to two Amendments at once in the hope that we can save time. Leaving on one side the question of an Affirmative Resolution, could ore not

1155
take Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 together? That would mean that all the Bill, except the parts relating to Clause 2 (1) (e), could be brought into operation straight away and without an Affirmative Resolution. Then you can bring into operation Clause 2 (1) e) directly after the new promised Act has been brought into operation; so there would be no gap so far as the respondent was concerned. So far as I can see, that would be the happier arrangement. I do not like fixing a completely inflexible date. I would give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor more liberty of movement. The best thing of all would be that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of seeing whether, in the light of the new measure which is promised, they would wish to bring this Bill, or parts of it, into operation. That may be too much to hope for.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whose Amendment is the one now under discussion, will think again and not press his Amendment to-night, for this reason: he might combine Amendment No. 13 with his, in the sense of providing that the Bill could be brought into operation on such day or days as the Lord Chancellor thought fit, but—and this is a possible alternative—in any event not later than a particular date. That is one possible compromise. I shall be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, says. After our friendly debate on this Bill, it would be a pity that we should perhaps end up by way of friction, and I hope that we may find a solution which is mutually acceptable. For myself, I should be prepared to trust the Lord Chancellor to do what I am sure are the wishes of the House, and to give him more flexibility than the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would allow.
6.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken is asking that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack shall have discretion or as much freedom of action as is possible. I hope I have understood him correctly. For my part, I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, by reason of the fact that it sets a time beyond
1156
which it would not be possible to go. It seems to me that the wish of the noble and learned Viscount is already in the Bill. Clause 11 (3) says:
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
I do not think you can have any more freedom than that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Viscount will appreciate that that applies to the whole of the Act, not different parts.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am well aware of that, and that makes me all the more in favour of supporting some sort of extended time limit. I quite understand that this may not entirely fall into line with what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, desires. But I can see nothing seriously wrong with the amendment and in the absence of any better assurance, I think it would be a good thing to support it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be glad that this will be the last speech I shall make on this Bill, because in my opinion we could have telescoped the last four Amendments into one. I concur with everything that the noble and learned Viscount has said, and also with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. I am sure that our object is the same. I would have supported this Amendment on the assumption that during the next Session legislation would be introduced which would protect the woman who is compulsorily divorced—the woman whom we now call "paragraph (e)". I am quite happy that much of the rest of the Bill should go on the Statute Book immediately. But I have said this many times: the real victim of this Bill is that particular woman.
I do not like to press my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, but he could rise now and assure us that this legislation will be introduced in a certain time. Then we could accept the noble Lord's Amendment now, because that is all we are waiting for. We are awaiting, and trying to think of the best date which can be thought of in order that the cart should not be put before the horse. That has been said time after time in this House. We are waiting

