Sitting of 25 March 1969

Preamble
Morning Sitting
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES
10.0 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1969, dated 17th February 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if with this Scheme we discuss the second Scheme,
That the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969, dated 17th February 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: I have no objection, if the House has none. So be it.
Mr. Hoy: Hon. Members will recall that in July last year my right hon. Friend gave to the House details of the new deep sea subsidy arrangements. He said that the necessary legislation would be introduced during this Session. That Bill was duly introduced, and completed its passage through Parliament in December.
The extended powers under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, have to be implemented by Order, and during the Second Reading debate I said that as soon as possible after Royal Assent had been given the Government would lay before Parliament a new subsidy scheme.
The preparation of this rather complicated Scheme and the discussions with the industry and the representatives of the unions over the details took a little longer than we expected, but these were satisfactorily completed and the Scheme was laid before Parliament on 25th February. I am very glad to be now inviting the House to give its approval.
I do not think I need take up too much of the time of the House with this well-debated subject. The working arrangements now set out in the Scheme were
1212
fully explained during the Second Reading and hon. Members opposite took advantage of the opportunity to seek a full explanation of the proposals. In particular, the calculation of the subsidy and its distribution on a basis of efficiency were discussed at length.
The Scheme will operate for three years until the 31st July, 1971. In 1970 we shall review its effectiveness and then decide whether any changes are needed for the last two years of the five-year guarantee period given by the Government.
Perhaps I should briefly remind the House of the two basic factors in the new subsidy. First, the total amount of subsidy will be related to the operating profits of all deep sea vessels of 80 feet and over. Secondly, this total amount will be distributed between the 534 vessels in England and Wales and Scotland in proportion to the added value contributed by each vessel.
These are entirely new concepts in administering Government support and are the vital parts of the Scheme. Members will find the necessary provision set out in paragraphs 9 and 10.
On this first occasion the subsidy period is for six months. This is to enable the industry to benefit as soon as possible, and the total amount due under the new formula for six months is £1,669,000. However, as my right hon. Friend promised last July, we have continued the daily rate subsidy payments under the 1968 Scheme—and we shall continue to do so until 31st July this year—but these have been regarded as payments on account to the industry and the total daily payments in the five months August to December, 1968, which amounted to £481,000, have been deducted in making the necessary calculations. The daily payments for January to July this year will be offset in future calculations. The net payment on this occasion will be £1,188,000.
Obviously the industry is most anxious to receive this urgent reinforcement to its cash flow and as soon as this Scheme is approved the payments will be made.
Before I leave this Scheme I think I should remind the House that these subsidy arrangements are the beginning of a new venture for the fishing industry—indeed, new in any similar field also—a form of support related directly to the

1213
operating efficiency of the men who provide and operate and work the ships. We are encouraging efficiency and economic operation.
I am glad to say that current fishing results are better than those of the very desperate period throughout most of 1968. Although fishing must always face ups and downs, we hope that the new form of support will enable the deep sea fleet to withstand such fluctuations, and we look forward to a more stable and profitable industry as a result.
Perhaps I ought to say a few words about the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. This Select Committee has, quite rightly, drawn up a note to the effect that there appears to be a defect in the Scheme. I think I ought to explain why this has come about. The Select Committee has reported that the Deep Sea Vessels Scheme should be drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that its drafting appears to be defective in paragraph 9(3). The sub-paragraph deals with the arrangements for reducing the total grant payable under the 1969 Scheme by payments made under the 1968 Scheme. The words which the Select Committee suggests may be defective are these:
"the total amount of grant made available in respect of that subsidy period shall be the sum calculated in accordance with subparagraph (1) or, as the case may be, subparagraph (2), of this paragraph reduced by such amount in respect of the 1968 Scheme grants as the Minister may determine".
The House was told before it approved the 1968 Scheme in July that the sums payable under that Scheme would be set against the total sum payable under the new 1969 Scheme. The words which I have read out were intended to do no more than enable the Ministers to deduct from the total sum payable under the 1969 Scheme all payments made under the 1968 Scheme up to as recent a date as possible. But those words can be construed as giving the Ministers an absolute discretion as to whether to make any deductions. It is this to which the Select Committee has drawn attention.
The House can be assured that it was not intended to confer such a discretion on the Ministers and they have no wish or intention to exercise it. They will in due course deduct from the total sums
1214
payable under the 1969 Scheme every penny paid under the 1968 Scheme, and they will have no alternative within the limits of the voted money. Paragraph 9(3) in fact will no longer have effect once the 1968 Scheme payments have been made and set off against the 1969 Scheme. I thought that it was as well to say this quite clearly to the House.
I will now turn to the Amendment Scheme. This change is necessary to implement a minor alteration to the arrangements for paying subsidies under the current 1968 Scheme. It will, until 31st July next, affect both the deep sea and inshore fleets, but after that date only the inshore vessels will be concerned, since the deep sea vessels will be operating entirely under the new subsidy Scheme.
It has been the practice to exclude from subsidy certain kinds of fish not normally sold for human consumption. Originally such landings were negligible, but more recently the demand for fish meal has meant that some fishermen have found it worth while to catch these kinds of fish, such as sand eels and Norway pout.
With the great increase in the demand for fish meal for feedingstuffs and also as a contribution to import saving we should not lose any opportunity of encouraging these landings as we already do for sprats and herring. The amendment will, therefore, make the necessary changes in the wording of the current Scheme so that these landings will not be excluded from subsidy.
I ask the House to give approval to these two Schemes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that quite a number of fishermen want to take part in the debate. Reasonably brief speeches will help.
10.10 a.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: As the Minister said, the Scheme implements the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, which we debated at some length last November. Therefore, I think that it will be quite easy for us to keep our speeches very short.
The two main features of the Scheme are that it provides for an increase in subsidies to the deep water fleet from about £1·4 million under the old Scheme to a maximum of £4 million and bases

1215
the method of assessment of subsidies on efficiency, which is a new and wholly admirable concept.
I think that I speak for both sides of the House and the industry when I say that we regret the need for subsidies. It is as well to bear in mind that the causes are largely out of the control of the House or the fishing industry: the loss of traditional fishing grounds; very heavily subsidised foreign competition; the higher costs of ships and crews; and what amounts to a ban on British fish landings in Europe while there is virtually an open market in this country for European fish and fish products. For these reasons we accept the need for subsidies and welcome the Scheme.
As the Minister said, most of 1968 was a very bad period. Nearly every distant water vessel lost money. Catches were unsold and went to fishmeal; the amount of fishmeal produced increased enormously. This led to a shrinkage of the fleet. Since last autumn matters have improved. In the first six-month period of the new Scheme £1·2 million will be paid to 534 vessels, plus nearly £500,000 under the old Scheme. This will be of great value to the industry.
Moreover, a better picture is emerging. The end of the winter and the spring have produced better fishing. I am informed that when the second subsidy distribution is paid in August it is likely to be very much lower because the gross profits for the period ending 31st March are likely to be very much higher. At this time the industry's earnings are likely to be now, but obviously the industry cannot expect to have it both ways.
Although I have said that the picture has been improving this spring, I am also told by the experts that the outlook for the summer is not good. I am told, for example, that the U.S. market for frozen fish remains poor, that the Canadian industry is in a very poor shape and has to have considerable Government assistance, and that frozen fish stocks in Europe remain high, which has a very depressing effect on the market in this country. Should the minimum price scheme maintained by the British Trawlers' Federation collapse, the industry would be in a very dangerous position.
1216
I remind the Minister of the following statement by the B.T.F. in January:
"… the increases in minima are quite inadequate to the industry's needs but we have bound ourselves, with the approval of the Restrictive Practices Court, to observe ' ceilings ' above which the minimum prices of the four principal varieties cannot be raised…besides the individual price ceilings, we have shouldered the obligation of assuring that the minimum prices are at least 30 per cent. below the average costs of production of the preceding three years. This is a severe restriction at the best of times but particularly in a period of cost inflation."
There is a need for further consideration of a statutory minimum price scheme, and above all for a careful study of imports, together with some form of regulation by quotas, levies, or minimum import prices—to quote the recommendation of the Select Committee.
On the question of import control, the Government made a move last December when we debated the Imports Duties (General) No. 11 Order, which imposed 10 per cent. duties on frozen fillets from the E.F.T.A. countries. I shall not develop this point, but I should like to ask the Minister what happened at the meeting which I understood took place on 18th and 19th March to discuss the annexe to the Stockholm Agreement. Did it end in agreement or disagreement? Can he also say whether the duty has made a difference to those imports in the three months that we have had it? How much has it reduced the excess over the 24,000 tons? What is our information on the effect on foreign subsidies? The Minister will recall that we were rather worried that if we put on the 10 per cent. tariff it would merely lead other Governments, such as the Norwegian, to put up their subsidies to cover it and would not stop the flood of imports into this country. This question is relevant to the order because the more we import the more subsidies the taxpayer will have to pay to our own industry.
The other action taken by the Government, which is also relevant, is on the question of the rationalisation of the deep water fleet, and I hope that the Minister will also be able to give us some information on that. The I.R.C. has talked with Ross, Associated Fisheries and Boston Deep Sea Fisheries, and we learned from the Press that Boston had withdrawn. I understand that it did so in perfectly good faith, because it is a private company

1217
and felt it difficult to meet the requirements of the two public companies.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's expertise and his keenness on this subject, but he must not widen the debate too much.
Mr. Wall: Perhaps I could just say, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that there is no ill feeling on either side about this withdrawal. Perhaps it would be right to ask the Minister whether he can give us any information, because the rationalisation of the industry will affect the amount of subsidies the taxpayer has to pay and the House has to vote to support the industry. It is a difficult question for the Minister, but there have been so many statements by various members of the Corporation and articles in the Press that some information would be helpful to the House.
Finally, what do the Government intend to do about future debates in the House? In the past we had to debate the subsidies Scheme every year and the special subsidy every six months, so we had at least one full and one half-day debate on fisheries each year. The Minister said, in opening, that the Scheme will be reviewed in 1970, and presumably that will give us a chance to debate fisheries next year. Could he deal with this point, which was also raised in our last debate in November?
I now turn to the other Scheme, which allows subsidies to be paid for fish that are inedible but are caught for fishmeal. That is also right, because we are producing only 80,000 tons of our own fishmeal and we import 500,000 tons, worth some £30 million. It is obvious that we should encourage industrial fishing as far as we can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is with me when I say that there must be certain safeguards. There have been all kinds of accusations of foreign vessels dredging everything out of the sea—edible fish and almost everything else. That is very bad for conservation. I understand that minimum net sizes now apply, but that vessels can now take 10 per cent. of edible immature fish in addition to inedible fish solely used for fishmeal or industrial fishing. Could the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of safeguards from the point of view of conservation?
1218
I have heeded your warning, Mr. Speaker, and have kept my speech as short as possible. I conclude by saying that the Opposition welcome the Order but repeat, as they said last November, that they very much hope that the Government will make serious investigations into some form of control of imports. We are not dogmatic as to how this should be done, but I believe that there should be very careful investigation. It is done in the E.E.C., and it is the Government's policy to join the E.E.C. That strengthens the case for serious investigation of all fish imports into this country at a time when our exports to Europe are severely limited.
10.20 a.m.
Mr. James Johnson: Twelve months ago there was an air of deep pessimism in this House and in the industry. My constituents, amongst them Lilian Bilocca, came to see the Minister. Today the atmosphere has changed and is very much better. I compliment the Government and the Minister, for this subsidy increase is a very good thing for our fishermen. This Government have passed many safety measures for them and will pass more, and this financial measure is another welcome improvement.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) was a little gloomy. I would not say that he was a Cassandra, but he did cast doubts upon certain aspects of the industry. The arrangements embodied in these Schemes have been discussed by the industry. We often talk about that word "participation". Here we have consulted all interests, both unions and owners. We need not talk much about the technicalities of the Schemes, because I believe that they will be accepted with alacrity by the industry.
Mr. Wall: I said that we welcomed the Scheme. It is a good thing for the industry; it is giving it a considerable amount of money. However, the more one can cut subsidies, the better. Investigations into import control might do just that.
Mr. Johnson: We all accept that, in the best of all possible worlds, we might do without subsidies, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is competition from E.F.T.A. fleets, dumping of frozen fish

1219
fillets, and so on. There are many kinds of activities for which we cannot legislate, let alone meet with competition.
The calculation of the subsidies goes back to 1st August. Having received almost £500,000 under the 1968 arrangements, the owners are now eagerly awaiting something like an additional £1,250,000 of public money. We are glad that we have had six months of good fishing, but we should note that even in Hull, at 10th March, there were 410 fishermen unemployed; so the situation is not all that rosy.
Article 10(6) of the Deep Sea Vessels Scheme gives a most satisfying payment basis. The words "added value" are mystical to some, but to others almost magical. We do not now include wages or food in calculating this sum. To do so would lead many of us to fear that it might affect wage bargaining, or that the rations of the deck-hands could be affected. The Amendment Scheme is welcome too.
It has often been asked why it is that the E.F.T.A. fleets can go in for industrial fishing and make money from it while we have not been able to do so. We import something like £30 million of fishmeal. This is a very great deal. We are subsidising farmers, and it would be equally helpful to our balance of payments deficit if we similarly helped this industrial fishing; because, after all, many of us on these benches think that it is a better food than the beef which is advocated on the benches opposite. I believe, like Mr. Basil Parks, leader of the deep sea fleet, that industrial fishing could be a good thing.
The Department has devised the best possible system of subsidies. These subsidies would naturally have been greater if we had not had such a good season. Naturally we would prefer good seasons to giving high subsidies. Nevertheless, such subsidies are only justified if we have efficient vessels and efficient methods of catching the fish. The new "added value" system will weed out inefficient vessels, and the oil burners will go. The Government and the I.R.C. have galvanised the industry and the B.T.F. Perhaps it will now change its initials to the B.T.C.—the British Trawling Corporation. The Hull Daily Mail on 17th March was optimistic about the coming
1220
merger, although I accept that Boston Deep Sea is not coming in—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is descending the slippery slope. He must return to the Scheme.
Mr. Johnson: What we want to know is whether a decision is to be made soon about this matter. The industry is now given maximum incentive to succeed, but looking back at the good and bad times, we have to realise that we are approaching our last chance. When I came to Hull seven years ago, the Jeremiahs were prophesying that there was no long-term future in fishing. I do not believe this, and I am sure that this Measure will give us a much better future. We have to face severe overseas competition, but if we do not take this chance of building up a viable and competitive deep sea fleet, we shall be forced to turn our minds to some form of public ownership.
10.30 a.m.
Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I welcome these Schemes and am glad to note that the prospects for the fishing industry are better this year than they were last. The Amendment Scheme is a major change in that the subsidies are to be paid for fish not intended for human consumption. It has been pointed out to me that this might be a retrograde step in that it might have a bad effect on fish conservation in trawling up immature fish. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this. If this were to happen on a large scale, it would undoubtedly have a bad effect. With such a large proportion of the world's population suffering from lack of protein, we should concentrate chiefly on fish for human consumption.
Some people argue that it would be more beneficial to the fishing industry if more money were spent on protecting fishing grounds from foreign trawlers and thus protecting the interests of the fishermen.
There is a great and growing demand for fishmeal, and this Order gives an opportunity for import saving. As we are subsidising fish which is not fit for human consumption, we must bear in mind the importance of the conservation of fish for the future.
10.31 a.m.
Mr. John Ellis: I intend no disrespect to the House by not staying to the end of the debate, but I have to attend a Committee upstairs at 11 o'clock.
I have received representations from the Transport and General Workers' Union to whom I am indebted for bringing some of these points to my attention. Paragraph 10 (a) and (b) of the Deep Sea Vessels Scheme specifies the costs which are allowed in working out the subsidy. I am pleased to see that the manning of the vessels is allowed for. This should prove to be beneficial, and will discourage attempts at saving on the crew.
Will the Minister say whether protective clothing is included in the costs that are allowed? Among the other approved safety measures, will such things as stern conversion, de-icing, improved wireless communication and stabilisation equipment be allowed for?
I am pleased to see that the cost of experimental trips is allowable. Ventures of this sort should be encouraged, to find out where are the best grounds. The trips may not be economic, and such trips as can be isolated should be allowable. Similarly, schemes such as fleeting and boxing schemes should be encouraged.
One very heavy item in the cost of operating a ship, especially a new and complicated ship, is the depreciation rate. Everyone in the industry wants to see the most modern ships brought into operation. Very often a great deal of the cost of older ships will already have been written down. Some encouragement should be given to the owners to provide the newest ships possible—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This looks like another subsidy under another Order.
Mr. Ellis: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the points I have raised are included in the allowable costs.
The determination of profits is important, especially to the Transport and General Workers' Union, which seeks to improve the conditions of its members who serve on ships. It is important for the union when it is pressing for
1222
improvements to know what profits are being made. I understand that some of these figures are confidential. All hon. Members who have spoken have said that it is right and proper that subsidies should be given to the industry, as the Scheme seeks to do, and, if the community as a whole is minded to give subsidies, the community should know what profits are being made in the industry, and I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.
10.35 a.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I will address my remarks exclusively to the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme. I will follow your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that speeches be kept short by dealing only with that Scheme and also because I wish to make a contribution in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I would like to be able to say that I give this Scheme an unqualified welcome. It almost has my wholehearted support, but there is a small reservation which I will make later.
While it is true that quality fish will always find a market, it is also true that the inshore fleet, together with the distant water fleet, needs more encouragement. To illustrate this, during last summer for over six weeks two boats were laid up in one port in my constituency purely for lack of crew. That must reflect on profitability as seen by the younger members of the community who might otherwise have gone to sea in fishing vessels. One of the most important results of the Scheme will be more industrial fishing, and I welcome that.
I would have thought that the best method of conserving the immature fish would be to make sure that the minimum mesh size is strictly adhered to. This affects not only our own vessels but foreign vessels. Our own vessels resent the interference which may take place if this is too strictly enforced. Will the Minister make representations to those vessels which protect our own fishing vessels that the minimum net size is strictly enforced within waters over which we have jurisdiction? But for the fact that I am a little worried about conservation, I would have given this Scheme my unqualified support.
10.38 a.m.
Mr. J. L. M. Prior: I apologise for arriving late for the debate, but I wish to make only a short contribution. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Amendment to the Scheme which brings industrial fishing within the ambit of the subsidy. This is of considerable importance and is right up to date with the information that is now coming forward. The Scheme will receive great support from the fishing industry and from hon. Members who are interested in fishing. It must not be considered much more than an interim breathing space in trying to get the industry on to a sound footing.
The tragedy of all our fishing debates over the last 10 years, or even longer, is that we have always said, as each new scheme has come forward, that we hope that we shall get the fishing industry on to a sound financial basis, and each time we have had to adopt other measures to do so. I regard this as being the most efficient and most suitable subsidy arrangement so far devised, but I do not think that by a long way it will be the end of the story. I still believe that the Government must work out a long-term solution, and they will have to decide in advance what percentage or proportion of the total catch is to be supplied by home producers. It will be that proportion which will give the industry the confidence to go in for the replacement of vessels, and so on.
I have never believed that catching is the main problem of the industry. I think that we have as efficient a catching industry as any in the world. What we have to do now is not only go ahead with this Scheme and hope that it will help the catching side of the industry, but also concentrate on getting the distribution side right.
I would add one note of warning. Although we have had a good winter in the fishing industry, the signs of the last few days are that we may be getting back into the same sort of position as that from which we suffered last summer and the summer before. One of the difficulties about a subsidy scheme is that, at the very time when the industry will be suffering from low prices, the subsidy paid will be at its lowest. That is unavoidable in the nature of the Scheme, but it means that the industry
1224
will be short of cash when it may need it most.
Let me add one word about the availability of crews. Questions of Wages and safety and competition from other seafaring industries have always presented difficulties. In my own area we now have the additional problem of oil rigs, making it more difficult to get responsible and good crews for our fishing vessels. I anticipate that, certainly in the port of Lowestoft, we shall have to pay more money to get the right type of man to go into the industry, to train him properly, and keep him afterwards. As I understand it, paragraph 10 will enable the industry to pay the wages commensurate with getting the people required without this affecting the subsidy payment. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case.
We should give a welcome to this Scheme. We all have our reservations on the fishing industry, but we all want to see it contribute more than it has in recent years both to the import-saving rôle that it can have and also to the general prosperity of the country. The fishing industry has many fine people working in it, both on the management side and on the crew side, and we in this House all wish to do what we can to help them.
10.44 a.m.
Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The deep sea ports are well represented in the House today, and we have also debated the Scheme in principle, so I, too, will turn my attention to the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme, so as to keep my contribution as brief as possible.
When introducing it, the Minister said that it was a minor alteration. I think that that was a bad choice of words, because this is a fairly major development in policy. The effect of the Amendment Scheme is to pay subsidy on the proceeds of industrial fishing for white fish, bringing our policy on industrial fishing for white fish into line with that in respect of industrial fishing for herring and sprats. This is important because, all along, our attitude to industrial fishing has been, to say the least, ambiguous. We have seemed to find it a little distasteful and perhaps not entirely sporting.

1225
We have had, and still have, one solid reason for this attitude. It is the fear that, with the vastly improved catching methods now available and the enormous increase in the fishing efforts of other countries, we could eventually fish the sea dry. The vague theory that there will always be fish in the sea could become as obsolete as the theory that the earth is flat.
Some hon. Members are aware that this is a possibility, and place their hopes on the suggestion that the size of the mesh will do the job, and so prevent this happening. I do not put much faith on the size of the mesh. To change the simile, too often mankind has killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, and there is no reason to believe that he will not do it again.
Unless we improve speedily our production of fish in the same way as we have the catching of it, we will face a very serious decline in the raw material of the industry. That is something of which we should always be aware—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning anything the hon. Gentleman says about the future of fishing and the drying up of the supply of fish in the sea, but be must keep to the Scheme.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will come at once to the Scheme. Inasmuch as this is a problem with which we can deal, I think that the approach in the Scheme is the right one. The Government have made the right decision, bearing in mind this warning.
The Minister gave two reasons for it: the greatly increased demand for fishmeal and the potentially enormous amount of import saving that could be open to us. There is a lot of money in this process, and, even in the past year, we have seen one or two very unfair situations develop; for example, a constituent of mine fishing for Norway pout, paying levy to the White Fish Authority and receiving no subsidy on his catch, will now find that position put right.
I think that this Scheme is the right approach, and I hope that it will help develop the indigenous fishing resources of Scotland, bearing in mind always the necessity for preserving the stocks.
10.48 a.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Like the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), I am involved elsewhere in a Standing Committee, and I make my apologies in advance if I have to leave before the end of the debate.
The White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1968—Statutory Instrument No. 1235 of 1968—set up a Scheme of grants for voyages between 1st August 1968 and 31st July 1969. In the draft Statutory Instrument before us, that is referred to as "the 1968 Scheme".
The White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969 sets up a Scheme for the payment of grants on an added-value basis in respect of voyages between 1st August 1968 and 31st July 1971. That is referred to as "the 1969 Scheme".
The House will see that there is an overlap between these two Schemes of the period from 1st August 1968 to 31st July 1969. During that period, a vessel owner can claim under both Schemes for voyages during the period of the overlap. However, in grants being paid under the 1969 Scheme there will be deducted, first, any payment under the 1968 Scheme and, second, any payment due to the vessel owner under the 1968 Scheme. So the vessel owner will be able to retain what is paid to him under the 1968 Scheme, receive what is due to him under the 1968 Scheme, and then be paid the net amount under the 1969 Scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary nods. I hope I am right on this brief explanation.
It is clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments by officials of the Ministry, but I submit that it is not clear from paragraph 9(3) which, paraphrasing it, states that if grants have been paid under the 1968 Scheme in respect of voyages ending in the overlap period,
"the total amount of grant"—
that phrase is a little ambiguous— shall be the 1969 Scheme, less
"such amount in respect of the 1968 Scheme grants as the Ministers may determine."
On the fact of it, that leaves the Minister an almost completely free hand, but his freedom is a bit fettered in the proviso to sub-paragraph (3), which states that

1227
the amount which he is to deduct must not exceed a certain sum. It must not
"exceed the total of all sums payable"—
and I query the word "payable"—
"by way of 1968 Scheme grants".
If the House will bear with me, I should like to put on record a paragraph of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments because it seems to explain the scheme, and it is an explanation which is not fully carried out in the Order.
The witness said:
"Under the 1968 Scheme, these voyage payments are payable for the whole of the 12 months from August, 1968, to July, 1969. They are paid to a certain extent in arrears, obviously, and there is a gap between the claims being made and actually paid. In calculating the amount of money due under the 1969 Scheme, and making the deduction in gross of the 1968 Scheme grants, the Minister can only deduct such amounts as he knows to have been paid; in other words, at the moment, under the first payment which it is intended to make, the Minister will be deducting the payments made from August, 1968, to December, 1968, simply because those were all that were identifiable as having been paid at the time the calculations were made. This is the thing which the Minister determines, the amount he can deduct from the first payment."
Then the witness went on to describe that much the same procedure would happen on the next payment.
That is not what is said in paragraph 9(3) of the Order by the words
"… such amount in respect of the 1968 Scheme grants as the Ministers may determine."
It would have been so easy, in place of those words, to say,
"by the amount paid or assessed payable under the 1968 Scheme."
It would then have been clear to everybody reading the Scheme exactly what they were to receive.
I should like to make a general comment, if I can relate it clearly to the Order and without in any way presuming to lecture the House. In Orders of this kind the House is frequently disposing of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. It is, therefore, to say the least, prudent to see that the provisions under which that disposition are made are clear and unambiguous and within the powers granted to the Minister by Parliament. Yet the form and procedure of this legislation
1228
by Order is in strong contrast with the procedure which we adopt in producing an Act from a Bill where we go through the Committee and Report stages to see that the wording is satisfactory. The absence of that procedure in such an Order as this is partially replaced by the scrutiny of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary treats the results of that scrutiny with respect.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary could not promise the House an amending Order in this case. I think that it would have put the matter right for those who have to operate it. But the House will be grateful for the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has given. I think that is the next best thing to an amending Order, especially as paragraph 9(3) of the Order will be operative for only a comparatively short time. On that basis, I think the assurance given by the hon. Gentleman, for which I am indeed grateful, is the next best thing to an amending Order.
10.56 a.m.
Mr. Anthony Stodart: First, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who does not usually take part in fishing debates. I thank him for his wise intervention. It is obviously valuable that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments should be able to keep an eye on the wording of these many Orders, involving, as my hon. Friend said, many millions of pounds.
I am slightly worried at the way that the debate has gone, because it has taken less than an hour so far. It rather adds to my concern about future debates on the deep sea fishing industry, because I can foresee the usual channels probably coming to us and saying that 4 o'clock in the morning is all right for the fishing industry if we take only 40 minutes about it. However, far be it from me to complain about short debates or to quarrel with you, Mr. Speaker, about the virtue of short speeches.
Before coming to what I wish to say about the Scheme, I wonder whether I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to clear up two oddments.
I refer, first, to the definition of "the Ministers" in paragraph 2 near the top

1229
of page 2. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in Committee I sought to move an Amendment, which was ruled out of order but which we discussed on the Question, That the Clause stand part, about why in the Bill there was a reference to the Secretary of State concerned with the fishing industry in Scotland. I asked why we should not call him the Secretary of State for Scotland? Why is there one thing in the Bill and then the words that I want to feature in the Statutory Instruments? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us an explanation.
Secondly, the part of sub-paragraph (2) beginning "gross proceeds" seems perfectly simple. It means,
"… the gross proceeds from the first hand sale of the fish caught by the vessel on that voyage "
and so forth.
It then goes on to say,
"… together with, in any case where during the voyage the vessel was employed for a purpose other than that mentioned in paragraph 3(2)…"
Paragraph 3(2) states:
"The voyages to which sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph relates are voyages made for the purpose of catching white fish…"
Could the Minister tell us what these other purposes may be?
Having dealt with those two oddments, I turn to paragraph 10 where there is much of the meat of the Scheme. In Committee I was critical to perhaps a limited extent of the method of calculating the added value formula. At that stage I praised this new approach of rewarding efficiency by subsidy and tying subsidies to efficiency. I still think that this is a good principle, but I am not as yet as convinced as I should like to be that with wages excluded—and they are a very large item—the subsidy instrument will be as sharp as it might be. I still feel—and I dealt with this in Committee—that a highly modernised, 100 per cent. labour-saving equipped vessel might not benefit at all from what I believe must be described as its superior efficiency over a much more traditional vessel, because the results of the labour-saving equipment, namely, the saving in wages, are being excluded. However, I accept that there are other factors which have to be put into the scale.
If what I am suggesting were to cause under-manning, which in turn would
1230
cause hazards and danger to lives, then I should not advocate it, and I noted the views of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on this in Committee. I think that we must give this new formula a chance to see how it works, and I hope that it will be given a fair wind so that we can get a good idea of what the effects of it will be.
In answer to a Question in the House on 25th of last month the right hon. Gentleman, when announcing the subsidy of £1·2 million for the six months up to 31st January, said that this was just over 15 per cent. of £7·7 million, which is the total added value for all the eligible vessels. Much of paragraph 9 of the Scheme is devoted to saying how the subsidy will work, and how it will be pitched according to the operating profits. I think that it would be more helpful if, instead of being told what the percentage of the added value is—and added value and profit are different things—we were told on what profit figure the sum of £1·2 million is based. I am not seeking information about the profits of individual vessels, but I think it is fair to ask what this 15 per cent. figure is in terms of profits. From the formula, with all its phasings, and so on, I should have expected, if my arithmetic is any good at all, to have found that a subsidy of £1·2 million would be paid on profits of about £5½ million. I do not know whether I am right about that. Perhaps the Minister will confirm it. As this is the basis of it, I think that it would be helpful if, when announcements about it are made, it was linked with the figure of the overall profits.
I turn now to paragraph 4, which deals with the subsidy period. The subsidy period is to be one not exceeding 12 months in duration. Is it the Government's intention to break this period into periods of six months on every occasion? I know that they have done so this time, but is this always going to be done? Will there always be what one might describe as an interim and a final settlement? On Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman was not entirely clear about this. He said:
"We are anxious to begin payments on the new basis as soon as possible. We are proposing, therefore, to do the initial calculations; for a half-year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 916.]

1231
One could draw from that the inference that, after the initial calculations have been made, the half-year period will not be used and we might revert to an annual settlement. If that were to happen, I think that the industry might run into difficulties.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said that this urgent reinforcement was being anxiously awaited. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) referred to the payment that was likely to come in August, when the amount of liquid cash available was likely to be at its lowest, and the subsidy was likely to be smaller. Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to stray a single footstep, but I am sure you will be tolerant if I refer for a moment to agriculture. I have in mind the importance of the monthly milk cheque. At a time when interest rates are extremely high, the frequency with which payments are made in cash can be a matter of great importance to the industry, particularly when one remembers that the payments made under the scheme which has just ended, the daily rates, were paid within a fortnight or so of the voyage coming to an end. This is where there is a slight analogy with the monthly milk cheque. Money came in a little more frequently, and as interest rates are as high as they are, I hope that the Government will watch the situation. I think that a period of six months is the absolute minimum. I do not know whether payments can be made more frequently than that.
We have all welcomed the Scheme. It is an extremely interesting one, in that it breaks entirely new ground. This is a new concept of providing subsidies, and it will be fascinating to see how it works. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West when he says that there are still unemployed persons at Hull. We are not yet out of the wood. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who described this as rather an interim matter. This is not the end of the story.
The difficulties of the fishing industry will not be solved as long as the industry remains a prey to so many imports. It has been pointed out that we spend £30 million on importing fishmeal. We should be conscious of the balance of
1232
trade and watch this matter. Imports of frozen fillets were tariffed at 10 per cent. at 6th November last, but I would like to know what effect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has kept splendidly in order so far. I hope that he will not spoil that good record by straying from order now.
Mr. Stodart: My only comment on the question of imports is that if they are not adequately controlled and if they contrive to bring down the price of fish to the British catcher, the Government will have to act again if they mean this Scheme to be of real benefit.
What I said some time ago in another context applies in this case; that by this Scheme the Government are seeking to give a blood transfusion which, it is hoped, will be of immense benefit to the fishing industry. If the import situation is not dealt with, the Government will, having given that blood transfusion, be cutting the person's throat and letting the blood run out at the other end.
I hope that, although this Instrument will run for three years, discussion and debate will not be stifled and that we will have opportunities to debate this important import-saving sector of British industry.
11.12 a.m.
Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides for the way in which they have received the Scheme. I will not attempt to draw analogies. I have already been reminded this morning about fish being like geese which lay golden eggs, and in his remarks the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) talked of the danger of cutting somebody's throat and letting the blood run out at the other end. I do not know what sort of surgery he had in mind, and it is probably best that I come to the facts and leave the analogies to others.
I agree with the point made by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that every time we introduce a new Instrument or Scheme for the fishing industry we say that it is likely to be the last. We can only hope for the best. As he said, this is probably the best Scheme to have been made for a long time. I hope that,

1233
in practice, it will be the answer to the problem. Only as a result of the operation of the Scheme will we be able to tell if it can perform the job which it is designed to do.
To answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, the payments in this case will be on a six-monthly basis. Just as the farmer likes his monthly milk cheque, so we cannot keep the fishing industry waiting. There may perhaps be alternations of provisional and final payments, but I assure hon. Members that the payments will be made at six-monthly intervals.
Reference was made to the Preamble to the Scheme, which refers to the Minister
"…concerned with the sea fishing industry in Scotland).…"
This is in line with the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, and identifies the Secretary of State for Scotland as
"…(being the Secretary of State concerned with the sea fishing industry in Scotland)…"
at the time. It does no more than that and I hope that the clarity of that reply answers the question.
I was asked what other purposes we might have had in mind, in addition to fishing, from the point of view of the Scheme. I remind the House that there may be charter voyages and voyages undertaken for salvage purposes. The definition is designed to cover matters such as this only partially, remembering that there may be a loss of fishing time for other reasons.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Ellis) wondered about the costs involved. I thought that much of what he said might have been mentioned in a different debate; perhaps one concerned with shipbuilding grants and loans. I assure him that all operating costs in this matter, except labour and training, are treated in the same way, mainly because it would not have been appropriate to have made too many exceptions. The idea is that efficiency should be the yardstick. If this is to be the case, the matter must be considered as a whole, because every sort of cost can be regarded as special by vessel owners.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West admitted, the question of safety is
1234
an important factor, particularly when at sea. We dare not risk being accused of so minimising on the cost of labour that we might endanger the safety of vessels.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West also made the point that we were not taking as long over debating this matter as we might have done. I suggest that as we are introducing a Scheme and are taking other measures to ensure the efficiency of the fishing industry, it is as well for us to show efficiency in our debate. We should show that we are not wasting the time of Parliament but, instead, are using it to the best of our ability in discussing the problems of the industry.
The inshore fishing fleet will be dealt with annually and the relevant Instruments will apply to that section of the industry alone. We could not alter this Scheme to take that into account. We are here giving long-term security. We do not want to be rehashing the Scheme every year or so and perhaps thereby removing that element of security. I am sure that time will be found for the necessary debates to take place at regular intervals.
Several hon. Members raised the question of industrial fishing. It is worth mentioning that this type of fishing has gone on in this country for a considerable time. It is true that, apart from herrings, those concerned have not been paid—those catching other white fish-but I am glad that this Scheme has been welcomed, although the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) delivered a warning like the wrath of God. I was not sure whether he was supporting or opposing the Scheme, but I take it that it has his support and that he agrees that these payments should be made.
The subject of how we should protect the fishing fleet received a good deal of attention, and a number of hon. Members called for greater fishery protection. The fishery protection squadron and cruiser service patrol the fishery limits and perform a great service to the fishing industry within the resources available. We are always endeavouring to improve this service and I assure hon. Members that their comments have been noted.
It should be remembered that one cannot urge the fishery protection vessels

1235
to do their job efficiently and then complain that they are doing it too well. I appreciate what has been said about the need for those fishing not to be interfered with. However, we gave certain tasks, such as inspecting net mesh sizes, to our protection vessels and we should enable them to perform those tasks.
The industry has questioned the value of industrial fishing. It is not so many years ago that the industry raised the point which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair MacKenzie) raised this morning, whether we would take out of the sea the very small fish which make for good fishing later, thereby doing great harm to the industry. The industry has reached the conclusion that this is not so. We will take every possible measure to safeguard the position.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible effect that a subsidy on industrial fishing might have on conservation. We and other countries fishing in the North-East Atlantic are parties to agreements on minimum mesh sizes. There is a provision allowing under-sized fish of protected species to be landed within the limit of 10 per cent. of an industrial catch. It is not permissible to land undersized fish for human consumption, nor as part of a catch for human consumption. These are fairly extensive safeguards.
The question of imports was raised. Mr. Speaker ruled that question out of order. What we were discussing at Geneva was the 10 per cent. tariff that we imposed. The British Press referred to it in a strange way; it reported it as a breakdown in the talks. All that happened was that we decided to keep the 10 per cent. on. We will go on to the end of the year. I cannot say what real effect it has; the months during which it has operated are not the important ones and are not a sufficient guide. We have agreed to keep the 10 per cent. on.
Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation. What has happened about the Annex to the Stockholm Agreement, which, I gather, has to be renegotiated, or at any rate discussed, before 1970?
1236
Was it discussed at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
Mr. Hoy: I am being tempted to go too far. I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are about to rise. May I respond in one sentence and say that this must be renegotiated before the end of this year. I will not stray outside the rules of order any longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West asked a question about the disclosure of profits. I agree that the giving of a subsidy calls for a measure of public accountability, but I do not think that it would be right to give the return of individual owners. We do not do it with any other industry. There would be a danger, when we got it down to certain areas, that we would be very near to disclosing what certain people were getting. We will see what we can do in a general way, but I cannot go beyond that promise at this time.
Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my point on this subject. I subscribe to the view that individual profits should not be disclosed, but will he confirm the figure that I suggested for the overall profits on which the payment is being based? That is a figure which the House is entitled to have.
Mr. Hoy: I could not work out the figures whilst sitting on the Front Bench, so I cannot confirm it now. I will make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have replied to all the points raised, except the one that the hon. Member for Haltemprice is about to remind me of.
Mr. Wall: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and I asked when it is expected that the report of the I.R.C. on the reorganisation will be received.
Mr. Hoy: I thought that it must be a point which was half-way to being out of order. Considerable progress has been made. I hope that within days a statement will be made. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to hold me to four or five days, but I hope that we shall have an answer within seven to 10 days.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme 1969, dated 17th February 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969, dated 17th February, 1969 [copy laid before the House 25th February], approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]

ADJOURNMENT
The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m.
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LUTON CORPORATION BILL
    FARMER & COMPANY LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  HARDY BROTHERS, LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL
    NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
CHELSEA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
  SAINT MILDRED, BREAD STREET BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND

  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no need to call "Object" when objection is already taken by an Amendment on the Order Paper.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 2nd April, at Seven o'clock.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPERANNUATION ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Countryside (Long-distance Routes)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in establishing long-distance routes under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Proposals for ten long-distance routes have been approved involving a total of 1,273 miles, of which rights over approximately 1,200 miles are already established. The Pennine Way was completed in 1965; the Yorkshire Coast and North York Moors Path (widely known as the Cleveland Way) is very nearly complete and will be opened in May. Good progress is being made with the walks round the South-west Peninsular and the route along Offa's Dyke.
    Mr. Murray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being on the right footpath. How much remains to be done on the other eight approved routes? What new long-distance routes is the Countryside Commission planning?
    Mr. Skeffington: I am glad to say that very few remaining miles of rights of way have still to be negotiated—I think four or five miles in one or two cases. We hope that this will soon be complete. The Commission has already submitted a report on the North Downs Way, which will cover a distance of 141 miles from Farnham in Surrey to Dover in Kent. The Commission is also actively considering proposals for the Ridge Way Walk which will go from Cambridge to Seaton Bay by way of the Chilterns and the Berkshire Ridge Way.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend accept that we have been waiting for 16 years to get some of these rights of way completed? I thank him for what he has done but must ask him to try to speed matters up. Shall we soon get any official publication explaining the routes?
    Mr. Skeffington: We will certainly give the information as soon as we can. The Commission now has some extra staff—still not enough, but more than it had before. Local authorities are taking on some of the burden of acquiring rights of way.

    New Towns
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many dwellings were completed in English new towns and how many jobs were created in new factories there in the years 1965 to 1968.
    The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): A total of 22,100 dwellings were completed on land made available by development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns. There was a net increase of 22,600 jobs in factories on such land and on the Aycliffe industrial estate.
    Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the G.L.C. on a plan for a comprehensive new town in the obsolete dock areas of London, which probably gives the biggest planning opportunity
    1242
    for London to rebuild itself that has ever occurred?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not think new town designation would be the right solution. I am aware of the splendid opportunity for comprehensive and imaginative redevelopment that the closure of these docks presents, and I am sure that the Greater London Council will take full advantage of this unique opportunity.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 100,000 people on the waiting list for places in the Greater London Council's new towns? What further steps will he take to coordinate the activities of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Employment and Productivity to make sure that people have jobs to go to at the same time as the homes become available?
    Mr. Robinson: There is a substantial degree of co-ordination. I am not aware that the system is not working. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular complaint to make, I shall be very glad to look into it.

    Parish Councils
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the problems affecting rural villages, what steps he is taking to increase the responsibilities of parish councils; what representations have been made to him by the National Association of Parish Councils on this question; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest. The powers of parish councils will, of course, be reviewed in the light of the Royal Commission's Report.
    I have not received any recent representations from the National Association of Parish Councils.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind in any reorganisation what a vital rôle the parish councils play now and will play in the future? Will he consider that it might be possible for them to be notified of planning proposals, which would help solve many of the problems in rural parishes?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have in the past paid tribute to the work the parish councils do in a rather limited sphere. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot very well comment on this matter until we see the Report of the Royal Commission. I was not sure whether the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question suggested that I should enable the parish councils to see the report of the Royal Commission in advance. That is entirely a matter for the Royal Commission.

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy for expanding agriculture, what steps he is taking to keep to a minimum the use of fertile agricultural land for industrial and other purposes and to ensure that industrial expansion is restricted to the use of poorer land.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The need to preserve good agricultural land is a fundamental consideration in planning and is always in the minds of my right hon. Friend and the local planning authorities. But it is not the only consideration, and others sometimes have to prevail.
    Mr. Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rape of the countryside is alarming? Bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of acres of good agricultural land being used, will he see that far more care is taken in the choice of sites for roads and industrial and other purposes to ensure that they use the poorer land?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his supplementary question. These are never easy matters. If there is a straightforward choice, poorer quality land is always chosen, but the circumstances are rarely as simple as that.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claims on agricultural land now come from every direction? For example, the claims for reservoirs are becoming so extensive that the loss of agricultural land, much of it good, is serious. If this is taken into account, as he said, the claims should be reduced.
    Mr. Robinson: We do take these things into account, but there are the
    1244
    demands for water and for land for development. I and my Department must balance these needs.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend fully seized of the importance of this question? Some of us are of the opinion that the encroachment upon good agricultural land is going ahead by leaps and bounds and that no real control exists between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Housing Departments. Would my right hon. Friend look into the matter again, because posterity will either condemn or support him?
    Mr. Robinson: I wholly deny that there is no co-ordination in these matters. The claims of agriculture are always paramount in Ministers' considerations in planning matters, and they are very carefully weighed in the balance. As I have said, we have to provide land for development and for services such as water.

    Betterment Levy
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what percentage of people served with demands for betterment levy have signified that they were unaware of a liability to pay the levy.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I regret this information is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Rossi: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the levy was presented to the country as a means of hammering the large land speculators, whereas in practice it is the small householders and plot owners who find themselves on the anvil? Will he do something urgently to alleviate the hardship?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not agree that the Act was presented in those limited terms. In the debate last Friday, I dealt with the question of publicity. I do not think anyone can complain of lack of publicity at the present time.
    Mr. William Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some on this side of the House who regard the Land Commission as a bureaucratic disaster? Will he now come up with a scheme which protects individual house owners but once and for all prevents the sort

    1245
    of land speculation fostered and encouraged by hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, although I do not accept that they are representative of this side of the House. I have told the House that I am considering the operation of the Act, and I do not wish to go beyond that at this stage.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not most of the problems be solved if the right hon. Gentleman now accepted the Amendments which the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) rejected and which would have exempted owner-occupiers from the levy in precisely the same way as the Inland Revenue exempts owner-occupied houses from Capital Gains Tax?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I think that proposition would probably create more problems than it solved.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many widows have been served with demands for betterment levy; and how many have signified that they are unable to pay.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this section of the population is especially likely to be unfairly treated by the levy system? In particular, will he remember the Adjournment debate case of Mrs. Lowe, of Newcastle, who inherited an estate of less than £5,000, yet had to pay £1,250 levy on a small plot of land? In the circumstances, was this not a case of oppressive taxation? Will he undertake to add this kind of case to the list of abuses which are to be reformed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Robinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that levy is payable only where development value is realised by the levy payer. But, of course, the proposition he has put is part of the operation of the Act which, as I have said, is under review.
    Mr. Graham Page: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to finish his consideration of these hardship cases and do something about relieving the hardship?
    Mr. Robinson: The consideration will be concluded when it is complete.
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce amending legislation to provide that betterment levy is only charged when the land in question is sold, and not when it changes hands in the form of a gift.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Betterment levy is not chargeable on a transfer of land in the form of a gift. Development of the land by the recipent may however attract levy.
    Mr. Dance: Will not the right hon. Gentleman change this obnoxious piece of law by adopting what I suggest in this Question? I have an example in my constituency where development has taken place on the gift of a piece of land and the betterment charge is being demanded. This is most unjust. Will he change this?
    Mr. Robinson: At the risk of wearying the House, I will only repeat that the operation of this Act is currently under review.
    Mr. Graham Page: Once again, this is a very small amendment which would relieve a very great hardship. Cannot the Minister soften his heart a little and make this amendment quickly?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the matter is not as simple as he represents.