1157
only to be assured that this particular woman will have financial protection, and then the measure can go on to the Statute Book. I think that this is the general feeling of those who have put their names to the last four Amendments on the Marshalled List to-night. It is certainly my view.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, there seems to be general agreement that the coming into operation of this Bill should not be delayed beyond January 1, 1971. Surely this difficulty could be resolved if Clause 11 (3) were made to read
"This Act shall come into operation on such day prior to January 1, 1971, as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
That would make it obligatory. On whichever date the Act, or any section of the Act, should come into operation, at any rate it should not be later than January 1, 1971.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I personally would be strongly in favour of the immediate enactment of this Bill when it receives the Royal Assent, for reasons that I sought to explain during the debate in Committee, when I hoped that the arguments that commended themselves to me might be demonstrated to be wrong if they were wrong. I had no such demonstration, and I believe them to be right. But as a compromise proposal I would support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Certainly it must be better to have a specific date when people know when their rights will be defined.
I wonder, however, whether I may detain your Lordships for one moment in an effort to reassure you that you will not be doing anything prejudicial to the rights of the ladies whose interests have been so powerfully canvassed so often in this House, if in fact you were to enact this Bill immediately; and certainly you will not if you enact the Bill on January 1, 1971. I was frankly puzzled by the suggestion on the part of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that those parts of the Bill which, it seemed to me, are demonstrably weak in relation to the financial provisions now in existence should be introduced immediately, but that that part of the Bill which contained its own self-contained, very effective financial code, should be deferred.
1158
So far as the famous paragraph (e) and the two new grounds are concerned, they are supported by financial provisions in the Bill. No one has demonstrated or suggested that those financial provisions are not as good as you can get. They are. Shed of the wishful thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, so rightly said, that the Government are going to be able to produce some means of improving the income of improvident adulterers—for which, so far as I know, no such proposal exists—the financial provisions now in the Bill are as good as you can get. They are that the order to be made is to be a fair and reasonable order, or it is to be the best that can be achieved. No one can do better than that. Moreover, these financial provisions have the great advantage that by way of improvement over the financial powers given to the Judiciary at present obtaining, they can make every kind of order; which power, in some cases, is not at present available. The judge can require that there should be a settlement of capital; he can require that arrangements should be made for the long-term financial interests of the ladies concerned; he can make any kind of financial order that he pleases which, in his opinion, is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. He has complete and absolute discretion in this matter. Nothing better can be thought out.
In fact, if we turn our minds to the famous letter written by the Law Commissioners to the Lord Chancellor, it will be remembered that they made no promise of anything better in relation to these matters. What they say is that they will produce something better for the existing grounds of divorce when: there is, and is acknowledged to be, a deficiency in relation to the powers of the Judiciary. The Law Commissioners are not promising any better financial provisions than are contained in Clause 6 of this Bill, and we can wait until Doomsday—and shall wait until Doomsday—for the hopeful proposal in one of these Amendments that the Bill shall not be brought into power until an Act has been passed to improve the financial provision of divorced wives. No Act will be passed to improve the financial position of divorced wives. Nobody has any intention of passing any such Act. This would be a fiscal measure, requiring

1159
that some financial provision be appropriated by the Government, for it to be available for divorced wives. It is obviously a completely fanciful notion. We are, if I may say so, held back by entirely fanciful and chimerical fears about the financial provisions of this Bill. What I am quite certain of is that your Lordships are not to be shaken in the view that there should be an opportunity to have a look at what the Law Commission are going to produce.
It would seem to me that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is entirely sensible. By January, 1971, whatever it is that is going to be produced will be produced, and it is not going to be anything that will be profoundly encouraging to those who are destitute of adequate means to maintain two households. But whatever it is that is going to be produced will have seen the light of day. I would strongly recommend your Lordships to follow the course which I propose to follow, that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, presses this Amendment to a Division, that we support him and have a firm date.
As I started, I conclude by saying that the apprehensions in this matter are fanciful, and nothing will emerge from the Law Commissioners, or anyone else, to improve this situation in relation to the two new grounds of divorce already established in the Bill. What may happen is that better powers may be given to the judge in relation to grounds for divorce which are being granted every day of the week under the inadequate powers they already have.
6.55 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it may save time, and it might be convenient, to discuss all the four Amendments to Clause 11 together—and at any rate Amendments 13, 14 and 15 are all competitive with each other. Though I support them all, I address myself chiefly to Amendment No. 14, which stands in my name. I mention two things that this Amendment does not seek to do. It does not have the effect of imposing a delay, as Amendment No. 12 does, though I grant that that is a precise delay. There is no attempt in my Amendment to suspend the Bill beyond the period that is essential for the preparation of the framework in which the Bill is to operate.
1160
We know from the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, at the Committee stage, that he thought 18 months was about right. If I recall rightly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, also in the Committee stage, thought that it would take until Easter 1970, nine months, in order to prepare the rules.
It is factors like these, and other factors of this kind, that will impose any delay there is to be, not the requirement set out in my Amendment for a debate on an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. Nor does this Amendment involve yet a further debate on the content of the Bill. That will have been settled once the Bill has received the Royal Assent, and surely all noble Lords and Members in another place know that its contents cannot be altered by any further debate, any more than can the debates on an ecclesiastical measure, or a set of regulations laid before Parliament for approval.
The purpose of Amendment No. 14, which it serves in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, is to ensure full Parliamentary control not so much over the content of the Bill, which has been secured by the thorough scrutiny it has already had, but rather over the timing and the context, or the circumstances of its commencement, about which a good deal of anxiety and doubt still, in my judgment, remain. There is this uncertainty about the financial provision in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said. This is a point which, if need be, Amendment No. 15 will deal with on its own. There are also other matters which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned at Second Reading, were being looked into by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and there are others which I specified at the Committee stage and which I will not weary your Lordships with again.
There is a further reason why I believe the procedure provided for in Amendment No. 14 is particularly needed It is because on the one hand this has been introduced as a Private Member's Bill, and, on the other hand, it is one of the most far-reaching pieces of social reform we have had to deal with in this decade. In the case of this Bill and one or two others in this social field, the case for its being a Private Member's

1161
Bill has been well made, and is well understood. It does not mean that it has not been thoroughly thought out; it does not mean that it has not been properly drafted, and it does not mean that it has not been properly discussed. This Bill has been thoroughly thought out; it has been well prepared and expertly drafted, and, with the skilful eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, behind it, and the time provided for its full discussion in this House, we can be content about what is actually in the Bill. But the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill means that Her Majesty's Government are not as fully committed to it as they would have been had it been Government legislation. There are no Whips on, and there have not been. But once the Bill is on the Statute Book it has the same status as any other Statute, and it deserves to operate in a framework as fair and as well founded as any other Government legislation. It also deserves to come into operation with all reasonable despatch. This consideration does not perhaps have all that weight when we are legislating for social reform that only affects minorities such as murderers, homosexuals and abortionists, but I submit that it has very great force when we are dealing with a Bill which reaches out to, and may affect, every family in the land.
Nor does this consideration apply only to this Bill. Only yesterday another Private Member's Bill, the Employer's Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Bill, received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House. That Bill, when it is enacted, will affect every employer in the land, but it was quite clear, as I listened to the Government spokesman being questioned by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn about the framework which is being prepared for this Bill to operate in, that Her Majesty's Government have hardly even begun to set it forward. So that there again there would appear to be a case for the same procedure as is proposed in our Amendment No. 14, and for the same reason. There is a case for Parliament's controlling the commencement of a Private Member's Bill—when it is a Bill of wide-ranging significance—after it has been enacted, in order fully to satisfy itself and to assure the public outside that all is set fair for its commencement.
7.2 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I think I can address your Lordships shortly, because I absolutely agree with every word uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Goodman. May I say to the noble and learned Viscount that I hope he will not think there is any question of the debate ending in asperity—certainly not on my part—but I cordially disagree with him. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was absolutely right when he said that it is not fair that people should be left in suspense. January 1, 1971, is a date a long way away from to-day: they will have to wait nearly 18 months; but they will be given certainty.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill said that the only persons who were the victims of this Bill were ladies who would be inadequately provided for. With great respect, she is completely and absolutely wrong. There are an enormous number of people who are waiting to know when they can have their situations straightened as a result of the enactment of paragraph (e), and it would be quite unfair to leave them in a state of completely unnecessary suspense. So I should have thought the first thing one should aim at was a fixed date. That is what I had in mind when I originally put down an Amendment in the same terms as that which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has moved.
When we last debated this subject, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made what I thought was an extremely helpful intervention. He indicated two things, as he has done on many previous occasions. The first, was that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, the measure which he has it in his power to introduce is not going to revolutionise the situation—very far from it. On the contrary, the most Draconian powers are now contained in Clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill, and it is extremely difficult to envisage their being improved upon. They are in addition to the existing powers, which are contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, which have operated for many years and about which there has been no complaint. So these new powers will be added to what already exists and it really is not possible, in any real sense, to improve upon them.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it perfectly clear