    Industrial Noise
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will send a circular to local authorities asking them to provide him with a report on the progress they are making in dealing with the problem of industrial noise, as forecast in Circular 22 of 1967.
    Mr. Greenwood: In a few weeks, Sir.
    Sir R. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that industrial noise is getting worse year by year? Will he

    1247
    do everything possible to hasten consideration so that some action can be taken?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remind him that in 1967 my Ministry and the Welsh Office issued a circular calling for a determined attack by local authorities, using their powers under the Noise Abatement Act. It now seems fairly clear that these powers are defective, and I am hoping that, in the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Bill now before Parliament these defects will be repaired.

    Northern Access Road, Cambridge
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to announce his decision on the Northern Access Road, Cambridge, following the public inquiry in July 1968.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Shortly, Sir.
    Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to see that "shortly" is before the end of this month, as I have been promised by his colleague at the Ministry of Transport? So much else depends on this, and it is a controversy which has already lasted so long.
    Mr. Robinson: I know the need for an early decision. Perhaps I could define "shortly" a little more precisely by saying I hope within 14 days.

    Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many areas of outstanding natural beauty are under consideration by the Countryside Commission for designation.
    Mr. Skeffington: Eight, Sir, including one in Wales. The Commission hopes to designate three of them—Dedham Vale, the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, and the Wye Valley—this year, and perhaps a fourth, the North Wessex Downs.
    Mr. Murray: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to tell us how long it will be before all these eight areas are designated?
    Mr. Skeffington: This is a somewhat lengthy process, because it is necessary to carry out very wide consultations. The Countryside Commission has adopted the
    1248
    new procedure of going direct to the county councils and getting them to fix the boundary. This is apparently leading to some speed-up in the cases mentioned.
    Mr. Whitaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern on the part of the Ramblers Association, among others, at the lack of access in some areas such as Snowdonia?
    Mr. Skeffington: I am well aware of that, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Ensorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many areas of outstanding nature beauty have been designated and confirmed since October, 1964; what acreage is involved; and how this compares with the previous four years.
    Mr. Skeffington: Since October, 1964, eight areas of outstanding natural beauty (including one in Wales) have been confirmed with a total area of 1,924 square miles. This compares with five areas, totalling 666 square miles, confirmed during the previous four years.

    Conservation Areas
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many conservation areas have been designated under the Civic Amenities Act 1967; and how many are at present under consideration.
    Mr. Greenwood: By 11th March, 1969, 60 local planning authorities had notified me of the designation of 268 conservation areas in England. I have asked local planinng authorities to let me have by 31st May a statement showing the proposed conservation areas still under consideration and the dates by which it is intended to take a decision on their designation.
    I will write to my hon. Friend when this informatoin is available.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public participation in the selection of these areas is very important indeed? Does he further appreciate that in the enhancement of such areas a voluntary and public effort can do a great deal to preserve and maintain them?
    Mr. Greenwood: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and would like to pay tribute to the work of the City of Norwich in this connection. It is of the utmost importance that local authorities embarking upon a scheme affecting people so intimately should carry the public with them and consult the civic societies and other amenity bodies.

    Oil Pollution (Beaches)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by local authorities in the preparation of schemes for organising executive responsibility for action against the oil pollution of beaches.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am happy to say that progress has been satisfactory. All maritime local authorities are covered by one scheme or another. Twenty-five detailed schemes have been sent to the Department. Many of these cover a number of local authorities, as I hoped they would. The remaining scheme-making authorities are now putting the finishing touches to their plans.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware that in Norfolk and many other areas there a number of small district councils, and if there is major pollution in those areas how would such small councils be able to cope?
    Mr. Greenwood: The whole principle upon which the plans are being drawn up is that the county council or county borough should accept the primary responsibility. In the Norfolk County Council scheme there is provision for mutual aid with East Suffolk County Council, the Holland and Lindsey County Council and the Great Yarmouth County Borough. All the district councils in the area, however small, will know that they can look to the county council or the neighbouring county councils for very considerable help.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the Minister agree that it is much better to prevent this oil pollution happening? Would he consult with his right hon. Friend to try to increase the protection patrols, and stop these tankers sluicing out their tanks, thus causing pollution?
    Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is basically absolutely right, but there are
    1250
    a number of difficulties in this. I will certainly bring what he says to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Country Parks
    Mr. Ensorasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals for country parks or similar projects the Countryside Commission has recommended to him for grant aid.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Commission has so far decided to recommend grant in respect of seven country parks and six picnic sites. In some of these cases further details are awaited before the formal recommendation can be put to my right hon. Friend.

    Wailes Dove Limited, Pelaw-on-Tyne
    Mr. Conlanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in the discussions being held between the Durham County Council and Wailes Dove Limited, Pelaw-on-Tyne, to enable the firm to transfer its operations, which are causing a nuisance, to a more suitable site.
    Mr. Skeffington: I understand that the discussions are still proceeding. The local planning authority is, of course, aware of the urgency of the matter, but I cannot say how long it will be before a decision is reached.
    Mr. Conlan: Is my hon. Friend aware that these discussions have been going on for three years? Is he further aware that his Department has been vacillating for many months in response to my correspondence? Does he not recognise that the only way to deal with this problem is to revoke the planning permission given in 1966?
    Mr. Skeffington: I realise that there has been a very long delay, but I do not think it would be profitable at this stage to say whose fault it is. We have tried to get a solution by agreement, and I think this is likely to be achieved.

  HOUSING

    Discretionary Improvement Grants
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the average amount approved by local

    1251
    authorities in 1968 for discretionary grant towards the improvement of old houses.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The average amount of discretionary grant approved during 1968 was £309.
    Mr. Dunn: Was this average of £400 sufficient to meet the need? Can my hon. Friend say whether the work which is being carried out—may I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker? I think we have got our Questions mixed up, with respect.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the right Question.

    Home Loans
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) how many local authorities have suspended their home loans schemes as a result of the latest restrictions on funds available for mortgage advances;
    (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities are able to continue to make housing advances in respect of older property for which mortgage facilities are not normally available from commercial sources.
    Mr. Greenwood: Each lending authority has been given a quota of at least £10,000, and I have asked them to concentrate available resources in assisting the needs of people who cannot get mortgages elsewhere, such as people wishing to buy an older house. I know only one authority which has suspended its loans scheme as a result of the latest restrictions.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that at least 600 local authorities have had to curtail their loans schemes very severely? When will there be some public expression of apology or regret from the Government for the hardship and heartbreak their mortgage policies are creating?
    Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman had been present at our very interesting and fruitful debate last week, he would have heard me express regret that we had found it necessary to cut back the amount available for home loans. Within the ceiling of £30 million for England and Wales, it is inevitable that many local authorities should have had their quotas reduced.
    Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the difficulties of local authorities in special development districts, particularly those trying to attract new industry? Will he give some consideration to their needs and demands?
    Mr. Greenwood: We give these problems very careful consideration, but it would be wrong for me at present to start suggesting that there could be concessions in individual cases. When we made the announcement about the general cut-back in January we said, without commitment, that we would review the matter again in July and see what the position of the housing market was.
    Mr. Graham Page: How can the right hon. Gentleman have the effrontery to mention the paltry sum of £10,000 per local authority? Will he assure the House that it is Government policy to assist local authorities in making these advances when the financial restrictions are removed, and that he sees a useful service by local authorities in making such advances?
    Mr. Greenwood: It is Government policy to encourage local authorities to make money available for these purposes within the general overall financial situation that the country faces.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend press the Treasury before July to reconsider this cut, because it is bound further to reduce the number of new houses started?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the encouraging sounds my hon. Friend has made and give them due consideration.
    Mr. Grant-Ferris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's policy is absolutely ruining the development of the new town of Winsford in my constituency, and that unless something is done to make more money available all the hard work put in by the present Government and others to make the town a success will come to naught.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that about Winsford, which has made remarkable and very rapid progress during the past four years under a Labour Government.

    Surveyors' Aid Scheme
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what report he has received on the working of the Surveyors' Aid Scheme in connection with rent assessment committees during the past year.
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has received a report which confirms that a scheme of this kind is both desirable and useful. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation to all those who are helping to run the organisation, and have volunteered their services to it.
    Mr. Fraser: While I agree with my hon. Friend's tribute to the professional bodies, is he satisfied that the surveyors' aid alone, without legal aid and without matching the resources of landlords, is sufficient to represent tenants at these inquiries?
    Mr. MacColl: I think that surveyors' aid is a very important part of the job. This is a very valuable pilot scheme, which will give us information on how much more is necessary.

    Slum Clearance
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many slum houses were cleared during 1968.
    Mr. MacColl: A record total of 72,246 houses in England and Wales were demolished or closed by slum clearance action during 1968. If the figures for Scotland are taken into account, I estimate that over 90,000 houses have been cleared in 1968.
    Mr. Whitaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. How many slums remain to be cleared? How does the annual rate of progress compare with that under the previous Administration?
    Mr. MacColl: Ten thousand more slum houses were cleared last year than in 1963. There is still an enormous amount to be done, and no one would want to be complacent about the figures. But we are now moving quickly in the right direction.
    Mr. Deedes: Can the hon. Gentleman give a figure for the estimated number of unfit houses to be dealt with?
    Mr. MacColl: A figure was quoted in the White Paper. There is a later Question dealing with detailed figures.
    Later—
    Mr. Deedes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In answer to Question 10, asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) and a supplementary question which I put, the Minister said that there would be a Question later on to provide the answer which was about unfit houses. I think I ought to draw to your attention and to the Minister's attention the fact that there is no Question on the Order Paper, Oral or Written, concerned with unfit houses.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister. I agree that it is most extraordinary.
    Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. Could not the Minister be given an opportunity to explain how he came to make this statement?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacColl.
    Mr. MacColl: The Question to which I referred was the one about regional surveys by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn).

    Housing Revenue Account
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to provide that all housing authorities should make a minimum percentage rate contribution to their housing revenue account.
    Mr. MacColl: My present view is that circumstances vary too much between housing authorities for a compulsory minimum contribution to be desirable but housing authorities should give serious consideration to the desirability of a contribution from the rates where this would avoid steep or harsh increases in rents.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prices and Incomes Board found that good new municipal housing was an important amenity value to the community as a whole? This being so, surely it is important that the community as a whole should make some contribution to the recurrent cost of it?
    Mr. MacColl: The board was not in favour of a general universal contribution, although it did recognise the importance of a community contribution in some cases.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the sample surveys of the condition of housing stock in the English conurbations will be completed.
    Mr. MacColl: These sample surveys have been carried out for the West Midlands, South-East Lancashire, Mersey-side and Tyneside conurbations. Arrangements are being made for the West Yorkshire survey to take place in April.
    The West Midlands and South-East Lancashire figures were published in Housing Statistics for July, 1968. I am hoping that the Merseyside and Tyneside figures will be available very shortly.
    Mr. Dunn: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the confusion I caused earlier. I should have looked at my Order Paper more carefully.
    What results have been shown so far and if, indeed, this information is made available immediately to the local authorities concerned, what particular effect will be shown in Liverpool, particularly in relation to the slums?
    Mr. MacColl: We give the information to local authorities as soon as it is available. The Merseyside figures show about the average proportion of unfit property, rather less than had previously been estimated. One particular problem is the widespread disrepair and lack of amenity in dwellings which are not yet unfit.

    Home Loans (Additional Quotas)
    Mr. Fordasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the source from which the recent additional quotas for home loans by local authorities became available; how much became available from this source; and what steps have been taken to make it available to home buyers.
    Mr. MacColl: £11 million became available from under-lending by the Greater London Council; additional quotas were offered from this amount to
    1256
    some lending authorities, and many others received additions after making application on seeing the Press reports of the surplus.
    Mr. Ford: When did this amount become available? Was the whole of the quota taken up? Were local authorities given all they asked for in the allocation?
    Mr. MacColl: We first knew about this on 8th January. The whole of it was offered, and nearly £9 million was firmly taken up. No local authority which asked for a quota was refused it.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that £90 million a year is repaid on council mortgages and loans? Why not make that sum available for more loans and thus treble the present quota?
    Mr. MacColl: That is another question.

    Housing Contracts (Bradford)
    Mr. Fordasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has received from the Bradford City Council for the placing of contracts for new housing during the current year; and what decision he has reached on these proposals.
    Mr. Greenwood: In 1966 Bradford let contracts for more than 1,200 new dwellings; but since then the Council has submitted proposals for only two schemes totalling 20 dwellings, both of which I have approved. As a large proportion of the housing in the city is unfit or obsolescent, I hope that the City Council will come forward with further proposals; and I shall be entering into discussions with it on this.
    Mr. Ford: I thank my right hon. Friend, but does he not agree that this disgraceful position is repeated in many towns throughout the country which are under Conservative local authorities in what amounts almost to a conspiracy directed from the Conservative Central Office? Will he take as stringent steps as possible to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Greenwood: As I have said, I am shortly to enter into discussions with Bradford City Council about this, and I hope that my hon. Friend will, therefore, forgive me for not scuppering them at the beginning by agreeing with absolutely everything he has said. There

    1257
    is a good deal of truth in what he has said about Conservative local authorities, but the public will be quick to notice if those local authorities begin to cut down housing programmes which were started under Labour control.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bradford City authority is giving great encouragement to the provision of houses through housing associations and societies?
    Mr. Greenwood: Bradford is doing well with slum clearance, and I hope this will be followed by an active house building programme. The corporation is making a contribution through encouraging housing associations, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that housing associations cannot make up the need for rented accommodation in a city the size of Bradford.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend point out to Bradford City Council that a rapid rate of slum clearance accompanied by building no new houses can only mean contraction of the city?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have no doubt that the officials of Bradford Corporation will study HANSARD very carefully and take account of what my hon. Friend has said.

    Bank Rate (Mortgage Interest Rates)
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what will be the effect of the increase in the Bank Rate to 8 per cent. on mortgage interest rates.
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what effect he estimates the recent rise in Bank Rate will have upon rates of interest payable under building society and other institutional mortgages and local authority mortgages, respectively.
    Mr. MacColl: I have nothing to add to the full account given by my right hon. Friends in the debate on 19th March. With local authority mortgages, practice varies widely, but the general principle is that authorities must not make a loss on their lending.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increased cost of local authority
    1258
    and building society mortgages has had a disastrous effect upon the hopes of many young couples who wish to buy their own homes? Will he consider advising the Government to look at the position of Corporation Tax, Selective Employment Tax and other taxes which adversely affect the building societies, which have a special job of providing money?
    Mr. MacColl: The fact is that the number of mortgages being given has kept up extremely well last year and in some cases has been at a record level.
    Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor not to increase the composite tax on local authorities? Is he aware that if the composite tax of 6s. 5d. is increased by even 3d. after the Budget, that will nullify the increase in interest which the building societies have now had to make?
    Mr. MacColl: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will study what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Murray: As a mortgage-payer, I should like to declare my interest in the interest. Would my hon. Friend take note of the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the decision of the building societies had been rather hasty? Could he persuade his right hon. Friend to refer this to the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Mr. MacColl: That matter has been very fully debated.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman fully appreciate that a young couple have to be earning £2,000 a year to be able to raise a mortgage over 25 years at these new interest rates?
    Mr. MacColl: As I have said, the figures show that there is still a very good demand for mortgages for home ownership.

    House Building Programme (Funds)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what will be the effect on house building programme funds of the money to be made available for implementation of proposals contained in the Housing Bill.
    Mr. MacColl: The Government intend that within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, a greater share should go to house improvement. The balance between new building and improvement from year to year will take account of assessments of needs and of the progress made in developing action under the legislative proposals now before the House.
    Mr. Lane: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the latest estimate of the number by which housing starts this year will fall short of the level of last year?
    Mr. MacColl: I do not expect that the programme this year will be below last year's.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister note that those Labour M.P.s who for long have advocated the improvement of old houses are completely opposed to a reduction in the building of new houses, because we need both?
    Mr. MacColl: I quite agree that we need both. The exact amount we can budget for depends on the general state of the economy, of which this is an integral part.

    Play Space
    Mr. Scottasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied with the present provision of play space in new housing developments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwood: A recent survey by the Department showed that three quarters of the authorities in the sample are making some provision on new estates. We have the need for play provision in mind when considering new housing schemes at layout stage. I shall consider the form further guidance might take when the study at present being undertaken by the Department is completed.
    Mr. Scott: Since the bulk of comprehensive development in the public sector will take place in educational priority areas, which are supposed to have priority for nursery education, should we not ensure that in all large-scale new development such provision is included, because it is incredibly expensive to provide after the initial building has been done?
    Mr. Greenwood: I will certainly take this into account. I know that my right hon. Friends who are equally involved in the priority programme will also do so. This is a matter of the most tremendous importance. It is something on which we have done a great deal of research in the Ministry, and the cost yardsticks do allow for the Parker Morris recommendations in this respect. I will gladly send the hon. Gentleman some of the material produced by the Ministry on this subject.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend also examine with some urgency the question of providing play space in underprivileged areas, thereby relating it to the new plans for rebuilding educational establishments, which his colleague has mentioned?
    Mr. Greenwood: I will. That is probably what the hon. Member for Pad-dington, South (Mr. Scott) had in mind. I have circulated to local authorities a Memorandum from the National Playing Fields Association, setting out the general standard we would like them to observe in these matters and we shall be giving them further guidance, I hope, in about 12 months.

    Bank Rate (Housing Subsidies)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the estimated increase in cost in housing subsidies per month resulting from the increase in Bank Rate in February, 1969.
    Mr. MacColl: Changes in Bank Rate affect the amount of housing subsidies for dwellings completed in the following financial years to the extent that the changes affect the interest rates on loans raised by recipient authorities. No estimate can at present be made of the increase in cost of housing subsidies in future years attributable to the increase in Bank Rate in February, 1969.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Ministry be getting the full necessary increase from the Treasury, or will there be a shortfall and a consequent reduction in the authorisations of, or possible delays in, council house building resulting from the increase?
    Mr. MacColl: The figures are negotiated and fixed at the beginning of each year, so it is not possible now to tell

    1261
    what they are. One great advantage is that the subsidies are adaptable to increased rates of interest. They are not stuck at £24, like the last one was.

    Completions
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his forecast for housebuilding completions in 1969 and yearly up to 1973.
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not at present see reasons for expecting any dramatic change in 1969 compared with 1968. For the following years to 1973 I expect housing investment in the public sector to continue at much the present level, but it is not possible to say yet how much will be devoted to rehabilitation as against new building. Performance in the private sector will depend on a number of factors, including the level of demand, the general state of the economy and the availability of mortgage finance.
    Mr. Allason: If the whole matter is so shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, how was it that the Minister of State was able to give his very confident forecast that the housing problem would be solved by 1973 when there would be a crude surplus of I million houses over households?
    Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman: there is no Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Land did not make the prophecy to which the hon. Gentleman referred. On the basis that housing investment would continue at about the present level, he said that by 1973 there would be a crude surplus of houses but that there would be a serious lack of good housing in a number of areas and in areas in which there was a concentration of very bad housing.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Could my right hon. Friend say how the growth of housing in the public sector would be affected by the policies on housing subsidies advocated by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) at Scarborough last week?
    Mr. Greenwood: A number of points of view put forward by hon. Members opposite, and not least by the right hon.
    1262
    Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), would, in my judgment, be absolutely disastrous for the nation's house building programme.
    Mr. Graham Page: May we be clear about what is meant by I million surplus in the 1970s? Are the Government working on the basis that they must run down house building in order to dispose of that surplus, or will they take action to put the surplus in the right place?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am not sure how many times I must explain this before the hon. Gentleman understands. What we have said on a number of occasions is that there will be a crude surplus of about I million houses at that time, but we accept that many of the I million houses will be in an extremely bad condition and that many of the fit houses will be in the wrong place. There will still be need for a much larger house building programme than hon. Members opposite seem prepared to contemplate in putting forward the policy which they propose to pursue if by any mischance they are elected.

    GERMANY (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a full record of his discussions with Chancellor Kiesinger in Bonn in February.
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper on his discussions with the German Chancellor about President de Gaulle's proposals made in February, 1969.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 18th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 208.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: When the Prime Minister looks back over the results of his last two adventures in personal diplomacy—his midnight meeting with the German Ambassador in November and his meeting with Chancellor Kiesinger in February—is he satisfied that they made a positive contribution to Anglo-German relations, and, if so, what?
    The Prime Minister: The German Chancellor was not in the slightest degree worried about the discussions with the German Ambassador, and nor was he, so the hon. Gentleman might start to get over it. On the second part of his supplementary question, I have explained to the House several times that, in view of the commitments which we have entered into with all our fellow members of W.E.U., it would have been quite impossible not to discuss all matters of common interest, including the issue which I think is worrying the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Marten: Could the Prime Minister clarify one point which I think he says he has clarified before but I do not think he has? Could he tell the House why the de Gaulle proposals were discussed with Chancellor Kiesinger before the Prime Minister had confirmation that this fact had been cleared with General de Gaulle? It is this point which worries people.
    The Prime Minister: That was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement in the House and in the debate, under Standing Order No. 9, I think, which took place the following day and on which the House reached a conclusion.
    Mr. Rippon: While welcoming the French Government's assurance that they will continue to adhere to the North Atlantic Treaty, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed with Chancellor Kiesinger the conditions under which France could resume active membership of the Treaty Organisation—a resumption which is essential to give credibility to the conventional defence of Western Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I very much share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the problem which has arisen owing to France's attitude to N.A.T.O., but he can take it that all matters relevant to N.A.T.O. as well as to European unity were discussed with Chancellor Kiesinger.

    PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES REPORTS)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make arrangements to extend the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner to include the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the Prime Minister look at this again, because now that the Board has taken to using its privileged reports to utter unverified, unjustified and possibly libellous criticism of individuals, surely it is essential that the Ombudsman should be brought in to remind the Board of its responsibilities?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have seen the correspondence in which he and others have been engaged. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a fair point in that correspondence. He will recall that, as a result of Questions put by him, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, expressed his views and the Board's views about this issue. I think that we all feel that it would be wrong for reports even to appear to make charges against individuals when those individuals had not been confronted with the evidence used. But this is no reason for bringing in the Ombudsman.
    Mr. Brooks: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to consider a general review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers and, in particular, in the event of a reorganisation of local government in terms of much larger units, it will become extremely important to have a system of regional Ombudsmen?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have already told the House that we are looking at the possible extension of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. At the beginning, it was right to confine his powers pretty strictly until he got into operation and we could see the work load on him and the way it was working. I know that there is a feeling that there

    1265
    might be some Ombudsman responsibility, either for him or for others, in respect of local government. Other suggestions have also been put forward for widening the duties of the Ombudsman service. Certainly this is being looked at.
    Mr. Heath: Does not the general point arise out of my hon. Friend's individual point that if a citizen feels aggrieved by the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, even unintentionally, he ought to have some right of redress? Is there any reason why the N.B.P.I. should be kept out of the Schedule to the Public Commissioner Act? If the Prime Minister is looking at the whole question, will he modify his original answer of "No, Sir" and consider whether the N.B.P.I. might not come under the Schedule?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that is appropriate to the Schedule or to the Ombudsman, because the Schedule deals with questions affecting executive action, the use of discretion by officials and related questions. I would have thought that the general point as well as the particular one has been covered by the answer of my hon. Friend and by my answer today. The hon. Gentleman can feel that, in so far as his constituent feels any sense of grievance about this somewhat arguable matter, it has been adequately aired, and that his constituent has, very much in public, received some pretty clear assurances as a result of the hon. Gentleman's two Questions.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Prime Minister tell us the total number of staff employed by the Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with his present terms of reference and, before considering any extension of his powers, will the Prime Minister consider the cost-effectiveness of making proper assistance available to hon. Members of this House to do the kind of jobs which might be passed on to the Parliamentary Commissioner?
    The Prime Minister: This is a much wider question. Certainly this, together with questions of staff, the cost of staff and all associated matters, will be considered in any possible review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's sphere of duties.

    PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS (COMPOSITION)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what are the qualifications required for the appointment of hon. Members to attend the meetings of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and the North Atlantic Assembly.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Prime Minister if he will review the appointment of Members of Parliament to the Western European Union.
    The Prime Minister: On qualifications, I would refer my right hon. Friend to my reply to a similar Question by him on 25th January, 1968. On the question of review, the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union is reviewed annually, and appointments for the 1969–70 meetings will be made shortly.—[Vol. 757, c. 586–7.]
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a suspicion among a large number of hon. Members on these benches that some hon. Members receive special favour, and also that there is ideological discrimination? Will he exercise a somewhat wider choice and not leave this matter exclusively to the discretion of the Patronage Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: The nominations are made by the three party leaders, who receive such advice as seems appropriate in the circumstances of each case and of each party. I am surprised to hear suspicion mentioned by my right hon. Friend, although I have heard it raised before at Question Time. If by "ideological" he means those who are in favour of entering the Common Market and those who are not, I think the present pattern on our side of the House just about reflects the vote of the House in May, 1967. I cannot speak for hon. Members of other parties. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to go and stir things up in Strasbourg, I am sure I would be very willing to consider any suggestion that he might be in the delegation.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the importance which the Prime Minister now places on W.E.U., does not he think it

    1267
    strange to have as the chairman of the Defence Committee an avowed pacifist?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware what the hon. Gentleman is talking about here. The question of the chairmen of Committees of the W.E.U. is a matter for the W.E.U. to decide. As he will know, the representatives at the Western European Union are coterminous with the representatives at Strasbourg.
    Mr. Edelman: Is not it true that not only is the chairman of the Defence Committee not a pacifist but that he fought very courageously against Franco and the Fascists?
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will not the Prime Minister agree that, since those who oppose the Common Market tend to make more noise in the House of Commons than those who support the Common Market, it is appropriate that those who are in favour of joining Europe should at least get the opportunity of expressing their sentiments in the international forums of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Having regard to some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, I am not sure that noise and quality of intervention are necessarily the same thing.
    Mr. Woodburn: Does not the Prime Minister think it strange that people who are bitterly opposed to the unity of Europe should want to serve on all-European Committees?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no hon. Member in this House who is opposed to the unity of Europe. I do not believe that this can be tested by the way they vote on particular issues, for example, about the Economic Communities. There are hon. Members in all parts of the House who are very keen on the unity of Europe who may have a different view on the Common Market from some of us. I do not think that it is possible or desirable to apply that kind of test.

    WOMEN (LEGAL STATUS)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister what representations he
    1268
    has received concerning changes in the legal status of women; and what replies he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: I have received a number of letters over the past year on a variety of matters relating to the legal status of women, and appropriate replies have been sent.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will put the replies in HANSARD? Will he also suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be possible to have an alteration in taxation to give women equal rights with men? Perhaps this could be done in the coming Budget?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Lady on choosing Lady Day for her Question. It is also highly topical in that two important reports have been published in the last 24 hours as a result of various study groups on the legal status of women, and so on.
    On the question of taxation, I obviously could not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. On the legal questions which were, for example, referred to in the Conservative document, some important issues were raised. Most of these have already been referred to the Law Commission, but certainly they will be studied.
    Mrs. Ewing: Until the time when Parliament has the courage to legislate against discrimination on grounds of colour and religion, does not the Prime Minister agree that this Parliamentary Session is the best of all possible times to legislate against discrimination on grounds of sex?
    The Prime Minister: Various Bills have been produced for this purpose. I have said that we are studying the issues involved, and I think the House will want me and all concerned to study the two important documents which were published yesterday.
    Mr. Heath: In this connection, what action have the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Payne Committee?
    The Prime Minister: I require notice of that question.

    ANGUILLA OPERATION (SECURITY)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether he will investigate the breaches of security which surrounded the sending of troops and police to Anguilla.
    The Prime Minister: Inquiries are being made in accordance with the usual procedures. If these were to indicate a possible breach of the Official Secrets Acts, to which reference is made in another Question on the Order Paper, it would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider the matter further.
    Mr. Lipton: Does it not look as if there were a complete hand-out or tip-off to the Press of all the operational details of this exercise which might seriously have imperilled the troops and police involved?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that inquiries are being made into this and if, as a result, any action needs to be taken it will be taken.
    Mr. Hirst: Whilst I in no way condone breaches of the Official Secrets Act or violence that may arise from them, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that he does not propose to drop any paratroops on Walthamstow?
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister say whether or not this was one of the usual Government leaks?
    The Prime Minister: There have been problems in successive Governments of unauthorised information getting out. I remember raising a number of questions myself when I was on the other side of the House. Under successive Governments there are appropriate means of inquiring into these matters. If any action needs to be taken as a result of these inquiries, that action will be taken. If it were under the Official Secrets Act the House would not want me to comment.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister sent up an impartial inquiry to look into and decide upon the evidence upon which it was decided to invade Anguilla, and the extent to which that evidence was cross-checked before the decision to invade was taken?
    The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of this Question. The hon. Member will recall that Anguilla was debated by the House at considerable length yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with all relevant aspects. I have nothing to add to what he said yesterday.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet on Thursday 3rd April at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Peart.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday, 3rd April, do adjourn till Monday 14th April.—[Mr Peart.]
3.32 p.m.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I rise to oppose this Motion, because I believe that there is at least one item which should be discussed in this House before we consider the dates of the Easter Recess.
On 17th March, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement about the increase in mortgage rates. Hon. Members on both sides wanted to probe the reasons behind the Government's decision to allow the building societies to increase mortgage rates to 8½ per cent. I was one of them. Unfortunately, I was not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on that occasion.
We debated the matter on Wednesday, 19th March. It was a truncated debate, as you remarked, Mr. Speaker. I felt extremely dissatisfied with it. The debate lasted, in all, 2 hours and 16 minutes, despite the fact that it was concerned with the effect of increases in mortgage rates on something like 3½ million people. Many aspects of the situation were not explored on the Floor of the House, and I protested at the quite inordinate length of time which was taken up by speeches from both Front Benches. Of the 2 hours and 16 minutes, over 1 hour and 42 minutes was taken up by four speeches from the Front Benches. There were three contributions from the back benches which, in all, occupied 34 minutes only.
I am asking that the Government should give more time for a discussion of the change in mortgage interest rates, and I do it against the background of what the Chief Secretary said on 17th and 19th March, with a view to exploring some of his remarks on those dates. Frankly, I am not satisfied with them—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot discuss the merits of what he is seeking to debate. He is arguing that we should come back during Easter week to continue what he said was a truncated debate. He can argue that.
Mr. Dobson: I realise that, Mr. Speaker. But I thought that I was in a position to advance some arguments to substantiate my point of view, without going back in detail over the debate of 19th March.
The points which I want to put before the House are, first, that there has been no adequate discussion in this House. I think that I have established that. However, if I am unable to raise the matter in any other way, this must be the best chance that I have of drawing the attention of the House to the situation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Gentleman. I am sympathetic to his point. What he has to argue now is that we should not take the extended holiday which is proposed, his reason being that he wants to debate the increase in mortgage interest rates. But he cannot debate that now.
Mr. Dobson: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. However, I am in some difficulty, because I feel that this is a matter which has to be raised—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member who takes part in this debate is in difficulty. There is a debate which follows it in which it is much easier to keep in order.
Mr. Dobson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is, or should be, an opportunity for me to say briefly why this House should not go into Recess between the dates set down on the Order Paper. I do not want to weary the House too long, but I feel that there is a matter of some public concern here which should be explored.
I am not making a case for or against the increase in mortgage charges. As you have rightly said, Mr. Speaker, that would be quite out of order. However, if this moment were allowed to pass, and we could have a debate on the basis which we are discussing, there would be no chance for me to raise it in this way. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you appreciate the problem to which I am trying to address myself.
I want the Government to say that, during the Easter Recess period that they propose, we will have an opportunity to give further consideration to the swingeing increase in mortgage interest

1273
rates. I want them to say, too, that during that period they will be prepared to adopt one of two courses of action. The first possibility is that they might refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, if they considered that to be the right course. Although the matter was considered by the Board in 1968, we have never debated its Report on the Floor of the House. The considerations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes resulted in its Report No. 22. Surely that is another reason why it should be considered now.
If the Government feel at this stage that they are unable to refer the matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, another possibility is that they might report to the House on the likelihood of their setting up an inquiry to examine all the facets of this increase in mortgage charges.
Many suggestions have been put forward to meet the problem, several involving taxation changes and others involving different approaches. I hope that we shall have a clear assurance that the Government are conscious of the extreme anger, frustration and astonishment in the country at the fact that we in this House have not had adequate time in which to discuss this very important matter before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Peter Kirk: I have great sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), and I think that we want some clearer indication from the Government on this matter.
However, my point is a different and far more simple one. I do not think that we should pass this Motion until we have a clear indication of the Government's intentions about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is clear that, once we return after Easter, we shall be faced with the Budget debate and the Finance Bill, which we know takes up an enormous amount of time—[interruption.] I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) did not do that from malice aforethought.
We are faced with this Bill to which the Government appear to attach a great deal of importance and to which some hon. Members attach less importance. If it is intended to proceed with it—and
1274
we have heard threats about recesses being curtailed—before agreeing to go away for a whole week, we ought to know whether it is the Government's intention to keep us sitting through August and September to make up for the week which we are to take off now and get through this ridiculous Bill. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some idea about his intentions before we pass the Motion.
Perhaps he will also let us know whether it is his intention to get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to introduce a Bill about trade union reform for which many of us have been waiting with some eagerness.
It is clear that the Business of the Session has got into a terrible muddle. We are over halfway through the Session and there is no prospect of an end in sight. Therefore, we cannot allow the Motion without a clear statement about the Government's intentions.
Mr. Michael English: I simply want to protest against the practice of putting this Motion down on the same day as the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill and in front of it. The purpose or the use to which the Adjourn ment debate can be put is to enable back benchers to raise almost any subject they choose, other than legislation. There is a similar purpose, under a slightly different procedure, in the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, which we are to debate later—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the purpose is quite different. We are debating at the moment whether we should have a certain number of days holiday. This is all that we can do. Hon. Members have an opportunity of mentioning subjects as reasons for not having a holiday or for having a longer one. This is what we are debating.
Mr. English: This is precisely my point. I oppose the Motion because I think that there should be one extra day for the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. The Government have pinched one day from back benchers. I oppose the Motion for that reason.
I do not suggest that the Leader of the House initiated this practice, because it

1275
has been done, on occasion, before. Never-thless, it is a bad practice that the Government should pinch one or two back benchers' days by, in effect, putting them together, thus making them one.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). This is time out of the back benchers' day. If the Government, to suit themselves, bring forward a Motion upon the precise length of the Easter Recess, which was formerly to Tuesday but for some reason which has not been explained is now to Monday, it ought to be out of Government time. This is one of the two days in the year which are for back benchers. Therefore, the Government are having it both ways, and it is very unfair on backbenchers.
The Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, by tradition, is back benchers' time. The Government have, as it were, put back benchers to their option: whether they are prepared to spend two or three hours, as is customary, on the Motion discussing whether we should adjourn for ten, eleven or 12 days, or whatever it may be, at the expense of very important subjects, such as that to be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on the Land Commission, and many others.
This is a cheat. Therefore, I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I hope that the Government, and particularly the Leader of the House, will take note that we have spotted this cheat and that we will not have it any more.
Mr. John Fraser: I oppose the Motion on two grounds concerning Greece. I will be as brief as I can.
First, I do not think that the House should adjourn until there has been a statement by a Minister on reports which have appeared in Swedish, German and Greek Government newspapers and a Swedish television programme, that the British Government have decided to supply arms to Greece.
I will not go into the merits of the matter, because that would be wrong; but these reports have appeared and we have tried to get a statement from the Government on the matter. I oppose
1276
the Recess Motion until it allows time for this matter to be debated.
Secondly, I oppose the Motion because it is about time that we had a statement from the Government about their attitude on the meeting of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 5th May to consider the Resolution passed by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe about Greece.
3.45 p.m.
Again, I have no intention of going into the merits of the matter, but perhaps I might spend a minute or so setting out the timetable. The Council of Europe will meet on 5th May in London. This House will be in recess until 14th April. On 15th April and on several days following, we shall have the Budget Debate, so there will be practically no time, unless it is made before the Recess, for a statement on whether the Government will follow the recommendations of the Consultative Assembly that Greece should be suspended from the Council of Europe. Therefore, it is urgent that the Government should make a statement on this before the House rises for the Easter Recess.
There have been indications from the Government that they may want to put off a decision on 5th May on the grounds that they would first like to hear the report of the Commission on Human Rights. If the Government take that view of the matter, they are mistaken in using that as an excuse for delaying matters and waiting for the report of the Commission now investigating matters in Greece. This is because the reference to the Commission was something which preceded the Resolution of the Consultative Assembly; something done by the Scandinavian countries, when it was thought that expulsion was unlikely.
Now those events have been overtaken by the Resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of 92 votes to eleven in the Consultative Assembly. Nobody is now in the slightest doubt that there has been a breach of human rights and Greece ought not to belong to that organisation and ought to be suspended. I hope that the Government will make a clear and unequivocal statement that they support that recommendation and will, in consultation with their colleagues in the Council of Europe, press for the Resolution to be followed up.

1277
I know that the Government are in some difficulty about taking the initiative, but there are many countries in the Council of Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries, which are prepared to take the initiative. All I want, before the Recess, is a statement that if they do that, the Government will support them.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: I oppose the Motion on three grounds. I will put them briefly, for reasons which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made clear.
First, we are about to have a debate on the Land Commission, but the Minister, only a short time ago, told the House that the working of the Land Commission was under review. I can only conclude that whatever debates and arguments are adduced during the course of the afternoon the Land Commission will continue to be under review.
I should think that probably every hon. Member has by this time been inundated with cases of suffering due to this preposterous legislation. It is, therefore, wrong that the House should go into recess for 14 days, allowing this review to go on without any kind of pressure on the Government to bring it to a conclusion. Therefore, first and foremost, I think that we should stay here so that we can continue to press the Government to come and explain what they are doing about this monstrous Act.
Secondly, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) that we should urge the Government to bring forward proposals on the reform of industrial relations. I do not think that the House should go away leaving that matter unresolved. We hear plenty about it from week to week, but nothing happens. Now, only a few days after the end of the disastrous Ford strike, the men are out again. We have statements from Ministers saying that the Government cannot allow anarchy in the motor industry, but it is already happening despite an agreement with the Unions against victimisation which was reached only days ago—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot debate now what he will be able to debate if he carries his opposition to the Motion and we come back in Easter week.
Mr. HastingsI have said enough to indicate my reasons why there is no justification for this House going away for a holiday until the Government get to grips with this question. The economy will not recover until they do.
Thirdly, and again in pursuance of a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, although perhaps our interests differ: in intensity what about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
What is going to happen? I take a serious interest in this Bill which I believe to be dangerous to the Constitution and to the future of this country. We hear rumours that there is to be no Whitsun Recess, that we are to sit here throughout the Summer, that the Christmas Recess is in danger, and so on. All this so that this wretched Bill can be passed through the House, yet now we are to go away for a fortnight without being given any explanation whatsoever.
Now let the Leader of the House give us a full explanation on these three points.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has miscalculated. He referred to our having 14 days for the Easter Recess. The fact is that we shall be away for six Parliamentary days, of which two are Fridays. The Parliament Bill will depend upon the filibusterers, and perhaps I might give my right hon. Friend a word of advice. He should accept the strictures of the hon. Members who want extra time to debate those Measures, call their bluff, withdraw the Motion, and let us go right through without a stop, and let us all have a miserable Easter.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I should love to answer all the points which have been made, but I would be out of order if I were to become involved in debating them. My concern is centred on the Motion for the Easter Recess, during which some of us will have to work. It is good that we should have this Recess. There has been no argument to the contrary. Indeed, one of the main arguments put forward by one of my hon. Friends was that the Government should

1279
examine all these matters carefully and objectively and then come to a conclusion.
I shall not waste the time of the House by arguing about the Motion. I believe that hon. Members require an Easter Recess. It will be good for them. I shall enjoy my Recess, and I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken today will enjoy theirs. I have noted what has been said about the Parliament Bill, about Greece, and about the 8½ per cent. mortgage interest rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) could have put this subject down for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Had he done so he would have had an opportunity of arguing the case in full.
Rather than argue about altering the duration of the Recess, I say to my hon. Friends on both sides, "Let us have a pleasant Easter". I shall examine the arguments which have been put forward, but I hope that the House will accept the Motion.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: I think that the Leader of the House is being pretty cavalier about this. I know that this is a fairly formal occasion, but the right hon. Gentleman has had put to him reasons why hon. Members think some important things should be done. The right hon. Gentleman should answer their arguments.
Mr. Peart: I said that it would be wrong for me to get involved in the argument about Greece. This is a traditional debate, when hon. Members can raise subjects of their choice. I am responsible for the length of the Recess. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose the Motion, he should say so. I agree that hon. Members have this traditional right. What I am saying is that I have noted carefully the arguments which have been advanced in relation to the Parliament Bill, to Greece, and to other matters, and that I shall convey the views of hon. Members to the Ministers concerned.
I hope that the House will accept this Motion, and that hon. Members will enjoy their Recess. That is not being cavalier. I hope that when hon. Members have enjoyed their Recess they will carefully examine all the issues which have been raised today.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Last week when I raised with the right hon. Gentleman the possibility of a strike by B.O.A.C. airline pilots he said that he would ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to say something about this to the House this week. This strike may or may not start next Tuesday. If it does, the country will be put to great inconvenience. Millions of £s of foreign currency will be lost. Nothing has been done about that possible state of affairs, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman owes it to everyone here to clarify the situation before we go away for the Easter Recess.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is a serious matter, and we shall watch the position very carefully. If there were a serious political and economic crisis in our affairs, we would, inevitably, have to think about recalling Parliament, but I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Graham Page: As far as I can recollect it has been traditional on a day such as this for the Leader of the House not merely to say, "It is my responsibility whether the House goes into Recess for six or seven days", but to answer the arguments which are put forward from both sides of the House about whether we should stay here to deal with one subject or another. As far as I can recollect, on previous occasions the Leader of the House has said, "I hope that we shall be able to deal with that matter during the first week after we return", or something of that kind, to relieve the anxiety of hon. Members. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that he has rather brushed aside the arguments.
Mr. Peart: I respect the hon. Gentleman very much. I have not brushed aside the arguments which have been advanced. I have not brushed aside what was said about the situation in Greece. I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about this issue, and I shall convey their views to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I listened carefully to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. I am aware of the feeling about this Measure, and I am not dismissing it. I have taken careful note of what has been said. All

1281
I am saying is that we are proposing a short Recess. I hope that during this Recess hon. Member will reflect on many of the points which have been raised, as the Government and as Ministers must do. It is not for me to get involved in arguments relating to the merits of the matters raised. I shall convey the views of hon. Members to the Ministers concerned.
Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one specific question? We have heard rumours that because of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill the Whitsun Recess is to be done away with. Is this in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? If it is, why are we proposing to adjourn for Easter? Why not deal with it now?
Mr. Peart: That is not in my mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot prevent this debate from continuing, albeit in a rather ragged way. Sir Harmar Nicholls.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not brushed aside the arguments and that he intended to bring the merits of the arguments which have been advanced to the attention of the Ministers concerned, but there is one argument which the right hon. Gentleman did brush aside. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) made a valid point when he said that this debate is normally one of the perks of back benchers, when they can raise subjects relating to their constituents. There was a time when back benchers had a whole day in which to do this. It is an established part of the rights of back benchers that they can bring to Parliament the grievances of their constituents. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that this was normally a back benchers' day, and that this Motion was truncating the time given to back benchers. This Motion is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. He need not tell any of his hon. Friends about that. Will he provide us with another day to make up for the time that he is taking by this Motion?
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I have listened in astonishment to the right hon. Gentleman. His attitude seems to be supremely casual and indifferent. The longer this debate continues the more
1282
back benchers will be forced to eat into their own time, and this is the right hon. Gentleman's fault. He should not attempt to cover up the consequences of his folly by telling back benchers that they are penalising themselves.
If the right hon. Gentleman introduces a Motion, he should be prepared to defend it. He has said that some of the arguments for or against the Motion may or may not be good, but that he will pass them on to the Ministers concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is acting as a sort of post box. He has made no attempt to answer the points which have been raised.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Peart rose—
Mr. Onslow: I am not disposed to give way.
Mr. Peart rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member does not give way the right hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Onslow: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me, because he seemed anxious to try to exculpate himself and I want to pin the blame on him. If we have an opportunity to deploy arguments, and if hon Members feel seriously about them—which presumably they do otherwise they would not put them forward—the right hon. Gentleman should not merely say, "There, there, it will be all right. Let us pass this Motion, and thereafter I shall have a word with my colleagues. When I see them next, which may or may not be until after Easter, I shall tell them what has been said". The right hon. Gentleman need not tell his colleagues that. They can read it for themselves in HANSARD. What does he see his function as in this context? Does he think that he has any responsibility to Parliament or is he sitting there like a puppet trying to get out of all the responsibilities of his high office? Why do we not have an answer from Government spokesmen to points which have been seriously made and merit consideration?
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will not continue a rather offensive interposition. This is a traditional debate, during which hon Members put forward their points of view on different subjects. Already—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr. Peart: If I may have leave of the House to answer.
The hon. Member said that I have been a post box, but it is important that Ministers should be reminded of matters raised in the House, not only in this debate but at business question time. Of course Ministers can read this in HANSARD, but it is right for the Leader of the House to say personally to Ministers, "Hon Members feel very strongly about this subject or that." If this is to be a post box, I accept that. I see nothing wrong in conveying the feelings of hon. Members to my colleagues. I do not wish to disagree with the traditional method of debate on this Motion. Hon. Members can raise their own points, but it is not for me to get involved in the merits of the arguments. I will certainly convey the points raised to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Maudling: I speak by leave of the House. No one wants to oppose the Motion, but the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in a difficulty of his own creation. Although this may be a traditional exercise, hon. Members on both sides have put serious points. It is not a question of arguing the merits of the arguments; hon. Members are saying that the House should not rise until these things are dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman must show reasons why the House should still rise. To say that a nice holiday is good for us is far too frivolous. The right hon. Gentleman has created this difficulty by treating a traditional occasion far too frivolously.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I want to put a different point of view. I think that the holiday is too short. We should have a longer holiday. The Government are having a short holiday because they want to legislate more and more. The longer holiday that we have from legislation by this Government, the better it is for the country. I would like to see this Recess and any other treated differently. The right hon. Gentleman should think of this. It is especially applicable when we are cutting into private Members' time.
1284
Why does he not have a Recess for Easter on Government legislation for about three weeks or a month? Give us a week's holiday, those of us who want it, and let the rest of us who want to come here get back on Government Ministers on the kind of subjects which have been raised by his own back benchers, and many others which we should like to raise, so that we can have all the debates that we want. Instead of half an hour or an hour on each subject, as is the practice on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we could then have a debate with the Minister here for half a day or a day. This would give Parliament the chance to get at the Executive.
But it would also stop the Government legislating. What we will be brought back early for is to allow the Government to push through new legislation or finish off old legislation much of which the country does not want. From that point of view, the Recess is far too short.
Mr. John Peyton: I must apologise because I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I had not in tended to speak until I heard the Leader of the House rumbling like an injured volcano with discontent and hurt. It is strange that he is not prepared to explain before we go the Government position on various important matters. I think particularly of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he notes the views of the House. He has had unlimited op portunity to do that, but it does not make the slightest difference. The Government have never been so deaf to argument as in connection with that Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in this debate.
Mr. Peyton: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not intrude that filthy subject upon your attention. Perhaps I may respectfully congratulate you on your good fortune in having been in no way responsible for the conduct of our debates in Committee—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That too is out of order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Motion.
Mr. Peyton: You threw the hook, Mr. Speaker, and I took it.

1285
What I am concerned with is why the Leader of the House cannot explain the Government's intentions before we go. We have been told that we will have three days next week on this matter and the indication is that he will steamroller through the House a Bill to which all the expressions of opinion which he has heard show almost united hostility, modified only by the tramp of well-disciplined feet through the Government Lobby—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill now. He can only ask what the Government intend to do with it. That is all.
Mr. Peyton: I would be in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to discuss the merits of that Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Nor the demerits.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation of the Government's intention over this Bill.
The question of a possible strike in B.O.A.C. has been mentioned. What is the Government's view on this? Will they let the thing slide until another disastrous situation affects our balance of payments?
Another point which is vexing and irritating my constituents and those of many other hon. Members is the wretched betterment levy. It is a source of torture to many people who are in no position—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into the merits of a subject which he is at the moment preventing the House from debating.
Mr. Peyton: I am not trying to discuss the merits of this, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that a statement is urgently awaited. I was present throughout Question Time this afternoon when the Minister for Planning and Land told us, in those far from unique words, that the operation of the Act is now "under active consideration". That sort of assurance, in those time-honoured hack words, carries us very little further.
We hope that, before we rise—I would not want to agree to this Motion without it—we will get some far more satisfactory assurance. The right hon. Gentleman
1286
must be able to tell the House and all concerned about this important matter that the Government will make a statement next week. I hope that he will. It is simply no good bombarding us with phrases like "the matter is under consideration". It is a great nuisance to be told that. Everything is always under consideration and no progress is ever made.
I hope that on these three matters—first, the Parliament No. 2 Bill, that major obscenity to which we have devoted so much time; secondly, the possibility of a B.O.A.C. strike of serious dimensions although I will not discuss B.O.A.C.'s inept handling of the matter; and, thirdly, the betterment levy—we shall receive statements and assurances from the Government.
Reference has been made to the Price Review. I have today received a large number of letters from constituents asking me to protest at the disappointing award which was promulgated last week.
The Government are not giving us a fair chance to voice the widespread indignation that is felt throughout the country about their inept handling of our affairs. Although the Leader of the House is good natured and courteous, he has the misfortune to represent a Government who have shown monumental ineptitude in handling the nation's affairs.
Mr. John Page: I wish to add my misgivings to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the Motion.
On 19th March, confirmed in a Written Answer to a Question by me yesterday, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has shown that there is a completely new criterion against which incomes will in future be judged. We have not received an undertaking from the Leader of the House that an opportunity will be provided for hon. Members to debate this important subject before the Easter Recess
In the statement which the right hon. Lady made after the Ford dispute she said that savings from continuity of production could be an important element in a productivity agreement. She is, therefore, instituting an entirely new criterion into the incomes policy, and it

1287
is against this that she must base her attitude towards the claim of, for example, bank employees, dock workers and B.O.A.C. pilots. This new criterion must be added to the criteria contained in the White Paper. One might call it the "strike more, strike hard and strike now" criterion. It is saying, in effect, "If it is likely that an increase in pay can produce avoidance of strike action, that can be taken into account".
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the subject about which he wants an assurance or a debate to take place before the Easter Recess. He must address his remarks to the Motion.
Mr. Page: I apologise for being blown somewhat off course, Mr. Speaker.
It is important for those engaged in industrial relations to have absolute clarity about what should or should not be allowed as the criteria for wage increases. I hope that we will have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that his right hon. Friend will make a statement about this or, alternatively, that there will be, say, a half-day debate so that those engaged in negotiations may know where they stand. At present they are in a fog of bewilderment, and such a state is, I believe, quickly spreading through the Ministry concerned.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: I, too, join hon. Members in expressing concern at the House recessing at a time when so many important matters remain to be discussed.
I appreciate that I may not be popular with my hon. Friends in saying that we should remain here to discuss these vital matters, but hon. Members must have been horrified to read in, for example, The Times today that the Government are unable to repay our overseas borrowings without finding further borrowings from elsewhere. In other words, we are having to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. One of the major causes of this situation is the industrial anarchy which is spreading though the country.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Earlier in the discussion of the Motion, when the hon. Gentleman was not in his place, I reminded the House that hon. Members
1288
could not discuss the issues which they were suggesting should be discussed if the period of the Easter Recess were reduced. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Motion.
Mr. Mitchell: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
I seek an assurance from the Leader of the House about the Government's proposals for dealing with industrial disputes. We received an assurance in the White Paper that provisions to put the C.I.R. on a statutory basis would be included in an Industrial Relations Bill which the Government intended to present to Parliament as soon as possible. That was said some time ago, yet there are no signs of that legislation. What do the Government mean by "as soon as possible?" May we expect action before the Recess?
Sir Charles Taylor: I wish to help the Leader of the House. If he will guarantee to make statements on the following matters before we rise for the Easter Recess—or that the necessary statements will be made by the relevant Ministers—I am sure that that will satisfy the House.
We want statements about the Parliament No. 2 Bill, the latest situation in Anguilla, the Common Market, the Land Commission, the financial situation, trade union relations, the B.O.A.C. threatened strike, Gibraltar, Nigeria and Rhodesia. If he will arrange for statements to be made on those issues we would all be most happy to approve the Motion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the traditional day for the Consolidated Fund Bill stretches ahead of us, if we can get to it. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I, too, will find myself in some difficulty in supporting the Motion because legislation is urgently needed, certainly on one topic, and it seems that that legislation will be squeezed out if we adjourn for the period proposed.
Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) I consider that much of the Government's legislation is extremely important. One particular piece of legislation which should come forward urgently is that

1289
designed to revise the Merchant Shipping Act, 1836. Legislation on these lines was promised in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session, and although a number of my hon. Friends have questioned the Leader of the House on Thursdays about this matter, we have not been able to obtain a definite answer from him.
It would appear that while a great deal of Parliamentary time is being wasted on the Parliament No. 2 Bill, we could be dealing with the urgent legislation to which I have referred. I hope that this legislation will not be squeezed out because of a lack of Parliamentary time, particularly when the time during which we will be in Recess at Easter could be used for this purpose.
Mr. Peart: With the leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points that have been raised.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) that I have carefully noted his remarks about the need for a Merchant Shipping Bill. He will recall that I replied to him the other day on this matter. I agree that this is an urgent subject. When the Bill is ready it will be presented by my right hon. Friend. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not feel inhibited from supporting the Motion.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) argued very cogently for having a longer period of recess. I am afraid I cannot accept that, but I understand from the argument he put forward that he is afraid of legislation which might be deleterious to sections of the community. He put that very firmly. I take a contrary view and that we should have the short recess proposed in this Motion.
I always listen carefully to what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) says, for he is a distinguished Parliamentarian. [Laughter.] I really mean this. He has played an important part in putting a point of view on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is not for me to get involved at this stage in arguments about the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) spoke strongly about this, and in Committee he has spoken strongly against the Bill.
1290
I say to both hon. Members that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who take the view that the Bill should be dropped, but if they examine the Division records carefully they will find that the majority of the House are in favour of the Bill.
We should carefully examine arguments put forward, but I cannot deploy them at this stage. I shall be making a business statement later about the programme for next week, which hon. Members will have to consider very carefully. I believe the majority of opinion in the House as expressed in the Divisions is in favour of the Bill—[Interruption.]—but I must not get involved. The statistics are there and the Division records show this to be true.
The question about the B.O.A.C. dispute has been raised. I accept that this could be very serious for the economy and that the Minister concerned should be aware of this. We should report continually to the House whenever possible, but in spite of the short recess there will be opportunities for Ministers to keep hon. Members informed.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The strike is due to take place next Tuesday. We are asking that the House should be informed or that there should be a statement before then.
Mr. Peart: I think that is right, and I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the need for this. I am not acting as a post-box. I do impress on my right hon. Friends the opinions of hon. Members. I thought it wrong of an hon. Member who has now left the Chamber to use that rather offensive phrase. I do my best to protect the interests of hon. Members.
I know that hon. Members feel strongly about the betterment levy. This, I understand, will be the first subject to be discussed in the debate on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Other hon. Members have raised matters affecting productivity. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) takes a great interest in this. He also asked me to convey to my right hon. Friend the need for a statement. He knows that I will do this as I did on another important matter that he raised. He knows of my personal integrity and that I shall do so in this case.

1291
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) raised important matters relating to the C.I.R. I cannot get involved in that at this stage. This is a matter for legislation. I note what has been said. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) mentioned many matters which are traditional, but I hope that in view of the extension of the time we may now have this Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 3rd April, do adjourn till Monday 14th April.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT)
4.25 p.m.
Mr. William Hamling: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to obscene publications.
In view of the debate to follow, I propose to confine my remarks to as short a time as possible. The procedure under which I seek permission to introduce this Bill is called the Ten Minute Rule procedure. That is taken to mean in some cases speaking for 10 minutes and in some cases for a few more minutes, but one is expected to present in a very short speech reasons why one is seeking to introduce a Bill. That is what I propose to do in as brief a speech as possible.
The first reason why I seek to introduce this Bill is because of the confusion in which the law now stands in relation to obscene publications. As hon. and right hon. Members know, there is a wide circulation of what I can only describe as literary and scenic rubbish in various bookshops in the West End of London and elsewhere. One thinks of a book, for example called "The Carpet Baggers", which sells by hundreds of thousands. One can only describe it as being written to a formula of violence and sex with the object of selling as many copies as possible, but one knows well that within the present law this is possible. Its sequel, "The Adventurers", is written to the same formula. One thinks of the James Bond books, which have sold in millions, written to a similar formula, although
1292
in different dimensions relating to sadism and sex.
I am not concerned with that particular rubbish but with whether the law is in difficulty over serious works of literature. One can think of books sold in what I describe euphemistically as the Soho dirty bookshops which manage to survive the law perfectly well. The proprietors seem to make quite a reasonable living, and I believe this is a very profitable industry; but this is within the law. These bookshops persist and sell their wares without much difficulty. They sell books as well as pictures which I can only describe as posed and phony pictures which have no relation to any artistic standards and no art or principle in them. These bookshops flourish and import expensive magazines from abroad, apparently without let or hindrance, but serious articles are persecuted and prosecuted. I think they are prosecuted because they dare to stand up for themselves.
I think, for example, of the novel which was prosecuted last year, "Last Exit to Brooklyn", which I regard as a novel of serious social criticism rather in the same mood as a novel which hon. and right hon. Members will remember appeared in the thirties, "Love on the Dole". It might not have been a pretty book to read, and it was not perhaps a book one would read so much for pleasure as for information and comment. That of course was in a different social context, but I regard this sort of book, although not pleasant, as a book which ought to be published, which should be published, which describes what is beastly and violent in society, but what in fact exists in society.
It would be a terrible thing if authors were unable at times to lift the stones of our society to see the ugliness and squalor underneath them. It is the serious artist who is inhibited by the present law. I think of a photographer such as Jean Straker who has been more or less driven out of the business of photography by the present law, a serious artist and photographer. If he were the purveyor of trash such as I have described, his work would sell in thousands and he would make a lot of money, but because he is a serious artist and insists on artistic standards of his craft, he is persecuted by the present law.

1293
Taste, of course, is subjective, as one saw in the recent trial of writers in the Soviet Union. The main purpose of the excellent programme done on that trial by the B.B.C. some months ago was to indicate, and the main defence of the artists was, that it is impossible in law and by law to lay down artistic standards. This is where the present law is in a state of complete confusion, because it is trying to lay down by Statute and by obiter dicta from judges and magistrates artistic matters of taste in literature and art which are not capable of being reduced to any kind of legislative formula?
Literacy and artistic tastes are matters of individual judgment that cannot be laid down in a Statute or determined by law; and it is not fair to police or magistrates to expect them to adjudicate on these works. We cannot run seminars in literature or abnormal psychology for our magistrates and judges, and obviously we do not intend to try. I suggest, therefore, that it would be in the interests of our society if we were able to introduce legislation to amend the law so as to remove from the province of judges and magistrates this unequal task with which we have presented them of trying to judge literature.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Raymond Fletcher, and Mr. Michael Foot.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT)
Bill to amend the law relating to obscene publications, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: Before the debates begin, £ will indicate the scope of debate. Any questions of administration may be raised which are implied in the grants of supply we are making under the Consolidated Fund Bill, but questions of taxation and legislation cannot be raised.

LAND COMMISSION
4.33 p.m.
Mr. W. S. van Straubenzee: I am sure it will be agreed that, having just dealt with the Obscene Publications Bill, it is extremely appropriate to go on to the Land Commission Act, because if anything could be referred to under that same heading it is indeed that Act. But having been fortunate to come at the top of the Ballot, I am going to be careful throughout my speech to restrict myself strictly to the terms of reference to which you, Mr. Speaker have drawn attention. Although I realise that the great interest in connection with the Land Commission is at present centred on the betterment levy, to which I shall refer, I am going to deal first with administrative questions, in accordance with your Ruling, and, in the much wider context, to draw attention to the activities of the Land Commission in relation to the attempted bringing forward of land for development.
This is a matter of maladministration. Inevitably, each hon. Member must draw upon his or her own personal experience in a matter of this kind, and therefore I make no apology for drawing attention to the activities of the Commission in this field in relation to the Royal County, part of which I am privileged to represent in this House and which by the Annual Review of Planning Statistics for 1967–68 is shown as having a population, at mid-1967, of 471,840. In Berkshire that shows a growth of 16·3 per cent. over the previous five years. Berkshire with Hampshire has the second highest average rate of growth in the country.
For example, the main town from which my constituency comes—Wokingham—has increased over the last eight years at an annual rate of 7 per cent., and I have to draw the attention of the House to the problems which this kind of expansion brings with it, into which the work of the Land Commission is now to be injected. It brings tremendous strains in finance. There are no special grants for specially-fast developing areas. Inevitably, the ratepayers of Berkshire understandably require facilities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), whom I see in his place, and I know only too well—ahead of the rate income that is available. This

1295
brings very great strains on local finance. Then education. In Berkshire, for example, there are 310 temporary classrooms in use. This is a far higher number than the local education authority would wish or in any sense consider desirable.
The problem of roads in a fast-growing area like this is massive. This year we have been warned that owing to financial stringencies there is no possibility of more than minimal work being done on any except Class A roads; and the whole problem of land drainage is overlooked until something goes wrong with it. That is a problem which constantly causes difficulties in an area of the kind I am representing. We all appreciate, and certainly within the County of Berkshire it is understood quite clearly, that there must be phased development and expansion in an area of that kind. That is why Berkshire county necessarily evaluates its house building and land availability at six-monthly intervals—by what I believe is regarded in local authority circles as a fairly sophisticated system.
Our latest returns show that working on the basis of a 50 per cent. availability pattern, which is by common consent a very low factor, there is sufficient land available for at least 2½ to 3 years at the highest rate of house-building yet recorded. I am setting that background firmly as the start of what I want to say to the Minister because on top of all the strains to which I have referred only briefly, so as not unduly to take up the time of the House, there comes a request from the Minister—we do not know publicly what kind of figure he is asking for but we know it is a massive request—for further land to be released in the area which includes Berkshire for development by the Commission. I see the Minister is nodding his head.
The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): It is land coming forward for development, not necessarily by the Land Commission.
Mr. van Straubenzee: That is an encouraging statement because it has relevance to what I shall say in a moment; but certainly to my certain knowledge local officials of the Land Commission have made it extremely clear that they have their eyes on land to be
1296
developed by the Commission; and I will give a specific example. I have managed to prise out of the Commission—one has one's methods for doing these things—a proposal that there shall be developed at the behest of the Commission an additional 200 acres of land immediately adjoining the town of Wokingham, the town to which I have drawn attention and which over the last eight years has been growing at an average rate of 7 per cent. per annum.
There has already been a proposal for a smaller acreage. There certainly will be now a proposal for a larger acreage—200 acres—immediately adjoining that town which has been expanding at that rate, with all the pressures and strains which I have already described. All those concerned with local planning would agree that the area selected is in principle the right area for the expansion to take place. My point is that by bringing in the Land Commission another layer is superimposed in the whole planning context, a layer whose officials have no knowledge of education and local educational problems, no knowledge, for example, of the matter I have discussed such as surface drainage, no knowledge personally of the road programme, all matters which are within the control of the County Council concerned.
It is this new superimposition which I protest about in the strongest possible terms. I firmly believe that in an area such as that which I represent expansion, and expansion there certainly must be, controlled by those who have knowledge of all the services which go with this planning is what is required, and we shall rue the day if we entrust any part of it to a body such as the one I have described.
I said that was not the particular aspect of the Commission's work which is most generally commented upon. Nor is it. I want next, however, to deal with a short, small, detailed point which is nevertheless of some importance. The Commission in its various activities will be dealing with very substantial acreages of land. It will be, by administrative decision, making land available for in many cases private development. I personally think that the House should be more certain than it is of precisely how declarations of personal interest in its work are to be handled. We are particularly

1297
sensitive about this point at this precise moment of time, because we in the House are being urged, in my view rightly, Co look at the way in which we handle these matters.
I shall not bore the House, but I had a series of Questions to the Minister on these matters. I have the references here if it should become necessary to recount them. The long and short of it is that there is no way in which the public or hon. Members can have any knowledge at all as to what declarations of interest have been made, in what circumstances, and in regard to what land. I myself believe that in this totally new field there should be a new system. I hope that the Minister will agree to have a look at this and not, as he has indicated in various Answers to me, merely regard it as a domestic matter for the Commission which it is no part of our duty to look into.
As I leave this point I have one matter to comment upon with some personal distaste. It so happens that over the autumn months I have been asking a number of searching questions about the Commission and have been looking closely at certain detailed matters in connection with its members. It so happens, for example, that I discovered, as is perfectly reasonable, that Sir Harold Samuel is a member of the Commission and that, as he is fully entitled to do, he takes no salary for being a member.
I want to tell the House what happened to me as a result—I think it would not be right to say "as a result", but what happened to me at the same moment of time. On three separate occasions at the time that I was tabling these Questions I was approached by three separate persons, all of whom were of an official or semi-official character—though not Government servants, I hasten to add—and all three of whom asked me why it was that I was asking Questions about Sir Harold Samuel and implied to me that it would be happier if I did not. All three then said precisely the same thing, on three different occasions, and in three different places. What they added was, "I think you will probably remember that Sir Harold is a very substantial contributor to Tory Party funds".
I have no idea whether this was done with Sir Harold's approval or consent. I merely record the fact that it happened
1298
on three separate occasions from three separate people. If there is anybody inside the Commission or elsewhere who considers that by a remark of that kind hon. Members can be silenced, I think they had better think twice—and they had better think twice about hon. Members on both sides of the House. I merely record this matter, understanding that the Minister himself has no personal responsibility for it.
Mr. K. Robinson: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the approaches were made to him by persons who were not public servants. I am wondering how that squares with the hon. Gentleman's later remark as to whether anybody, whether inside the Commission or not, considers, and so on. I take it that these approaches were not made by anybody connected with the Land Commission?
Mr. van Straubenzee: I want to make that perfectly clear. That is why I said that they were not in an official capacity. I am very glad to make it extremely clear to the Minister that none of the three persons, two at least of whom would be known to him, are in any way officials of his Ministry or of the Commission, nor are they Government servants. If they were, I should have said something to the appropriate Minister.
As I said earlier, what is really exercising the public mind is the way in which this levy is operating. I want to take three examples of the way it is operating. I take the first one only by way of principle, because I have been extremely fortunate in being notified of my success in the Ballot for the Adjournment at a later date, and I therefore think that it would be a discourtesy to the Chair if I were to deal in detail with the specific case which on that occasion I shall deal with. I therefore do not deal with it, except in principle.
The principle that I want to raise is that of the charging of levy in the case of compulsory purchase. In a compulsory purchase a person is dealing with the district valuer. It is perfectly true that there is appeal to the Lands Tribunal. This in proper cases can be exercised. In such a case it is virtually true—certainly for the small man it is true—that the price received is that which is—if I use the word "dictated" by the

1299
district valuer, I use it without any personal criticism of district valuers, but merely to state the reality of the situation.
Mr. William Baxter: I am a little concerned. I apologise for having allowed the hon. Gentleman to go past the very serious point he raised about the three approaches that were made to him by three different people on three separate occasions in three different places, almost bringing pressure to bear upon him not to perform his public duty by raising matters in the House which he was rightly raising, because they seemed to imply that the Chairman of the Commission, who is an unpaid Chairman, would be displeased: he was reputed to be a contributor to Conservative Party funds.
In my opinion, this is a serious state of affairs and I think that it requires elaboration to a greater extent than the hon. Gentleman has done. If need be, it should be looked at by at least some person or persons in the House. The bringing of pressure to bear upon a Member not to do his duty is a very serious matter. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on paying no heed to it and on raising the matter which he felt that he was in duty bound to raise as a public-spirited citizen.
Mr. van Straubenzee: On a point of fact, let me first correct the hon. Gentleman. It was a mere slip on his part. The person to whom I was referring is not the Chairman of the Land Commission. He is a part-time member and my Questions—and obviously the Chair would not have passed them if they were not proper—elicited certain information about his service, including the fact that he is not accepting any payment. I merely recorded quite briefly what had actually happened to me.
I believe this House, if having been here ten years gives one the right to say this, ought to be just a little careful before it gets on its high horse on privilege matters. If an hon. Member feels that something needs saying, I think it is quite sufficient that he says it within the privilege of this House. It has to be remembered that each hon. Member is responsible for the strict accuracy of what he has said. Naturally I have undertaken that I have spoken accurately. What
1300
I have said will be quite sufficient, if the hon. Gentlemen reflect.
I hope the Minister will pay attention to cases of compulsory purchase. I was arguing this way: in the personal experience of many of us the present practice when land is changing hands voluntarily is for the vendor to stipulate a price higher than he would otherwise have done, in order to cover the levy paid. I noticed, in an interesting article in The Times by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), he said that Sir Henry Wells, the Chairman of the Commission, had stated that the Act was not putting up the price of land. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman quoted that remark in good faith. In the modest experience of a practitioner in this field, this is simply not accurate.
The reason why that statement can be made is this: the collation of information given, by reference to the now expanded details which have to be given to the Inland Revenue on the transfer of land, is behind the collation of the figures upon which Sir Henry Wells is working. I can only draw upon my own personal experience, but I believe that those selling voluntarily are requiring an additional value because of the levy. This is one of the reasons why the land to which this Act refers is increasing in price. The unfortunate person who has to sell as a result of a compulsory purchase order has not that freedom, nor has the Lands Tribunal on appeal. Neither the district valuer nor the Lands Tribunal can reflect the increased cost of the levy. The person who has his land compulsorily taken from him is therefore at a disadvantage.
This is a very practical matter in a constituency such as mine. If I say no more about it it is out of deference to a particular case. I have been very careful not to refer to it this afternoon.
The second point I draw attention to is the quite astonishing social result of this levy. Let me give an example. Part of my constituency is the Woodley area of Reading—a fast-growing and expanding suburb area of Reading. It has a very large young population and it desperately needs another primary school. There is land there owned by a company which has planning consent for houses, exempt from development levy

1301
in respect of the building of houses. The company has a good record locally and is prepared, though perhaps not willingly, to make the land available to the local education authority for that desperately-needed school. It is so desperately needed that it was programmed in the present financial year.
The local education authority was on the point of posting the cheque, quite literally, to take possession of the land so that work may commence. The advisers of this company then wisely intervene and say, "If you, the company, sell this land to the local education authority, you are instantly making yourselves liable for a development levy". This is the position. If land owned by this company is used for housing purposes no levy is payable; if it is used for the highly desirable social purpose of a badly-needed primary school, development levy is payable. The result is foreseeable. The company have withdrawn; lengthy negotiations are now afoot; the Department of Education is to be persuaded to issue a compulsory purchase order. That will be fought through the courts and the culmination is that the company is advised by leading counsel that in these special circumstances they will be entitled to disturbance, which will increase the price of the land by 57 per cent.
As a direct result of the problems which this Act has brought upon us, this highly desirable social development is being thwarted. I have very real anxieties—I do not overstate this—that in my constituency there will be young persons and children without proper education. They will not be able to have the schooling to which they are entitled.
Finally, I give one example of the operation of the levy upon a small person. I represent 100,000 persons in an area which is fast expanding. Speaking in the strictly parliamentary sense, I am what is known as "overweight". I therefore have in my postbag a substantial number of cases of this kind. I take the latest example, that of an old-age pensioner of 70 and his wife, two years younger, with a weekly income of £11 and money in the Post Office Savings Bank. The story is of a modest house, old, but standing in a certain area of ground. The local post office want some of the ground for an expanding telephone exchange. They act with perfect propriety,
1302
but they naturally let it be known that they have compulsory powers if necessary.
The old-age pensioner, who for purely technical reasons at the time of the publication of the White Paper was not the legal owner, had been the occupant of the house for 26 years. He sells part of his site for the telephone exchange. It is inevitable that he is charged a levy upon that sale. It says something for his public spirit that, with a shrug of the shoulders, he says that he understands it is necessary in his particular case. But the story does not end there. The plot is then divided in half by this development. He gives half of it to his daughter so that she can build a small house, and builds a modest bungalow himself on the other half. He now faces a development levy of £600 in respect of his own house.
I would read the last words of a letter which this man wrote to me:
"Note to Secretary—be indulgent with an old man, and let Mr. van Straubenzee see this."
I suppose he assumed it might not have got through to me personally.
I wonder whether I could convey to the House the anxiety and the problems which are set for people in this sort of situation. As a result of what he has had to do he has been left with no liquid cash at all and the levy has taken up virtually all his savings.
The Minister is under pressure from all sides on this. I am glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) behind him, because I gave him notice that I would refer to him. The hon. Gentleman is quoted in a local newspaper, I hope accurately, as commenting on this case as follows:
"I am fully behind the idea of creaming profits from land speculators, but I do not think that people should pay tax if the price of the land does not exceed £15,000."
That is a notable conversion. I hope that now that common sense has begun to prevail with the hon. Gentleman it is possible that he and I can combine to try to get some sort of sense into the Minister's mind on the small transaction.
Mr. John Lee: The quotation is basically correct. I said a figure of about £10,000 to £15,000. What is not reported there is that I have criticised the Land Commission on the grounds

1303
that it does not go the way of land nationalisation, which is what I have always wanted.
Mr. van Straubenzee: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, those comments of his are quoted, but I did not want to humiliate him by quoting them in public. But at least we have now got on. We have got to the figure of £10,000; at least we now have the basic concept.
Mr. John Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman now going to co-operate with me in persuading the Government to adopt land nationalisation?
Mr. van Straubenzee: There are elements of foolishness on both sides of the House, but that goes beyond it. I am making the point that, without breaching the Act, until such time as we can lay our hands on it and slit its throat, which we cannot do in this debate, it would surely be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to do something at least to help the small transactions, which now even his hon. Friends do not believe were included in the Government's intentions.
It so happens that there was a property in my constituency years ago called Briar Patch, and Briar Patch sends a shudder down the spine of every civil servant in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, as a result of a previous socialist experiment. I have a case that I have not quoted, but the details of which I am willing to give privately to the Minister, in which I have serious reasons for doubt about the health of the small person concerned. Therefore, I say advisedly that if we are not careful we shall find that this oppressive legislation has had that kind of drastic and dreadful effect. That is why I am so grateful to the Chair for giving us permission to raise the matter and to hound the Minister until it is amended.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I intervene more in sorrow than in anger. I must say at once that I think that the attitude and conduct of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Land has been very uncharacteristic.
I want to deal first with a matter in which I think he will feel himself to
1304
have been unfair, namely, our discussion last Friday, when he said,
"The hon. Gentleman"
—referring to the hon. Member for Essex. South-East (Mr. Braine)—
' quoted what my right hon. Friend said in an article in The Times a day or two ago.…There were statements in his article which I think my right hon. Friend on reflection will not wholly agree with.…My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the Land Commission has no discretion to waive interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March. 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1010.]
That was when he refused to give way to me. I am sure that he will agree now that what he said was grossly misleading. Anyone who looks at the article will see that I clearly set out that it was my right hon. Friend the Minister's responsibility to deal with the waiver of interest. Indeed, his evasion of responsibility goes very much to the root of the problem we are discussing, and it is a matter to which I shall return.
In many respects the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) made a very thoughtful speech. I do not expect him to agree with me, but I am not satisfied that the Land Commission has built up the rate of acquisition sufficiently speedily. I think that that is very relevant to the problem with which he began. He made it quite clear that in an area like his constituency phasing of development is all-important. I accept at once what he says. There are very real difficulties of local government finance in providing for such phasing. I think that it is in this context that the Land Commission has a real part to play. This does not mean that it superimposes its ideas on the local authority. They have to work in cooperation, but if they do so the Land Commission has a very real rôle to play to see that development is properly phased.
I pay tribute once again to the Land Commission for the way in which it has conducted its affairs over the past two years. But when we talk, as the hon. Gentleman did, about land prices it is disappointing that the Commission, whatever our views about it, has not resorted to Crownhold or concessionary Crown-hold. This must be a matter of Ministerial responsibility. If it had done so we could have discussed the matter and seen whether it was effective. This was something to which I called the Commission's particular attention, but the Commission

1305
has not yet made any concessionary disposals.
I want to return at once to the hardship cases which have been our main concern. I believe that we can all agree that no one is anxious to be unfair. I emphasise, as I always have, the importance of realisation of profit for liability to the levy. I made a great virtue of the fact that in nearly all cases the levy would be paid on realisation of profit; for example, the person who sold his land would receive his windfall profit less levy. That is the great virtue of tackling the problem as we did by way of the levy.
But I realised, and I am sure that those of us who discussed the betterment levy during the passage of the Act realised, that there would be circumstances in which this did not obtain. This is very relevant to many of the cases which have been brought to my attention. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows, we discussed this very fully in Standing Committee. It was in this context that I said that I felt that the Commission had a very active part to play. In cases of financial difficulty it has power to provide for instalments.
What we were mainly concerned about, however, was that there might be cases where the person did not realise the profit on which he would be called upon to pay levy, and we provided that the Commission could postpone the payment of levy in such cases. I think that hon. Members on both sides would agree that there was a proper field for the Commission to exercise its discretion.
The question of interest arises here, and it is a question on which my right hon. Friend cannot evade his responsibility.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Would my right hon. Friend clear up just how he would see postponement? Does he see it as being continuous or as the levy being completely waived?
Mr. Willey: The hon. Member for Crosby will remember that we discussed this in Committee. Some hon. Members were anxious that we should define the ways and circumstances in which the Land Commission should exercise its discretion. I argued, and my argument was accepted, that it was better to leave that
1306
discretion unfettered. Nevertheless, a public body might feel in difficulties if it had unfettered discretion, and I said explicitly in the Standing Committee that if necessary I would give general directions. That is now a responsibility on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend. A public body may feel in difficulty in some cases in exercising a discretion. Very properly we cannot give specific directions here, but I said in Committee that it was a matter on which, if the Land Commission felt that it was in difficulties, I would be prepared to issue general directions to make its position easier. But the question remains—and this is why we have concentrated our attention on waiver of interest—of whether one waives interest.
In Standing Committee we discussed four or five cases. I said that, in these cases, we would provide a waiver, and this was done. This is a very important question if rates of interest are high, because the Commission can well feel that, although it has discretion to postpone, unless there is a waiver of interest it may appear penal to the person it is trying to help.
It is not easy to decide whether there should be waiver of interest or not. But the fact that a question is not easy to decide does not mean that it should not be decided. There are some circumstances in which interest should not be waived: for example, if they are analogous to a mortgage. No one would suggest that any person should get a mortgage without interest. But there are other circumstances where one would say that not only should there be a postponement, but that that postponement should be free of interest.
I set a precedent for my right hon. Friend which is very relevant to many of the cases we have been considering. As the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will recall, we considered the problem of the farmer who builds a cottage for an agricultural worker and yet later may make a handsome profit by selling it as a country cottage. In such cases, we provided for waiver of interest, and I think that this was right. I am trying to define the circumstances in which the waiver should be used. I think one has to assume the good intention of the farmer to provide the cottage for his agricultural worker.

1307
I think that this circumstance applies to many of the cases at present before us where there is no realisation because an owner-occupier lives in the house which has been built. I am not being dogmatic on this matter, and I want to hear now, as I did during the passage of the Act, the views of right hon. and hon. Members, but I would think that one has to accept the intention to occupy the house and, therefore, that one would not impose interest. One would surely say that this case should be interest-free because it was the intention to provide a house for owner-occupation, but that the levy is only postponed.
I come now to the exceptions, which is a different matter. I know that my right hon. Friend has criticised me for talking about the element of discretion but it is relevant to many of the cases before us and I am very disappointed that neither he nor the Land Commission has been sufficiently positive about it. I have little to add to what I said when we debated the Land Commission early in February. I then said that I thought there were three main categories, and again I say to my right hon. Friend that he should not confuse this by talking about individual cases. I have said to him that, in looking at individual cases, he should see whether they provide categories for exemption. I also say to my right hon. Friend now that, if there is one case justified on its own merits, he should make an exception, as we always ought to do in legislation. We wish to avoid avoidable unfairness, and it is not proper merely to reply that one may be making exceptions for very limited categories. The point at issue is whether in equity we should make those exceptions.
I turn now to the three categories which I gave and I still think that these remain the three principal categories. The first is in relation to the interim period. As I have said repeatedly, once one decides not to make legislation retrospective, one has the difficulty of an interim period. The hon. Member for Crosby believed that I exaggerated the danger of collusive sales, but that was the purpose of the provision. The interim period is over. The Government have in fact provided for some exceptions but I want to call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the Parliamentary Commissioner said.
1308
He called attention to administrative inconsistencies, saying:
"On 14th December, 1967, the Minister stated that he could do nothing to alleviate the liabilities of the complainants since the Land Commission was bound to act in accordance with the statute. Yet within a few weeks the Government acknowledged that there was a genuine case…"
I know the difficulties about this but I think it illustrates what I have been complaining of—at any rate, an initial inflexible attitude by the Land Commission and my right hon. Friend to these cases.
The second category covers what we call the single family dwelling house. Mr. Desmond Heap, with whom I had a dialogue during discussions on the Act, said on one occasion that the only reason he could find for this exception was that I was a sentimentalist. Let us recognise the fact. It is a sentimental exception. If it is a sentimental exception, let us deal with it sentimentally.
We have found that probably we drew the definition of the family too narrowly. But when we were discussing this I felt that most people thought I had drawn the definition broadly because we included illegitimate and adopted children. Obviously, we were dealing only with adult children, implying that one only builds a house for an adult child. It so happens that I have very good reason to believe now that there can be adult grandchildren and I cannot see the difficulty of making an exception for grandchildren.
What surprised me with regard to this case was that it had been raised as long ago as last summer. Surely this is a very limited category of people. I may add that, in talking about cases of this kind, I am doing so on the information I have and I recognise that it is difficult to talk about individual cases unless one has access to the full facts. But I am now concerned with whether a grandchild should be exempt. I cannot see any reason for excluding a grandchild from the exempt family.
The other exception is fairly obvious, for this is the widow, and "widow" and "wife" are the same person. Thus, there is surely here a category of cases which we exempted and which should be expanded if it is genuinely thought that "family" is drawn too narrowly.