1163
that that is the case, except in some respects. He has made it perfectly clear (I hope he will correct me if I am mistaken) that it is his intention to introduce the measure which he has in mind between, I think, November of this year and April of next year. I do not know whether he has any further proposals from the Law Commission than those contained in the letter which he read out during our Second Reading debate. But he must have—indeed, he has intimated that he has—a very clear idea of what he has in mind; and if he introduces between November this year and next April the measure to which he referred, the whole of 1970 has to go by and, unless something very surprising takes place, the two Houses of Parliament will, I should have thought, have ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with the nature of his proposals, then to examine them and to import into them such changes as they think necessary. It is possible that that process might finish before January, 1971, but surely it is worth a greal deal to have some certainty of date.
I am quite certain that I speak for those people in the country who are longing to know whether this Bill is going to be passed and when it will come into operation, if I say on their behalf that they will be overjoyed for this measure to be postponed a little until January, 1971, so long as they now have a certainty, first, that it is going to get on to the Statute Book; and, secondly, that it is going to come into operation not later than that date. I earnestly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will ask the opinion of the House on his Amendment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask one question? How does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intend to introduce the financial provisions? Will they be in the form of a Bill or of some other kind of Instrument?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords. They will be in the form of a Bill.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and all I want to do is to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said. In my view,
1164
all the other proposals which have been put forward, very sincerely, have the defect that either they are asking for piecemeal legislation (and we all know what that means: some of the pieces get lost on the way) or they are imposing delay; or, in an attempt to give flexibility, which I appreciate, they are creating or prolonging uncertainty. That is why we are asking as a compromise, but as a clean compromise, for a date to be set for this Bill to come into operation. I hope that when I press this Amendment, as I intend to do, we shall have support in the Division.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I think Amendment No. 13 cannot arise, as Amendment No. 12 has been carried; but if it could arise I should not move it. Also, I shall not move Amendment No. 15 either.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
7.8 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read la.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

FINANCE BILL
7.9 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I ought to mention that it is customary for us to have an economic debate on the same day—
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, on a point of order—and I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him—may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is now ten minutes past seven and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is just being taken? Although the noble Lord's explanation may be that he is the victim of the Government's own mismanagement, and I sympathise with him, on looking back over a long—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will properly allow me to finish the sentence on which I had begun. I was saying that it is customary to take the Finance Bill formally and that it has been agreed that we do so on this occasion. I was about to say, however, that it is also customary, when we take this Bill formally, to arrange for a debate on economic affairs. On this occasion the Opposition have, in the interests of the House generally, agreed that we should not have this debate on economic affairs at this point of time, in order to make room for other important business, which has just been concluded; and I was about to offer my appreciation to the usual channels and to the Opposition for their help and co-operation in this matter. With that, I was about to move formally that this Bill should now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I now continue with my interruption, for which I apologise to the noble Lord? I am grateful to him for the explanation which he has given, but while he has admitted that it is customary that there should be some discussion on the Finance Bill, looking back over a long experience in your Lordships' House I think it is unusual for the House to be presented with a Finance Bill in this manner. I think it would be unfortunate if there were not comment made about it, because the debate on the Finance Bill has been of great value to your Lordships in providing the opportunity to hear the comments on financial matters of several distinguished and eminent Members of your Lordships' House. So I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, but he will understand—and I think he would agree—that I think it would be unfortunate if attention were not drawn to this point and it should provide a precedent for the Finance Bill to be passed without any discussion when there has been no debate on economic affairs during the Session.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with that. I would also say that the fact that we are not having the customary economic debate on this occasion should not be taken as a precedent. I hope that, with that assurance, the
1166
noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will agree that we now accept that this Bill should be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 hiving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, perhaps I may add, further to the assurance that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that part of the agreement was that we should have a debate on the economic situation of the country during the first week of the new Session, in the debate on the gracious Speech. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.15 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS REASON FOR DIS- AGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (107) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Amendment and Reason are printed in Italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1-5]
Clause 1, page 2, line 24, after first "of" insert "school education in public schools at which fees were being charged on the 25th November 1968 and of".
Clause 27, page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning to "Part" in line 15 and insert "Paragraph 7 (2) of".
Clause 27, page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).
Schedule 2, page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39.
Schedule 3, page 48, column 3, leave out line 10.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because it is desirable to bring to an end as soon as practicable the charging by education authorities in Scotland of fees to parents for the education of their children in the limited number of schools where this practice still obtains.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, to which the Commons have disagreed. Noble Lords will recall that the general question of fee-paying in education authority schools was fully discussed in this House in Committee. The point at issue now is whether this practice should be allowed to persist in those last few schools where fees were still charged last November. The Government remain firmly of the opinion that it is now time to put an end once and for all to fee-paying in education authority schools in Scotland. This is the reason why the Commons do not agree with the Lords in these Amendments.
My Lords, I do not think I need rehearse the arguments which I put to your Lordships during the earlier stages of our proceedings. I think it is sufficient to say that I agree entirely with the Commons Reason for disagreeing to these Amendments, and I hope your Lordships will not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not propose to make a speech about this matter—the noble Lord has not done so—but I do not think I can let this pass without making at least this point. We have made the views of this House in this matter abundantly clear, and we can only regret that the Commons disagree with our views, or at least the majority of them. This seems to us to represent a victory for theoretical conformity or uniformity over the express views of the elected members of the people of Edinburgh and Glasgow, the only two education authorities concerned.
1168
The noble Lord talks about putting an end to this once and for all. I can only reiterate the pledge that we have given: that when the Party to which I belong is returned to power we shall restore the position to what it is now, if it is practicable to do so and, of course, if the education authorities so desire.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 1, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—