1309
Incidentally, I have here a letter about one of these grandchildren cases—from the daughter, in this instance. She writes:
"Mr. Kenneth Robinson…replied telling us how to ' get round the levy' by getting my mother to buy the chalet and live in it for 6 months…"
I know that we drew the definition widely, but it is not very seemly for a Minister to write saying that one can "get round the levy" by the inconvenience of living in the house for six months with one's grandchildren. It would be better simply to say, "We will bring you within the exceptions."
Thirdly, we have the de minimis cases, the small cases. When we discussed this in early February, I said:
"We discussed this when we considered the Bill, when I believed that there should be no de minimis provisions. We did not then have any experience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 643.]
I think on reflection that the hon. Member for Crosby would think that I was unduly narrow about this. I would remind him, that two years ago, when discussing the legislation, we did so very much in the context of the scandal of land prices and speculative dealings. This is why I emphasised, and make no apology for doing so, the dangers of evasion by fragmentation. I recognise that my right hon. Friend faces the difficulty of fragmentation but I also emphasise that this was not a difference of principle. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor expressed himself more inelegantly on the matter than I did. The Lord Chancellor said:
"No one really wants the Land Commission to mess about dealing with a large number of small cases."
I said:
"I am in no way averse to our all putting our heads together and seeing whether or not a viable way can be found."
We made some provision. There was the eleven-tenths rule, the definition of development, but we have still to consider de minimis in the context of the working of the Act. Whatever provision is made in the Act we still have to consider, once it is in operation, whether there are small cases where the levy is not worth collecting. That is something which we cannot decide other than by experience.
1310
We should now have had sufficient experience to consider it in this narrow sense. Since my reluctant intervention into this controversy I have had quite a large number of cases brought to my attention. It is in the light of this experience that I am asking my right hon. Friend to look in a broader sense at the de minimis provision. It seems that one could bring an awful lot of these hardship cases within a fairly narrow band and this might be the simplest way of dealing with these problems.
I would say at once to the hon. Member for Crosby that it seems that this would be a narrow band, much narrower than the band that he and some of his colleagues proposed. I mention this because one of the difficulties about anything like the levy is what I describe as escalation. If we provide an exemption we have to suddenly jump to the full levy and we have therefore to decide whether the levy should be graduated. I would not like to suggest a graduated levy, but in the context in which we are considering such a provision the question of escalation would not arise.
It is for these reasons that I ask my right hon. Friend again—I am hopeful in view of what I saw in the Saturday Press—for some definitive statement.
Other hon. Members may put more cases before him, but these are the three simple categories of cases which ought to be considered. I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary on Friday which said:
"In her letter of 11 th March, copy attached, Mrs. Wallbridge suggests that we should send to you letters which she had previously addressed to me. This correspondence, which might have been expected to receive official treatment by the Land Commission, has been dealt with in the Minister for Planning and Land's Office, advised by the Commission, because Mr. Robinson has insisted on seeing betterment levy cases on which hardship is alleged.
I am, of course, prepared to do as Mrs. Wallbridge asks, but only if you agree. I should add it is the Minister's view that the matter, which involves details about the levy assessment and a cheque forwarded to the Land Commission, is entirely within the competence of the Commission and he believes that this is a point of view which you will subscribe to."
This, I feel, illustrates the fundamental difficulty. I do not think, with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to

1311
have been dealing with Land Commission cases through his Private Office. If he does this, the Land Commission will feel that hardship cases are being dealt with by the Minister. Moreover, when a person who has been in correspondence with his private secretary raises a point the Department says "Oh, this is a question for the Land Commission." There is undesirable blurring of responsibilities. We should say that the Act clearly provided certain discretionary powers which the Land Commission can exercise. It also placed clear responsibilities on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend to extend them if he thought fit, either by way of providing for waiver of interest, reduction of interest or by providing for further exceptions.
If we kept this proper constitutional division of responsibility we would see the problem much more clearly. Personally, I would welcome the Land Commission telling us what it thinks in the light of its experience. I would like it to express a view as to whether it feels that its discretionary powers would be more effective if there were a waiver of interest. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell the House quite frankly whether he feels that these powers should be used. If one gets a blurring of responsibility I am afraid there is no effective action or deletory action. I hope when the Minister replies that we will have a clear and concise view about what is being done in these cases.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: I wish to examine the working of the Land Commission in two particular aspects affecting my constituency. Before turning to the particular there are one or two general truths which should be considered. So far the Land Commission has cost the taxpayer about £4½ million to raise in betterment levy £8·7 million. Now we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the Minister's Private Office is calling in all cases where hardship is mentioned. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I appreciate the Minister's personal concern and I am glad that hardship cases should come in for his personal review. I respect him for that, but here is another item of expenditure. What is the true cost of this legislation? I believe
1312
that it is very much higher than the apparent £4½ million.
The original Land Commission Bill, which was so badly drafted, disappeared as a result of the 1966 General Election. When it reappeared after the election it was virtually as badly drawn as ever. We had a long Committee stage with 21 sittings, and at the end of the seventeenth sitting there were still 50 Government Amendments outstanding. This gives some indication of the continued bad drafting, right to the very end, and explains the climate and difficulties in which the country is now plunged. At that seventeenth sitting I asked the Parliamentary Secretary:
"I should like a clear assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that if this Measure becomes law, which I hope it will not, and it is found that people are being penalised…and that there is some miscarriage of justice … he will undertake to bring in as quickly as possible new legislation to put it right."
This is what we are calling for today. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
"… as to whether there is a miscarriage of social justice, of course I cannot give undertakings of the comprehensive kind that the hon. Gentleman suggested, but I hope that all hon. Members are interested in the general philosophy that where there are miscarriages of social justice, they should be put right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 2nd August, 1966; c. 789.]
Of course we are, but this sort of airy-fairy attitude by the party opposite, that it will all come out in the wash and we need not worry, is extremely perturbing to the small man. It is against this background that I want to raise these particular cases. I hope that we will have a specific pledge from the Minister that these hardship cases will be reviewed and that there will be amending legislation soon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I ought to remind the hon. Member of the statement made by Mr. Speaker at the commencement of the debate, that demands for legislation are not admissible on this Bill.
Mr. Wells: I am grateful. Can we look forward to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman in due course?
I turn to the particular aspect in my constituency. The first is the area of Walderslade, 450 acres in all, lying partly in my constituency, geographically mostly in the Sevenoaks constituency, and with

1313
a small part of it in the Rochester and Chatham constituency. This is to be developed by the Commission. It is an admirable area for development, and I should be glad to see it developed by somebody. It has been considered ripe for development for many years.
However, I object most strongly to the harrying tactics adopted by the Commission and its servants of some of the small owner-occupiers in the area. The whole area has been designated as fit for development, but it seems that the bureaucrats discovered only after the paper plan was completed that people actually lived there and that some of the occupiers who lived there had already objected to the plan. I believe that the bureaucrats thought that they were just buying by compulsory purchase 415 acres of scrub and they were genuinely surprised that there were objections.
Naturally many of the owners who do not live there. or owners who have poorish properties, are glad enough to accept compensation and to be bought out. But there is a comparative few who are extremely proud of their homes and who wish to stay put. The only reason that I can ascertain for dispossessing them is bureaucratic tidiness. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) mentioned at Question Time that he and some of his hon. Friends thought the Commission was excessively bureaucratic in its activities, and this is exactly the type of thing on which back benchers on both sides of the House sincerely agree. I hope that the great god of bureaucratic tidiness, which is screwing down the little man, will be abolished.
Many of the cases which I wish to mention concern old people. Some of them built their homes with their own hands. Notable is the case of a Mr. Olley, who built not only his house but his fitted furniture and everything in it with his own hands. He is a craftsman who has worked to the very highest standards. He is now old and naturally wishes to stay in his own home for the rest of his life. I have had voluminous correspondence with this gentleman and I will not weary the House with all of it, but I must read the last letter, dated 13th March, which I received from him:
"I have had a visit from two men from the Land Commission to talk over any worries I might have. One of them said, ' Be honest. Do you want a house as big
1314
as this? ' Afterwards one of them gave me the impression that he thought I should be content with a house less well built and appointed. I told them that if I had not wanted a house like this I would not have planned and built it. Their visit did nothing to abate the worry and fear I feel".
Here are these men from the Commission coming round and bullying and badgering old people to change their way of life.
A Mrs. Friday wrote to me a couple of days later, on 15th March:
"Dear Sir, I have received a draft compulsory purchase order from the Land Commission for my home. My house is a substantially built brick bungalow, and would fit in well with any new development. My husband built the house in 1932 for both of us, we have lived here ever since bringing up our children in this house. Naturally, I have been very happy here and do not wish to move, nor will I under any circumstances".
I am delighted that she is a lady of character. She goes on to say:
"I am over 65 years of age, was widowed a few years ago when the shock made be a diabetic"—
and so on. Why should this good lady be bullied and badgered?
Finally, I bring before the House the case of a gentleman of New Zealand nationality but of Dutch extraction, Mr. Vroegryk, who lives in an extremely attractive house. I have not seen it, but I have seen photographs of it. He wrote to me saying:
"I wish to confirm that I have no objection to the development of this area as a whole, or indeed parting with some of my land for that purpose. But I do object strongly to the compulsory purchase of my residence, the house is in excellent condition and provides a very comfortable home. Mr. Stacey from the Land Commission informed me that there are no detailed plans as yet for the proposed new road or any other development on my property, so there is no reason to effect compulsory purchase. I would consider it only fair that existing occupied residences, of which there are only a few in this area, should remain undisturbed"—
and so on. He goes on to mention a firm of private developers.
Mr. Herbert Butler: Has the hon. Gentleman checked whether these statements made about members of the Commission interrogating his constituents are true?
Mr. Wells: I have checked them. I apologise for boring the House with this lengthy correspondence. I have a large file here and I am trying to keep my speech as short as possible. However,

1315
after every constituency interview or letter I have written to my namesake the Chairman of the Commission to inquire what the deuce these people were doing.
Mr. Butler: And it was confirmed?
Mr. Wells: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will now have to suffer while I read a section of a letter from the Land Commission.
The Commission may or may not have acted properly, but it has answered my constituents' letters promptly, and it has answered my letters with courtesy and care. But it is absolutely unyielding, and it is this wretched bureaucracy which I find so distasteful. The Kent County Council has taken a little longer to answer letters, but it, too, has acted correctly within the law as it stands. But I repeat: why should these people, mainly of pensionable age, living in these nice homes, who do not wish to be disturbed, be disturbed?
I must quote from three letters. The first was written to me by the Commission and deals with Mr. Vroegryk's interview. It states:
"Mr. Vroegryk did, however, call at our Regional Office at Croydon on 21st October, 1968, and was seen by Mr. Stacey and a colleague. He said he could understand our proposal to include the part of his land required for the ring road and for residential development but he could not understand why we had also included the southern part of his land (including his house) when, according to the Development Plan, these fell into an open space. The Kent County Council's tentative plans on Open Space were explained to him by Mr. Stacey"—
and so on. I shall revert to this letter later.
When I received that letter, I wrote to the county council to this effect:
"I am now told by the Land Commission that Mr. Vroegryk's house is required for an open space and nobody knows what Mr. Olley's house is required for but it is near Mr. Vroegryk's residence and therefore it would seem probable that it is also required for an open space."
The House will appreciate that I am reading only extracts from these letters in order to save time. This is an extract from a letter dated 20th December from the county council to me:
"As these notations may not now be appropriate in the Compulsory Purchase Order area and could be changed by the proposed layout for comprehensive development now
1316
being prepared on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, it has been decided to delete such notations with the exception of the diagrammatic line for the proposed distributor road which is to form the main access to the development area. I would state, however, that in the revised map as exhibited in the summer neither Mr. Vroegryk's house nor Mr. Olley's house were included in any area shown for public open space".
Why the devil are they being dispossessed? For no reason more or less than to please some bureaucrat! These are perfectly reasonable, sensible, elderly people who are being bullied and badgered.
I will revert to the letter dated 3rd December from the Land Commission to which I have already referred. I go on to the interview between this Mr. Stacey and my constituent, Mr. Vroegryk:—
"He was told that we did not know as yet whether his house would be demolished but Mr. Stacey ' expressed the view that as the house is without drains and mainly timber built it was most probably not the type of building which the local authority would like to have remaining in a Public Open Space area'."
In so far as the house is without drains, it is precisely like my house. My house has no drains because there is no main drainage in many large areas of Kent. We have efficient cess pits, septic tanks and similar rustic measures which are perfectly satisfactory to us. If there is to be a massive development in the area connections can be made to the new main drainage. I am speaking of an area which is within 35 miles of this place, where there are many elegant and desirable residences, in the true sense of the word and not in the house agents' sense of the word, that do not have main drains.
It is said that Mr. Vroegryk's house is built of wood; so indeed are many Colt and other modern houses all over the country, and excellent dwellings they are. I have seen pictures of my constituent's house, and any hon. Member would be proud to live there.
This arrogant little suburban man from the Land Commission who thinks that drains and bricks and mortar are all that matter should go and live in a rural area and learn a few rustic truths. I hope that the muddle over this case will soon be resolved.
I turn now from the Walderslade area to a second topic of grievance, namely, the operation of the betterment levy. This is

1317
more on the lines of the complaints which my hon. Friend has already unfolded to us.
Mr. Will Griffiths: I have been following what has been said with great interest and sympathy. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, will he tell us the end of the story which many of us are hearing for the first time? Were the houses about which he has been telling us not in an area that was designed as an open space?
Mr. Wells: I wish to goodness that I knew what the authorities mean to do. One authority says that it is to be designated as an open space, and the other authority says that it is not. That is why I read from the two letters. The Land Commission and the county council have precisely negatived each other's point of view, and it would be interesting to know the truth of the matter. If the houses are to be in a new urban area, they are perfectly adequate for this; if they are to be in an open space, the owners should be told. The houses are being reputedly taken away from them for no stated purpose except bureaucratic tidiness, and it is this to which I object. Even Mr. Olley, who is an old man who literally built his house with pride and craftsmanship, would accept an explanation which was decent, honest and honourable, but he has been mucked about.
Mr. A. P. Cosrain: I am completely confused. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Land Commission or the local authority is doing the planning? If the local authority is the planning authority, why does not it take this over without the Land Commission being involved?
Mr. Wells: As my hon. Friend well knows, the Land Commission is not a planning authority, and the planning authority must first set out its plans. The county council has apparently changed its mind. It does not know whether it is coming or going. The Land Commission, in particular this Mr. Stacey, whoever he may be, seems to bully these poor old people without knowing why.
Mr. Dobson: What the hon. Gentleman has said seems to change the position, if he will allow me to suggest it.
1318
The planning authority is clearly the county council and not the Land Commission, and here the county council has told the Land Commission one thing and has subsequently changed its mind. I do not see how he can claim that this is bureaucratic tidiness on the part of the Land Commission. It may be so on behalf of the county council but not on behalf of the Land Commission.
Mr. Wells: I do attack the county council in part for its attitude, but the Land Commission is responsible for the compulsory purchase order. Officers of the Land Commission called upon these people allegedly to allay their fears but, as will be seen from the letters which I have read, the fears, far from being allayed, have been increased. It is the servants of the Land Commission who have this bad image and who are creating the bad feeling among the individual residents. The county council deals from a mightly high plane with the Land Commission at a mighty high plane. If between them they cannot make up their minds, they should keep quiet until such time as their minds are made up, and then treat the private citizen in an honourable straightforward manner, instead of mucking him about and telling him they will take his house away from him without explaining why.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Surely it is the Land Commission which will acquire and use the land, not the county council?
Mr. Wells: It is the Land Commission which will acquire the land, and if in its turn the county council designates it as an open space, the county council will acquire the land at second hand from the Land Commission. I know my hon. Friend's loyal association with Kent County Council, and I appreciate his point.
I hope the Minister, if he is considering cases of hardship personally, will look at these specific cases of old people who do not wish to move when there is no good reason for them to do so.
The other case I want to deal with concerns Mr. Roberson of Collier Street, Marden, Kent. Three days ago he wrote to me saying this:
"I am being caused undue hardship imposed on me by this act of betterment levy. I am in my early fifties, worked hard all my

1319
life and managed to save enough capital to build my own house. I was very fortunate in having a plot of land given to me (a gift) and, having received planning permission, my family and myself have toiled hard in our spare time since 4th May 1968 building our future home. All the labour to date has been done with our own hands. We estimated that we had saved sufficient capital to realise our ambition. Now the Land Commission demand £583 betterment levy, a huge slice out of our savings, which means insufficient capital to complete the project. As the land was a gift, nobody stands to make a profit. I feel that we are being unduly penalised simply because we wish to help ourselves, so in desperation I am seeking your advice …"
If the Minister is personally looking into hardship cases, perhaps I may send him the letter after the debate is over. I hope, too, that some help may come.
We had the words of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the de minimis situation. But I must remind the House that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) moved a new Clause, which appears in column 988 of the proceedings in Committee. That would have exempted all small cases. The Minister rejected it, saying:
"The major reason is one which the hon. Gentleman anticipated, and that is the possibility of evasion. There is a strong risk of fragmentation. A housing estate would not be a housing estate; it would be a number of separate, individual projects, each of them less than £5,000. In that way we should be wide open to evasion."
That was the right hon. Gentleman's own reason for being inflexible at that time. However, I would remind him of my own argument, which appears immediately after his own speech. I said:
"I recollect that whenever one signs a contract of conveyance one has to certify that this small conveyance is not a part of a larger deal. One has to give this certificate, if I remember rightly, for purposes of Stamp Duty. Surely it would be possible to get people to certify similarly in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th August, 1966; c. 991.]
It seems perfectly reasonable that, if people who are buying houses under £5,000 have to give a certificate for Stamp Duty, they could also give a certificate for betterment levy. Although I am no lawyer, I am sure that the Law Society would very quickly haul up before it any solicitor who urged his clients to behave improperly. I think
1320
that we have all the protection and the standing of the legal profession to see that such certificates are not given in a light-hearted manner.
This was not the only attempt by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House to put the matter right. On Report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) moved a new Clause on 26th October, 1966, which appears at column 1101 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date. Its intention was to exempt the sort of small garden case which has given such offence recently. My right hon. Friend was supported by some of the finest legal brains in the House at that time, and I mention only my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-wich (Sir J. Foster) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Hon. Members of that sort of standing felt that this could be done within the excepted framework of the law. If men of their standing think that it can be done, I am sure that it can be.
On that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said:
"Can I press the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, which is crucial? If the ordinary small house in my constituency with a small garden gets planning permission for redevelopment, there is no doubt that it will attract some additional value. Surely in every one of those cases there must therefore be an element of development value which would attract the levy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October 1966; Vol. 734, c. 1112]
The right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to answer my right hon. Friend. However, a little earlier he had expressed precisely the opposite point of view. He may come to this House today saying that he has changed his mind, but the crocodile tears which he has shed in the last ten days are cold comfort to the people who are suffering, since they are being shed by the Minister who forced through the Bill in such Draconian terms.
The simplest solution would be to abolish the Land Commission outright and abolish the betterment levy outright, possibly putting some sort of tax back on to capital gains, as has been suggested. However, to give the right hon. Gentleman his due, throughout the Committee stage he pointed out the complexities and

1321
difficulties of putting the capital gains structure on land betterment. One must understand that and respect it.
In a very good article by Professor Denman which appears in today's Daily Telegraph, the suggestion is made that there should be a simple, straightforward proceeds tax on all transactions in land bought for development or with development in view. Professor Denman argues that this could not push up the price of land and that it would, indeed, operate to make a greater supply of land available. I would urge the Minister now responsible to look closely at Professor Denman's suggestion.
Our constituents have suffered very seriously from these measures. The Government have been remarkably inflexible so far. I hope that we shall have a change of tune from the Minister, if not today, then tomorrow, because I gather from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot change his coat today.
Mr. Graham Page: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Minister can alter the law by sub-legislation—by Order. Subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are permitted to discuss that form of legislation today.
Mr. Wells: In that case, for once, I would like to have some Orders.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who made such an interesting speech to which we listened for rather a long time, should have persisted in using the terms "bureaucratic bullying" and "bureaucratic tactics" with which he peppered one section of his speech. He obviously has at heart, as do many hon. Members on this side of the House, the real need for certain changes to be considered by the Minister because of personal hardship cases and because the Act in that regard is not doing the job which the Government of the day thought that it ought to do.
The hon. Gentleman's comments prompt me to say in clear terms that, in criticising those who work in the Land Commission, we do a serious injustice to them as individuals. They are working
1322
within the framework of an Act which we in this House laid down. Whether we supported it or opposed it is beside the point. It ill-behoves us to make even the small quotations which the hon. Gentleman made to illustrate that all those who work in the Land Commission are bullies who inflict upon ordinary people the sort of pressures that they ought not to. On reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to cast the net so wide. If he wishes to comment on what I have said, I am delighted to give way to him.
Mr. John Wells: I am afraid that I cannot accommodate the hon. Gentleman. In Committee, I cast very grave doubts upon the stamp of person likely to be recruited into the service of the Land Commission. I have had very disquieting reports of the actions of some of these people in my constituency. Far from withdrawing anything that I said, I would underline it in large red letters.
Mr. Dobson: I am horrified that the hon. Gentleman should be of that view. To suggest that people who transferred to a new job in a new Ministry from other sections of the Civil Service are the sort of gauleiters about whom the hon. Gentleman is talking is absolute nonsense and he overstates his case in so doing.
Mr. Hamling: Ask the hon. Gentleman to say it outside!
Mr. Dobson: This sort of attitude is picked up in various parts of the country by the Press to the detriment of those working in the Land Commission who have the difficult job of trying to administer the Act within the framework which we have laid down.
I regret that in the Bristol area there was a vicious and quite unwarranted attack on Land Commission officers there in similar terms to those used by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells). This is in complete contradiction to the experience of people who have contact with Land Commission officers. My experience is that they treat every case and every comment with great courtesy, with unfailing understanding of the problem that is being presented and always seeking, if possible, to ease the burden on people within the framework set down for them through the Land Commission Act.

1323
I should like to pose to my right hon. Friend some of the cases which have come up in the Bristol area which have had publicity locally. I think that they typify the sort of worries that many people, including myself, have about whom the Act is penalising and whom it is not. I think that from these cases, which are obviously in the minority, we can find those which hit current householders unfairly, particularly those who have lived in the same house for a very long time. If we add to that that the people concerned might be elderly and perhaps well beyond pension age in some cases, as in some of the cases I wish to quote, we have a very difficult human situation.
I have had the opportunity to discuss some of these cases privately with my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that he is seized of the sort of points and problems which beset elderly people faced with meeting levy conditions. However, I should like to ask him to give further consideration to the following points.
Is it hitting householders in certain areas, whether in Bristol or elsewhere, unfairly? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, in considering what can be done to help ease the problems in certain area, will consider waiving levy on people past retirement age. This is a rather different point from that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) but could there be the sympathetic approach for which he was calling in one of the points of change that he wanted to see? I should think there is a case for looking into this, because it becomes very difficult indeed to talk even rationally of a levy case which brings in people of, say, 83 years of age.
I had a case of this kind within my constituency, of which my right hon. Friend has heard. I hope that it is one of those about which he was talking earlier today. This is a rather unusual case. It concerns a constituent of mine of 83 years of age who lived with his 81 year old wife in a not very elegant cottage. If I remember rightly, it is over 100 years old. The boundary of the land was changed in the Quinquennial Review and it came into the industrial zone. It was difficult to put forward a case for
1324
it not going into the industrial zone. In fact there was no objection from Mr. and Mrs. Bailey that their property should be included in a new industrial zone in the middle of last year.
The follow on was that a company in the area wished to purchase this piece of land, and did so. The Baileys were offered and paid the extremely high price of £5,000 for the cottage in which they had lived for so long. It was a high price compared with the money that they paid for the cottage in the first place, but not a particularly high price to enable them to obtain equivalent accommodation elsewhere. They had to pay £4,000 for similar accommodation a few miles away, but still within my constituency.
Betterment levy of £1,120 was, quite rightly, claimed. I think in this case Mr. and Mrs. Bailey were certainly well-advised. Mr. Bailey immediately paid £800 when the case came up, but he still had to pay the difference between that £800 and the final assessment of £938, namely, £138. The Commission then claimed, absolutely rightly, the interest on that money, £4 8s. 7d.
By this stage Mr. and Mrs. Bailey were quite exhausted by the procedure, but they felt that they had been hard done by. Indeed, when they told me their story, I was inclined to think in a very sympathetic way towards them. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of this case. He gave me a personal assurance that he would look into it, and I am pleased that he has done so. I know, too, that there seems little chance under the Act that he can do anything to assist in this case.
In Bristol there are at least three other cases involving people in not quite the same circumstances as Mr. and Mrs. Bailey, but I will not weary the House with a long discussion about them. I think that my right hon. Friend is aware of most of them. Some involve elderly people, though not as old as the Baileys, who have had to pay betterment levy under conditions which have not been to their advantage.
Another case concerns a levy on a small firm in the area. I suppose many of us would feel that there is a good case for levying a firm moving into the area, but this is a small firm and its

1325
factory is well needed in the area. This is the case of T. S. Hall Ltd., sheet metal work experts, Vale Lane, Bedminster. The levy did not put this small firm off, thank goodness, but I do not think that we ought necessarily to say that it was a good thing willy-nilly that it should be caught by betterment levy in this way.
I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North indicated that the Minister was personally looking into these cases. I believe that he is right to do so, even though they must put an untold strain upon him. I believe that if he can meet some of these points he will be doing a good service to this House.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The hon. Gentleman has obviously gone into these cases with great interest and sympathy. What is worrying me, and possibly him, too, and I should like his experience, is that a vast number of people who were thinking within the next year or two of selling their houses, perhaps to move somewhere smaller, are petrified to do anything largely because of the Act, and this is only the fringe of those who have been hit.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct. I am sure that people are becoming more worried about it. It is also true that the Act could affect the number of changes in houses that take place. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that people who want to retire and move to the beautiful coastline of the South-West are often afraid to do so because they are not sure of their position under the Act. My right hon. Friend said on one occasion that in some instances people in that situation were badly advised. I am sure that this is so, and that leads me to consider another important matter.
In the article in The Times which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North wrote on 19th March he said that in 99 per cent. of cases the levy was not objected to and the assessment was not challenged. I think that that is a cause for worry rather than a pleasurable thought, because I am not sure that the figure of 1 per cent., even if it is being represented as the figure for the country as a whole, is indicative of those who would like to challenge the Act or the way in which the Land Commission
1326
is operating it, but either do not have, or do not have the opportunity for getting, the advice which they ought to receive.
Mr. William Price: Is it possible that the legal advisers do not understand the Act either?
Mr. Dobson: I have seen on a solicitor's table a book about three or four inches thick relating to the Land Commission. This solicitor, who is a friend of mine, assures me that conveyancing is a long and time-consuming process. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is planning to review the position. It would not be in order to pursue that tonight, but it is important to ask that as soon as he gets to the end of the examination he does something to put our minds at rest, because these cases are becoming more and more frequent and more worrying.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend has reviewed the working of the Act he will be particularly clear in his assessment of what to do about the people who have already been assessed for levy. Some people have been caught by the net and wish to get out of it. It will be extremely difficult for my right hon. Friend to make any action he takes retrospective, but I hope that he will try to deal with the cases which I have brought to the notice of the House tonight because I believe that the Act which was set up to catch the sharks has caught some householders, and that this is to the detriment of everyone concerned.
6.14 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for raising this topic, and for the manner in which he raised it. My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the appallingly difficult planning problems which arise in a county like Berkshire where there has been a rapid growth of population. I should like to underline that emphasis, because, as my hon. Friend said, the problems which arise in his constituency arise in mine next door with some small degree of variation.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of certain planning pitfalls in my constituency, but it would be out of order to discuss that topic now because they have nothing to do with the Land

1327
Commission. To use an old sporting phrase, I am a little afraid that the right hon. Gentleman may well be like the man out hunting who jumps into a field and finds that he cannot jump out again. This is an unfortunate predicament to be in.
The trouble with the Land Commission is that it is inevitably associated with the kind of legislation that is put through too hastily without sufficient trouble being given to drafting to realise what the results might be. This really is what the trouble is about. This is what the cases are about. There is complete chaos, muddled with extreme hardship, and these are unfortunate companions.
The other thing that worries me about the Land Commission in respect of the development charges is that whether one can afford to employ the highest skilled professional advice, or whether one is old and retired, alone, widowed, or a grandfather, as in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, and it is a question of selling half a plot of land to a post office and the other half to one of the grandchildren, one cannot with any degree of certainty or accuracy know what the development charge will be.
I do not think anybody knows. It appears to be worked out by doubling the number that is first thought of and taking it away again. The result is that old people who want to sell land which belongs to them or to one of their relatives outside the narrow scope of the family are getting worried, and who can blame them? It is inescapable with any Socialist legislation of this sort that the bitter wind of Socialism blows far more keenly against those who are less able to bear the draught.
The Land Commission was supposed to bring down the price of land and the price of houses. It has done the opposite. In many cases the development charge is merely passed on to the purchaser. In other cases it is a disincentive to the land being made available. We were told that the Land Commission would stop speculation in land prices. This is one thing that it is now going to embark on itself.
1328
There was an innocent looking advertisement in the Estates Gazette on 18th January, and I think it was repeated the following week. The Land Commission was advertising for "white land" in blocks of 100 acres. It asked landowners who owned land of that type to get in touch, on a confidential basis, with somebody in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It was a well-got-up advertisement. Indeed, its outward innocence made one weep, but I should like to ask a few questions about it.
"White land" is rather a misleading phrase, because some land is white, while other land is not so white, and some land that is not technically white is regarded as white by many planning authorities. Why did the Land Commission suddenly decide to advertise. Why does it prefer blocks of white land of 100 acres? Is the Commission short of land? Is it that the Commission wants to buy land in advance and make a quick turnover, or what?
Suppose a man owning 100 acres of white land answers the advertisement. On what basis will the Commission decide whether to negotiate for the purchase of that land? Will it be on a straight economic basis, or on some other basis? If the latter on what basis? Suppose the Commission decides to buy that land and the owner decides to sell it. Will that decision be made public so that neighbouring landowners know what development is to take place, and when it is to take place, on land adjacent to theirs? This will affect the market price of land for many miles around.
Fourth, by what method will the Land Commission arrive at a figure in circumstances in which it does not know whether or not it will obtain planning consent? If it does know, or if it finds out subsequently, will it tell the owner?
Fifth, how will the Land Commission manage any such land that it buys in the interim before planning consent is obtained? If it is agricultural land let to a tenant farmer, will it let it back? If it is agricultural land formerly owned by an owner-occupier, will he be allowed to go on farming it and, if so, at what rent? Behind this advertisement, however innocent it may appear, hide many unanswered questions. By a stroke of the planner's pen "white land" worth

1329
perhaps little more than the agricultural value of £300 an acre can overnight become worth ten times that amount. This is where the betterment levy comes in.
What is the motive behind this advertisement? I cannot believe that anyone will fall for it. After all, we have said many times that when we come to power we will abolish the Land Commission. It is possible also that the levy will be reduced to 30 per cent. to conform with the Capital Gains Tax—
Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman asked what became of the advertisement. There were 90 replies to it, so presumably 90 people do not think his party will win the next General Election.
Sir C. Mort-Radclyffe: The Minister intervened too soon. Perhaps 90 people have answered the advertisement, but sooner or later they must receive answers to the questions which I am asking. If they do not get satisfactory answers, the fact that they have replied to the advertisement does not mean that they will sell the lard. I should have thought that it is very unlikely, therefore, that the advertisement will achieve the desired effect. The 64,000 dollar question is: what will happen to the land after the Land Commission has acquired it and taken its rake-off of 40 per cent. levy when the Land Commission is subsequently abolished? Who will then own the land?
I add my small voice to the growing volume of protests by hon. Members on both sides about the chaos, the injustice, the inequity and the hardship in the administration of the Land Commission, which could easily be altered in a short time by the simplest amending legislation. We shall shortly judge the right hon. Gentleman's compassion and his capacity as a Minister by the answer which he gives today.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that this is the first of 20 debates which we are to have, and that reasonably brief speeches will help.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. William Price: My speech will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. One of the main reasons is that I have no wish to rub further salt in the Minister's wounds. I know that he did not inflict the Land Commission on us. We have had
1330
some talk about his being in the field, but he was pushed there. He is in the field whether he likes it or not. He is stuck with the Land Commission, and he has my sympathy.
This was a well-intentioned Act. It set out to curb the people who had been making vast fortunes for doing practically no work. Even hon. Members opposite, at this very late stage, have accepted that the land market had gone berserk. The problem, of course, was that they took no action. There is, indeed, evidence to suggest that they had created the circumstances which encouraged land speculation, and the present Government had to take action. They did so, and it went disastrously wrong, for this very reason.
The Government decided upon the betterment levy of 40 per cent., which was introduced with a promise that we would restrain rising land prices. All I want to ask the Minister is whether there has ever been a tax imposed by this House which was not passed on to the purchaser. There has never been one, and I do not know whether there will ever be one. But if there is one, it is not the betterment levy.
I became interested in this subject two and a half years ago when I sought to keep a promise to move into my constituency. I looked for land, trying to persuade people that I was the person to sell it to and that if they did not sell it, and quickly, they would lose 40 per cent. of its increased value to the Land Commission. The message came back loud and clear, that I was under a sad misapprehension and they would not pay the 40 per cent. but I would. This was clear from the beginning.
It took me a long time to find a dear old lady who was convinced by my argument, and I eventually moved it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Let me tell those who shout, "Shame" that she may have been a dear old lady but she had a far more acute business sense than I had. She got far more for her piece of land than it was worth. But at least she did not get that plus 40 per cent., as would have happened if her solicitors had had their way.
This may be an over-statement, but. there is evidence that this is just how the Land Commission is working throughout

1331
Britain. We in the West Midlands face an acute land shortage. It is very difficult to get the Minister—not the present one, but successive Ministers: I have given up and do not trouble my right hon. Friend any longer—to understand that in an area with a grave land shortage those who hold the land can get practically any price they want. This has been happening. By imposing this 40 per cent. betterment levy, we gave them a glorious opportunity, which did not exist before, to get as much of it back as possible from the poor devils like me who were buying those pieces of land.
What money is being raised by the Land Commission which could not be raised anyway through Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax? I know—this was discussed in the Committee, on which I did not have the pleasure to serve: the Whips' Office had more sense that that—that there are difficulties. This became apparent, but how much money has been raised so far which could not have been raised by other means?
I have been asking my next question for two and a half years and have never had a satisfactory answer yet. In all honesty, I am not expecting one tonight. What evidence is there that land speculators are not making as much profit now as they were in 1962 and 1963? That is bad enough, but what has happened with the Land Commission is that, apart from not catching them, we have caught the very people whom we set out to protect, the individual house owners. Some of the cases which have come to me have filled me with despair. I am hearing of them from all over the country. It is interesting to note that they are no longer writing to my Parliamentary colleagues, perhaps thinking that they do not understand it. They write to me instead, and that is an awful mistake, because I do not understand it either.
But I do understand that one cannot put a 40 per cent. tax on and still keep the price down. The matter is complicated. I am told by lawyers in the House that any matter involving land legislation must inevitably be difficult for the layman to understand; but this is beyond a joke.
My position is simple. I have opposed the Land Commission from the moment I began to understand what it involved,
1332
from the moment I appreciated that the very people we wanted to help would be the very people we would hammer. I shall continue to oppose it.
The rules of order do not permit me to ask my right hon. Friend to introduce legislation. However, I urge him to study my Early Day Motion and to act on it. It has some distinguished signatories, one Socialist and a gaggle of Liberals. That is better than nothing. Progress in the House is slow, but progress we are making. There are now two hon. Members on this side of the House who are opposed to the Land Commission and want to see action taken.
I could not sign another Motion that was brought to me. I did not want to be associated with the landed gentry on the benches opposite. I was brought up to doubt their motives. I doubt them today. I do not know whether it is they who are mellowing or I, but I shall leave this House in, I hope, 30 or 40 years' time still doubting them. They always get their priorities right on this subject. They got them right in the '50s and in the early '60s. They have them right tonight. I do not want anything to do with them.
Neither do I want anything to do with this bureaucratic neuter which is costing vast sums of money, which is raising very little revenue but which is raising that revenue from the wrong people. It is causing a great deal of fear and misunderstanding among hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are not likely to be hit but fear that they may be caught.
We have heard many rumours of impending changes. While I do not know whether or not they are true, I hope that this is one occasion when the leakages will prove correct. I also hope that in the interests of justice, fair play and common sense the Minister will take a close look at this matter and convince the Cabinet that changes are desirable and that a mistake has been made.
What has always astonished me about politics, the Government and Parliament is that there is something inherent in our background which says that we must not say to the British people, "We were wrong." I do not see anything discreditable in that. The people would welcome it. They never got it from Tory Administrations, and I am afraid that they have not so far had it from this Government.

1333
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say, "We were wrong and we want to change our mind." He has a wonderful opportunity to do that now, and I beg him to take it. I urge him not to tinker about with individual hardship cases, difficult though they are, but to scrap the Land Commission and on another occasion introduce a radical and just solution to what I admit is a real and serious problem.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: I am sure that the Minister listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and has noted that every speaker from the Government benches has quoted hardship cases or expressed genuine contempt for the working of the Land Commission.
The architect of the Measure listed a whole host of changes which, he said, he would like to see made, including changes in the manner in which the Land Commission operates. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) quoted a number of constituency cases of hardship, and said that he was relieved that the Minister was personally looking into the matter. The House must be aware that this Minister has been personally looking at these terrible hardship cases for many weeks, yet has persistently refused to announce any action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he continued with this dithering and delay there would be much personal tragedy as a result of the working of the Land Commission and that this would result in this issue becoming a major political scandal. In the eight years that I have been in the House I have never known a period when I have received so many letters telling of desperate hardship resulting from the activities of one body such as this.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that the Minister's attitude towards the problem was uncharacteristic. I share that view. Throughout the time I have been an hon. Member I have, like other hon. Members, had great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot understand how a Minister of his reputation can
1334
consistently refuse to give any indication of the action that he intends to take to remedy this tragic situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams) has handed me a letter telling of the plight of an 80-year-old woman in his constituency who sold a piece of land for £200, who had to demolish some property on that land in order to sell it, who paid estate agents' commission and solicitors' costs which resulted in her being left with £79 7s. 10d., and who has since received a bill for betterment levy totalling £40. This may seem a minor case in terms of the sums of money involved, but £40 demanded from an old-age pensioner who was not expecting to be charged levy is an enormous imposition. I have this week received 40 to 50 letters on this subject from various parts of the country. All tell of people who are desperately worried.
Any Government must realise that if people suddenly receive a bill for taxation which is out of all proportion to their ability to pay, they must become desperately worried. The majority of British people hate and loathe the thought of being in debt. If they suddenly receive a bill for hundreds of £s they are bound to become worried and wonder whether they may be imprisoned because of their inability to pay. As a result of all this their whole life pattern is ruined. Yet, the situation continues and we do not hear of action being taken by the Government.
Last Friday we had an Adjournment debate on this subject. When replying, the Minister said, in effect, "I am watching the position carefully but hon. Members must wait to see what happens. I cannot announce anything in an Adjournment debate." The next day almost every national newspaper carried banner headlines saying that help was on the way. For example, the Daily Express declared:
"Land Levy—First Steps To Justice"
and ran an article by Arthur Butler, who said that a meeting had taken place at No. 10 Downing Street at which it had been decided that action would be taken, and he went on to give some of the possibilities.
The Dwaily Telegraph carried a banner headline saying:
"Budget To Ease Land Levy For Small Man"

1335
and under it was a similar story telling of the meeting that had taken place.
The Daily Sketch carried a similar headline:
"Now Cabinet Climbs Down Over ' Tax of Tyranny'."
The Daily Mail carried this headline:
"Little Man Wins Land Tax Fight".
The Sun declared:
"Home Owners To Escape Land Tax".
Beneath each headline was the story of the meeting that had taken place at No. 10 Downing Street and details of the action that had been decided.
I plead with the Minister, if that meeting took place and if it has been decided to take action, to make an immediate announcement to the House on the subject. If he does not do that, this misery and hardship will continue. If action is to be taken in the Budget in a few weeks' time, an announcement should still be made now because with the passing of each day more misery and hardship is caused.
If, on the other hand, this was purely a leak for publicity purposes to take pressure off the Government, the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. If it is a story which was started in Fleet Street with no foundation at all, whoever started the story in Fleet Street should be ashamed of himself. The Minister nods and confirms that this was a story founded on speculation in Fleet Street. If that is so, the person who started it has raised the hopes of a great many thousands of people. They will be desperately shocked and stunned to hear that there is no foundation to this story and that no such meeting took place.
I plead with the Minister. Cases have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North of widows and grandchildren, pensioners and people in a small way of business. The position of my party is quite clear; we shall abolish the Land Commission. Obviously I do not expect the Government to come to that conclusion, much as the hon. Member for Rugby would rejoice if they did. He is right in saying that Governments of all complexions tend to defend legislation which they have passed and are reluctant to admit that they were wrong.
1336
I do not expect that many changes which I should like to see take place will take place, but the Minister has power to move Orders and to take action as suggested by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
The Minister must take action now. If he does not take action he will stand condemned as one of the most inhuman Ministers. I do not believe he is that. Anyone who has known him over the years would be reluctant to think that. But I cannot understand how he goes on week after week and now says, "I am looking at all the hardship cases", how he can tolerate looking at them and announce nothing, do nothing, and act in no way. I shall never understand that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for raising this matter. I plead with the Minister not necessarily to alter the legislation but to make a clear pronouncement which would bring relief to thousands of people in a small way of business on whom I hope no Government would wish to inflict suffering in any way but on whom this Government are inflicting suffering at present.
6.43 p.m.
The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I do not think anyone can complain that the affairs of the Land Commission have not occupied a fair proportion of the time of the House in recent weeks. We have had a Supply day devoted to a debate on it coupled with home ownership, three debates on the Adjournment, and now this debate. In their speeches tonight hon. Members have attacked the whole range of the Commission's activities both in the collection of levy and in the purchase of land. I shall try to deal with these two matters separately.
Before doing so, I should like to deal briefly with something the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said in his opening speech in his reference to the personnel of the Land Commission. I have know him for some time. In his references to the Land Commission, particularly its staff and membership, I think he has fallen below his usual standards of controversy. He made public statements attacking civil servants who work in the Land Commission in a branch in his constituency. I do not

1337
like to use the word "smear", but in talking about declarations of personal interest he has tried to cast some doubt on the integrity of the membership of the Land Commission. I have every confidence in the integrity of the members of the Commission and so, I think, have the House and the country.
On betterment levy, most of the criticism has been concentrated both in this House and in the Press. I certainly cannot accuse hon. Members taking part in these debates of being repetitive, for any diligent search among the 350 or so assessments which the Commission makes each week has enabled it to bring forward fresh cases in which levy has been assessed on people who do not make a regular business of dealing in or developing land. I am afraid I may have to be slightly repetitive since my reply can be only to repeat the reasons why levy is charged in such cases.
The reason is the same for cases which hon. Members have just discovered as for cases they have brought to my attention in the last few weeks. I remind the House that this Act has been in operation for barely two years and I have been responsible for the Land Commission rather less than one-fifth of that period. As I have told the House, I have been studying its operation. Perhaps in this context I might deal with the questioning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) of my looking at individual hardship cases. I have done this for two reasons.
One is that I undertook to look at hardship cases. Only by a study of allegations of hardship can one come to a considered conclusion whether, and if so what, changes might be needed. Of course the great majority of these cases come to me from hon. Members, and it has been my custom, as it was when I was Minister of Health for four-and-a-half years, to reply personally to all constituency cases which hon. Members bring to me. That is the reason why I particularly want to see all the cases which come into the Department.
I listened, of course, with great care to what my right hon. Friend said. He was the architect of this Measure, and, naturally, the House, and I, in particular, as his successor but one responsible for the Commission, must pay regard to his
1338
second thoughts on the matter. I certainly will consider everything he said. I only say to him that I was a little surprised that he never once came to me and offered me help, advice or wise counsel in private before deciding to embark on a public campaign which I think, perhaps wrongly, has been interpreted in some quarters as a personal attack on his successor.
Mr. Willey: I have not conducted any public campaign. I will tell my right hon. Friend exactly how I became involved. A journalist rang me up and asked about a particular case. I replied that it was not a matter I wished to deal with and advised him to get in touch with the Department and the Land Commission. Within about half an hour he rang back and said that the Department refused to discuss the matter and the Land Commission refused to discuss the matter. He then asked me about it, and I referred him to the provisions of the Act and advised him to get in touch again with the Land Commission and put his points to the Commission.
Mr. Robinson: I only say I did not refuse to discuss this with my right hon. Friend because he did not ask me to. On this occasion I will dispense with my usual introduction.
I shall not spend time explaining the purpose of the Land Commission legislation. I assume that hon. Members know that betterment levy is charged where planning permission has brought about an increase in the value of land. I think this is appreciated by hon. Members. What the Opposition now try to prove by selecting cases in which levy is charged on people of comparatively small means is that the levy is not fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended. Hon. Members opposite argue that it was intended to be payable only by land speculators and not by people who make private but individual sales of land.
We ought to get the facts straight. I have heard it suggested, and it was almost implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), that levy is paid only by the small man and that speculators, who are the main target of the Act, are getting away scot-free. The figures prove that this allegation is quite unfounded. Sixty per cent. of the betterment levy collected to date has come

1339
from cases in which the market value of the transaction was over £10,000. The percentage of the levy coming from large transactions is increasing all the time as the effect of transitional exemptions wears off.
I repeat, I cannot accept that it was ever the intention that levy should be paid only by land speculators. There is no doubt, of course, that the Land Commission Act was intended to apply to land speculators, and this perhaps was the primary reason for the betterment levy provisions, but to say that it was intended to apply only to them is to change completely the emphasis of what was said when the Act was put forward. Nor is there mention in the Act that owner-occupiers or any particular class of individuals are exempt from the levy. There is, of course, Section 61, a particular provision introduced for the express purpose of providing exemption for the person who, for example, had purchased land well in advance with a view to building a house for his retirement. The section also enabled the owner of such land to build a house for occupation by a close relative. This has led by analogy to demands that land which has been given to a wide range of relatives should be free of levy. I will return to this point later, but suffice it to say that the clear purpose of Section 61 was to benefit people who before September 1965 had already bought their land, and not to benefit people to whom land was subsequently given.
These are the facts of the matter, Mr. Speaker. While there is no provision in the Act that transactions below a certain value would be exempt from levy—and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) had something to say on the circumstances of that—small realisations of development value are, in effect, taken outside the levy provision by the 10 per cent. which is added to the current use value to determine the base value in a levy calculation; but that is all, and it is difficult to see how the claim that the purpose of the betterment levy was to tax only those who speculate in land transactions can be substantiated when it is clear from the legislation itself that it was all-embracing in both the nature and the size of the transactions which were covered.
1340
It has been widely claimed that the betterment levy is the cause of hardship Where it is alleged that hardship arises it usually turns out that the person called upon to pay levy has acted without proper advice or possibly has chosen to go ahead although he had been made aware of the provisions of the Land Commission Act. Betterment levy is not exacted where there has been no profit, or at least gain in the form of a valuable asset, so that if proper advice were taken and followed there would always be some gain out of which the levy could be found, apart from the special circumstances of the interim period on which I will speak later.
I turn now to the various categories which it has been represented give rise to hardship. I feel that it would be more profitable to do so than to try to deal with the very large number of individual cases which have been raised in the course of the debate. The first is where the levy is assessed on people who build a house on a plot of land they have been given or have bought very cheaply. It will be appreciated that it is essential to the scheme of betterment levy that the levy should be charged on people who develop their own land in pursuance of planning permission which they have received, instead of taking the alternative course of selling the land to be developed by somebody else. If this were not so it needs little imagination to see the widespread schemes of avoidance of levy which would spring up, and no one would relish the thought of a levy which could so easily be circumvented; and if circumvention were a simple matter it is unlikely that the more meritorious cases would be those which gained advantage from it.
It is right, moreover, that levy should be charged where a person develops his own land because development of the land puts a valuable asset into the hands of the developer. It has been argued that although the principle of collecting the betterment levy on development is right it should not apply to a person who has been given a piece of agricultural land on which to build a house. But there can be no doubt that the grant of planning permission which enables land to be used as a building plot brings about a very marked increase in value and it follows that the levy is collected in respect of the land. This is a change which the donor of land should take into account, if he is aware of

1341
the situation, when he offers the land. He should make it clear that it is a gift of limited value because the levy will have to be paid if the land is developed.
The problem comes about only where land has been given or sold at a favourable price to a developer; and where it is sold at full market price as a building plot levy will have to be paid by the vendor; and the developer will have no liability. It amounts to this: a plot does not escape levy being assessed merely because the owner decides he will give it to somebody else. That is the position with regard to gifts.
The next category concerns cases where land was bought in the interim period between publication of the White Paper and the coming into operation of the Act. Rather too much play has been made of the comparatively few cases caught by this provision. It is true that within this category levy is charged on a profit which was never made, but this fact has been taken to illustrate the hypothesis that this is a feature of the scheme of betterment levy, which is not true. The purpose of the interim period provision is, I hope, clearly understood: that since the White Paper declared that the last price which a vendor paid for land could be taken into account in his levy calculation, some embargo had to be placed on people obtaining an artificially inflated base value during the period against the time when they would wish to sell or develop their land. It was made plain in the White Paper that this would be done, and provisions to this effect were included in the Bill from the outset and fully debated during the various stages of the Bill going through the House.
Nevertheless, there are cases of people who went ahead with the purchase of land at high prices during the interim period but it is significant that in many cases the purchase was made during the last few days of March or the first few days of April in 1967, after the Act received the Royal Assent but before it actually came into operation. Those involved had presumably not taken the precaution of obtaining advice on the new Act. The House knows perfectly well that the Government have already extended concessions to people who fell into this category. These were designed
1342
to relieve the lot of the small purchaser who might be presumed not to have appreciated the need to seek professional advice.
The next category of case in which it is said hardship has been caused is where a private individual, possibly an owner-occupier, sells a house or it may be part of his garden or perhaps some other small plot of land that he may happen to own. Considerable sympathy is evoked for people called upon to pay levy in these circumstances, but it seems sometimes to be forgotten that the price they are able to obtain for their land is available only because of the prospect of development. Levy is due only if the sale has been made at about the current use value of the land because planning permission, or the prospect of planning permission, is in sight. No levy is taken on current use value of the land for the very good reason that the proceeds will enable the vendor to go and buy the equivalent elsewhere. Moreover, a vendor is given an additional allowance of the current 10 per cent. of the current use value free of levy, so that there is no question of current use value being finely or narrowly determined. I do not delude myself that people are anxious to pay 40 per cent. levy any more than they are anxious to pay any other tax, but taking the grant of planning permission and the charge to levy as a whole—taking the two parts together—people are not worse off than if the process had never happened. This should be made clear.
Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman has just recited all the various categories of hardship case. He has stated that this is the position under the Act and that it is working correctly in that sphere. Is he therefore saying that in those cases he has cited he has come to the conclusion that this is a sensible Act and should continue?
Mr. Robinson: I made clear at Question time this afternoon that I had not reached a conclusion; so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "No, I have not reached a conclusion". I am explaining that the provisions of the Act are not the all-embracing callous set of provisions manifestly unjust—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: They are.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman does not do his cause service by grossly exaggerating it. I have neve denied that there are cases of hardship—never from the start. I only say that when one is dealing with an Act which this House has passed after very considerable debate and discussion it is desirable to get the matter in perspective. In the House I was asked about the number of cases in which hardship had been claimed. The answer is under 3 per cent. We may all say that this is too many, that we should very much like to have a form of taxation which gave no possibility whatever of hardship. We should then be living in an ideal world very different from this one.
Mr. Peter Walker rose—
Mr. Robinson: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I have not reached the conclusion that he alleged that I had reached.
Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister should have done.
Mr. Robinson: If I may remind the hon. Gentleman of his own intervention, he asked me whether I had reached the conclusion that this was a perfect Act which did not need amending. I said that I had not reached that conclusion.
A great deal was said also about the activities of the Land Commission in its land acquisition function. This was dealt with by the hon. Members for Wokingham and Maidstone, who jointly initiated this debate. I will not attempt to set out in detail the activities of the Commission in this respect, which I think are now well known. I said a good deal in the debate on 6th February about the Commission's activities on the land side, about the reasons why its programme of land acquisition had taken some time to build up, and about the state of play at that time.
All I want to do today is to give an up-to-date account of the present position and deal with the two particular areas which have been raised by hon. Members. By mid-March the Commission had acquired 550 acres of land; contracts had been exchanged or were in preparation for a further 550; and compulsory purchase orders had been made or published in draft for a further 1,580 acres. Therefore, the Commission has
1344
made substantial progress towards the acquisition of 2,700 acres, and, furthermore, it has approved proposals for the acquisition of another 5,100 acres on top of that.
I think this shows that the programme is now building up in a fairly satisfactory way and that a good deal of the earlier criticism was misplaced. It is rather like with the levy. The Commission started by coming in for criticism because it was doing too little. It is now being criticised on both counts because it is doing too much. At least, that is what the hon. Member for Wokingham implied today.
I should like to say a few words to the hon. Gentleman about the site that he referred to near Wokingham. He admitted that he thought it was the right site, but he went on to say that the Commission ought not to have control over the development. The fact is that the Commission does not have control over the development. The control rests with the local planning authority and with my right hon. Friend. What the Commission can do is to make proposals and thus help the land to be brought forward for development, and it can make contributions in certain circumstances to servicing the land.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that even that is proper when the appropriate planning authority is hostile to the programme the Commission has in mind?
Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a slight difference of view between myself and my predecessors and some of the planning authorities in the outer Metropolitan area about the amount of land coming forward for development for private enterprise housing. I should have liked to have had the hon. Gentleman on my side on this matter. I have asked these planning authorities to look at their proposals and bring more land forward. Berkshire has been included in this request. I have had replies from a number of the authorities, but we have not yet reached the date by which I asked them all to let me have their responses.
I repeat what I said in an intervention, that the purpose of this exercise is to bring the land forward. It has been explained to these authorities how the Land

1345
Commission can help them in doing this. There is no question of forcing the Land Commission on any reluctant local authority if it does not wish to make use of the Land Commission's services.
Anything I have said about this case and what I now say about the case at Walderslade must be without prejudice to my right hon. Friend's decision on the planning application and the compulsory order. Subject to this, I am satisfied that the Commission is doing all it can to deal with any re-housing problems which may arise and also that objectors, both to the compulsory purchase order and to the planning applications, will receive as much information as possible as long before the inquiry as possible and that they will be given full opportunity to deploy their objections at the inquiry. This is a scheme which has been carried out in conjunction with the Kent County Council. I must say that I listened to the hon. Member for Maidstone with all the care that I could, but I became extremely confused at several points in his speech to know whether he was criticising the Land Commission or the Kent County Council. On balance, it seemed to me that the Kent County Council had rather more of his strictures than the Land Commission.
The House will not expect me this evening to go beyond what I said at three o'clock this afternoon. [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Member for Worcester was present this afternoon at Question time. If he was present, he was uncharacteristically silent. I have said that I am studying this. Hon. Members know that this is not a simple Act. All I can say is that I am doing what I undertook to the House to do, and if in the Government's view general changes are justified, proposals will be put to the House; but it would be quite wrong for me to give any advance indication, a fortiori in a debate on the Consolidated Fund, whether or not changes may be proposed in what is, after all, a matter of taxation.
Mr. Peter Walker: Will the Minister therefore confirm that the whole of this announcement on the front page of every newspaper on Saturday had no foundation?
Mr. Robinson: I think Ministers ought not to be called upon to comment upon stories in the Press. I might perhaps,
1346
however, make an exception on this occasion and say that even after a long study of the Press of our country over very many years I was very surprised to see a story based on false conclusions drawn from wrong premises and the resulting conjecture presented as fact. I will content myself with that comment at this stage.
Mr. J. M. L. Prior rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to take part in this debate?
Mr. Prior: Yes, indeed, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to prevent the hon. Gentleman, but it will help the Chair in the conduct of debates if hon. Gentlemen who wish to take part in a particular debate will let the Chair know.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Prior: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate, although I have listened to very nearly the whole of it. The only reason I want to intervene for a few minutes is because I believe that the Minister has not done himself justice or the House fairness in his speech.
To take up the last point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on the question of the Press, one of my constituents rang me on Saturday morning and raised the question of the Land Commission. I referred him to the speculation in the Press. He said, "Can I believe this or not?".
I told him flatly, "It is inconceivable that responsible political correspondents could have written this story up without any guidance from the Government as to what was happening; or, if they have written the story up and it is not true, it is inconceivable that within a very short time it will not be denied by the Government".
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It is called journalistic truth.
Mr. Prior: In a case like this it would be only reasonable for the Government to deny it. It has taken until this afternoon for the Minister to make any statement about it. This was not a statement by just one newspaper or one political correspondent. These were political

1347
correspondents of great repute right across the board. It was most unreasonable of the Minister not to have replied to it until this afternoon when he was challenged on it. This Government have never been slow in the past to feed all the stories in the world to the national Press. Yet on this particular occasion they chose to say absolutely nothing.
The right hon. Gentleman, in spending so much time dealing with individual cases of hardship, is totally missing the point. He is spending so much time on individual cases of hardship that he has no time to deal with the principles of the Act, which we all know now to be wrong. Anyone who has had anything to do with land management will know—and I declare an interest in this—when one gets involved in this sort of legislation, if one tries to be as all-embracing as this Act has tried to be, one is bound to encounter the problems which have been encountered.
The Minister has told us this afternoon with some satisfaction, though it explains much of the trouble, that 60 per cent. has come from levies of over £10,000 and 40 per cent. from levies of under £10,000. That shows very plainly that the vast majority of the money that has come into the Land Commission so far has come in very small amounts from small people. I do not believe it is worth the candle to try to collect this money. If the Minister would even take the advice from his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), he would cut out everyone below £15,000. I would lower that and make it £10,000 or even £5,000.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he cannot amend legislation in this particular debate.
Mr. Graham Page: This could be done by an Order under Section 63. With respect, I think we are entitled to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
We have reached a stage now where a large number of small innocent people—innocent because they do not know the
1348
Act or have not had the advice they ought to have had—are being made to suffer. Time after time, the Minister says he is not yet in a position to give an answer.
All Governments occasionally get themselves into a muddle, but this Government and this Minister stand condemned for their callous attitude to these people.
Mr. Speaker: Order.

ARMY WARRANT OFFICERS (PENSIONS)
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Angus Maude: I am grateful for the opportunity at this early hour to raise a question which is comparatively non-controversial and involves no party political cause of dispute at all.
I raise the question of the provisions for the commutation of pensions by Army warrant officers. I wish to discuss it as a matter of principle. This arises, as the Under-Secretary knows, from a case of a constituent of mine about whom I have been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary for some time, I raise it as a matter of principle, because the attitude being taken by the Defence Council is unduly restrictive in the light of the changed circumstances in the modern Army.
I prefer not to mention my constituent's name in this case. I am sure the Under-Secretary will follow the same convention, because it would be hardly fair to drag into the public eye the financial affairs and domestic details of a man living in a known place. The case is that of a warrant officer who retired from Army service in 1967 after 23 years with an excellent record, having been honoured with the award of the M.B.E. When he left the service he was unable to get a council house, as is very frequently the experience of men leaving the Army. He decided to buy one. He commuted a part of his pension in order to put down a deposit on a house and he raised a mortgage on the rest for £3,500. He is now anxious to commute a further part of his pension to enable him to pay for £1,000 worth of the mortgage which totals £3,500. His annual expenses on this house, including rates

1349
and insurance, are approximately £470 a year or £9 a week.
Almost immediately he left the Army this retired warrant officer went into a good job under the auspices of the public service. He is a training officer with an industrial training board. He has a good salary but—and this is the important point—his job is pensionable, so he has a pension from his existing job to look forward to.
He is a man who is taking some pains to acquire educational qualifications. While in the Army he gained "O" levels and "A" levels, and he is now reading for a degree. I want to persuade the Under-Secretary that times have changed substantially since the perfectly reasonable, paternalistic precedents were laid down governing the granting of permission to former warrant officers to commute their pensions. As I understand the situation, it is not that the Defence Council are bound by regulations to prevent further commutation. This is a question of precedents and their estimate of the rights and wrongs of a particular case. A warrant officer is allowed to commute his pension in exceptional circumstances down to 21s. a week, provided that—I think I have the right words—" it can be shown to be to his distinct and permanent advantage."
The question presumably is how is this "distinct and permanent advantage" to be estimated. Here I feel the Defence Council or the Under-Secretary's advisers are taking a line which is not entirely in tune with the changed conditions in the modern Army. One can well understand that provisions of this kind were necessary at a time when those leaving the Army, even holders of the warrant, were perhaps not very highly educated and not very highly qualified technically. The situation is very much changed. A high proportion of warrant officers who leave the Army, particularly in technical corps, are very highly qualified indeed and are able to step into good jobs with good salaries for their qualifications and, as in this case, pensionable jobs.
Whatever the precedents from the past may be, there is a case for taking a more flexible line and looking at each case on its merits, without being afraid that precedents will be created which need necessarily be applied to every other case.
1350
If I can persuade the Under-Secretary to say that an attitude of greater flexibility will be observed in future, this will have been something of a gain, though I should like also to persuade him to apply this flexibility to the case of my own constituent.
I suspect that my constituent's case is not exceptional. He could have stayed in the Army and probably secured a commission. I doubt whether that will be questioned. Had he stayed on and taken a commission, it is extremely probable, if not almost certain, that he would have been allowed to commute a further part of his pension in his present circumstances. To all intents and purposes, in terms of education, technical qualifications and the kind of job he has, he is indistinguishable from many former commissioned officers. Therefore, his case should be considered on his personal merits, and its economic implications, rather than distinguished sharply from that of officers in a similar position merely because he was not commissioned and they are.
I can understand that the Minister may wish to make out a case for saying that to refuse a further commutation of the pension in order to reduce a mortgage from £3,500 to £2,500 is to the man's distinct and permanent advantage. If so, I hope that he will make out that case, because it is necessary to persuade my constituent, and it is also necessary to persuade me.
The mortgage interest rate is 8½ per cent. now. I shall firmly resist the temptation to make any political point, and merely state that as a fact. Let me disarm the Minister in advance by saying that it is, of course, true that if my constituent retains the pension uncommuted he has what may be an appreciating asset, in that it is possible that under subsequent amendments to the Warrant the rate of pension may be increased, whereas if he commutes now he will get no appreciation in that part of his pension which he has commuted.
At the same time he has an appreciating asset in his house, and so long as mortgage interest rates remain at anything like their present level it is very difficult to suggest on economic grounds that it would not be to his advantage, at the age of 44 and with a good and pensionable job, to reduce the very heavy

1351
burden that the mortgage places on him. He had no alternative but to take on that burden because he had to buy a house to live near his job.
Assuming that the recent rate of inflation will go on indefinitely, the value of foreseeable future increases in pension is no doubt increased. One could argue that inflation means that the value of the pension will have to be increased, and that the real value of the debt which the mortgage repays will be going down, but in my view it is offset by the fact that the real value of the house will be increasing.
I hope that the Minister will take the time to try to demonstrate that in a case like this it is to this man's permanent financial advantage to refuse him permission to commute his pension. If he cannot do so, I shall be grateful if he can tell me on what other grounds it seems reasonable to refuse it. Since the Defence Council has the power to do it, it seems to me unduly paternalistic, inflexible and restrictive for it to deal with a case like this on precedents, to say that it cannot budge from its view because of the precedent it might set.
Nowadays, the authorities should be prepared to look at exceptional cases on their merits, to take flexible and, if necessary, quite exceptional decisions in particular cases.
7.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Hoyden): May I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) for the notification he gave my private office on this matter and for the tone in which he presented the case both in principle and for his constituent. I hope that what he said may be helpful.
I say at once that the hon. Gentleman's constituent is an absolutely admirable warrant officer. What he has been doing in the way of his studies, his job and the way he has bought his own house are the sort of things we are always trying to persuade warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s to do. Although I do not know him personally, he is a classic case of a good soldier making a good citizen. I am very glad that he has the sort of job that he has, and I suspect that his good Army training helped him to get it. I
1352
have no doubt that in it he is making a good contribution from the Army to civil life.
I would like first to set out the rules for officers and other ranks to put the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent into perspective. A retired officer may be permitted to commute part of his retired pay under the rules made under the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, which I think the hon. Gentleman knows. The main rules are that the retired officer must be medically fit; that he may not commute more than half his retired pay; and that he must keep at least £150 a year of his retired pay. A discharged warrant officer, senior N.C.O. or private may be permitted by the Defence Council to commute part of his Service pension. He is required, under the provision of a Royal Warrant, to prove that it would be to his distinct and permanent advantage to commute. The case with which we are now concerned hinges very much on that.
The present rules are that the serviceman must be medically fit and that he may commute up to £600 within six months of leaving the Army if the money is required towards purchase of a house, furniture or a car that is essential for his business. That £600 is conceded very easily, without much argument. It is the second slice, the higher sums, that causes the difficulty. On the whole, there are not many requests for sums over the £600. After the first £600, he can apply at any time to commute, but this is much more difficult. It is put through a very severe sieve.
A warrant officer Class II, as the hon. Gentleman's constituent is, must keep at least 14s. of his pension, and a warrant officer Class I must keep 21s. In other words, anybody below the rank of warrant officer Class I must keep 14s. The question is, what is the distinct and permanent advantage in this case? The view in the Department has been for a considerable time that it is not generally in a serviceman's interests to commute beyond the £600 for a deposit on a house. I agree that mortgage interests rates have risen since these rules have been operated, but the general policy is that he should pay the mortgage rates and that he should enter into hire purchase arrangements for the purchase of furniture. If

1353
he is considering business arrangements and wants a large sum, as occasionally happens, the view is that he should have a bank loan, as well as perhaps getting commutation.
The point hinges very much on what the hon. Gentleman said, that in the first case he is also sacrificing the pension increases that he would get at the age of 60. But in addition, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but which is quite important because in a way it is insurance cover, he sacrifices in the same way an increase he would get if he were incapacitated through ill health. In other words, there are two solid advantages in not commuting a pension—the increase at 60 and the cover for incapacity which might cause a man to give up his job and be effectively retired before he reached the age of 60.
However, the Department considers major cummutations for the purchase of a business, which is the most common type of major commutation beyond the £600. The Army Pensions Office administers these aspects of pensions for the three Services and makes an investigation, assisted by field workers of the Forces Help Society. This is quite a difficult investigation. Men are disappointed. But, nevertheless, we have received letters from men subsequently thanking the Society and the Pensions Office for stopping them from getting into a bad deal. I have also had a number of cases since I went to the Department where I think I would have had letters of this sort had those involved bothered to write. But it is an equal balance.
Commutation is not agreed in order that Service pensioners may raise money for investment, or purchase a non-essential car, or clear their debts. There are exceptional circumstances in which debts might be considered, but, generally speaking, the sort of cases I have had in which pensioners complain about this are those in which I am sure the rather paternalistic view which the hon. Gentleman referred to would be justified. I agree at once that there is something of a paternalistic attitude here, and it is very difficult to weigh the balance between over-cautious and being rash. This is the heart of the problem, plus the relative ease with which an officer can commute compared with the difficulties for other ranks.
1354
I think that, on the whole, the present arrangements deal satisfactorily with most of the cases. It is the exceptional case—and the hon. Gentleman's constituent is such a case—which causes difficulties. But a fair sum of money is involved. It would be expensive to go for a much easier commutation and the facility is seldom available in other occupations and to other pensioners. For example, the police can commute up to 25 per cent. of pension but do not receive the Services' lump sum terminal grant, and of course, there are in the Services satisfactory terminal grants. In the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent it was £1,175.
So, in this sense, Servicemen are exceptionally favoured. They can make this commutation for good Service reasons. They come out of the Services without a house, although many local authorities grant them council houses. They do not have much furniture but probably in these days they do have a car. One of the things my wife comes across in meeting Service families is the fear among the women not only of their husbands plunging into new jobs—in the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, that has been overcome—but of the setting up of a new home and finding new furniture.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are reviewing the whole aspect of commutation. The review is nearly at a conclusion and I hope that it will only be a matter of weeks before we can announce the results. The review has been thorough. I am also looking into the question of applying the present rules more flexibly, in a less paternalistic manner. There is an increase in the Estimates this year—and it is a fairly substantial one—to deal with the question of increased commutation, but it is a tri-Service matter. It extends into other Departments and this is one of the reasons why I am not now in a position to say positively what we are going to do.
I can hold out considerable hope that, on general principles, we will in future be less paternalistic and bring the rules more in line with modern conditions. But I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman to some extent. I do not think that I can hold out much hope that, on the mortgage side of his case, I can do much

1355
about it. His constituent would be entitled to be considered for commutation for business or something of that sort—indeed, for a car if that was essential to his business. But that is hardly the point.
The hon. Gentleman fairly said that this was a matter of mortgage and I cannot honestly say that I can hold out much hope. However, on the general issue, I hope that we shall be able to produce some new rules which will be less paternalistic, more flexible and more up-to-date.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. James Ramsden: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has done the House a service in initiating this short debate. It has enabled him to put the case for his constituent, which he did with great logic and clarity, and he showed it to be a case of considerable concern to the individual involved. Again, in raising it, he touched on a general principle which, as we have gathered from the Under-Secretary of State's reply, is topical, to say the least, in the context of the present review of pay and pensions. It is the more topical in that the reduction in the size of the forces means that more than the average number of senior ranks will be coming out with pension and gratuity. Therefore, this sort of case is likely to arise again in future.
No one can complain—and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not—of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's reply, which was extremely sympathetic. I have only one or two short comments. First, I ask him whether it is within his power to look at this case again. I am not sure whether it is within his power to do so, although I should remember because I saw some of these cases myself. My impression is that, if the hon. Gentleman were to look at it again with his advisers and to decide that some further extension of commutation were desirable, it would be possible for him to take that decision and have it implemented.
If I am right, I hope that he will take another look at the case because I am slightly worried by the somewhat artificial distinction between an officer, who could have commuted all he wished for this purpose, and a senior warrant officer who, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, might well have stayed on
1356
in the Army and had commissioned rank but who is limited by the rules which the hon. Gentleman has explained. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the case again with a view to exercising discretion. It is a worrying anomaly that a man in this position should be treated differently because he happens to be a commissioned warrant officer instead of a commissioned officer in this day and age.
The hon. Gentleman said that if there were any general relaxation of principle it would affect the money put in the Estimates, increasing the amount of money annually paid out of the total lump sum for commutation, and would make a significant difference in the amount required on the Army Votes. I appreciate this, but it would not vitiate the possibility of looking at one or two individual cases which come on the borderline.
I do not know that what the Under-Secretary of State said will completely satisfy my hon. Friend or his constituent on the economic aspects of whether it is better to commute £1,000 and not have to pay mortgage interest or to continue borrowing at a time when money values are depreciating and, therefore, the repayment of a loan is becoming cheaper. I shall not go into that argument. I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be endorsing the principle on behalf of the Government. The Government are no longer in any position to control the rate of depreciation of the value of money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not saying that it was to the distinct and permanent advantage of pensioners to retain their pensions as a hedge against inflation. I hope that he will look at this case again, and treat it sympathetically if he can.

PLANNING, PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The subject I wish to raise tonight will, I hope, have attached to it none of the acrimony which attended the first debate on the Bill. I am arguing that the need for planning, preservation and development be considered on a national basis. I aim to initiate a discussion inside and outside the House because it is a subject upon which there should be a proper

1357
partnership between Government, Parliament and the public. We should have far more planning on a national basis, planning by consent, evolved rather than imposed from Whitehall or Westminster.
Many of the distressing aspects of the present situation are due to the imposition of plans dreamt up by those who had perhaps not the proper touch with the people for whom they planned. Planning should be a positive process rather than a purely negative one, as it is too often today. What I have to say has little to do with the National—economic—Plan, about which we heard so much some years ago, although development—industrial, commercial and other forms—has a considerable bearing upon our environment, and obviously the economic situation will affect what is done.
We live in a crowded island and a highly developed society—too crowded most would agree. In addition, it is a society which has become perhaps too complex for many of us. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has done much valuable work and had a long correspondence with the Prime Minister, which has been published, on the population problem. I hope that it will be studied by hon. Members and many others outside the House. It is not primarily with that problem that I want to deal this evening, although obviously planning on the scale and with the sympathy for which I am asking must take account of an increase in the population, although some of the figures which have been given are perhaps too alarming.
We can all agree that our surroundings have a very considerable effect upon our lives, and that in our work or at leisure, we can find ourselves employed infinitely more effectively if we are surrounded by beauty rather than by ugliness and squalor. The land is infinitely precious, and it is not something which can be lacerated by road, rail, air, power, pipes and wires, and all the other interests which attack it, without injury, some of which may be permanent, or at least last for more than one generation.
The first item mentioned in the title of my debate is preservation, and I would say a word about that before passing on to other matters. There is first preservation
1358
of the land and scenery. Scenery is something built up over the years, in most cases over the centuries.
What man has done to the scene, although it may be a grave injury, has often been a recent intrusion and the scenery which we most enjoy has been there for many centuries. No amount of landscaping by Ministerial experts or local authority experts, or even private experts, can undo damage of certain kinds; no planting of shrubs or rows of geraniums or rows of Japanese flowering cherries can replace a cherished landscape where English oaks have grown and matured over three centuries. Nothing can replace them if a wrong decision is made.
Then there are buildings. Taken in isolation, buildings are seldom worth preserving, but one must look to their surroundings. The Gowers Report, which many regard as almost the Bible on the subject of planning and preservation of items of historical interest, went out of its way to stress the importance of preservation and enhancing the appearance of buildings of importance. Yet it has taken years of endless frustration in this House to get the first Civic Amenities Act, and then the provisions in the latest Town and Country Planning Measure.
I remember introducing a Bill, the precursor of the Civic Amenities Act, which was blocked by my own party. For that they should be ashamed of themselves. There are many building of immense significance which have received grants from the Historic Buildings Council and which have had thousands of pounds of private money and years of loving care lavished upon them which are even now threatened by a by-pass or some other man-made threat. There are many buildings which have been the subject of immense expenditure and care but whose surroundings, because of the lack of planning in the past, are, if not ruined, then considerably damaged.
Nothing is now being done to improve these surroundings. Hardly a day goes by but we hear of some new threat to something which is priceless and which the nation—and I stress the nation, not just the private or public owner—cannot afford to lose. The House will have noticed the Motion, signed by well over 100 Members, concerning the threat to Levens Park in Westmorland. I have no

1359
wish to enter into a debate on that subject. It would be unfair to the Ministry of Transport, which is principally concerned, to do so. I merely wish to say that this is a piece of landscape which has enjoyed public access for more than three centuries and has on it trees which cannot be replaced.
It has a wealth of animal, bird and aquatic life, and the scenery is so splendid that it has attracted the attention of David Cox, de Wint, Girtin and many others. I do not believe that the present threat would have become so ominous if the full picture had been available to all concerned in good time. I feel hopeful that the good sense of the Minister of Transport, who is now so personally involved, will prevail, and that an act of real statesmanship will save this unique part of our landscape. Centuries from now we shall earn the condemnation of our heirs if we do not act with good sense in such cases.
I have spoken of the threat from the road, Roads are most unpleasant things. They are a scar on the landscape which is slow to heal. They bring vehicles, sometimes recklessly driven, usually noisy, and often smelly. Vehicles could perhaps be designed which had neither noise nor smell, and then so much happier would we all be. As this Government, in particular, are so interested in every facet of life, I wonder what they are doing to press on with research to see whether road users can be made less intrusive and obnoxious. Much of the trouble from roads would be abated if those who travel on them were not so offensive to the countryside or townscape through which the road passes.
How much better it is to design a bypass or a through route, if a through route is needed, than to indulge in piecemeal improvement and destroy the places we aim to save. How many small towns and villages have had their guts torn out by road widening and such other improvements before the bypass is built? We would restore life to many of our villages by getting rid of the traffic which thunders through them. We must make the decision in time before the villages are completely destroyed.
The Ministry of Power, with its pipes and wires and power stations, has much
1360
to answer for. Why is it not possible to aim at concentrating the wires of the C.E.G.B., the railways and the through route by road all along one valley instead of spreading their nuisances over such a wide area? I wonder why the public bodies which deal with the telephones, electricity, radio and television must have so many wires disfiguring the countryside and the towns. Has any real thought been given to the design of the necessary pieces of equipment? Must we have frightful square transformer boxes stuck up on poles in every pleasant field through which a wire passes? Does the electricity authority from time to time consider the mess it is creating and wonder how it can simplify it? I can answer that question. The answer is, no, unless prodded by a locally interested person. The landscape can often be greatly improved by people getting together and planning an improvement.
I have been attacking various de-flowerers of the landscape, as they might be called. I propose in the next part of my speech not to make an attack but to turn my spotlight on the amenity societies because they, too, could do more by collaborating to a much greater degree. The Civic Trust has a fine overall record. Would that its work could go even further. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings does good work in connection with early buildings, but it makes a special point of not concerning itself with land, so that it will not act to protect the surroundings. The Georgian Group is admirably concerned with Georgian buildings. The Victorian Society has its own special field of operations. I wish that there was more collaboration between them. The C.P.R.E. does good work in the countryside, but the C.L.A. must also be involved.
Only recently it was discovered that there was no effective group of people looking after the interests of historic buildings, in public and private ownership. It took the initiative of the British Travel Association, which is concerned with tourism, to set up, first, an advisory committee and then a more permanent body representing private owners of historic buildings, the National Trust, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and all the other organisations concerned. It is surprising that that committee came

1361
into operation only three years ago. There was no proper collaboration between all these bodies which were trying to do much the same concerning historic buildings.
There is a national responsibility for buildings and the countryside. The National Trust does an admirable job. But it must be brought into closer partnership with the private people concerned. We have heard the plea that National Trust land should be inalienable and that once it belongs to the National Trust it cannot be disturbed. I hope that we shall give this matter a little thought because the ownership of a piece of land—it might not be of agricultural use, and it might not be particularly attractive to look at—by the National Trust might positively steer a new road or some other unpleasant development straight into an historic building or another piece of land of great significance in private ownership. We must aim at a proper partnership between the National Trust and other trusts and all the interests concerned, because there are many beautiful pieces of countryside and many fine buildings not in the National Trust's hands which could be damaged as a result of Trust ownership of adjacent properties.
I hope that more preservation trusts will be set up. It is possible under present charity legislation for money to be devoted to this purpose. There are few privileges which the National Trust enjoys which could not be enjoyed by trusts set up for a similar purpose. Just as in private enterprise health insurance I would hope that British United Provident would not have a perpetual monopoly, so I feel certain that the National Trust could do with some competition as it finds it difficult to administer all that it now owns.
I could continue with my list of offenders—and local government would come high on the list. Some local planning departments are very ignorant, particularly about historic buildings, and seem insensitive to scenery. One has only to look at the actions of the park departments in some of our big cities to realise that to them landscaping simply means rows of geraniums. We have had a similar intrusion in Bristol in a landscape by Humphry Repton. It may be that some of my friends in Bristol like rows
1362
of geraniums in a Repton landscape. But these are small matters compared with the ignorance displayed by many planning departments. One could forgive it if they would follow professional advice when it is available. I believe that most councils have, or certainly could have, an advisory panel of independent architects to help them.
I remember in a county well known to me—I am not speaking of Bristol—a frightful decision having been made about the amenities of a fine building. When I asked what the advisory committee of architects had said about this piece of bad planning, I was told, "We did not think it was anything to do with them". There is not only ignorance, but a lack of enthusiasm, to put it mildly, to consult those who could help.
There are those who are above the law, the Service Ministries in particular. I would say a word in their defence, because they are not as bad as some would have it. If a large tract of countryside is in the hands of a Service Ministry and perhaps used for a rifle range or worse, that piece of land has at least been saved from development, and perhaps 50 years from now when it is relinquished we shall be delighted to find that there is one large area of our country—or, as a Dorset resident, I would say "county"—which has been saved from the developer. It may be that land which now causes so much trouble in the Isle of Purbeck will one day become a great beauty spot because the military were there for a century and stopped other men from spoiling it. Nevertheless, the Service Departments must take their share of the blame, in that many of the things erected by them are not objects of beauty. Worst of all, they fail to take them away when they have finished with them, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say a word in the ear of some of his right hon. Friends on this matter.
Nationalised industries are outside planning altogether. I accept the doctrine that the Crown must be paramount and must not be put in the position of having to ask permission from a committee before it acts. Here there could perhaps be more friendly collaboration.
Even the Church is not without blame. The Measure designed to deal with redundant churches which was before us recently did not meet with universal

1363
approval; almost every speech but one was critical. This scheme left in the hands of the Church of England the demolition of any building that it was determined to demolish, and funds for repair and renewal were to be made available only to those buildings which had reached a state of redundancy. All manner of frightful things might happen to a building on the way to redundancy, and the building might be quite irredeemable before it became redundant.
The Church does not have a very good record for maintenance. During the last 100 years the death-watch beetle has begun to show, and I am always distressed to hear of £10,000 or £20,000 being needed to save a roof when perhaps a little more care during the last 50 years would have reduced that budget by more than half.
I have given a catalogue of villains in which I must include the private developer and the private citizen, because we are all to blame. So often we are insensitive in our choice of materials. A laudable scheme of housing may be ruined by the use of uncompromising materials. It is no good saying that the material will weather in time. There are certain types of red brick and concrete blocks which will not weather in a century, no matter how much mud is rubbed into them or how many fast-growing Leyland cypresses are planted round them. The Minister might like to see what his friends in the Forestry Commission are doing to propagate the fastest growing of all the conifers, the Leyland cypress, which can now be grown in vast numbers thanks to mist propagation. It is able to grow at the rate of 2 ft. 6 ins. a year and can be used to hide hideous bricks and concrete.
It might be said that my remarks have been somewhat random. This is a very big subject, and the House might ask me what I am proposing to do about it. I do not believe that some omnipotent new planning procedure is the answer. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe in imposing plans. They should be evolved. That means that people matter, and that the planning must start with the people in the locality; but there must be better collaboration between all those interested. When people are together round a table discussing a project or an
1364
area of countryside, the first requirement is for a map, and maps are sadly lacking.
The 25 in. Ordance map was created in the 1880s. The maps for certain areas have been brought up to date but not all. We need a 25 in. map of the entire country, up to date, constantly revised, with the revisions available. With all the magic of photo-copying, it is perfectly possible to photograph a map that was drawn yesterday for distribution to all who need it. The map should show all the features of significance, both scenic and man-made, not forgetting vistas and views, which are not always easily seen from a map. I should have thought that the planners would be able to spot an avenue and would know that it would not be a good idea to build a row of red brick council houses at the end of it, but they cannot. If one stands in the front door of Montacute House, Somerset, looking down the magnificent drive, one sees at the end one and a half red brick council houses in an otherwise open landscape. The same thing happens opposite the great gate of St. Osyth's Priory, in Essex, although there there is a pleasant crescent of council houses, and I am told that the planting of suitable creepers and trees has resulted in their looking quite attractive. But the point is that they need not have been built there.
There are also caravan sites and railway sidings which surround historic buildings of great significance. Some of these happened in the nineteenth century, but some are still happening.
The map should also show mature woodlands. There are various symbols for a tree on the Ordnance Survey map, but one is not able to tell from the symbol what one needs to know. Buildings should also be shown, grade 1, grade 2 starred, grade 2 and even grade 3, and also groups of buildings. No map shows groups of buildings of architectural and historic significance, although I recognise that grants have been made towards the repair of groups of buildings, none of which is of the first class. Properly constructed, up-to-date maps of the kind I am suggesting would be of great assistance. If in the local planning office there were put on the wall a map of the area covered by the planning authority, officers would think twice before suggesting to their committees the

1365
sort of proposals which are put into effect. This properly constructed map, like the 39 Articles, should be the guideline on which we should proceed.
Having got the map, one can designate the areas which are suitable for certain kinds of development, by which I mean not just the creation of new work but perhaps the removal of old. Under the conservation area procedure, it can be done, though I doubt whether much demolition will take place. However, if one designates an area for improvement, it should be the conscious effort of the local authority and others who can be brought into its confidence to improve that area and then all those areas where it is decided that development should take place.
If one can sort out the various needs and requirements, one might get a great deal more; done in the way of dealing with our housing problem, which the right hon. Gentleman assured the nation recently was nearing its end—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman disagrees. I heard the television broadcast, and I thought he meant that there would be a surplus in many areas though there would still be problems elsewhere. In certain places we are nearing the end of the problem, and that will make planning easier. There way be other areas where there is great pressure for land. With a more sensible designation of what should go where, it may be that a flood of land would come on the market.
There is an immense amount of waste in planning at present. There is waste where land is built up, and that leads to the destruction of new land. The right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me when I say that we should repeal all the Rent Acts and, by so doing, make for a much greater mobility and also make it very much easier to redevelop entire streets or neighbourhoods. At the present time, only local authorities can do this, and they have limited resources. I would like to see the scrapping of the Rent Acts, so enabling large areas of Victorian suburban houses with substantial gardens to be redeveloped as neighbourhoods, where one could end up with a greater density of people living in much better surroundings. In my part of the world, for example, there are many large Victorian houses which are occupied by small families. Much of the available accommodation is empty. Their owners
1366
fear to let it in case they find themselves with tenants for life. That is another matter, I know, but it may be that it has a bearing on the general problem.
I have covered a very wide area, but I hope that I have given the Minister a little to think about. I know he cares very much about the matters which I discussed at the beginning of my speech, and I am sure that he will agree that the present situation is not entirely satisfactory. I hope he will be able to give an undertaking tonight that the Government regard the whole matter as one of the greatest importance. I am sure that he will acknowledge that all is not well and that present policy does not provide all the safeguards that we need, in that it does not bring into partnership all the interests concerned.
We must think of the long-distant future, not just of the next generation, but of the next, the next and the next. If we want our age to be remembered at all, I hope that it will be that we recognise at last the unique value of our landscape and the varied buildings which man has created and, I hope, will go on creating upon it. I hope that we shall be remembered for recognising that ugly surroundings make for ugly lives. We can make a better future for our children's children if we tackle the problem, but it must be tackled now. This is our last chance. Let us begin by the short discussion that we have had this evening and hope that the Minister will be able to give us some cheerful thoughts from this Government.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Edwin Brooks: I shall not detain the House for long, and I must apologise to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for having missed the earlier part of his speech. I have been following the latter part with interest and with sympathy for the underlying theme which he developed.
There is a need for planning to be systematic and comprehensive, to be up to date, and to recognise both the legacy of the past and the grave problems of the future. Inevitably, in a theme as broadly based as that introduced by the hon. Gentleman, it is easy to be tempted to cover far too large a canvas. I have no wish either to reiterate what he has said nor to give my right hon. Friend

1367
any anxious moments by putting questions to him of which I have not given him previous notice. I want simply to refer to one point. I feel that it is one of some importance and one which is often ignored in our general discussions about planning and planning priorities.
In one of his phrases, the hon. Gentleman said that plans must start with people. I want to take up that phrase but in rather a different way from that which is normally intended. I agree that plans are about people. But a great deal depends on the number of people with whom one is dealing.
Britain is a small island which has to import something like half its food supplies. This position is likely to be with us for decades to come. It is an island which has a density of population among the highest in the world. Moreover, the population is densely congested in our great conurbations. It shows evidence of internal migration which is likely to lead to even greater densities in the future. This is an island where the population can look forward confidently in the decades ahead to rising standards of affluence, and one of the consequences of affluence is that the effective demand for land space increases dramatically. As more people obtain motor cars, their mobility increases, they become a race of urban nomads and, as their leisure time increases, their demands upon recreational facilities grow. We have seen the extrapolations of the Buchanan Committee which show the magnitude of the crisis which will affect our road systems before the end of the century.
There are many other forecasts which can be made, especially those arising from population growth; which should fill us with apprehension. In the earlier years of this century, certainly in the inter-war years, it was anticipated confidently that the population of this country was, at most, on a plateau and might even be beginning a process of long descent. However, since about the mid-1950s, there has been a dramatic and unexpected increase in our population, with a substantial increase in the birth rate leading to many problems of demand for educational facilities and for social services in general. Although it is true that, since about 1964, the birth rate has tended to fall, it is still higher than would
1368
have been anticipated in the immediate aftermath of the post-war birth rate bulge.
Therefore, we have forecasts of a population growth throughout the remaining decades of the century which will pose immense problems to the planners. According to the latest figures, which have not been amended substantially in the last few months, we can anticipate an average annual increase of 400,000 persons in Great Britain during the 1970s, rising to an annual average increase of 500,000 during the 1980s, and to an increase of 700,000 a year during the decade of the 1990s.
This should rightly fill us with great apprehension. We are, in effect, adding to the very limited space of this island the equivalent of a city the size of Bristol each year during the next decade and, by the end of the century, a city the equivalent of the present-day population of Liverpool. It will not work out as neatly as that, but, when we try to put these figures into some recognisable pattern of magnitude, we can see clearly that there is here a grave threat to agricultural land and to the very environment in which we live, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have an obligation to pass on to our successors without fundamental deterioration or mishap.
Sir David Renton: In order to complete the interesting picture which the hon. Gentleman is drawing, would he confirm that an area of agricultural land approximately the size of Devonshire will be needed by about the end of the century to accommodate all the new cities, towns and dwellings that he has mentioned?
Mr. Brooks: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is broadly accurate in this prospect. A great deal depends on certain assumptions over the density at which we envisage future residents of this island living. But there are certain upper limits to the density at which people should and can be asked to live together. Therefore, I do not find myself in disagreement with the quite dramatic way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put the problem.
It may be said that this is beyond our control: that population movements throughout history, even to those who,

1369
like historians, are blessed with hindsight and have considerable knowledge of the circumstances, have always been matters of great mystery and confusion.
There is a great deal of argument among economic historians about the causal relationship between population growth and economic advance. Certainly I am not competent to comment upon the technicalities of such arguments. Nevertheless, we must surely recognise that much of our economic planning during the last 20 to 30 years has been motivated by the wish to avoid unnecessary and excessive congestion in certain areas of the country. It is fairly obvious that, over the last 30 years, our planning has been largely shaped by the considerations brought forward by the Barlow Commission in 1940. Although we often think of the Barlow Commission's Report as stressing the problems of the depressed regions of Britain it was simultaneously stressing the disadvantages of undue concentrations of population in the more favoured regions of Britain. Those concentrations which were going on in the inter-war years were in large measure due to migration. This was regarded as a matter which was capable of being solved or remedied to some extent by Government intervention. Indeed, this explains much of our post-war development area policy.
However, when we are faced with increases of population in the South-Eastern region of between 2 million and 3 million during the present quarter of a century and are told simultaneously that this increase, vast though it is, is beyond our control because a great proportion is due to the net increase of population arising from the high birth rate among people already in the region, it seems that we are in a sense selling the pass. We are saying that there is nothing we can do about natural rates and trends in population growth, but that there is a great deal we can do about the distribution of the population once it has appeared.
This problem requires a great deal more thought in this country. I accept, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will say if he is drawn to comment upon the phrase, that there is no very easy meaning to be given to such a concept as "optimum population." A great deal
1370
depends on the quite arbitrary criteria that one introduces to define that term. But I think that we must ask ourselves whether it is a sensible thing for this country, given its problems of land use and of conservation, to envisage an increase in population to 71 million or 72 million by the end of the century.
I think that this is where we have at last a marginal rôle to play as a Government, as a legislature, if only because there are certain spheres in which it is proper for the Government to intervene. I refer to family planning, in particular. It seems quite extraordinary that, given the very large increase in the rate of illegitimacy in this country in recent years which has undoubtedly been serious and significant, we are, in effect, prepared to see our population problems magnified, as it were, by the injection of this serious problem or group of problems without doing much about it.
I appreciate that for many years this has been a subject which politicians have been chary to discuss in public because of religious and moral overtones, but there is a need to speak up on what is becoming a severe moral problem, namely, the sheer pressure—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The subject being discussed at the moment is planning, preservation and development. I think it is stretching the responsibility of the Department which is to reply to the debate a little far to discuss family planning.
Mr. Brooks: With respect, this is precisely the predicament we are in. Perhaps I can illustrate my point a little more succinctly. We have, for example, in this review, "The Task Ahead", which certainly deals with the problem of economic planning in this country, one or two paragraphs which clearly indicate the implications of certain patterns of demographic change.
On page 51, dealing with health, we are informed:
"Between 1967 and 1972 the total population of Great Britain is forecast to increase by 2–6 per cent.…"
My whole point in arguing that there is relevance in considering demographic change as something which is amenable to Government intervention is to argue that these forecasts are not immutable; they are forecasts based on certain

1371
assumptions which are all too readily taken for granted.
There is equally nothing inevitable about the changes which are forecast in an earlier section of the Report on page 37 dealing with changes in the working population. Some very important forecasts are made about the changing numbers of the population, the effect of these changes upon employment demand, upon productivity per head, and, as a result of changes in the structure of the population, upon different demands for male, female and juvenile labour. When the hon. Member for Bristol, West posed his theme about the need for a comprehensive approach to problems of planning, I thought it was important to bring into the equation one of the most important determinants of all.
Without wishing to stretch your patience unnecessarily, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply reiterate that this is a matter to which Parliament should address itself in all seriousness with a sense of urgency, because, despite all the exhortations to conserve the beauties of our environment, our countryside and our landscape which have been made so eloquently this evening, I fear there is little hope of doing so unless we can simultaneously reduce these tremendous pressures on our land area.
8.28 p.m.
The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I think that the whole House knows the concern of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for amenity and planning generally—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I take it that the right hon. Member is seeking the leave of the House to speak again?
Mr. Robinson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the head of my notes is a reminder to ask for the leave of the House, which I now do. It perhaps gives me the opportunity to repeat my opening sentence, which was that the hon. Gentleman's concern for amenity and planning generally, and preservation in particular, is well known in this House, and I think that there was very little in his speech with which one could dissent, certainly within the scope of planning.
1372
Indeed, it is good to hear an hon. Member who is positively and enthusiastically wedded to the concept of planning in its broadest sense. It was only when the hon. Gentleman reached housing policy that I wondered whether we would have quite the amicable debate to which I was looking forward, but happily Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot discuss legislation, and therefore the repeal of the Rent Acts had better not be pursued further.
The population problems referred to by my hon. Friend, the Member for Bebing-ton (Mr. Brooks) are extremely important and have a great impact on the whole idea of planning. As such they are of concern to me, but the thesis which my hon. Friend was putting forward was perhaps of more direct concern to me in my last ministerial post than in this one.
Sir D. Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the simple proposition that however successful we are in making the best use of our land from now onwards until the end of the century, and well into the next century, our time will have been completely wasted, and his endeavours will have been completely wasted, if the population gets so large that we can no longer have a rational land policy?
Mr. Robinson: If the population gets that large I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition is self-evident.
In a wide-ranging speech the hon. Member for Bristol, West expressed concern at the failure of the bodies and the interests concerned with planning matters to collaborate, and he mentioned the amenity societies. I do not think the hon. Gentleman intended his criticism of them to be as sweeping as it appeared. The same comment applies to local authorities and their planning functions. Whilst we would agree that some are worse than others, there are others that are very much better than some.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not dissent from that, but would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to be listened to one has to state a case fairly strongly?
Mr. Robinson: I appreciate all too well the reason for the hon. Gentleman's choice of words. The amenity societies are masters in their own house, and they