(a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an out-with-area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and

(b) the said pupil is on 1st October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,

the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:
Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
In this subsection 'outwith-area pupil' means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority."
The Commons agree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment thereto:—
Line 2, after "above)", insert—

"(a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1 (3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;

(b)".

LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 6. The Amendment which is set out in italics on the Order Paper restores to the Bill

1169
subsection (3) of Clause 1 in the form in which it originally left the Commons. The Lords Amendment, which I would call the outwith area pupils Amendment, replaced this subsection with a new one. Both subsections are needed—that is, the original Commons subsection and the Lords Amendment—if fee-paying is to be abolished. The effect of the Commons Amendment is to postpone the abolition of fee-paying until August 1, 1970. If it were not made and the other provisions for the abolition of fee-paying were allowed to stand, fee-paying would be abolished one month after this Bill was enacted. That, of course, is not the intention, because it is considered desirable to give the authorities concerned, and especially Edinburgh and Glasgow, a full year to make the necessary adjustments to their schemes of educational provision. The effect, therefore, of the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to put the position back of giving that year's grace. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, 1 think that the history of this matter is that we moved this Amendment as a consequential Amendment to one of the Amendments that we carried; and I suppose inadvertently it was not moved back—although I do not suppose, as things then stood, it could have been moved back. This Amendment is in a sense a consequential Amendment to the Commons disagreeing with Amendments Nos. 1 to 5. May I ask a question about the drafting? It seems to be left in a slightly peculiar way. As the clause stands with the Commons Amendment inserted the position is that we now have "(a)" and "(b)" and "(b)" will then start with the word "where". Then we have another "(a) and a "(b)". I suppose what will happen is that we shall again have the word "where" and then a heading (i) and a heading (ii) and so on. It looks a little peculiar. I think that is what happens.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord would not notice that. I ought to have known better. I also could not understand it; but unfortunately at the time when I
1170
looked at it there was no one I could ask. It looks as though "where" either got in the wrong place or was left in inadvertently. But the mysteries of draftsmanship I have long given up hope of understanding. I have not the slightest doubt that the draftsman is right and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I are equally wrong. But I cannot say where we are wrong. I shall have to hope that they are right and we are wrong.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not complained that anyone was wrong. I merely asked whether what seemed to be the only possible explanation was the right one, otherwise there was something wrong with it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thought that that was what I had said in slightly different words.

CARDIFF CORPORATION EILL ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  UNMANNED ROCKETS AND FOOD TRANSPORT
  UNMANNED ROCKETS AND FOOD TRANSPORT
  MILK POWDER IMPORTS
  MILK POWDER IMPORTS
  INDIA: UNITED KINGDOM LOANS
  INDIA: UNITED KINGDOM LOANS
  UNITED NATIONS 25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
  UNITED NATIONS 25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
  POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION: THE TODD REPORT
  POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION: THE TODD REPORT
  OVERSEAS DOCTORS AND HEALTH SERVICE
  OVERSEAS DOCTORS AND HEALTH SERVICE