1373
must work out their own salvation in this respect, but I rather think I caught the implication that within the Government, too, there should be more collaboration and co-ordination.
Inevitably, Government Departments have different interests to foster, and this is reflected in the whole machinery of government. I do not think that one would have it otherwise. It just is not practicable to think of every conceivable interest which has a bearing on planning coming under what would inevitably be a single huge umbrella. It just would not work as a matter of machinery. There obviously has to be a Ministry of Transport to look after the roads, a Ministry of Agriculture to look after the interests of farmers, and a Board of Trade to look after commerce and industry, but a great deal has been done, and is being done, in planning to bring all those interests together into a more coherent pattern.
That is not to say that conflicts never arise, but there is plenty of machinery for tackling these conflicts sensibly and constructively. In the last resort this goes back to the whole machinery of government and collective Cabinet responsibility. If a major difference of opinion arises on priorities, the Departments concerned get together to work the thing out. It is discussed between Ministers if officials cannot resolve it, and if necessary in the end the Cabinet can decide, but very few disagreements call for heavyweight machinery of this kind.
The whole process of planning, at local authority level, at regional level, and at national level, is a continuing story of consultation between Government Departments, local authorities, and many other interests such as the agricultural and industrial interests. One new example of the way in which all this works is the setting up by this Government of the regional economic planning boards which bring together at regional level representatives of all the Government Departments, including my own, which have interests and responsibilities for planning. These boards have a great deal of valuable contact with the local planning authorities. They advise the regional economic planning councils, and the fruits of their work are to be seen in
1374
the co-ordinated regional studies and strategies which have been published for every part of the country.
Another example is the new development plan system set up by the Town and Country Planning Act passed last year. Three important new features are introduced by that system. First, these plans are set plainly in the context of national and regional planning. Second, they broaden the basis of the planning, taking it away from the narrow concept of land use and making it clear, in particular, that the development of transportation policies and proposals must go hand in hand with the zoning of land and that both must have regard to all other relevant considerations for the area, including the probable rate of probable investment.
Third, the new system expressly provides—the hon. Gentleman particularly asked for this—for the public to take part in the formulation of plans and not just to appear as objectors when things are already largely settled. We attach great importance to this, but it will not be by any means an easy process. We must be careful to avoid paying too high a price in the form of a further slowing up of planning procedures, which are already more protracted than many of us wish, and which I hope to see abbreviated as time goes on. But the hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which is known as the Skeffington Committee, will shortly produce a report on the whole question of public participation.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he intends to introduce the new development plan system area by area, bringing in groups of authorities whose territory taken together offers a much more reasonable basis for some civil planning than the rather confused and arbitrary boundaries of local government as it now exists. Of course, we will never have perfection in all this. Planning, after all, is largely the resolution of conflicts. The hon. Member mentioned the enemies of amenity, such as traffic, roads and power lines. Very often, these conflicts attract more attention than their resolution, unfortunately. But the will to get proper co-ordination of these very complex matters is certainly there and

1375
I believe that these fairly recent developments, particularly, will greatly help.
Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, though, that there is a certain danger, when setting up planning authorities such as the passenger transport authorities, which will not be local government units, of decisions being taken by officials rather than by elected representatives, and that it is important to phase the two together?
Mr. Robinson: If I follow my hon. Friend too far, I shall be treading into the dangerous pre-Maude territory which I must not enter. Thanks to the new development plan system and also in the context of the probably larger local authorities which most people think will emerge from Maude, we shall get a much more rational structure of planning. I would mention also the Countryside Act and the Civic Amenities Act which have made their contributions very much to the sort of improvements which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
This has been a useful little debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for having initiated it.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. I raised one important matter which I thought was the bones of the solution to the whole problem—the construction of effective maps of the countryside. I did not hear him deal with that. How are we to proceed without these maps? What will he do about that?
Mr. Robinson: I understand that there is no need for a national coverage with maps of the scale that the hon. Gentleman suggested. The new development plan system gets the balance right, with flexibility in the presentation of policies and proposals and the preparation of local plans on an appropriate scale by the local authorities.
The scale of maps for local plans will be the subject of regulations, but these have not yet been made. There will be some flexibility in this and I do not believe that we want to be tied to the same scale for all areas.
I had the opportunity of visiting the Ordnance Survey recently and I was extremely
1376
impressed with the work that is going on there, with the extent to which it is reviewing its survey of the whole country and with the advanced technological aids which it now has to help it in the extremely important work that it does.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Confusion and anxiety in the mind of the public is caused by the variety of authorities involved in development and planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has, therefore, performed a valuable service tonight by calling attention to the need consciously to bring all concerned into partnership in development and planning.
The House recently passed the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, and under that a new process of planning is being set up with structure plans and local plans, and we hope that this will take effect as soon as possible. I appreciate that a great deal of preparation is necessary, but we had some depressing forecasts during the passage of that Measure about the time that it would take to get this new procedure into operation. When it is in operation it may go part of the way to meet the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, although it will certainly not go all the way.
Under Part V of that Act we are able to deal with buildings of architectural and historic interest in that we may set up new procedures relating to them. In addition to the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, and the Countryside Act, there have been innumerable Private Acts promoted by local authorities with the object of improving the amenities of their districts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West seeks a conscious integration of all these powers; somebody who will guide these powers along a national path. I admit that one cannot expect the Minister of Planning and Land to be an overlord of motorways and pylons, a convenor of amenity societies, a jack of all trades among public utility corporations and local authorities or even—he would resist this in any event—a busybody around his brother Ministers' Ministries.
However, it might be well for a guide and mentor at Ministerial level to be created in some form. Perhaps the right

1377
hon. Gentleman's office is the best Department for the job. While it is necessary for these planning powers to be coordinated, there should not be interference with the exercise of them. We want general guidance for their co-ordination. I would not wish to impose the likes and dislikes of Whitehall on local authorities and on other developers. It is guidance, rather than imposition, which we have in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West made the practical suggestion of having a comprehensive Ordnance map. I was disappointed with the Ministry's reply, for it is astonishing how lacking we are, both in Ministeries and in town halls, in that simple tool of planning and development, an up-to-date map on an appropriate scale.
I have often thought we ought to take every town planning officer, every developer, every person who has control of public utility corporations and their development, up in a helicopter high enough for them to get an overall picture of a wide area and to see what they are doing with that area and what there is in it. Then they should ponder on the sort of population growth of which the House has been told tonight by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) when he said that we should need another Devon by the end of the century, or as the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) said, a new Bristol every year.
If one could go high enough to look down on a wide area and ponder on that sort of population growth we should be doing something to co-ordinate ideas of planning and development. We would see in correct perspective against those forecasts of population growth the folly, for example, of letting a few acres of white land out from planning restrictions so that local authorities around them, rather like vultures, descend on those few acres to put little boxes on an area and call them houses, or mighty towers called blocks of flats, without any consideration for the overall development of the area.
The Minister said that a huge umbrella is not possible; I agree. He said that there was plenty of machinery to bring about co-ordination. It is not always evident that there is. I hope that the Minister will not be complacent about
1378
this and will not continue to say, "There is the machinery there, we are using it, we hope to get co-ordination". There is hard work to be done, particularly in the sphere of planning procedure as we have now set it up under the 1968 Act. I am sure both Government and Opposition will need to be vigilant in seeing that the good intentions that we have set up, particularly under that Act and under other Acts, are translated into good deeds.

NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND (DEVELOPMENT)
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the subject tonight of development in North-East Scotland. The timing of this debate is particularly important in relation to what is happening in certain places in North-East Scotland and also the general atmosphere of confidence or otherwise which exists in the North-East at present.
At the outset of this debate I express the hope that it will not become in itself too introspective. There is a terrible danger in any area where there are difficulties of talking ourselves into even greater difficulties than may exist. Therefore I hope that in this debate, which I shall approach in a constructive sense, all who participate will be able to do the same. After all our object is to help the North-East, to help our constituents, to help industry and development. I hope that this is the one aim of the debate which we shall keep firmly in front of us throughout.
While one wants to be constructive, and while one of the features in the North-East has been the degree of cooperation between hon. Members in different constituencies in relation to the troubles we are facing, I cannot help saying in passing that I was disappointed by the statement at the end of last week by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) criticising some of the things said and some of the efforts made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) in relation to the problem of Inverurie. I felt that it was uncalled for and disappointing because

1379
until now all of us concerned in North-East Scotland have managed to maintain a good co-operative effort—and it is a good co-operative effort that is needed.
Mr. Donald Dewar: This is to some extent a side-issue but I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that I did not criticise the efforts of any hon. Members but criticised certain hon. Members for complaints against the efforts of others.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to have that explanation from the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt he will enlarge upon it later, but I feel from what I have read in the Press and elsewhere that it did not do any particular good to our cause of helping the North-East. We are viewing this situation in the North-East against a background that is very serious in two respects; first of all, in relation to unemployment. I intend to deal with this fairly quickly because the facts are known to the Minister of State as well as to hon. Members but we have to get the position in perspective.
While in the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee we have an unemployment rate of only 26 per cent.—and I use the word "only" in relation to the unemployment rate in other parts of the area—that percentage is well above the national average. But when we move from the centres of Dundee and Aberdeen we begin to realise just what high unemployment means. In my own constituency of Montrose we have a rate of 5·3 per cent.; in Brechin 36 per cent.; in Banchory 5·3 per cent. If we move to Aberdeenshire, Turriff has a rate of 7 per cent. and Huntley 66 per cent. To take two more examples in Banffshire, the rate in Keith is 7·6 per cent. and in Banff itself 7·9 per cent.
Obviously, to anyone who is at all concerned with the area, figures like these can give no cause whatever for comfort regardless of what may be happening elsewhere in Scotland. But as has been said in earlier debates on this subject in the House, it is not the open unemployment figures but the hidden figures of migration that are so serious. In the White Paper, The Scottish Economy, 1965–70 (Cmnd. 2864) it was stated that the cities of Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine together in the ten years from
1380
1951 to 1961 suffered a net migration loss of 12 per 1,000 population—the highest figure for the whole of Scotland with the exception of the county of Galloway, for which the figure was the same.
What has worried me more than anything else in the years I have represented a constituency in the North-East of Scotland, even more than the figures of unemployment, has been the figures of migration; because unfortunately, as those who come from the area will know, it is so often the younger, more enterprising people who are leaving the area. My concern is that in building for the future, as we hope we are doing, we are losing the best people, those we should be keeping there in order to build up a successful and prosperous future. It gives me no pleasure at all to remind the House of these facts but it is terribly important for us to remember them as a background to this debate.
What has made the situation critical in recent months, quite apart from the background figures I have quoted, is the closure of the Inverurie Works, which we have been told is to take place at the end of this year. Coming on top of the situation I have described, this is an absolutely crippling blow. This is not a blow in terms of loss of jobs, though that is serious enough in itself; it is a blow to the morale of the whole area. I believe the effects of the closure go far wider than the immediate area of Inverurie itself.
All of us are bitterly disappointed at the speed with which this run-down is to take place. I do not pretend to deal fully with the Inverurie question because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, whose efforts we admire and support in trying to solve this difficult problem, will want to deal with it in much more detail, and is in a much better position to do so. None the less, as one representing a neighbouring constituency, I feel that it is right to say that we in other areas feel just as strongly as he does the disappointment over this quick run-down.
Equally, we are concerned that the Government are not showing sufficient urgency in the matter of proper transitional arrangements for new industry, it must be remembered that this is a big works. The type of industry we may get.

1381
because of the very short notice we have, may require special help and special transitional arrangements if it is to be attracted to the area. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said last week, namely, that the Government should consider declaring this a special development area, as has been done with areas where there have been pit closures and where difficult problems of redundancy have arisen in a very short time.
We welcome the extra money which has been given for publicity purposes to attract industry, but the time scale allotted will make it very difficult for this money to be used effectively. I am convinced that, welcome though this money is for publicity purposes, publicity on its own will never be enough.
I move on now from the more immediate problem of Inverurie. On the question of publicity, the North-East of Scotland has in general been fairly well served in the past. I mention in particular the very good publicity carried out by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. All hon. Members who have had any contact at all with the board's most recent publicity programme to try to attract industry to the whole of its area, which is the North-East of Scotland as well as the Highlands, will know about the hydro-electric "Blue Fly'" operation. The type of literature, the way it was presented, and where it was distributed, did tremendous credit to the hydro-electric board in its effort to attract industry to the area. Not only what the board has done most recently but the whole of its past record is something of which people in the North-East should be proud.
More recently I have been impressed by the work of the North-East Development Committee. It held an exhibition in London a fortnight ago at which it produced some very good literature on the facts and future for industrial expansion in North-East Scotland. The committee laid out in a very attractive pictorial form the attractions which the area holds for new industry. It also detailed a number of very great success stories of firms which have done well in this area. If we can show that other firms and industries are already doing well in the area, I believe that this will be the best way to attract more industry
1382
and firms to our part of Scotland. The more success we can show the more success we shall get. In this case success will build on success.
I have dwelt on the question of publicity because what I want to show the Minister of State is that we in the North-East are prepared to help ourselves. What the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the North-East Development Committee have done shows that we in the North-East do not sit back and wait to be fed. We have gone out and tried to induce industry to come to the area. A particular example of this is the way in which local authorities have co-operated. In this connection I mention the city of Aberdeen and the counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine, which have joined in the North-East of Scotland Development Committee and have already launched their publicity campaign. They are working together as a body for the interests of the whole area and not just for their own immediate interests in their towns or counties. This is very important, because I have seen in other areas of Scotland that if the effort to attract new industries is dissipated between the different town councils or county councils the whole impact of industrial development can be wasted. When it is concentrated together and we have local authorities, town councils and county councils working together in concerted effort, we are much more likely to see real results than in working as smaller units.
Perhaps I might mention in passing the appointment which has recently been made of a development officer by this committee, Mr. Hutton, who comes from West Lothian. We all wish him well in his new post and hope he can carry forward the work already started by the committee he will be serving.
I want to be constructive. While I shall have certain criticisms to make later, one of the most encouraging features of recent times has been in the growth of new forms of industry based on the raw materials produced in the area. I have always maintained that if we could get industry into the area using the raw materials of that area, such industry is more likely to establish its roots in the area and stay with us, come what may so far as the general economic situation of the country is concerned. It

1383
would be welcome even if it is not producing something which is directly connected with the raw materials of the area.
An example of this is meat processing. I had the privilege of opening a meat processing factory last summer at Banchory. Another meat processing factory was opened at Portlethen nearly two years ago, and there is another one planned for Buckie in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). This kind of development has given employment to people in the area, it uses the raw materials, and it sends our produce south to the consumer markets in a form much cheaper to transport than by sending it in its raw state.
This is also the case with fish processing. We all welcomed the announcement at the end of last week of a new £600,000 fish processing plant at the Tullos industrial estate in Aberdeen. This is the second plant that has come to Aberdeen recently. It demonstrates that firms are taking account of changes in patterns of consumption, and so on.
One aspect of the raw materials in the North-East which is lacking so far is in the use of forestry products. We have a great many trees growing in the North-East. At the moment one could argue that there may not be sufficient timber of the right quality and type to provide raw material for a manufacturing industry of sufficient size. That may be true at the moment but it will certainly not be true in the next five to ten years. When the plantations of 20 to 35 years ago come to maturity and the thinning stage there will be a tremendous amount of timber for manufacturing industry in the area.
The Minister of State already knows that in Stonehaven the Provost has been very active, through the North-East Development Committee, in trying to interest different bodies in setting up a timber manufacturing industry. This is something that can be followed through. I have been in correspondence with the Board of Trade about it. I hope it is something to which the Government will give not only its passive support, in respect of grants and so on, but active support in co-ordinating the efforts of the different
1384
interests. The Forestry Commission must have a great interest in this because of its own plantations in the area. Perhaps more can be done to assist the potential output from these forests in order to attract industry. The raw material is there, waiting to be used. I would hope to see more action taken in relation to timber, along the same lines as the fish and meat processing development in recent times. I am not thinking in terms of big development, such as at Fort William, but there are many ways in which timber can be used.
Another encouraging development in the North-East is the university in Aberdeen. We have a well-established and flourishing university and also research institutes in the area, which would be an attraction to any form of science-based industry. I welcome the statement in Aberdeen last week by the Chancellor of the university, Lord Polwarth, who is one of the leading Scottish industrialists, outlining some the areas in which cooperation was taking place between the university and the chamber of commerce. Nothing but good can come out of this. If we can get a close tie-up between the research institutions and the university in Aberdeen it will not only help industry but provide an attraction for new industry there.
I have mentioned what I think are the encouraging features for the North-East. Unfortunately, despite these trends there is a feeling throughout the area that our part of Scotland is not getting its proper share of industrial development. There is the feeling that, in some sense, the North-East is at the end of the line. Whether or not it is justified, there is a feeling that at one end, on Tayside, we have these massive plans under way for the great new city in the Tayside area, while on the other side there is the whole question of what is happening in the Highlands. There is the special assistance available to the area through the Highlands Development Board.
This is why there there is this feeling in the North-East. As yet nothing specific has come the way of the North-East. This feeling was summed up very well in some articles last week in the Aberdeen Press and Journal by Ted Strachan, the industrial correspondent. In three thoughtful and thought-provoking articles

1385
he assessed the report of the Scottish Council for Development Industry dealing with centralisation. He demonstrated very clearly how the worries about centralisation can affect the North-East, perhaps even more than other areas of Scotland.
I would question some of the conclusions he drew. In our area we have many firms showing great enterprise and development. We have subsidiaries of national concerns which are also developing and are not showing any ill-effects as a result of their being controlled by boards of directors further south. Nonetheless this series of articles sums up the feeling of unease and concern about the future.
I turn briefly to the things which are fostering this feeling of concern and uncertainty about the future. The first, which brought the whole thing to a head, is the handling of the local works closure at Inverurie. This undoubtedly added enormously to the worry. The second area of concern, with what I want to deal in more detail, is that in those areas of development with which the Government have direct influence we are worried about whether the Government are doing all that they can. I will give two examples. One is to do with the closure of H.M.S. "Condor", the naval air station at Arbroath. I will not go into the defence aspects of this, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has dealt with this extremely well in questioning the whole basis upon which this closure took place.
I am concerned about the economic implications flowing from that closure. The station employs a lot of local people, not only from my hon. Friend's constituency but from mine, too. Have the Government taken fully into account the economic implications and the effects upon employment in the area as well as the defence implications? There is a worry that they have not done so, and this is creating uncertainty about the future.
I turn now to transport. We have had uncertainty in recent months over the future, for example, of Aberdeen Airport. We have had assurances from the Board of Trade that the development of the airport and the maintenance of services will not be allowed to deteriorate, and we
1386
are glad to have them. But when we look at the wrangles taking place over other Scottish airports we naturally get worried about what may happen to Aberdeen Airport and what the future holds for its ownership. This is a question which the Government influence, and we hope to see these problems resolved. We trust that there will not be deterioration. We accept the Government's assurances but we still do not know for certain what the future is to be.
We are also worried about our road links with the south, which are extremely important. The Minister of State must not under-estimate the psychological apart from the physical importance of good road links with central Scotland. Ordinary people as well as industry use these links, and if the hon. Gentleman had been up and down these roads as often as I have he would realise that they are the lifeline of industry in the North-East. I am referring to both roads—the A94 and the A92.
Ten days ago, the Scottish Office published its roads plan. The whole future of the trunk status of these roads is uncertain. We are told that we have to await publication of the Tayside study, and it may be right to do so. But people in the North-East are getting tired of waiting. We want to know what is happening. The Government should show their hand and declare where they stand. Psychologically, good and proper road links are vital if the area is to prosper.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to do damage to the present attempts to bring new industry to the area. The transport links with the North-East are not as bad as people pretend. There are good links all round, and these ought to be a reason for new industry going there now.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If I gave a contrary impression, I am sorry.
I turn now to the question of rail links. We were one of the first areas to see the development of the freightliner service. This is a great success and a great service to local industry. At the same time, while our transport links, particularly those of rail and air, are good.

1387
I think there is great scope for improvement of road links, and I am not satisfied with the standard of the roads, particularly the A94. Indeed, heavy transport cannot use the A94 because of a bridge having to be closed because it cannot carry heavy traffic. I am not satisfied with that kind of thing, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not. This is one thing we want to see put right.
I have two suggestions to make. First, when a local crisis occurs, such as that at Inverurie, more consideration should be given, and more action taken, by the Government. This would do a great deal to alleviate lack of confidence existing in the North-East.
The second point, which I make in some anticipation of the hon. Gentleman's answer, is that the Government will not, I hope, keep fobbing us off, as they have done so many times in the past, with plans that will be published in future. I mentioned this in relation to roads and the Tayside study, but it is also true of industrial development in the North-East in relation to Professor Gaskin's study, which is to be published. We wish him well, and I am sure his study will be of great help, but the Government should not fob us off by talking of plans in the future, with us always having to wait until tomorrow.
The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are immediate emergencies which need to be dealt with now. If there is to be development in the North-East tomorrow, we need action today, and promises for tomorrow are simply not good enough. The people in the North-East are hard headed and practical. We want the Government to declare their hand today.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. James Davidson: May I first say how very grateful those of us who represent constituencies in the North-East of Scotland are for the opportunity given us by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) to have this subject debated tonight. I shall be as brief as I can, but there are certain points I feel I must make.
Reference has already been made to the attack on me in the Press by the
1388
hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), who accused me of defeatism, among other things. I do not blame him in the least for attacking me, and I take this opportunity of saying that he has been most helpful in the crisis that has faced us in Inverurie. He has been cooperative all along. But he is an extremely loyal member of his party and obviously thought this was a timeous moment to attack the Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I do not blame him, but to be attacked for defeatism took me by surprise. To one who entered politics in Aberdeenshire, West faced by a 23,000 Conservative vote and a 10,000 Labour vote, and who started absolutely from scratch, it seems a little unjust that I should be accused of defeatism.
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk about the subject we are debating.
Mr. Davidson: I am talking about development in the North-East of Scotland.
In return for the attack on me by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I shall accuse the Government of some dishonesty over the whole matter of Inverurie. I hope that the Minister of State knows me well enough to realise that I would not do so unless I had some foundation, at least in my own mind, for it. I shall briefly say why. First, in the White Paper already referred to tonight, which was debated in January 1966, a long-term future was promised for the Railway Workshops at Inverurie. Second, efforts were made to keep me quiet about the matter in advance. I do not wish to go into detail about this, but I am prepared to do so if challenged. The pretence was made that the closure was only a rumour and that publicity would force the British Railways Board into an earlier closure than would otherwise take place. I believe that in the event the precise reverse has been the case. The spotlight of publicity on Inverurie delayed the decision by about two months and enabled us to find a firm willing to come in on certain terms.
On 11th March I wrote a letter to the Minister of State from which I should like to quote. I said:
"The expected announcement by the British Railways Board on Thurslay, 13th March"—

1389
It was actually not until the following Monday—
"that the Workshops will be closed in six months' time will immediately precipitate an exodus of key personnel, and skilled and semiskilled men under the age of 40.
"The exodus will be accelerated by the publicity campaign lined up by the Government in conjunction with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). The vultures who are waiting to pounce on the skilled portion of the labour force, and on desirable parts of the premises will immediately be activated. Piecemeal dissection of the unit will mean the loss of the main attraction to an incoming industrialist: namely, a ready-made skilled labour force and working unit.
"Representatives of three firms have already inspected the works. Only one…has retained any interest. Although there is an element of risk attached to their proposals, submitted to the B.R. Board, the firm has an encouraging growth potential and worldwide marketing facilities. In my view, Inverurie is unlikely to get any better proposition."
I added:
"The Government alone is in a position to intervene, in terms of the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, and to provide the ' bridging' mechanism and finance which is essential to bridge the gap of one or two years between the run-down by British Rail and the achievement of a profitable level of trading by this engineering firm or by any other company."
I told the Minister in the letter that meantime I had tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister for Tuesday, 18th March. It was later transferred to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I asked him to direct a competent authority in the terms of the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, to prepare an appropriate industrial investment scheme.
Having written that letter, I was able to speak to the Minister of State, and he told me that I was wrong when I mentioned that three representatives from the Workshop floor who had been to see me at the House had said that British Rail would announce on Thursday, 13th March, that the works were to be closed in six months' time. There was only one thing wrong. I had the date wrong by three days. Otherwise everything that I said was perfectly right.
Dr. Mabon: I thought that the conversation to which the hon. Gentleman refers was private. I also thought that the letter he has mentioned and my reply to him were confidential. I replied to him on the Tuesday when he came to the House after the announcement was
1390
made on the 17th. We should get the sequence right.
Mr. Davidson: Matters which were confidential before the declaration by British Rail that the workshops were to be closed are, in my opinion, no longer confidential. That is a fair assumption. The declaration by British Rail that the closure is to take place has obviously changed the situation. Matters which were discussed in privacy before that declaration are now open and have been discussed in the Press and by everybody concerned. I shall maintain my confidence about matters which are still confidential.
Dr. Mabon: That is not the crux of the matter. The hon. Gentleman should not abide by the protection of so-called confidence. He should be absolutely frank, as he has been in every other matter, because that is the only way in which we shall get the matter settled.
Mr. Davidson: Thank you very much.
The Government announcement that an advance factory of 15,000 square feet is to be built in Inverurie is not unwelcome. But we shall be very fortunate if it employs 100 men or women in two years. This 15,000 square feet should be compared with the space in the Inverurie locomotive works, 170,000 square feet—eleven times as much. Possibly this factory, which the Government had up their sleeve, was to be their answer to the Gaskin report, when it is published, which will say, I have no doubt, that Inverurie should be a growth point in the North-East. Therefore, I feel—I may be wrong—that the Government will produce this like a white rabbit from a hat and say, "We have a factory already lined up".
A 15,000 square feet factory is like facing an invasion with home guardsmen with pikes: it hardly meets the Inverurie crisis. At least the invasion faced by home guardsmen with pikes never came, but I am sorry to say that the crisis in Inverurie is inevitable for the people of Inverurie unless the Government take definite action within the next week or two. I propose briefly to outline this action. There is nothing personal in what I say against the Minister of State. I have always had a great admiration for his political ability, energy, drive and

1391
sense of humour, and I hope that he will bring them to bear on the situation in Inverurie.
I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister which was referred to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. My Question asked for a competent authority to direct an industrial investment scheme under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968. In reply, the Secretary of State referred me to the measures announced by the Minister of State and went on to say:
"These would not exclude the possibility of an industrial investment scheme if a suitable project which could qualify for support under Section 2 of the Industrial Expansion Act were put forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 64.]
The Industrial Expansion Act seems precisely to cover the situation in Inverurie. If any hon. Member thinks that I am concentrating too much on Inverurie, may I say that I am sure that those of us who know North-East Scotland well will realise that events in Inverurie, being in the centre of the North-East area, have a much more far-reaching effect than the limits of the borough of Inverurie. A real growth point in the borough of Inverurie could have effects which would rebound throughout the four or five counties of the North-East and the City of Aberdeen.
I admit in advance that a representative of my party speaking in the debate on this Act was opposed to it. The reason for his opposing it was, presumably, the same reason that the official opposition had for opposing it, which was that we did not think it would work. Now is the Government's opportunity to show us that it does work.
Dr. Mabon: It does work. It has worked twice.
Mr. Davidson: In that case, here is a superb opportunity for it to be shown to work a third time. The Act is, according to the Preamble:
"An Act to authorise the provision of financial support, pursuant to schemes laid before Parliament, for industrial projects calculated to improve efficiency, create, expand or sustain productive capacity or promote or support technological improvements."
Section 1(2) says:
"An industrial investment scheme may be made by a competent authority with the approval of the Treasury…".
1392
I will not quote at length from the Act, but just quote a few relevant parts which will be of interest to the House.
Section 1(3) provides:
"For the purposes of this Act the competent authorities are the Minister of Technology, a Secretary of State, the Board of Trade, the Minister of Public Building and Works, the Minister of Transport…".
and others.
Section 2(1) provides:
"An industrial investment scheme may be made by a competent authority for the purposes of any project which, in the opinion of that authority, is likely to benefit the economy of the United Kingdom or any part or area of the United Kingdom as being calculated…

(b) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry or section of an industry; or

(c) to promote or support technological improvements in the processes or products of an industry or section of an industry…"

The Act goes on to deal with the many different ways in which such financial and other support may be given. I will not go further into the Industrial Expansion Act but, having studied it in considerable detail since the situation arose in Inverurie, I am convinced that this is precisely the sort of case that those who devised the Act must have had in mind.
I ask for the patience of the House for a few more moments while I quote from a letter which I have just written to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and which he should have received this morning.
I began by saying that he was probably aware of the background in the Inverurie situation. I went on to say:
"I believe the present state of affairs can be summarised by saying that, unless an agreement is reached very shortly with a firm interested in coming into Inverurie, the working force will disperse and the burghs's major asset, a skilled and semi-skilled labour force of 500 to 600 men with a variety of engineering and related skills will be lost.
As you undoubtedly know, an engineering firm interested has put forward proposals. I believe the Government's reaction to these proposals has been that the firm are trying to drive too hard a bargain and appear to want to have their cake and eat it. My own view is that Inverurie is very unlikely to get the chance of another industry with the excellent growth potential of this firm which can eventually form a growth point for the whole North-East region of Scotland. I understand this is closely in line with the theme of the Gaskin Report which is shortly to be published. I enclose with my letter, with the permission of the Managing Director of this firm, copies

1393
of a confidential letter and detailed programme in connection with the details of the proposals to take over the workshops."
I went on to say that if the company comes into Inverurie there is bound to be a hiatus for retooling and retraining of the available force.
This engineering firm to which I am referring already has considerable capital at risk in designing new projects. They are building a factory somewhere in England. They have an international marketing company somewhere in Switzerland, and they have wide contacts in the United States. The managing director has remarked to me in conversation that if Inverurie is not interested he can very easily go somewhere else. He can also sell some of his designs to manufacturers in the United States who are willing to make them. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for the North-East of Scotland, which should not and cannot be missed.
I asked that in accordance with the reply, which I have just quoted to my question of 18th March the possibility might be considered of an industrial investment scheme to underpin these proposals. I pointed out that they fully qualified for support under Section 2 of the Industrial Expansion Act.
I went on to say:
"Such an industrial investment scheme could make all the difference to the future of the North-East of Scotland, which is in danger of becoming a depressed area. As I see it, such a scheme would have to fulfil three objectives. They would have to purchase or lease the British Railways workshops in inverurie. Alternatively, to my knowledge, Aberdeen County Council are willing to consider purchasing the premises at a reasonable price, provided that they can be sure of reletting…Such a scheme would have to sustain such a part of the existing labour force that the incoming firm could eventually reemploy, and they could sustain it by obtaining contract work from British Rail and other sources. I had a list of several possible sources given to me by the assistant manager of the workshops. This sustaining of the labour force would merely be for the period when the retooling and retraining were in process. Thirdly, they would have to give every assistance towards the retraining programme. If the Government are willing to consider such an industrial investment scheme, I am certain that the managing director, either directly or through myself, would be prepared to give you any additional information which you may require in order to reach a decision."
The Minister of State should have received a copy of that letter by now.
1394
This is hardly evidence of defeatism. I rebut that accusation. I am far from defeatist. I believe that the Government mean to do right by the North-East. This is their opportunity. If a better one comes along as a result of the publicity campaign, I shall be delighted. The fact that someone else's efforts have been crowned with success when mine have not does not make any difference. I want to see something come which will fill this gap in Inverurie and save it from becoming a dying burgh, dependent as it is mainly upon this one single industry.
Before sitting down, I would make one more point, and it concerns the airport at Dyce which lies in my constituency but serves the whole of the north-east of Scotland. The answer here is for a consortium of local authorities to take it over and run it as a joint enterprise. However, we are in some difficulty. I have raised this possibility with both sides in the situation. The Board of Trade is willing to consider a proposition from the local authorities that it should be run as a consortium, whereas the Secretary of the North-East of Scotland Development Committee tells me that his Committee is unwilling to initiate such a proposition but would be willing to consider it if it came from the Board of Trade.
We are in something of a dilemma, and I wonder if the Minister of State could not bring together the two sides in this matter and see if, between them, they cannot iron out a scheme whereby Dyce Airport, which is very important to the whole future development and expansion of the north-east of Scotland, could be run by a consortium of local authorities to the benefit of all concerned.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that this is the beginning of the fourth of 20 debates which are taking place during the evening. In the last two hours, two speeches between them have taken over an hour. I hope that those hon. Members who have been fortunate to be early in the ballot for places will remember those hon. Members who are waiting in the queue to speak later in the night.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I want first of all to congratulate the hon. Member for North Angus and

1395
Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on having raised this important topic. In fact, to those of us who come from the North-East of Scotland it might be referred to as this all-important topic. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me if I say that, in one way, this is not the best time to discuss the development of the North-East of Scotland in the broad sense since we are at the moment in something of a hiatus awaiting publication of the Gaskin Report, which we hope will effectively lay down guide-lines for the future. While I am not so optimistic as to imagine that publication of that Report will solve our problems, I hope that it will give shape to the aspirations of the area and possibly point to future agitation. In that sense, we find ourselves in a period of transition, which makes our problem tonight a little difficult.
We have, however, the dominating local subject of the closure of the Inverurie loco works, which has been referred to extensively by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). I would be the first to accept that it is a very real problem, although it is one which in every sector, whether it be in the North-East or in the Government, has been matched by a real concern. I should like to think that every party is genuinely anxious to find the kind of solution which will once again put a stable employment platform under the burgh of Inverurie.
There has been a great deal of local complaint, rightly, about the way that the matter has been handled. I have myself voiced complaints fairly loudly about the attitude of the British Railways Management Board and its activities over the last few years and complete lack of forward planning for the future of the Inverurie loco works. In one sense, that is water under the bridge. But it points to certain morals from which we should learn certain lessons which should be driven home to those who have erred in the past.
Concerning Inverurie, the decision has been taken and we must all get together to solve the real problem with which we are faced. I think that we are seeing that kind of effort. We have now got a highly effective alliance, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, the North-East
1396
Development Committee and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), putting their shoulders to the wheel and shoving in the same direction.
I accept, as we all do, that an enormous battery of incentives of one sort and another are already available to Inverurie. These have been backed up by what is a very intensive sales campaign. We have all seen the two brochures which have been produced, which I find effective and I hope will get some results. They are now going out to a very wide range of potentially interested industrialists who, it is hoped, will be tempted to look upon Inverurie as a possible base.
Although the advance factory has been talked down and discounted to some extent in the remarks which have already been made, I regard it as tangible evidence of the Government's faith not just in Inverurie as a continuing industrial entity, but as an expanding growth point in what I hope will be an increasingly prosperous North-East. I hope that all that can be taken as read and will not raise a great deal of disagreement.
I was taken to task by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns for certain remarks that I made in the local Press. I thought that his lecturette on political ethics was a little prim in tone. I do not think that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West needs anyone to defend him. As we heard a few minutes later, he is well able to do that for himself. But I hope that all concerned will consider how useful it is, at a time when we are trying to mount this kind of cooperative effort, to turn round and abuse the organisation—in this case the Government—to which one is apparently principally looking for aid.
If one is trying to arouse the sympathy of someone—and I am certain basically we have it—and trying to capitalise to the greatest possible extent on that sympathy, it is not necessarily good tactics to say that a Minister represents a discredited Government in terms of their policy in the North-East and that they are utterly inadequate and lack imagination. If these were the people to whom one was going next week with extremely ambitious and imaginative schemes based on the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968, I am not sure that this

1397
kind of snap polarised reaction to what, in all honesty, everybody must admit are at least useful endeavours in terms of publicity and money spent on publicity is useful.
I hope no one will think that I am arrogant if I say that it is dangerous to judge the effectiveness of a back-bench Member's influence upon Government policy—and here I speak about all backbenchers—which may be minimal, but I believe does exist in terms of the number of column inches on a given subject which can be obtained in a local newspaper.
Mr. James Davidson: On this point I have very firm evidence that the timing of the launching of the publicity campaign was unfortunate, because the firm to which I referred regarded it as a breach of confidence that the publicity campaign should be launched in the middle of a ten-week negotiation before it had been given any definite answer by the authorities regarding their proposals.
Mr. Dewar: I am getting a little testy with the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that there has been a danger—and it is an understandable human trait—of the hon. Gentleman getting one solution out of all proportion. Inevitably we all like to think that our own solution is the one salvation for the area which is at the centre of our interests, but it is dangerous to argue that in some way it is a breach of confidence to try to mount a campaign to attract other interested parties before the long and protracted negotiations which would be necessary if anything was to come out of the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman has referred so extensively have been completed.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would be delighted if his pet project was not the one which succeeded if something better came along. If that is a genuine view, and I accept it is, the hon. Gentleman cannot at the same time accuse the Government of having bad timing, of showing a lack of tact, and of breaching confidence because they are taking energetic steps to consider other possibilities at the same time as they are considering a proposal which has been laid before them by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. George Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government will try less hard to help if they are criticised? I find that a shocking suggestion if it is being made.
Mr. Dewar: I am not saying that. I am saying—and I think that this is self-evident and reasonable—that sweeping condemnations of helpful action by the Government do not necessarily serve best the cause of co-operation in the North-East.
I do not wish to go at any length into the merits of the scheme about which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, has talked. I am not sure whether I would be in order to do so. Through the hon. Gentleman's good offices, and also from a variety of other sources, I have a fair idea of what is involved. I hope that this is being seriously considered, and knowing my hon. Friends in the Government I am sure that it is. All I say is that we must not think that this suggestion provides the only salvation for the area. We must not criticise the Government for seeking energetically to find other industrialists who might come to Inverurie. We must also realise that it is not necessarily true to say, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that Inverurie is unlikely to get a better proposition.
I do not think that the costing for this scheme have been worked out in any detail. I am not sure that it would provide stable employment. Without going into details, as I understand it it represents more of an open option for the prospective employer, and if we accept that the advance factory will employ about one hundred people in about two years' time, against what certainties are offered by the other scheme which has been discussed, I am not sure that the advance factory's final advantages are so negligible.
Let us by all means consider the opportunities available under the 1968 Industrial Expansion Act. I realise that in the past they have been used for schemes on a different scale. I have in mind the aluminium smelter, and also the rescue effort in the computer industry, but merely because we ask the Government to set a precedent is no reason why it should not be done. On the other hand it is also unreasonable to suggest that

1399
they are necessarily being timid or unhelpful because they do not accept at an early stage a scheme which is highly speculative and has not been costed or worked out in any detail.
I hope that we can all continue to cooperate on the real problems of Inverurie, and that we shall not jump to condemn merely because the Government cannot accede to every one of our wishes as quickly as some would like. Schemes should be imaginative, but at the end of the day they have to be practical, and practicality is something that has to be established after genuine and careful examination.
The Aberdeen Press and Journal said the other day that Government planning would be judged on the Government's ability to keep the wheels at Inverurie turning. That is probably a fair point in North-East terms, and I do not quarrel with it, but it is just as true that the North-East will be judged by the amount of co-operation that it is able to give to the efforts made to help it. The attitudes and activities of local authorities, commercial bodies, and the industrial community in the North-East will just as equally be on trial, and I hope that neither side will prejudice the effort by irresponsible condemnation of the other. We have been accused of not being interested in broadening our industrial base. Many times, responsible journals have suggested that we have only paid lip service to the need to attract new industries. This charge is not true, certainly today, but it represents a real threat to our efforts in the North-East.
If hon. Members think that I exaggerate, I draw attention to the article in today's Guardian, an impressive two-page spread on the North-East. It does not project the kind of image of the North-East which I would like to see. It says:
"Like Edinburgh, Aberdeen has the scrubbed severity of a woman with a bun and no make-up. It is where old men will sit on a snow-bound bench in the cemetery and solemnly proclaim the virtues of Mr. Ian Smith to each other. If it really is ' Scotland's leading holiday resort', then Scotland is in a poor way indeed.…Outsiders"—
that is, industrial outsiders—"
have managed to invade the North-east."
The suggestion still is that we are antipathetic to these incomers.
1400
"The way the world is running it cannot endure for ever on a distant prospect of Balmoral…and on a notion that industry is most desirable when it consists of a respectful devotion to staghorn craft."
I think that that was meant to be helpful, but I can think of no more damaging image for the North East.
Through the excellent work of the North-East Development Committee and the appointment of a new development officer, and through the planning structure which the Government have begun to construct there, we are genuinely beginning to overcome this kind of impression which has been given for too long of our area.
I used the word "defeatists" because, when people say that certain actions of the Government, and the Government alone, are disastrous, and that they are utterly unimaginative and inadequate the impression is projected that the North-east is not buoyant or hopeful or looking for industrial expansion but can only cry "Foul" and "Shame" when every one of its demands is not immediately acceded to by the Government. That would be unfortunate and can only discourage possible incomers.
I am glad that the Minister of State will be in Inverurie on Friday and I hope that then there will be a real opportunity for constructive discussions on what I accept are the real problems of the rundown of the labour force there. But it should be done constructively and not in the form of quick condemnations perhaps all too eagerly given to the local Press. The Minister of State has been of great help in this way in the past. Only the other day he was at the launching of the North-East Development Committee's brochure, and he is due to go to Sheffield, to do something for the town of Arbroath, which is mounting a campaign there. I appreciate his efforts and I hope that we shall have a constructive and helpful meeting at Inverurie and will be able to go some way to remove some of the outstanding worries.
Many changes in the North-East are for the better. For instance, my impression is that the housing projects and the housing programme generally is going very well. In Aberdeen, where there are still 5,000 or 6,000 people on the waiting list, there is plenty of leeway to overtake, but we are beginning to make progress.

1401
The planning infrastructure is going well, but I accept some of the points of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about roads, which are of prime importance. I hope that the Minister of State will accept that I read with some worry and indeed distress the White Paper on future road expansion in Scotland.
In an Estimates debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in June, 1967, my hon. Friend talked about the "golden triangle" and suggested that roads to the south of Aberdeen were just as important to the town as the roads into Aberdeen. But ultimately we must be linked into that golden triangle, and at present there is little evidence that we shall be.
We are told in the White Paper that the Aberdeen Stonehaven road is to be the subject of "comprehensive appraisal", but it appears that the roads south of this, whether the A92 or A94, will merely be the subject of minor improvement schemes in the period not to 1972 or 1975 but right up to 1980.
In the debate in June, 1967, it was said, in a rather airy way, that the Government would not be able to manage to make these improvements for the 1972 programme but that the 1975 one would still be available and that such further projects would be concentrated on at that time. It is now a discouraging outlook—indeed, the White Paper is no comfort whatever to the area—to see that we must wait until 1980 or perhaps even a programme after that for major improvements in the road links between the North-East of Scotland and the central belt of Scotland.
We read in paragraph 10(ii) of the White Paper:
"… the furtherance of planning and economic strategy…may justify road building where the direct return is rather lower than would otherwise be required…"
Have those words been inserted merely as a sop to the principles about which we talk so much?
With the road in its present state and with traffic split between the A92 and the A94, there is not a chance of reaching the target of 9,000 passenger car units per day, or whatever target may have been arrived at for major improvement. I still believe that, in terms of regional development, there is an enormous
1402
case for scheduling one of these roads, I do not mind which, although I would in fact prefer the inland route, in our major reappraisal before 1980. I said in the earlier debate that complaints would be noised abroad if this did not happen. The White Paper refers to the need for flexibility. I trust this means something and that the Minister will look at this problem seriously and be able to hold out more hope than the White Paper indicates.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for giving us this opportunity to debate economic development in the North-East of Scotland.
I was interested to hear the curious doctrine being pronounced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). He was right to remind us that the tone of a debate of this kind is important because it shapes the image, to use fashionable language, of the areas about which we are speaking. However, I would not agree with his conclusion that we should, because of that, be polite and be careful not to offend the feelings of a fragile Government.
Our concern for the North-East should not dissuade us from calling attention, in a constructive spirit, to some of the faults in Government policy, and to some of the needs for the future and, where necessary, from being highly critical of the Minister who, being a resilient person, will not object to that.
Dr. Mabon: We were accused of lying and dishonesty, which is rather different.
Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman knows that I would not make charges of that kind.
The Minister will not expect special protection in a debate of this kind. He will not expect us to observe the doctrine "Speak kindly to your little boy"—[Interruption.]—although I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that I have the quotation wrong.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) gave a list of talents which he attributed to the

1403
Minister. Some were debatable, but the one with which I agreed entirely was the hon. Gentleman's claim that the Minister had an agreeable sense of humour. I support that to the hilt. The Minister has a very agreeable sense of humour, but it is certainly not with a sense of humour that people in the North-East of Scotland survey the industrial scene today. They have a sense of very grave concern about some of the events over the last few years. They share the concern which is very widely felt in Scotland about the alarming fall there has been in Scottish employment since 1965.
In January 1966 the Government produced a White Paper called The Scottish Economy, 1965–1970. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has it with him. By coincidence—I am sure it was no more than that—the White Paper was published in January, two months before the General Election. It held out right at the beginning of the document the prospect of 60,000 extra jobs in Scotland by 1970. That was the prospect for the whole of Scotland including the North-East, which was covered by a special section in the White Paper. Here we are in March, 1969, and we have seen no advance towards attaining that target. Indeed, we have seen the reverse, a steady decline, for we have lost 35,000 jobs in Scotland since 1965. The Minister of State shakes his head, but those figures were given by his colleague a few days ago in reply to Questions put down by my hon. Friends and myself.
If the hon. Gentleman is to achieve the target of 60,000 jobs next year which were offered to the electorate in Scotland in 1966, he has to find between now and next year 95,000 extra jobs to make up for the loss of 35,000 and provide for a net gain of 60,000 offered in that White Paper. I am told that I must not be critical of the hon. Gentleman. I am not saying that as criticism but to call attention to the very large task with which the Government are confronted. They have made the attaining of the target less likely by some of the unbelievable follies in running the economy of the country.
This concern is felt in the North-East of Scotland as elsewhere in Britain. I
1404
am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say something about my constituency, which spreads deeply into the North-East of Scotland from Glenshee, over the Devil's Elbow, towards Braemar. Perth stands as a gateway to North-East Scotland, and there are certain points of concern there to which I shall refer.
I summarise the problem by saying that there is a pressing need for new industrial development in the City of Perth. There is every reason why we should believe that Perth is attractive to industry. As the Minister knows, Perth is well placed geographically at the centre of Scotland, although at the entrance to the North-East. It is surrounded by beautiful country and has superb amenities which are hardly equalled in any town in Scotland. The local officials in Perth have made a very determined drive over the last few years to try to attract industry by the provision of sites and special financial arrangements. Perhaps most important of all, the quality of labour in Perth is outstanding.
Often the visitor to that part of North-East Scotland is surprised by the spread of industry which already exists in the city. The residents in Perth and in the surrounding countryside know only too well that there has been a disturbing decline in the number of jobs in the city since about 1962 or 1963. There has been a rundown of jobs on the railway. This was largely inescapable, but the rundown has occurred. There has been a marked shrinkage in what I describe as governmental jobs. One or two industries in the town have contracted.
In the light of this it came as a shock to learn recently of the proposed closure of the railway line between Cowdenbeath and Perth. I will not elaborate on that, because the line runs southwards rather than northwards from Perth and the T.U.C.C. hearing was only last week. One of the reasons for the concern about this closure is the fact that the motorway—the M90—which will be one of the main trunk routes to and from the North-East of Scotland, is far from completed. The Cowdenbeath-Kelty by-pass is making good progress, and I am delighted about that. The Minister is adhering to his original timetable of having the whole road completed and the Perth by-pass started by the early 1970s. However, the

1405
road is not there yet. The railway will possibly disappear, unless the Minister relents. The line was not scheduled for closure in the original Beeching plan. It is a totally new idea which has been dreamed up during this Government's term of office.
We have made one or two advances in the City. We have gained a small but promising electronics firm which I believe will make progress. We are delighted that we are getting a stake in a sophisticated industry of this kind. We have not seen the gain in industry which was held out when Perth was included in the Scottish development area. There has been instead a decline in the number of jobs in the city.
To offset the loss of governmental jobs we have gained the headquarters of the Countryside Commission, which I applaud, and a heavy vehicle testing station, which I welcome. These are small gains when set against the erosion of Government-type jobs. I look anxiously to the day when we shall be able to welcome to Perth a major decision-making body like the Forestry Commission. That is what Perth needs. I hope that the Government, in their anxiety to move Government offices out of London and other big cities, will remember that there are some very well-placed smaller cities like Perth and others in the North-East of Scotland which are ready and willing to welcome Government offices, thus relieving the congestion in the great conurbations. The small gains I have mentioned were but little comfort for the people of Perth in face of the assault on the structure in employment in the city brought about by the monstrous Selective Employment Tax. Over half the people in Perth are affected by this tax.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, even though he comes from Perth, cannot discuss taxation in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. MacArthur: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for having been tempted along that path. I will leave it at once. One of the fields for large-scale development in Perth and way up through Glenshee in my constituency is tourism. Perth has made some important advances and in Glenshee there has been a remarkable development of skiing over the last few
1406
years. A rather more positive encouragement could be given to the industry than has been given by the Government.
There is one practical point on which I have written to the Minister in the last few days and to which I hope he will turn his attention. In the whole of that part of Scotland from Perth way up Glenshee and way up Strathmore through the small burghs in that part of the North-East of Scotland there was enormous interest in, and great support for, the proposal that the Tayside area should become one of the three population growth points of Britain. When this was announced to the House some years ago the widest possible local interest was aroused. We have the establishment of the Tayside Economic Consultative Council, whose report is to be published later this year. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication of the latest likely date of publication and whether it is his intention to arrange for a debate on the Floor of the House on that report.
There is a continuing concern outside the great city of Dundee about the rôle which Perth and the other smaller burghs will play in the Tayside development programme. The feeling is that part of the proposal may be that these burghs should become satellites of Dundee and should almost turn themselves into long-distance dormitory suburbs. I hope that is not the intention in the Government's mind and that what we shall see instead is the orderly industrial development of these centres in their own right within a large Tayside industrial complex. That is the pattern of development I certainly want to see, building on the industry that already exists in these burghs, and building too within the sense of existing community. This is sometimes lost sight of when industrial development is considered generally.
At the end of the day it is the strength of the economy of the United Kingdom which makes local development of any kind possible, whether in the North-East of Scotland or anywhere else. I accept at once the argument that it is total economy which matters in the end; it is only from that that the local development we look for can spring. There are times, however, when I despair about the strength of the whole economy, lurching

1407
as we do from crisis to crisis every month, if not every week. In this constant sense of economic crisis in which we live, I sometimes feel that the plight and the problems of some of the smaller towns and communities are lost sight of by the Government. That feeling, I assure the Minister, exists acutely throughout the North-East of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Can we now move northeast of Perth?
10.7 p.m.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) spoke about the North-East Development Committee. That Committee does not embrace my own constituency, but about a month ago I attended a meeting called by Buckie Town Council of all the local authorities in the counties of Banff, Moray and Nairn, the purpose of which was to look at the possibilities of attracting industry to the area as a whole. The upshot of the meeting was that a committee was proposed to consist of four members each from Banffshire and the joint counties of Moray and Nairn Development Committees to form a committee to consider the problems of the area. I am sure the whole House would wish them well in their efforts; it is the kind of local effort one can only applaud.
In this connection, of attracting industry to such areas as the North-East of Scotland, I would pay my personal tribute to the North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and particularly to their Industrial Development Officer, Mr. Bailley, for the efforts put into attracting industry to the North-East. I would also pay tribute to the Scottish Industry Development Council. As the Minister of State will know, the Scottish Council offices in London have, as a branch of their establishment, a centre in Piccadilly where exhibitions from developing areas have been held. When an association or amalgamation of authorities puts on an exhibition the Council circulates 400 to 500 firms known to be wishing to expand. I tried to persuade my county council to avail itself of such an opportunity, but it is a small and comparatively poor county and it felt, rightly or wrongly, that the cost of putting on such an exhibition, with the obvious main intention of attracting industry,
1408
was too high. I very much regret that decision. Is not it possible for the Government to give some kind of subvention to help to put on such a show?
I am coming more and more to the opinion that the best way to develop areas in the North-East is to concentrate on locally-produced raw materials—fish, meat and timber. Fortunately, there are examples of private enterprise and endeavour paying off in the area. I shall quote just two instances, both from my own constituency. First, there is the scampi factory at Buckie, utilising nephrops or Norwegian lobsters which are caught in the Moray Firth. In a very few years the factory's output has quadrupled, and it is now exporting as far afield as the United States and Canada.
Second, there is an enterprise called the Banffshire Hand-knits, organised by one person on a purely voluntary basis and consisting of heavy-ply knitting done in private houses. It started in a very small way three years ago. I am very glad to be able to tell the House that within the past three months there has been more output of heavy knitted sweaters and the like than in the whole of last year. This enterprise is also in the export field, exporting to Australia.
Those are two small examples of splendid enterprise. They are small, and we do not ask in the North-East for miracles; we do not ask, for example, for vast motor-car production complexes. But the Government, and particularly the Board of Trade, should give thought to what might be termed the fall-out as a result of the establishment of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. There is a very short sea journey, and therefore a comparatively cheap transport medium, between Invergordon and the good harbours at Buckie and at Macduff for Banff in the Banff—Macduff area. Is it not possible that a factory could be established as a sort of satellite to the smelter to utilise the aluminium to make components for other production further afield?
To underline the problem we face in the North-East, I would like to quote the unemployment figures for my constituency for the wholly unemployed, taking no account of the temporarily stopped. The figures, as at 10th February in each year, are as follows: in 1966, 572, being 4·7

1409
per cent. of the insured working population; 1957, 675 and 5·4 per cent. respectively; and 1968, 660, representing a slight drop to 51 per cent. This year the total was 717, a large increase, representing 5·7 per cent.
But that is not the whole story. Without continuing depopulation the figures would be much higher. Therefore, in seeking to develop industry in the North-East we must solve the twin problems of depopulation and unemployment. These figures indicate the problem from the unemployment point of view. The figures for depopulation are extremely depressing reading. These are things we must concentrate on getting rid of.
There are several advance factories in the North-East already. In my constituency, there is one operative—and has been for some years—in Buckie, and it is flourishing. There is at present one building in Banff but, regrettably, no
1410
tenant is forthcoming so far. I hope that when a potential tenant is found for it what one tenant of another advance factory in the North-East called "horse trading on rents" will not be indulged in by the Board of Trade. This is a very grave charge to bring, but he assured me that it was a fact. That kind of thing can do nothing but harm in preventing other industrialists taking advance factories.
I end as I began by referring to the North-East Development Committee and by paraphrasing something said by the Lord Provost of Aberdeen in a television interview. Asked what was the biggest selling point for the North-East, his reply was simple. He said, "The labour force is second to none." I am sure that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will agree that this is indeed one of our greatest assets. Do not let us throw it away but utilise it to the full to the benefit of the area and of the whole of Scotland.
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on applying for the debate and on having succeeded in getting it at a comparatively early hour. In the North-East of Scotland, the present is an anxious time for many living there. The Inverurie closure has, of course, been one of the main points raised in the debate, and it has been a very hard blow to the area. Other factors too have been mentioned.
A few days ago the Minister of State spoke at an exhibition in London. The exhibition was designed to draw attention to what can be offered in the North-East of Scotland to industry. The hon. Gentleman sounded well intentioned, but what concerns those in the area is what is happening now and what the Government are doing, quite apart from the general expressions of intention which Ministers state from time to time.
Hon. Members have referred to particular problems in the area, but added to industrial problems I would point out that two naval stations are to be closed down—H.M.S. "Condor" at Arbroath and H.M.S. "Fulmar" at Lossiemouth. The latter is a very large station and, over a period of 20 years or more, has provided a lot of employment in the area. It is stated that the Royal Air Force is to take over the station, but the extent to which it will be used by the R.A.F. is still unknown. It is still undecided.
I mention this because these closures add to the uncertainly in the area, but, of course, the most worrying place and the most worrying matter are Inverurie and the closure there. I say at once that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has been extremely active over this in recent months. But, of course, the importance of the closure is much wider, as he will be the first to admit, than his own constituency. It concerns the North-East as a whole—indeed, the North of Scotland as a whole.
I was there three weeks ago. After the announcement last week I asked a representative to go to Inverurie on my behalf to ascertain for me the situation and local views, in the light of the circumstances of the closure which had just been announced.
1412
That representative and I, on our separate visits, were able to see the Provost and councillors of Inverurie as well as others concerned about the closure. This is a very serious matter affecting about 560 workers. What has made it so inexplicable to many of us is the original statement in the White Paper of January 1966, on page 128, where it is said:
"There is also a notably efficient railway workshop at Inverurie with 600 workers, for which a long-term future is planned by the British Railways Board."
That was only three years ago, and yet some months ago the imminent closure first became known. Now there is the shattering news that the run-down is to be so quick; it is to happen at such a speed that the whole works will be closed by the end of this year. After all the talks that had been going on, those in the area had expected that there would be a reasonable period for this run-down if the closure was decided upon after all. The danger is that men will move away in order to get other work before replacements for the locomotive works can arrive.
Who can blame them? These are men who want to work. They cannot hang around for months or years waiting for alternative work. The small advance factory which the Government have suggested is no substitute—
Dr. Mabon: It was not intended to be.
Mr. Campbell: I am glad that the Minister has admitted it. It was put forward when the closure was announced as being a substitute. It has been put to me by people in the last few days trying to represent the Government point of view, that this would be a substitute. That advance factory may take a year to build. Then a firm has to be found for it. I would like the Minister to explain why the Government refuse to make Inverurie a special development area.
This, at least, was a device at hand which would have helped. The special development area was originally brought into existence to deal with pit closures. This situation is similar in every way to a pit closure. The size of the community concerned, the numbers of men to be made redundant, are very similar to those which arise when a colliery is closed

1413
down. I cannot see why the Government did not immediately use this procedure, which could have been of help. As the Government eventually changed their mind about the advance factory, which they had previously refused, I hope that they will reconsider this and change their mind.
In general the Government like to say how much money they are spending in development areas. The disquieting point is that this has not been effective. The amount which is being spent is not a measure of the results being achieved. We on this side believe that the methods to encourage development need to be changed. Money could be used to much better effect so that the regions concerned would really benefit.
Mr. Dewar: As I understand his party's policy it is that of growth points. Could he explain where the growth points he is anticipating to enliven the North-East would be? Would they be at Inverurie and Tullos, as well as Aberdeen?
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman does understand our policy, from what I have heard from him recently. It is a part of our policy to revert to a principle which we operated successfully in the past. This was to concentrate on particular points in the different areas of Scotland, on the basis that people can travel up to 20 miles to work and that that is much better than having no work. The principle is to concentrate on the places where industry will be most successful. I cannot go into this now but would be happy to take it up again on other occasions.
The principle relating to the best points at which industry will flourish and do well, was first put forward by the Toot-hill Committee in 1961/1962 and then adopted by the Government of the day. It will help, together with other methods of regional development which will be a great deal more effective than those being employed now by the Government. The question of where such points should be was quickly made clear by industry when I was a Minister at the Scottish Office. Industries made it plain that they wanted communications, supplies of electricity, water and many other things of that kind. Often those places were not exactly where
1414
a colliery, for example, had closed. However, this point does not arise in the case of Inverurie because the Gaskin report going into the matter in depth, is expected to find that Inverurie is the appropriate place as a growth point for that area.
Besides the group of local authorities responsible for the exhibition in London, a group based on Banffshire, Moray and Nairn to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) referred got together and held a conference a short time ago with a view to encouraging industry to settle and expand in its part of the world. I thoroughly commend this example of self-help. I should like to draw attention to one possibility in particular which should be explored. It relates to the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. With the easy sea communications in the Moray Firth from Invergordon, it may be possible for subsidiary activities based on aluminium to be situated at other points on the Firth. This could be a useful fall-out from the smelter when it comes into existence, and transport costs would be minimal. I hope that that will be considered.
The Minister tonight has the opportunity to give us information which will help to clarify the Government's intentions in this important area. I hope that he will not just give us a collection of platitudes.
10.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): It is never my intention in any debate to give a collection of platitudes. I had the indignity of suffering from that for nine years when in opposition, and I would not inflict it on anyone else.
In my speech at the exhibition to which reference has been made, I tried to give a few positive examples of the attractiveness of the North-East. I am only sorry that my example has not been followed in this debate. I am glad that this subject has been chosen for debate because it gives us a chance to say something about the North-East which we might not otherwise have been able to say until the weekend.
Not all the speeches have been as constructive as the sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for North Angus and

1415
Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), thought they would be. He hoped that I would not try to fob the House off with plans. That is rich coming from the Opposition in view of what they did in the North-East when they were in office. What alarmed me very much was the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). People in the North-East should read that speech very closely and realise that Conservative policy means the North-East going back to what it was before 1966.
I have enough information about the North-East to know—and this is well exemplified by the hon. Gentleman's own two counties and, indeed, by the County of Banff—that it would be wrong to return to the idea of the North-East being a series of areas rather than one comprehensive area embraced by the industrial centres provided in the Industrial Development Act, which was the backbone of the White Paper of January, 1966. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are seriously thinking out their policy again, I would plead with them not to return to the old principle of seeking out certain areas and excluding others.
I can remember the hon. Gentleman telling me once from this Bench that my constituency was not a growth point and that none of my county was a growth point. How we resented that. If any county is developing and has developed in the last four years, it is Renfrewshire, and my own town, as a port of the Clyde, has shown that already.
In extenuation of that defence, if the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) can get in a long discussion about Perth in a debate about the North-East, I am entitled to refer to Greenock, which plays an important part in the economy of the North-East of Scotland. However, I do not say that in any spirit of complaint. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's speech was quite good.
Mr. MacArthur: I thought the hon. Gentleman's reference to me was quite good as well. However, he must recognise that I would not dream of abusing the generosity of the Chair in a debate of this kind. But Perth is literally the gateway to the North-East of Scotland,
1416
and Greenock certainly is not. In addition, a large part of my constituency is distinctly within the North-East area of Scotland.
Dr. Mabon: I will not cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on that point. After all, I did not complain about his intervention.
Mr. George Lawson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that Greenock is the exit point for people from the North-East when they want to go to Canada and America?
Dr. Mabon: As a matter of fact, that is not true. The depopulation of the North-East, which was extremely severe under right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—as was proved by their own study which we published when we came to office—is perhaps the most rapid in Scotland. But the movement is to the central belt, and it is from the central belt that we are trying to reinforce Scotland, to stop that depopulation.
I accept that it would be quite wrong to return to the pre-1966 position, with certain parts of the North-East de-scheduled from industrial incentives. That position was a bad one. The arguments which have been produced in the Reports which we have discussed so far show that it is wrong to believe that we can go back to that kind of pinpoint patchwork policy. If we return to it, it will be to the detriment of many of the so-called peripheral areas. Although the hon. Gentleman called for a S.D.A. for Inverurie, he gave away this point by saying that he wants to return to a growth point area, where there is more encouragement to travel. Then he mentioned the specific figure of 20 miles. But Inverurie is 16 miles from Aberdeen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has used the argument that, if we are not careful, we could see the labour force being siphoned off by one or two interested firms in Aberdeen, who merely want men to travel to Aberdeen and perhaps live in Inverurie. That would not be good for Inverurie and I accept that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the advance factory. We have never said that the advance factory was connected with the closure. We have said it would have been there, whether there was to be

1417
a closure or not, because Inverurie is clearly an area of growth in the North-East and a focus of growth.
I want to impress this upon the hon. Gentleman, because obviously he must have an influence upon his colleagues. It would be wrong for us to believe that we can, therefore, de-schedule other parts of the North-East because we choose Inverurie, this place, or that place. If one listened to the arguments which we used to have on the North-East Group about where the next advance factory should be, and the arguments on the Water Bill that we ought not to have unions of groups of counties—Kincardine, Aberdeenshire and the City of Aberdeen on the one hand, and Moray, Nairn and Banff on the other—one would know that they echo the fears of parts of the area that they will not be looked after by the others. That is wrong in the North-East context.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I must make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is giving an impression of our policy, and he has got it completely wrong. I would not in this debate try to make a speech of a quarter of an hour or so educating him on this matter, but the sort of things that he has been suggesting as our policy indicate that he has got it completely wrong.
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman, who is normally extremely careful in his language, had better look at what he said tonight. He will see that he has given us all the distinct impression that there will be a change in policy, if the party opposite succeeds in being elected to office, which would significantly affect the position in the North-East. I should like hon. Members to study closely what the hon. Gentleman said to see what it means.
Since we came to office some significant things have happened in the North-East, and it is worthwhile putting some on record. This is because we have treated the region as a region, not as bits and pieces of the whole area. We have taken the whole of the North-East and made it a single development area. We have given every part of the region an equal chance of the benefits and an equal position in development status. We have authorised five advance factories, as against two in the last few years of the previous Administration. We have given 108 industrial development certificates in the last
1418
five years in the North-East as a whole against a figure for the previous five years which was about 50 per cent. of that. These 108 i.d.c.'s represent 3,058 jobs in that time—a doubling of the rate of creation of jobs.
I give the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire the point that we can double, treble and quadruple the number of jobs, but if redundancies are keeping up, or go faster, doubling and trebling does not overcome the major problem.
We have given ourselves until the end of 1970. The hon. Gentleman must not, in the middle of the game, blow the whistle and ask what the score is. He must wait until the end of the period before saying that we have not achieved our aim.
We used to have this argument about housing, but now we no longer hear it. Incidentally, on housing in the North-East, I remind the House that, as a result of discussions with the counties and the City of Aberdeen, we have managed to get all the authorities—admittedly, to different degrees—interested in housing in the North-East. From 1st October, 1964, to the end of last year a total of 13,012 houses were completed by all agencies in the North-East of Scotland compared with 7,520 in the comparable four and a quarter years prior to that. In other words, there has been an increase of 73 per cent. in house building in the North-East.
There is still a long way to go. Those who study the figures of the counties know that they have a long way to go. A lot of rural depopulation in Aberdeenshire is due to lack of houses. There is a challenge to the county councils particularly of Aberdeenshire, Banffshire and Moray and Nairn to get on with their housing and satisfy the waiting lists or they will lose people not because they do not have jobs but because they cannot get houses. That is often as important for a young man as anything else.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: Reverting to the question of jobs, the hon. Gentleman was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) should judge at the end of the period. The end of the period is 1970. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that in just over a year and a half another

1419
95,000 net jobs will be produced in Scotland, although 25,000 net jobs have been lost in the last five years?
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman used to taunt me in 1966 about the figures for housing and again in the middle of 1967. He used to say that we would never reach our tarket of 40,000 houses which we promised in the 1964 Election, or that we would not manage it by the date promised. In fact we achieved it by the end of 1967 and again in 1968. Therefore, I suggest that before he decries the Government he should give us the right length of time to achieve these targets—[Interruption.] I think I should be allowed to develop my argument about developments in the North-East which are a direct consequence of the whole area being a development area.
Mr. Younger: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. Is it not the case that he failed to meet his own target of 40,000 houses by 1966, and that he is going to fail to meet his target of 50,000 houses by 1970?
Dr. Mabon: It is not unreasonable to say that, but it is fair to say that these were targets which the party opposite never even had. The fact is that we have set ourselves real targets, not phoney Tory targets which one is bound to achieve, and we have dragged hon. Gentlemen opposite behind our chariot wheels and made them accept targets which, when in office, they could never achieve or even announce. I think that I have proved my point about housing. In the last four and quarter years we have seen a 73 per cent. increase in housing in the North-East.
Mr. MacArthur: The Minister has pronounced an extraordinary target doctrine, but earlier he made what I regarded as a very important statement. Is the hon. Gentleman giving us an assurance that by 31st December, 1970, we shall see in Scotland the creation of a net gain of 95,000 jobs over the position today?
Dr. Mabon: It is the Government's intention to seek to achieve the target they set in their White Paper in January, 1966, and none of the embarrassments from the other side will stop us seeking to achieve that target. If I were an English industrialist listening to this debate I should be put off going to Scotland. I think that
1420
some of the remarks which have been made tonight, and some of the criticisms which have been made about Scotland, which are supposed to be for local constituency consumption will, in the last analysis, hurt all constituencies in Scotland.
Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.
Dr. Mabon: Perhaps I might consider what has been said during this debate. Let us consider some of the arguments which have been advanced about locally produced products. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us credit for developing the fishing industry in different parts of the North-East. I do not deny that we can develop the food processing side, as witnessed by the recent changes in the industry in that respect. I could recite a long list of the developments which have taken place in the North-East in relation to the primary industries. I am in favour of the development of agriculture, and I could give examples of what has happened in this respect in the North-East. I could give examples of development in forestry. We are being urged to develop the primary industries, and I agree that this should be done, but I maintain the fundamental point about attracting manufacturing industry.
I believe that we must develop manufacturing industry which takes in raw materials from elsewhere, as happens in the rest of the island of Great Britain. I think that we must develop manufacturing industry which manufactures goods from raw materials and then sells them abroad. We must do this if we are to have a stable pattern of employment in the North-East. However much hon. Members may argue for the development of existing industries in their areas, they must argue in favour of attracting manufacturing industry from abroad and from South of the Border. This is the essence of the argument. To revert to the primary industry argument is to my mind to do a great deal of damage to the idea of attracting manufacturing industry.
I do not want to spend a lot of time on Inverurie, but I want to discuss one or two suggestions which have been made. First, I appreciate what has been said in favour of the North-East of Scotland Development Committee and its publicity. It has done well in this regard, and has worked closely with the

1421
Government and with all those concerned locally in achieving this. I give full credit to the North-East Development Committee for its publicity drive. I am sorry that this Committee and the Committee embracing Banff and Moray and Nairn are not thinking of working together, because it would be much better if these larger areas were to work as one, and not separately.
There is now in being the very good North-East of Scotland Development Committee. It works very well, and despite the suspicions of Moray and Nairn, Elgin and Banff, the fact is that they have accepted that this Group works very effectively.
There was reference to Mr. Hutton's recruitment as development officer by the North-East Development Committee. He is a first-class man and has had much success in West Lothian. He would work very well in the North-East, not only in the two counties and the City, but over the other three counties as well. I hope that the local authorities and hon. Members will consider this suggestion constructive. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns talked about forward plans. We will be able to discuss this when we have seen the Gaskin Report, which is now being printed and should be published in May, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) will then not be so pessimistic about the roads. We want to consult all the authorities, but want to see them work comprehensively.
I enjoy being a Minister very much and I hope that I will stay a Minister for many years. But there are certain luxuries about being a back bencher which, if only for a moment, I envy. One is that he does not have to choose. Government is choice and Ministers must choose, and a choice means a disappointment for someone. I sometimes wonder whether it is not a good thing occasionally for a back bencher to pluck up courage—never mind the votes—and make a choice. This is a very clear choice—the clearest in the area—between the A94 and the A92. Admittedly, it is on Tay-side, but it is fundamental for the whole North-East.
This matter deserves a little more solemn thought, rather than simply concluding, "We will leave it to the Government
1422
and meanwhile we will embarrass them whatever they choose". This is not a statesmanlike way for experienced Members of Parliament to behave. The older ones at least should know better.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Are the Government not falling into the same sin of which they accuse us? First, they said that the A94 would be a trunk road, then they went back on it and then they said that they should start considering it. In those circumstances, should they be pointing the finger now?
Dr. Mabon: I think so, because the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues have been putting pressure on the Government, saying, "Do not make a decision now: wait for the Tayside Report". We have done so—
Mr. Dewar rose—
Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend had better not burst a blood vessel.
Mr. Dewar: I assure my hon. Friend that I had no intention of bursting a blood vessel, but I am amazed by the representation that he is making. Will he not accept that local interests are all anxious to make a choice in this matter? I admit that there might be a conflict, there might be different points of view, but what has stopped progress are the staunch and consistent answers from the Government over a long period, to the effect that they are quite unprepared to make up their mind before the Tayside Report appears at the end of 1969. It is a little unfair to accuse us of being unwilling to take the dip when we have been so bravely and finely blocked, in the short term at least, by my hon. Friend's own statements.
Dr. Mabon: How sharp is the serpent's tooth of ingratitude. We have listened carefully to the arguments and have said already to the authorities—my hon. Friend does not represent them all—that we will look at the figures. His own speech showed that he could not expect to have this number of vehicles on any two of the roads at the same time. There has to be one choice. This does not mean, of course, that the other road would not have its own development.
I was asked about the North Esk bridge. The construction of the new bridge should begin in 12 or 15 months.

1423
But this does not take us out of the argument about which one of these two great roads should be chosen for the principal development. If I were in the North-East, I would not envy Perth or any of the other areas—Stirling or the South through road developments. They are an integral part of developments which must affect the North-East as well, just as we do not envy our fellows in, for example, Penrith and Carlisle who are seeking the faster construction of the M6 because of the effect that that will have on the Scottish economy.
It is true that, with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, I shall be in Inverurie on Friday. We shall seek to discuss with the men concerned the position of the railway workshops there. I assure the House that it is as much a disappointment to me as to anybody else that the railways have reached the decision to close these workshops. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that many decisions have been taken by private industry over the years—I am speaking of decisions and plans which have been genuinely meant—but have not been sustained because of changes in commercial practice and alterations in aspects of economic development.
Inverurie is not the only area in Scotland which has had to suffer disappointment and substantial redundancy as a consquence of changed markets and commercial practice. There is no question of dishonesty on the part of the railways or the Government in this matter. There has been no cheating and the same cannot be said of the other allegations which have been made in a variety of "coloured" language.
This decision must be viewed in the light of not just the White Paper but the assessment and information of the railways. All this detail should be examined fairly before people reach conclusions. If they do that they will see the full force of the case. I am as sad as the next man that there should exist a strong case for the closure of the Inverurie workshops. Once the process of consultation was gone through, we tried extremely hard to find an alternative.
This brings me to the applicant to whom the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West keeps referring in the Press.
1424
He has not been able to tell us the name of the applicant. Nor can I. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to make others believe that there is only one real applicant for the workshops. It is equally wrong of him to allege that this applicant can guarantee stable, long-lasting employment for more than four years.
The hon. Gentleman scorned the advance factory idea by saying that it could not employ more than 100 men in a year's time. We are not at liberty to discuss this offer. Does he believe that the offer of which he was speaking is better than that? Is he aware that the Government are in possession of a great deal more information than he is? Is he equally aware that no hon. Member can claim always to know everything even about his own constituency, any more than a Minister can claim to know about everything that is going on in a given constituency?
Occasionally the Government know a bit more about those who are interested in going to various areas, but obviously the identity of these people cannot be revealed. For example, I noticed a remark by one person to the effect that the Conservative Party had more contacts with the business world than any of the other parties and that it should be able to find a tenant to take over the Inverurie railway worksshops.
I assure the House that I will accept any tenant, irrespective of political affiliations, who is a genuine applicant and who means to employ the 560 men involved. However, each application for tenancy must be examined and verified. Hon. Members will recall what happened on one occasion when an application in respect of a Scottish new town was not properly examined. That cost the public purse nearly £¾ million.
Mr. James Davidson: I accept the Minister's point that the Government often know a lot about a constituency which that constituency's hon. Member may not know. Frequently we try to discover the facts and figures, but without success. I have tried for a long time to obtain figures about the Inverurie workshops from British Rail, and particularly the figures to show why Inverurie is surplus to British Rail's workshops system throughout the United Kingdom.

1425
I have been told, for example, that the cost of bringing rolling stock and locomotives to Inverurie makes Inverurie uneconomic. Other figures which I have obtained prove that Inverurie is, or could be, one the most economic railway workshops in Britain.
I accept that there may be other firms trying to get in. If they will offer better prospects than the firm about which I have been talking, that is excellent be cause I want to benefit the area as a whole. But to say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gour-lay): Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. James Davidson: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I finish by saying that I believe that this firm will offer much better long-term prospects than 100 jobs in two years' time.
Dr. Mabon: I challenge the hon. Member's claim to know that that is the choice. I challenge him to discuss this matter with the sponsor and, if he is permitted, to make the facts of the application publicly known. The hon. Gentleman rests his case on something which is unknown to the public, and I am not at liberty to compare one application with another. The hon. Gentleman should not mislead people into thinking that the application to which he refers is the best one. He thinks that the London Publicity Committee of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) is providing inadequate publicity, and attacks it for its production, which I have before me. He attacks British Rail for its production, which lies on the desks of 4,000 industrialists. He attacked the publicity campaign as inadequate.
Mr. James Davidson indicated dissent.
Dr. Mabon: I have his words here, in the Aberdeen Press and Journal.
Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I said that the Government's measures were totally inadequate and utterly unimaginative, and I stand by that.
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member is standing in his own light. He is supposed to be a good Member—and I have never
1426
believed him to be anything else—and is supposed to be trying to help us to get industry into the area. Here we have a very distinguished committee of business men in London, acting voluntarily and with substantial Government money, trying to attract industry into the area.
I want the hon. Member to agree that what is true of Inverurie is true of the whole of the North-East area. It is a good area, with a good labour force. Here is a skilled labour force, ready and able, in six months, to man a new firm coming into that area—whether in the works or part of the works—for a temporary period, until the advance factory is built. It is ready to use the works on an entirely permanent or partly permanent basis. Here is a labour force that needs jobs quickly. That is the end that we should be striving for, and on that basis I ask the House to accept what has been said in the debate.

HOUSING (WILLESDEN)
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: This is not the first time I have used the ancient and traditional right of an hon. Member to raise the grievances of his constituents before he votes money. On each occasion when I have done so it has been on a question of housing problems, which greviously affect the people who live in Willesden. I remember, back in 1961, with my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton, North (Mr. Parkin) raising housing problems in our part of the world, which at that time had the name of Rach-manism. In 1961 very little attention was paid to us, but in 1963, in a similar debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we made almost the same points and then found that the climate had changed and that the world was listening. As a result, many changes were made in housing. The House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Padding-ton, North for his efforts then.
Those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have housing problems in their constituencies know that they are some of the most intractable and difficult problems with which a Member of Parliament has to deal. It is the inalienable right of every family to have a home—a roof over its head—where, in

1427
tranquillity and without too much anxiety, parents can bring up their children. The fact remains that in 1969 the situation still exists as a result of which the heartbreaks, problems and anxieties of our constituents are brought to us every Friday evening or Saturday morning in our constituency surgeries.
These are human stories—stories of youngsters who have married with a great deal of hope, only to find, for a number of reasons, that hope dying merely because of inadequate space. They go into lodgings; they start a family; no children are permitted in their lodgings, and from that time onwards the marriage starts to go on the rocks. Alternatively, they go to stay with the wife's mother or the husband's mother, and shortly afterwards problems arise, as a result of which they go to their Member of Parliament. We realise that because of a shortage of space we are witnessing the break-up of a family. If only they had had a home many of their problems would be solved. Then there are old people in my constituency who, having lived upstairs for many years, have a coronary thrombosis and are told by the medical officer of health that they must live downstairs. As a result one seeks desperately to find a way, in an area of acute housing shortage, or prolonging an old person's life by bringing them from upstairs to downstairs.
Then there are the problems of those of my constituents who live in multi-occupied dwellings. One out of every two families in my area share a roof with another family. There are all the problems that arise from one family sharing a lavatory with another family, from one family sharing a bath with another family, and often the problems that arise from two women, both mothers, having to use the back yard for drying clothes and having to get the coal through one kitchen to another to keep the place warm and healthy.
Those are the human problems. That is the way in which these problems present themselves to hon. Members on both sides. As regards my constituency I can put it in statistical terms which are perhaps a little more arid but which are just as dominant and forceful. There was a review of the housing waiting list in
1428
my area last year, so my figures are up-to-date. At the end of February, 1969, there were 6,943 on the waiting list in my area. Some of them have been on the list for 15 years. Apart from that, we have slum clearance schemes, because much of my area was built up in the time of Queen Victoria. In Stonebridge, Lower Place and the remainder of South Kilburn there are clearance schemes which have been going on for the last few years, which call for 1,574 families to be rehoused. In the Church End re-development there are 1,299 families to be rehoused.
One tries to achieve a fair allocation of housing and to meet all the pressures that are in human terms. Out of those waiting families 1,604 families have medical disability. In other words, in the points scheme that my borough operates points are awarded because of ill-health. The startling number of 988 are statutorily overcrowded—they are illegally in a situation where they are occupying premises where they should have more room. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, to be statutorily overcrowded is quite something, because a family can still be very overcrowded without its being statutorily wrong.
Then there is the heartache of broken families. We have 236 families on the waiting list because they have no accommodation, and the father is in one hostel, the mother is in another, and perhaps the children are out in care.
I put this as the background to the grievances I am seeking to raise tonight. It is against that background that I am appalled at the changes in policy which are going on at the moment in the London Borough of Brent and by the actions of the Conservative majority in the Town Hall, where for the first time for very many years my local authority is under the control of the Conservative Party and not under the control of the Labour Party.
For some years after the passing of the London Government Act we had the over-riding problems which arose from two very large boroughs—Wembley and Willesden—becoming married. In the early days after the coming into operation of the Act every effort was made so that these two boroughs should

1429
become one and act as one. I pay tribute to the early mayors in that period who, in trying to achieve unity, did a marvellous job of work. In particular, John Hockley who became mayor at a time when there was a feeling of there being two separate entities. At the end of his term of office the borough was united and we felt that we had finished with the rivalry between the two different areas in North-West London. The kind of atmosphere built up meant that the following two mayors were both Wembley people, Alderman George Marshall and Alderman Trevor Davies, and still there was this feeling of entity. But this has broken down. At present the North Circular Road is like the great divide. When it comes to housing problems we face two different areas, as different as chalk from cheese. One is a commuters', residential, prosperous area and the other an old industrialised area with all the social problems, including housing, at their most acute.
Before the last local election, when there was a Labour-controlled council, the councillors lived and worked in Willesden and were aware of the social problems of the housing problems there. They could not get away from them, because their constituents, like mine, knocked on their doors to tell them. Now we can no longer make a real impact on the Wembley half of the problems of Willesden.
Last May the new council inherited a massive programme of housing development which had gone on since 1964. It had been a period of proud achievement. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Public Building and Works, who was then in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who made a special venture into the London boroughs to try to crack the massive Greater London housing problem.
I also pay tribute to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), who, before he came here, was leader of the council and an alderman, and whose vision and foresight contributed to a massive housing programme having been set in being by 1964. Since then we have had a dramatic expansion of housing development. Previously, 400 to 500 units of accommodation were provided a year. Now we are running at the rate of nearly 2,000 a year
1430
to meet the tremendous problem that I have outlined.
One of the boldest and most imaginative schemes was one which started a few years ago, known as the Chalkhill Redevelopment Area. We were land-starved in Willesden. We had no land except that which we were able to realise by pulling down old houses. When it came to the marriage, we found space the other side of the North Circular Road, and this opportunity was used. The Minister accepted the scheme, which provided for a total of 1,649 homes. Stage 1, which will be completed between July and December of this year, has a total of 1,281 units. This was an integral part of planning, because if one is to clear slums to create a new development area in places like Stonebridge, Lower Place and South Kilburn one must syphon off the people. One must have a place to put them. Therefore, the whole scheme was an integral part of a very wide and well thought out planning scheme.
We were very proud of this. Then, on 8th January this year, the council suddenly came forward with a proposal that instead of its being used to meet the housing problems of the borough it should be sold off to a housing association or consortium of housing associations. This would take away what was more or less the keystone of our whole scheme.
The small Labour group left on the council naturally fought this very hard, and it was supported by a number of Conservative councillors, who could see the problems involved if this large chunk of our housing was eliminated. The Brent Chronicle and the Kilburn Times were both extremely forceful in their advocacy of the continuation of the scheme, and I pay tribute to the editorial policy of these two newspapers in the support they gave then. My hon. Friend and I made representations and called on the Minister. As a result of the representations made, on 29th January my right hon. Friend's Ministry replied to the Brent Council. To anyone reading the letter, there is clear indication that there would be no Government assent for the disposal of this important block of homes. In spite of that, the council has persisted. In the letter, Mr. Milefanti of the Ministry closed with these words:
"In these circumstances I am afraid that the kind of transaction suggested does not

1431
seem to present such housing advantage as to warrant the Minister being advised to agree."
Of course, this is Ministry jargon for putting the thing politely. We know that it means that it would be a waste of time of the borough council to persist. But, despite this, since then there have been interviews and discussions and a decision was to be taken at a special meeting which, strangely enough, has been held tonight and may still be going on.
The result of this exercise has been that servants of the council—the housing department officers and the town clerk—have been involved in an exercise which has been a waste of their time and a waste of public money. To those of my constituents on the housing list, who know that their area is scheduled for redevelopment and know that, under the fair points scheme, they have enough points to be rehoused, it has meant that they have had to be told by the housing manager, "I cannot let you know yet because we do not know until the council has made up its mind about what is to happen to the Chalkhill scheme. The sooner the point can be made clear to the borough council that its plan is not "on", if it has not already decided tonight not to proceed with it, the sooner my constituents' acute anxiety can be relieved.
The council has also, despite these difficult circumstances, come to a decision to cut back on the programme for the future. It has decided to cut out a number of sites which were scheduled for development—for houses, flats, apartments and maisonettes. The sites are: St. Raphaels Way, which was scheduled for 210 units of accommodation but could, according to my estimate, take 350; Crawford Avenue—62 units; Pilgrims Way—104; Harrow Road—15; and South Way—240. This would make a total of 631 houses, which were planned and in the pipeline but which are now to be eliminated from the future housing development of the area.
The decision to cut these sites out is callous in the extreme. It lacks all heart and sympathy and understanding of the real problems of Willesden. Let us take St. Raphaels Way as an example. I have been involved with that project since soon after coming here. As far back as 1960
1432
I made representations to British Railways. Sir Brian Robertson was then the chairman and I made my representations to him.
The present council has decided to cut out this site because it contends that the cost of the land is excessive and that therefore the building of houses on it would be uneconomic. But eight years ago in my area, for the Shoot Up Hill development scheme, we were having to pay £75,000 an acre and for the Chalkhill scheme up to £80,000 an acre. I am certain that the land in St. Raphaels Way is nearer one-third to one-half of these costs and I am convinced also that, if it were used for residential purposes, a determined council would be able to get figures which would make the scheme viable.
I want to put a number of questions. What is the lowest price British Railways would accept? What would be the effect of the Government's high site cost subsidy? Why do not the Government refer this matter to the Lands Tribunal? Why not initiate two-way negotiations with the two Ministries concerned—Housing and Transport? What would be the effect of a compulsory purchase order on this land, which has been derelict for nearly ten years? Even now I hope that something will be done to rescue this site, so that these 350 families, who can see little hope of a home of their own, will have the opportunity of being housed soon, either by the Brent Council or the G.L.C. or even by making a housing co-operative, so that the land can be used for homes.
Crawford Avenue would have provided at least 40 to 50 maisonettes and there has been a lot of time and effort spent by the officers of my local borough to produce plans and to get them accepted by the Minister. After much negotiation, arising out of the density required and the need for the scheme to be wider—just as all these difficulties had been cleared away and the scheme could have got off the ground—the council decided to sell the site. Will that site be offered in the open market? Will it go for housing or some other development? If it is not sold for housing development it may well be sold at a loss to the ratepayers.
Another great problem, because this is a built-up area, is that of finding land in Willesden. We have a lot of non-conforming industry scattered about in what

1433
should be residential areas. In Willesden Green there are 103 factories, in Harles-den 45, in Stonebridge 33, in Kensal Rise and Kensal Green 26 and Church End 45, a total of 252 small factories. Recently I had occasion to raise in the House another problem affecting my constituent—the closing of factories and resultant redundancies. Some 37 factories have closed since 1965, making a total of 5,817 of my constituents redundant. The factories that have closed have been mainly on factory areas, such as Park Royal or the North Circular Road, the Alperton Estate, which is a purely industrial zone.
When the factories close they are usually used by someone else and this does not alter my housing problem one bit. Whether a factory is used to produce one product or a different one, it still means that there are too many people chasing too few houses. Is it not possible to give greater assistance in shifting these non-conforming factories into industrial zones, thus allowing thousands of square feet to be cleared for housing purposes? I turn to the problem of aid for homeless families. There is an urgent need for more accommodation. We have about 60 families in council hostels and there is a great need to improve one of the most important, at Dartmouth Road.
I welcomed the announcement by the Home Secretary of the policy contained in the urban aid grants. I want to see the Minister then in charge of this, now translated to another Ministry, about the way in which this money for urban development could help with the kind of problems that I am discussing. As a result of that scheme, £80,000 has been allocated to my borough to help with the problem. The council is not taking advantage of it. It has decided to have two houses, which will help as hostels for these families, one in Willesden Lane and the other in Copland Avenue. But instead of this being additional to what they had, they are tending to use places which the council already has for other purposes. Therefore, instead of this £80,000 providing extra help, all it is doing is helping ratepayers, by absorbing properties already owned by the borough. It would appear that my council is adopting a go-slow policy and is not seeking to acquire new properties but is designating properties which have already been acquired.
1434
In a field fraught with anxiety, there is a new uncertainty for my constituents about the renewal of the Prices and Incomes Act on rent increases. I have raised with the G.L.C., British Railways, the Ministry and the rent officer of my borough the problem in one area, Harley Road, Harlesden, which is an area of railway cottages where the tenants have service tenancies. This area has recently been sold to the G.L.C. I am getting very agitated representations by the people who have lived there all their lives and have brought up their families in these places. They do not know what their future is. The immediate financial anxiety is the increase in rents. As the Act stands, there can be no greater rise this year than 10s. and normally the rise would be spread over three years. But this Act is due to expire. Does this mean that the following two years' increases might be slapped on on 1st January, 1970, if there is no renewal of the Act before then?
The problem of furnished lettings is a hardy annual. I have raised it on similar occasions to this one over the last ten years. Unfortunately, in spite of the excellent work done by the rents tribunal in North-West London, the position is still very far from satisfactory. I should like to know why, despite the fact that somebody appeals to the tribunal because his rent is too high and gets a decision in his favour, or even when he does not get a decision in his favour, never or very rarely is there more than three months security of tenure given when six months could be given should the tribunal decide that that would be right.
In spite of the tribunal's best efforts, exploitation in this field is rife. I do not want to weary the House with the old problems of houses only partly furnished and the way in which the rents can escalate when all one has to do is to put in a few wooden chairs and a bit of linoleum and it is up to the tenant to prove that the accommodation is inadequately furnished within the terms of the Act.
I hope that my Government will introduce a further Measure on this matter which will do for furnished accommodation what the Rent Act, 1965, has done for unfurnished accommodation. In the Milner Holland Report of 1965, in most

1435
of the housing problems, my borough of Willesden came top of the league. Certainly it came top of the league of abuses of tenants by landlords. In Willesden, in three months, there were 84 such cases. The borough with the next highest number, Wandsworth, had only 62. The whole question of the way in which the tenants are safeguarded needs to be looked at by the Government with a view to improving the situation.
In connection with rents in unfurnished tenancies, the rent officer in Willesden, Mr. R. Winter, has done, and is doing, a tremendous job, and I pay tribute to his work. But the fact remains that the majority of people for whom the Act could be of value do not even know of its existence. Far too few who could be helped by it do not come forward merely because they are not aware of it. Would my hon. Friend consider giving further publicity to the Act? I know that the Ministry has issued a number of leaflets and that it has used its resources to try to get the provisions of the Act known, especially by advertising in the national Press when it came into operation. Cannot there be a little more television publicity about the rights of tenants and how they can use the rent officer to save their being charged exorbitant rents?
Would the Minister look again at the way the rent assessment committee is working out in practice after the three years it has been in operation? The rent assessment committee consists of a solicitor, a surveyor and a lay person. When the rent officer's recommendation is being adjudicated the landlord is able to appear and another surveyor can speak on his behalf. The result is that one gets the impression of three professional people, two on the committee and one appearing on behalf of the landlord, talking in the same terms and language and that the scales are rather weighted against the poor tenant.
Harassment has been dealt with under the Act, and since 1965 I have had many fewer cases of harassment than I had in 1961 and 1963, a time of tremendous difficulty for those with controlled tenancies. The classic case at Willesden was that of the tenant harassed so that vacant possession could be achieved.
1436
At the time of the Milner Holland Report the average price of a single room was £4 10s. and of two, three or four roomed accommodation, four years ago, was at the rate of £3 12s. per room. Bringing up a family with that kind of rent with all the other problems cannot be easy in Willesden. I have time and again advised constituents to get a job away in a new town where there is not so much acute housing pressure, but those with the greatest housing need do not always have the trained skill needed. The new towns are more easily available for those with skills who can fit into the industrial complex of the new towns.
We like the provisions of "New Homes for Old Houses" and the consequent Bill, which is one of the most helpful measures to meet this problem in Willesden. One of the greatest problems is of two families sharing one lavatory, two families sharing one bathroom, and often sharing many other amenities of the house.
In spite of the fact that this has been understood for ten months, very little initiative is being shown in my borough in planning to use the advantages the Goverment offers us. Have the Government power to ginger up a rather tardy council, to get full operation of the grants which would do so much? If there were planning now in the following years there would be considerable alleviation of the housing problem in Willesden.
One of the biggest grievances in my constituency concerns council tenants. Suddenly last year, with little thought, the Conservative majority, having instituted a review of council houses, did not wait, but suddenly put on a 7s. 6d. increase. The trouble was that it was applied to each unit of accommodation, irrespective of what the accommodation was, and possibly to as many as 2,000 sub-standard houses.
I cannot do better than to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East said in one of his submissions on this point:
"To apply all-round increases of 7s. 6d. on every Council property is wrong and inequitable, because it would not differentiate between (a) many hundreds of slums bought for demolition; (b) many sub-standard post-war prefabs awaiting demolition; (c) several hundred sub-standard houses bought by the Council with poor amenities and other shortcomings; (d) thousands of old-fashioned

1437
Council-built homes already cross-subsidising modern and better Council houses; (e) thousands of different sized houses and flats: bed sitting room, one, two, three and four bedrooms; (f) thousands of different quality homes, environmentally as well as internally, houses, flats, maisonettes, high density, low density, crowded streets or pleasant garden estates."
It was sheer panic and folly to clap 7s. 6d., irrespective of conditions and circumstances, on each unit of accommodation. Moreover, on the morning when the council agreed to do it the review came out, and it would then have had time to consider it in depth. The council totally ignored the Circular from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. In addition, in spite of that, the tenants of Willesden face the possibility of yet another similar increase in October this year.
I am concerned, too, that the council is proposing to change the rent rebate scheme, the idea being, basically, that instead of one-fifth of income being allowed only one-seventh is likely to be approved in future. Can the council do that without further reference to the Ministry, or must it have permission if it wishes to take action of that kind which will do a good deal of financial damage to many of my council tenant constituents?
If an authority wishes to make changes in its rent rebate scheme, is it permissible to apply a rebate scheme to areas rather than to people, so that there are the "posh" areas where there is no rent rebate scheme and the poorer ones where there is, creating segregation of rich and poor and, in other words, treating council tenants with the old kind of Poor Law approach?
Although immediate starts with council houses are at present sufficient to maintain the flow, there will, with the policy now being pursued, be an inevitable decrease next year and the year after that. We cannot afford to put back the improvement areas programme planned for three difficult parts of my constituency, Stonebridge, Kensal Rise and Willesden Green.
If Tory local authorities throughout the country maintain a similar approach, the Government will not reach the target which they have set of 400,000 houses a year. It is up to the Government, therefore, to take powers to ensure that we are able to continue to house people in
1438
need. The basic difference lies in the approach to council tenants. It seems to me that on one side of the fence in my constituency they are looked upon, as in the days of the Board of Guardians, as not quite standard, or rather substandard people. Ought we not to treat them as citizens of equal status with others, as people to whom the ratepayers owe a debt of gratitude? They pay all their lives for houses which remain the asset of the community but which they never own themselves. All municipal housing contains an element of urban renewal; it means that roads, leisure facilities and much else that follows in the train of housing redevelopment is there to enrich the whole community.
I submit that it is totally unjust if the whole burden of that redevelopment has to be met entirely by the council tenants and if their shoulders alone have to carry responsibilities which all citizens in the community should share.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I remind the House that we are still debating subject No. 5. If hon. Members could make their contributions more briefly, that would give others a better opportunity to discuss the subjects which they wish to raise.
11.33 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Gov-ernment (Mr. James MacColl): My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), being fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has taken full advantage of his opportunity to give a thorough and comprehensive review of the problems of Brent and Willesden, his constituency, and he has covered such a wide range of matters, with the deep knowledge and passionate feeling he has on social problems, that he has given me a difficult task in trying to deal with all the points which he raised with the care which they deserve.
First, my hon. Friend asked about Chalk Hill. Nothing that has happened has caused my right hon. Friend to doubt that the letter sent on his behalf to the town clerk of Brent was a good letter containing sound advice. It is quite true that my hon. Friends indicated to me and to my right hon. Friend their concern about these matters, but perhaps the letter would carry more weight at the town hall if I made it clear that

1439
it was an expression or official view based on professional and administrative advice. It was not a document which emanated from Ministers themselves. It has all the weight of being the view held and the advice given to my right hon. Friend. We have not heard from the council again, and, therefore, the matter at the moment is in its hands.
I could not in any way quarrel with what my hon. Friend has said about the housing problems of Brent. Certainly there can be very, few authorities which have more desperate housing difficulties to face, and indeed, few which have striven as manfully to tackle them. Brent has the great problems of overcrowding, of expensive sites, of great financial difficulties, and, as the Milner Holland Report said, of the special needs arising from having inadequate quantities of housing to let.
We have watched with great satisfaction what so far has happened in Brent. I think it is correct to say that in each of the four years the new London Borough of Brent has been in existence it has gone to tender on virtually the same number of houses as the constituent boroughs had done in the whole of the previous four years. It completely overturned the whole rate of its programme; it put a new urgency into it, and a new co-ordinated drive to get sites and really get a move on. I would certainly share my hon. Friend's view that, were it to happen, were there to be a slackening of the pace, it would be a very great tragedy indeed, a tragedy not only for the people in Brent but for the whole of west London, an area which does so need more accommodation. So far we have no official indication that this is likely to happen.
We do all we can to encourage local authorities to buy land, not just for the year, but so as to keep their housing programmes going. We have a very important new weapon; we have had it since the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967: we have power to give advances of expensive site subsidies. So a local authority which has a special difficulty in finding money for very expensive land, instead of having to wait for help till after having incurred a great deal of expense, can get subsidy instead of waiting for months and months. This is one
1440
of the things we have discussed with Brent and have been able to arrange with Brent and it has made a substantial difference to Brent's problems.
My hon. Friend raised the question of St. Raphael's Way. We can certainly discuss the valuation issues there with both the G.L.C. and British Rail. Again, as I mentioned just now, we have told the town clerk that we would be prepared to pay expensive site subsidy on whatever may turn out to be the proper cost of the land, and that, combined with the higher rate of subsidy, should, I think, help a good deal to get Brent out of its difficulties.
My hon. Friend raised the question of non-conforming users and the question of whether some of the sites from which industries move could be used for housing. Local authorities have got powers to acquire industrial sites for that purpose. I think quite a number in London, and certainly in other parts of the country, do this, and it is a very important and useful weapon. It is certainly something which the borough could look at, and the Department will try to explore with the local authorities the feasibility of doing this.
I will pass on to the Secretary of State for the Home Department what my hon. Friend said about urban aid. Without knowing the details of his particular problem, I share his feeling that it would be a pity if this money was wasted. It is a very precious thing to have in an area like Brent, and it ought to be used to the maximum advantage because there is no doubt that all the tests of bad conditions which the Milner Holland Report picked out—multiple occupation, heavy overcrowding, inadequate domestic facilities and similar matters—were underlined in Willesden, and therefore there is special need for these powers to be used as effectively as possible.
My hon. Friend asked about the new Improvement Area policy. I see the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on the Front Bench opposite, and a long time ago we were facing each other in Standing Committee on the Bill and working hard to try to get it through as quickly as we can. This does place on local authorities a duty to survey their area looking for improvement, to survey the condition of existing property, and we

1441
are already beginning to talk to the London Boroughs about it and encourage them to make new plans. As my hon. Friend wisely said, as soon as the Bill is passed we can get on with some of the problems that he raises.
My hon. Friend went on to look at one or two small technical points about rents. The question he raised about rents in Harley Road is a very technical question. Exactly which Act they would come under would probably depend on whether or not they were in the Housing Revenue Account, but in general I think he was light to say that normally rent should not be increased more than 10s. in any one year. As he says, how long that power stays depends on what happens and whether the Act expires in the normal way, as it is expected to do.
My hon. Friend came on to furnished lettings—
Mr. R. W. Brown: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about rents, the problem which was outlined by my hon. Friend in Willesden is similar in Islington and Hackney, which are unfortunately under Conservative control. As far as rents are concerned, what about the Greater London Council now that they have put forward this appalling proposal to put up rents in Willesden and in Islington and Hackney? Does my hon. Friend propose to take action against the G.L.C., whose proposals will only put more burdens on the people in those areas when there are no grounds whatsoever for these increases which they propose?
Mr. MacColl: As my hon. Friend well knows, my right hon. Friend is in a position of purdah both as regards the G.L.C., and indeed in regard to Brent rents, because there are applications before him at the moment to deal with these matters. He is in a position where he certainly cannot hear outside representations about them until he has come to a conclusion, and certainly I cannot give any indication of what line he is likely to take about them. It would be quite improper to do that in the course of the debate here until my right hon. Friend has made his decision. However, these matters are before him.
The problems of furnished lettings are extremely worrying. It is not fair to say that all that is required is a statutory
1442
piece of linoleum to enable premises to be described as furnished. Recent decisions in the courts indicate that a substantial amount of furnishing is required. There has been some controversy about a number of recent decisions, but they do not alter the general principle that the property has to be properly furnished before coming outside the unfurnished machinery.
I am not in a position to assist my hon. Friend with information about the length of suspension which a furnished rent tribunal will give to tenants. I am trying to get more information about what is happening. He will be aware that we doubled the period in the 1965 Act, and it can be renewed.
I do not know whether we have the answer right yet. The dilemma in dealing with furnished property is that, if the same strict control of the rent office and the rent assessment committee is applied to furnished accommodation, the risk is that it will disappear from the market because people will not be prepared to let it. It was the considered view of Aneurin Bevan, who was the architect of this Act, that it would not be wise. It is a very specialised problem. It is possible to draw a line round certain areas of the country, such as London and the large conurbations, where it is a problem. In other parts of the country, it is not. But we should be considering whether the position can be improved.
When my hon. Friend asked about further publicity, I shook my head sadly. We have pulled out every stop to publicise the Rent Act. We have tried posters, and every kind of T.V. intersetting within programmes that we can get. We have tried Press advertising, more importantly in local papers. It does not require advertising all over the country. It is needed in places like Willesden and Islington, where there are big problems. We concentrated on those sorts of areas, and got an immediate improvement in the figures. It is too early to say whether it will last, however.
My hon. Friend asked about the weighting of the rent assessment committees against tenants because of the employment of surveyors by landlords. I answered a Question about this today, referring to the Report of the Surveyors' Aid. The Chartered Land Societies did a very good and public-spirited job in

1443
starting a pilot scheme to see how this could be worked. One of the difficulties again has been that it has not been used very much. Surveyors are delighted to offer their services, but they are disappointed to find comparatively few tenants and landlords using them. It is a point that we are watching. We hope that it will meet some of these difficulties.
My hon. Friend asked about rent rebates and how it was that a local authority could vary the terms, having got approval for rent increases. The answer is that it cannot without my right hon. Friend's approval as long as the Prices and Incomes Act is in force. Otherwise, it has complete control over them.
At the end of his extremely interesting speech, my hon. Friend raised some profound issues about the nature of the rent policy and whether more communal benefits should not be taken from the tenant and placed either on the taxpayer or the ratepayer.
It is difficult to give a clear answer, but the National Board for Prices and Incomes has said that there are circumstances in which it could be done although it did not think that, as a general rule, it would be accepted. I do not know that I share that view. We do not know the full answer. We are examining the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this subject. We are discussing it with the local authority associations, and out of this we hope to produce some constructive ideas about what can be done to make the position better.
I have done my best to answer my hon. Friend's points. I fully recognise the difficulties. In some of the financial adjustments and subsidies that we have been able to make we have managed to reduce the rates by about fourpence. We want to do all that we can to help. However, as my hon. Friend has clearly indicated, the real responsibility rests with the local authority, which must take the initiative. If we are approached for advice, we will give all the help that we can.

DOCTORS (DISPENSING)
11.52 p.m.
Mr. Tim Fortescue: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the direct dispensing by doctors to patients of pharmaceutical drugs in rural areas.
This problem has been a festering sore within the National Health Service for some years. It is beginning to poison the relationships between the two professions involved—the doctors and the pharmacists—and it can be cured only by prompt Ministerial action.
The background of the problem is not difficult, and I will attempt to explain it very briefly.
The principle behind the National Health Service, as the Minister will know much better than me, is that each profession carries out the duties for which it is specially trained.
For pharmacy, this is enshrined in the original National Health Service Act, 1946, Section 39(1) of which states:
"Except as may be provided by regulations"—
which is the crux of the matter—
"no arrangement shall be made by the Executive Council with a medical practitioner…under which he is required or agrees to provide pharmaceutical services to any person to whom he is rendering general medical services.…
(2) Except as may be provided by regulations, no arrangements for the dispensing of medicines shall be made with persons other than persons who are registered pharmacists…"
This is the background. This is the whole spirit of the National Health Service. But for a very long time—since the National Insurance Act, 1911—there has always been a proviso, by regulation, whereby in rural areas, where chemists' shops are few and far between, doctors shall be permitted to do their own dispensing. This has been perpetuated in all the regulations under the National Health Service Acts, the most recent being the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations, 1966, which, in turn, consolidated the 1962 Regulations, and so it goes right back to the 1946 Act. The 1966 Regulations are in force

1445
now. Regulation 27(1), which is the key part of the Regulation, reads:
"A person who—
(a) satisfies the Council"—
that is the Executive Council—
"that he would have serious difficulty in obtaining any necessary drugs or appliances from a chemist by reason of distance or inadequacy of means of communication, or
(b) is resident in an area which in the Council's opinion is rural in character, at a distance of more than one mile from the premises of any chemist,
may at any time request the practitioner in whose list he is included to supply him with drugs and appliances."
The Regulation goes on to say that if the practitioner is willing to supply these drugs the Council may authorise him to do so, if he is not willing the Council may instruct him to do so, and so on. Clearly the whole Regulation is framed so that a patient who is finding difficulty in getting his drugs through a chemist can arrange to have them supplied to him by a doctor.
It is unusual, I think it is generally agreed, to find a patient taking direct and obvious advantage of this Regulation as it is framed. It is far more normal for the doctor to say to the patient that he would be willing to supply him with the drugs which he, the patient, needs, if he, the patient, agrees. The patient normally does agree because people do not like to say "No" to their doctors, and it often seems to the patient to be a convenient arrangement.
In practice Executive Councils give doctors in rural areas a blanket permission whereby they can provide drugs in certain circumstances to any patients whom they see fit, to supply.
Pharmacists say that this whole arrangement is anachronistic. They say that it goes back to 1911, when there were about 88,000 motor cars in this country, and that now there are more than 9 million cars here. They say that there are more cars to families in rural areas than there are in uban areas, and that there is hardly anywhere need for a patient to say that he cannot get his drugs from a chemist.
The pharmacists further say that the dispensing of drugs by doctors is not directly supervised as theirs has to be, by a qualified pharmacist as laid down by the National Health Service Act and
1446
under the new Health Services and Public Health Act. They also say that a doctor's dispensing is not subject to the testing which is required under Regulation 25(1) of the 1966 Regulations.
The doctors, on the other hand, say that dispensing has always been traditional for them in rural areas, that they have done it since time immemorial. They further say that income from this dispensing is essential to make a rural doctor's practice economic, and that unless they are allowed to do it doctors will begin to disappear from some rural areas because they will not be able to afford to stay there.
The doctors further say that it is often more convenient for a patient to make only one stop for his medical treatment and for his drugs. The pharmacists on the other hand say that a doctor cannot possibly keep such a comprehensive stock of drugs as a pharmacist can, that he cannot keep his knowledge of pharmacy and drugs on the market up-to-date in the way that a pharmacist has to, and that in fact he provides an inferior service.
There are great differences of opinion on the one-mile rule. The rule says that a doctor may dispense drugs to a patient if that patient lives in a rural area, and if he is more than one mile from a chemist. But if he may be one mile from a chemist, he may be 10 miles from a doctor, and it is not a sensible rule to say that in these days of the motorcar a mile is necessarily inconvenient for a patient to go and get his drugs. The chemist may be on the way to the doctor. He may be two miles away from the patient, on the way to the doctor who is five miles away, and it thus may be more convenient for the patient to get his drugs from the chemist rather than go all the way to the doctor for a second supply.
This disagreement between the two professions on which we depend for our health simmered for quite a long time. It came to the surface in 1965 when the so-called Doctors' Charter, which was published in that year, said provocatively that
"every rural family doctor should be free to dispense for his patients if he so wishes and remain free to do so."

1447
The pharmacists were at once up in arms, and there were joint consultations between the pharmaceutical profession, the Government, and the doctors' representatives.
A report was then issued, known as the Third Report, which said:
"The vast majority of patients who have drugs prescribed for them by their doctors will have these dispensed by a pharmacist. There are, however, some areas in which it has been traditional for dispensing to be done by doctors and in which an adequate service can still only be provided by the doctors because it would be seriously inconvenient for the patient to have his drugs dispensed by a pharmacist."
This seems to be the beginning of an agreement between the two professions. On the one mile rule, the same report said:
"It is contemplated that Regulation 27"—
which I quoted—
"… should be amended to remove the present ' one mile ' rule."
This was three years ago.
"The sole criterion in future in deciding whether a doctor should dispense would be whether patients would otherwise have serious difficulty in obtaining any necessary drugs from the chemist by reason of distance or inadequacy of communication."
It was also agreed in that Report that the Dispensing Committee referred to in Regulation 27 should be established in these rural areas and, some time later, that it should have three lay members as well as the three pharmacists and three doctors. This removed many worries. Here again, we seem to be taking a step towards agreement.
In January, 1966, the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), then Minister of Health, wrote to the pharmaceutical profession about his proposals to amend Regulation 27. He said that he was prepared to amend it in the sense that I have described. Nothing has happened.
In August, 1967, the next instalment in the saga, the right hon. Member wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who had become involved in this controversy:
"It is quite wrong to suggest that I have never considered the views and interests of patients and that I am deliberately abolishing the ' one mile rule' to make it more inconvenient for patients. I made it quite clear in the House of Commons on 23rd January, 1967 that I did not believe that the proposed new arrangements will in general make it more
1448
difficult for patients in rural areas to get their medicines".
What he had said in the House on that date, in answer to a Question, was:
"Discussions with representatives of the medical and pharmaceutical professions on the introduction of the changes are currently in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 962.]
That was two years ago, and still nothing has happened.
He went on to say in that letter to my hon. Friend:
"In principle, patients' interests generally would be better served if their dispensing was done by a competent and well-stocked pharmacist rather than by an overworked doctor."
He made it clear in his conclusion that his only concern was to be fair to all parties—patients, doctors and chemists—and that he believed that the proposed arrangements would achieve this aim. That was two years ago.
The next meeting which I can discover in my investigations was the one which the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security—whom I am glad to see present—had on 27th January this year with representatives of pharmacists, who pressed him to make a decision. After all, the matter had been going on for three years. He said that, before doing so, he wished to have clear in his mind all the factors involved and that he wanted to hear the arguments of both professions at first hand. This was reasonable and proper for a newly-appointed Minister, but by this time the controversy had been going on for three years and the arguments must have been easily to hand in the files of his civil servants. It had been thrashed out backwards, forwards and sideways in all the journals of the two professions.
After that length of time, to say that he must have another look smacked of procrastination. I would gently suggest that this was not the most urgent way in which to tackle the problem. Still nothing has happened and there is no sign of anything happening, unless, as I hope, the Minister will tell us tonight that something will happen.
There is a rather alarming report from a large new housing estate in Ebbw Vale. I am glad that the formidable Member for that constituency (Mr. Michael Foot) is not here, as he would probably put a fearsome light on this problem.

1449
Apparently in this new housing estate in Ebbw Vale the question of establishing a pharmacy was considered. The Health and Housing Committee of the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council was told that if a pharmacy were established there, the dispensing doctors would withdraw their dispensing facilities not only for patients living one mile from a pharmacy but for all patients.
The council promptly decided against the establishment of a pharmacy, but that decision was reversed at the next meeting of the council. Meanwhile, doctors organised a petition against the establishment of a pharmacy—I gather that the petition was organised by what is known as the Beaufort Doctors' Dispensing Rights Campaign Committee—and tomorrow the whole matter will again be considered by the Council.
This may seem a trivial affair, but is it not entirely opposed to the spirit of Regulation 27? Is it proper that the Regulation should be used in this way to prevent a pharmacy from being opened on a newly established housing estate? After all, this one-mile limit does not exist in Scotland. Apparently there is no need for it there. In Scotland there is no quarrel between the pharmacists and medical professions. Doctors dispense only for patients who live in very remote areas and the whole problem has been solved.
That the quarrel in England is hotting up can best be illustrated by a quotation from some remarks made by the President of the Pharmaceutical Society at Chester on 16th March last. He said:
" We shall never be prepared to acquiesce in a situation which is depriving the pharmacist of his livelihood and thereby depriving whole communities of the comprehensive service in medicines which is available in the pharmacy—and nowhere else. Certainly it is not to be found in the ante-room to a doctor's surgery."
After referring to the history of this matter, which I have described, he concluded:
" But I regret to say that since that Ministerial judgment was given, we have witnessed a lack of positive Government, with the result that our profession continues to suffer what I can only call an intolerable encroachment by members of the medical profession."
Those are words which one does not like to hear uttered by the head of one profession
1450
about a sister profession. I do not criticise either.
On the face of it, it would seem that pharmacists are losing business because the remuneration of doctors in some areas is inadequate. I criticise the Government, because they first raised the issue officially in January, 1966, because they stated their policy in August, 1967, and because they have still done nothing to change Regulations which stem from 1912.
12.8 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has shown that he has detailed knowledge of this subject, and hon. Members are grateful for that. He has also shown that this is not a simple matter, that both the medical and pharmaceutical professions are closely involved in the question of how far doctors should be authorised to dispense for their patients and that both professions are taking positions that are somewhat in conflict with each other.
It has been a basic principle of the National Health Service since its inception that normally doctors should diagnose and prescribe, while pharmacists should dispense. Consequently, the original 1946 Act laid it down that, except as provided in regulations, patients should take prescriptions from their family doctors to chemists for dispensing.
The present rule, which is contained in the General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services Regulations, is that patients can get their medicines dispensed by a doctor when they live in a rural area more than one mile away from a chemist's shop. In addition, any individual who can show that he would have serious difficulty in obtaining medicines from a chemist, because of distance or inadequate communications, can be dispensed for by his doctor.
One difficulty which may arise under these arrangements is that a doctor must give up dispensing as soon as a chemist opens a shop nearby. The annoyance is greater if the chemist fails and leaves the area, so that the doctor soon afterwards has to be asked to resume dispensing. On the other hand, chemists have pointed out anomalies which may follow adherence to the rigid "one-mile

1451
rule" where, for example, patients may have to pass the pharmacy on their way to the doctor's surgery.
Discussions on these and other difficulties and possible ways in which these might be overcome have taken place between the Department and the professions over some years. The hon. Member detailed some of the circumstances in this long exchange. The possibility of amending the relevant regulations has been investigated in some detail. The present arrangements in substance are indeed of long standing, and one would not change them lightly. On the other hand, it must be agreed that since they were first introduced general conditions in the countryside have changed considerably. The hon. Member referred to the great increase in the number of motor vehicles, but this has also led in some cases to a decrease in the number of public service vehicles, and it has not always meant that it is easier for some sections of the public to travel. Again, the so-called "one-mile rule" does provide an objective criterion, but an arbitrary one.
For reasons which I hope will emerge later I do not think that it would be useful or proper for me to consider these proposals in detail tonight; but because the purpose of reconsidering the arrangements has been misunderstood in some quarters I should perhaps say something about the Department's general attitude on the question as a whole. It has been feared by some that discussions were taking place secretly with a view to bringing dispensing by doctors to an end altogether, and by others that the Department would permit a widespread extension of such dispensing arrangements.
In fact, the consistent view of the Department has been in accordance with the general principle to which I referred earlier, namely, that except in emergency dispensing by doctors should be the exception rather than the rule; but that those patients who would have serious difficulty in reaching a chemist's shop—and these would normally be found in rural areas—should be covered by such an exception, and the Department has been concerned to pay regard to the interests of patients in general and of rural patients in particular. Consequently,
1452
whatever decision is reached on this subject it is clear that where there would otherwise be serious hardship to the patient existing arrangements for dispensing doctors would not be disturbed.
On the other hand, just as a chemist's shop will not be viable unless it is supported by a population of a certain size so, too—particularly in these days of more expensive drugs—it is becoming increasingly difficult for doctors to provide a dispensing service for fewer than a certain minimum number of patients.
Although both doctors and pharmacists are thus anxious to provide a service for, and safeguard the interests of, patients, it is entirely understandable that in some areas the interests of the two professions should conflict. The hon. Member has pointed out that this has taken place, and that the profesions have made their positions clear. It is right that the Department should consider sympathetically the problems and opinions of each profession in the light of the interests of the patients for whom the service exists.
As I have already indicated, these discussions have proceeded for some time, and they had reached an advanced stage when, late last year, the former Ministry of Health was merged into the new Department of Health and Social Security, and new Ministers were appointed who had not been concerned in the negotiations leading up to this stage and to whom necessarily the detailed considerations were unfamiliar, as the hon. Member, in his detective work, discovered. On 27th January I met the representatives of the pharmaceutical profession in order to acquaint myself at first hand not just with briefs but with the views of those mainly concerned in the issue before coming to a decision on any amendment to the present regulations. The pharmacists were therefore invited to state their general position, which they then did with great clarity.
Clearly the next step was to invite the representatives of the medical profession to state their case also and as it happens they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday. In the light of what has now been said my right hon. Friend will consider the matter. The professions have, I believe, clarified their views through the discussions which have already taken place and

1453
my right hon. Friend hopes that his decision will not now be long deferred. He will wish to take into account the points raised tonight. As the House will see, the professions concerned have put their views to the Ministers, and it is for the Ministers to decide.
The hon. Member mentioned the case of Ebbw Vale. This is something that I had not heard about, but I shall certainly look into it to see whether I can discover any more information. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject. I recognise and agree that the negotiations have been protracted ones, and I hope that we are very near the point at which a decision can be taken and announced in the House by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Fortescue: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea of about how long it will be before such an announcement will be made? Will it be weeks or months rather than years, to use the famous expression?
Mr. Ennals: I think that it will not be very long before my right hon. Friend makes his statement.

SELECT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENCE
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I welcome this opportunity of debating the necessity of having a standing Select Committee for Defence, so forcibly advocated by the Labour Party when in opposition and now so disdainfully put aside, in spite of the earnest pleas of Lord Wigg. In view of the forceful manner in which Lord Wigg used to debate the necessity of having a standing Select Committee, I only hope that once again the Government will listen to some of the views he has been expressing recently.
For some time now I have felt that we do not discuss in nearly enough depth the various defence problems which in this technical and nuclear age face Britain. There was a time when each Service was represented in the Cabinet; when each Service had its own independent General Staff which supported its own Minister in the Cabinet; and when equally the Navy League, and the Air
1454
League were all powerful lobbies in support of policies which were being pursued by their respective Services.
Even then our defences were at a deplorable level for continental and world war, both in 1914 and in 1939. Now we have no independent General Staff. Indeed, sometimes I think that the Secretary of State has become almost a prima donna with some of the cries we hear across the Floor of the House at Question Time, such as, "The hon. Gentleman is grossly misinformed", or "Absurd".
Then there are the pledges which have been given to us and then broken. Most outstanding have been the pledge about our rôle east of Suez and the conviction that the F.111 would be a world successor to the Canberra if we cancelled the TSR.2. Should not the various statements which the Secretary of State has made recently be probed much more forcibly in depth than they are at present? I do not believe that the one-Service complex which is now growing since the creation of the Ministry of Defence is providing that forum for the debate of defence policy which is vital if we are to get the right answers upon which our whole future depends, and particularly our defence policy.
It is not that I wish to return to the old system, but rather I want to improve on what has been evolving. I am certain that, given the position as it is today with one General Staff, a Secretary of State who has been Secretary of State for Defence for far too long to act as a catalyst to defence opinion, the time has come when we should have a Select Committee to probe and ask the questions which before were being constantly probed by the reaction of one critical independent general staff on that of another, the presence of Service Ministers in the Cabinet, and the existence of a powerful Imperial Defence Committee.
Why, if the Americans consider that such a system is right, should we disdainfully put it aside in the development we have been making towards modernising the procedure of Parliament and for Parliamentary reform, particularly as our defence problem is far more difficult than it was in 1939 and, indeed, our resources far less? Therefore, we as a Parliament should see that we get value for money.
Having been a defence Minister for over two years, I do not believe that

1455
Parliament can be nearly well enough informed to look into all the items it should examine except through the medium of a Select Committee. I do not believe that we can adequately discuss the nuclear rôle of Polaris submarines and their effectiveness, the American nuclear shield, or the part nuclear warfare will play in the future at Question Time or in debate on the Floor of the House.
Have we really followed through in enough depth in our defence thinking the statement by the former American Defence Secretary, Mr. McNamara, that the threat of an incredible act is not a credible deterrent, with all the consequences this must have for the rôle of our Navy, Army and Air Force, and, far more important, on the rôle of the Reserves, which might be required to face a conflict that was not nuclear? Have we analysed deeply enough the statement made by the outgoing American Secretary of State, Mr. Rusk, according to Louis Heren's article in The Times of 30th December, that the first lesson he has drawn from Vietnam is that Americans will not defend those allies who have taken no part in that war. As Mr. Rusk sees it, reports Louis Heren, the future is most uncertain for countries such as Britain. Mr. Rusk doubts that his countrymen would defend Sussex from invasion.
In view of those serious statements, how can we be satisfied that N.A.T.O. and we ourselves possess the conventional strength we should? How much reliance can we put on such statements? I would like a Select Committee which could send for people to comment on such statements and inform the House, and not just the Secretary of State for Defence, with no independent staffs. After all, he puts to the House a political and not necessarily a national view, however much I am sure that he believes that he is acting in the national interests, as he wishes, and as we would want him to.
How far is Lord Wigg correct in saying in a forceful article in The Times recently that our choice is suicide or surrender? All these matters and many more should be under far closer scrutiny by the House than they are now. How much easier it would be for a Select Committee to go into secret session! How can one debate
1456
properly the questions I have posed unless it can do so at times? If we want to maintain the technical quality of our nuclear weapons, should we, as Der Spiegel asked the Secretary of State, buy the Poseidon missile? How can we talk about these questions unless in the necessary secrecy of a Select Committee? What is the role of our Polaris submarines in this matter? I should like to see adequate probing by the House in a Select Committee, if necessary in a secret Select Committee. There is also the question of the cost of these weapons, and whether we are getting cost-effectiveness. All these are matters for a Select Committee far more than for general debate on the Floor of the House.
Can we really get the technical information we need about defence weapons, whether ships, aircraft or tanks, unless we have the opportunity to examine and hear statements from expert witnesses? For example, there is the question of the replacement of the Canberra and the choice of its successor.
My experience as a defence Minister for over two years leads me to believe that we must have far more debates in depth than we have been having especially in the technical and nuclear world of defence in which we now live, and because of the cost of modern weapons and their technicality. We have never really had adequate probing of the sorry story of the F.111 or the TRS2, or the cancellation of the P. 1154, a supersonic aircraft. Seeing how the old P. 1127 has been developed into an excellent plane, how much better it would have been if we could have developed the P. 1154! These are questions which it is vital we should probe far beyond what we are doing if we are to be constructive about defence. Again, how much has the buying of American aircraft destroyed our aircraft design and scientific staffs and, therefore, our facilities for research and development? All these are detailed questions to which we can get no adequate answer.
I could make many more points, but I hope that I have said enough to make the House realise how inadequate is the probing which we can give at present to our defence policies and organisation, particularly on the nuclear side. Above all, surely we must be satisfied, with the developments taking place in the general

1457
rôle of defence policy, that N.A.T.O. possesses enough conventional strength to provide time for hot line diplomacy. We must probe far more than we are doing the question of reserves. Are three days' reserves really adequate before we come to a nuclear posture? Are we facing the reality of our position? How much would ten, 15 or 30 days' reserves for conventional war cost before we went nuclear?
This is the kind of question we cannot ask across the Floor of the House, yet we must have answers if we are to say that we are doing our duty by the country and are getting the right answers at a time when our resources are scarce and it is important to see that we get value with them. Only by establishing a Select Committee on Defence can we provide the forum necessary to probe all these vital questions, on which not only our future security but our survival depend.
12.28 a.m.
Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I am in a somewhat strange position. I cannot agree with many of the points put by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), yet I support his general plea for a Select Committee for Defence for perhaps slightly different reasons. But it does not matter what reasons we have individually. When this House is united in a demand—and there is not much of a House here at this hour—the specific reasons which flow into that debate from specific hon. Members do not really matter.
I shall resist the temptation to deliver the speech which I had hoped to deliver in the defence debate but which I could not give because I had other business, but it is a powerful temptation to make it. What we have to realise is that there was a time in the history of the House when technical questions of defence could be left to the commanders. The House itself decided who were the top two potential enemies, and the technical details of defence could be left to the experts, the commanders who would be in the field in the event of hostilities. That was fairly easy.
Today, of course, we are faced with a technological revolution in defence which is far more rapid than the technological revolutions happening everywhere
1458
else. The people who fought in the Boer War used weapons which would have been recognisable by Wellington's troops in the Peninsular Campaign. But every five to six years now there is a complete revolution in technology which completely transforms the conditions of warfare.
This is something to which the House must give attention, and it cannot give attention in the traditional format of defence debates. We cannot probe, and I do not use that word to signify that we should have committees that would torture Ministers with gridirons, technological consequences of certain innovations in the set format of a defence debate. It is totally impossible to do so. One of the arguments against setting up such a committee is that certain hon. Members only would talk on defence. No one in the modern world is a defence expert; we are all mystified when we meet the technologists. I do not think that this argument stands up.
I have become a convert in the last few weeks to the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, because I took part in a seminar at the Royal United Services Institution. It was an all-party seminar and we probed matters in depth. It was held under special circumstances and we were able to reach a wider measure of agreement between the parties than has ever been possible in defence debates here. I do not argue that this is always a desirable thing. Conflict is just as essential in defence matters, as in every other political matter. It was rather important that at this seminar we were able to reduce the areas of violent disagreement to hardware. In hardware there should be no political argument. There is no such thing as a Conservative frigate, a Liberal frigate or a Labour frigate. There is only a frigate, and the argument is whether it is being properly used, is it in the right place, is it being used in conformity with a sane, coherent strategy?
These are things which a Select Committee for Defence can probe. By its very nature the information established can, in a sense, infiltrate the entire House. In the general defence debates which we would continue to have, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who would be probing this matter deeper than is now possible,

1459
would bring informed discussion to the entire membership of the House. That would be a good thing.
One of the great things about the Secretary of State for Defence is that for my party he has turned the subject of defence into a colossal bore. There was a lime when there were anguished and violent discussions, in which I freely participated, in my own party about defence. It was right that this should have been so. I would not wish to be a member of any party in which these agonising decisions did not take place. It is one of the achievements of my right hon. Friend, and I do not appear for my right hon. Friend in any sense, that defence has become a bore. Perhaps this should be so, because the more defence is removed from party political conflict, the better it is for defence, the better it is for the country and the better it is for the House.
Our function as hon. Members is basically this: whatever Service we belonged to in an earlier incarnation—and we all bear the imprint of the Service we belonged to—we function in this House as shop stewards to the entire Armed Forces. We can best perform that function by the kind of Select Committee which has been advocated by the hon. Gentleman. It is only there that we can be specific; it is only there we can go into details; it is only there that we can go into these maters which, if freely debated on the Floor of the House, could be a potential threat to our security.
In these strange days we have weapons which we dare not use and we deploy forces according to a strategy which cannot possibly be effective. The current deployment of ground forces in N.A.T.O. is political and not strategic. Every hon. Member who studies these matters is well aware that if a thrust comes from the East to the West it will come in the classic Schlieffen style and our forces are not deployed to meet such a thrust, nor could they be in view of the political arrangements in N.A.T.O. It is a political deployment and it may be very sensible. But it does not make strategic sense.
We could explore such matters as those, too, in a Select Committee.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend say whether, in
1460
his view, the Select Committee should be subject to the Official Secrets Act? If so, would not that mean that there would be first-class and second-class Members of Parliament? If not, how would he hope to have a meaningful Select Committee?
Mr. Fletcher: That is a very difficult question. One does not like to think in terms of first-class and second-class Members of Parliament. But I recognise that some hon. Members know far more than I do about certain subjects. I know absolutely nothing about the housing problem and its solution. But there are hon. Members who know about it and I pay deference to them. In those circumstances, I become a second-class Member and they are first-class Members.
In view of the terms of reference implicit in the hon. Member's speech, it is obvious that certain aspects of this Select Committee's work would have to be subject to the Official Secrets Act. I accept that with regret. This does not create a class of hon. Members in any way superior to other hon. Members except in so far as we have specialists. We all tend to specialise. When a specialist is speaking, hon. Members give him the respect due to his knowledge of the subject. I do not think the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) stands up. With respect, it is overruled immediately.
I support the hon. Member for Harwich without in any way agreeing with what he said in his defence debate speech. But he is on to a very good thing and a very necessary thing. I am a recent convert. I do not speak all that lucidly because my conversion was so recent. But as a result of one afternoon's experience of discussing defence matters in the R.U.S.I. in the way in which a Select Committee would discuss them, I completely support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harwich.
12.33 a.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on raising a matter which is of extreme importance not only in the defence field but in the constitutional field. It is something to which, in view of the recent appointment of Select Committees by the Government, I should have

1461
thought the Patronage Secretary, who is to answer our debate, would most certainly pay very careful attention.
I wish to reinforce one proposition which the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) put, namely, that there should be no such thing as a political aeroplane or a political naval ship. Our debates on these matters have suffered greatly because of the shape of this Chamber, which is not particularly well arranged for logical and cool debate of technological subjects of the kind which my hon. Friend has raised and to which the hon. Member for Ilkeston alluded. This is not the right place coolly to consider questions raised in this context. There is a place here for one of the Select Committees which the present Government have abolished. I would claim some basis for advancing this. I am interested in research and development and I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee. That is well known to the House.
From the evidence and from what we consider in debate, I believe that our experience tends to be influenced by the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. There is a real danger that our debate on these matters are concerned far too much with background. The Public Accounts Committee, for instance, is in many ways a grave disadvantage to our considerations of these things, because we are always thinking about what has happened in the past and where the money has gone instead of considering achievement and how we can advance projects under consideration at present.
Mr. Dalyell: As one who worked for three years in the Public Accounts Committee, how does the House of Commons, other than through the Public Accounts Committee, exercise detailed scrutiny of Whitehall? If one uses that line of argument one is in difficulty.
Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I have heard the Public Accounts Committee described by a technologist of considerable ability as not a system of financial control at all but rather an expression of retrospective amazement. Now I have recovered what I had lost earlier, my train of thought, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for West
1462
Lothian, whose general concept and aim in these matters is closely related to mine.
Parliament is in some danger of failing to cope with the challenge of modern technology in defence. If we are true to our tradition of centuries of granting Supply and being endlessly connected and concerned only with the granting of Supply, that is to say justifying expenditure in the past, we shall tend to fail in terms of technology. The leading technology is, in the nature of things, bound to be defence. Here is the kernel of the justification of my hon. Friend's proposition this evening, and the only logically possible solution to this is to have a Committee of hon. Members of both sides of the House who are closely connected with the question so that they can judge and solve matters of defence without being bogged down in detailed considerations. I can see no other solution to what is unquestionably a real problem facing the House.
The Government have made a certain advance in the Select Committees which they have set up, one of which, at least, survives, and the logical extension must be in defence. The work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology shows that this must be the next step, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will accept it as such.
Mr. Dalyell: What are the hon. Gentleman's reflections on whether the proposed Committee on defence should be subject to the Official Secrets Act? It would be interesting to know.
Mr. Hastings: That would unquestionably play some part.
Mr. Dalyell: It is crucial.
Mr. Hastings: I do not know. We should have to take advice, and we should probably be well advised to study the system in the United States. There is no question but that the influence of the equivalent committee in the United States is very high.
Mr. Dalyell: The lobby.
Mr. Hastings: Not only the lobby but the committee itself. Under Mr. McNamara, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, it was, perhaps, the most powerful committee of the Senate and Congress. It had rules regarding security. There were limits beyond which

1463
it could not go, or, if it passed the limits, it was required to go into secret session. A similar hurdle has already been overcome in the experience of Select Committees of the House of Commons. We could manage to cope with it.
My hon. Friend has proposed a new Select Committee in the most important field in which Parliament can extend its intelligent control and interest. Our debates and Questions are limited by many factors, which we all recognise. If we are really interested in understanding what is at stake, this seems to be the only extension of our activities which can be regarded as relevant and valuable. My experience of Select Committees and my interest in defence matters convince me that it could be of the greatest importance not only for the House but for the country.
12.48 a.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on raising this matter, and I accept virtually all the arguments put by him, by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher). However, I advocate a Select Committee on defence for a different reason. We all realise that Parliament today is held in pretty low esteem by the nation. We ourselves sometimes wonder whether we are doing a fully worth-while job in the House. The real reason for this state of affairs is that, when we have major debates in the House, everyone knows that a decision has been taken already and nothing anyone says will alter it—apart from a revolt on the Government side leading to a general election, which happens, perhaps, once in 100 years. It nearly happened once in the last war, but it does not happen in the more normal course of parliamentary life.
We have Question Time, and we have Adjournment debates which help on constituency cases and minor grievances, but they do not deal with the fundamental function of Parliament, which is to discuss policy and control finance.
I suggest that two things are wrong. One is that there is a lack of team work, probably on both sides of the House, certainly, I believe, on mine, stemming
1464
probably from the fact that in this House it is not the party supporting the Government or the Opposition party but the Ministers who have the real control over policy and its functions, and most Members on the Government side and all on the Opposition side have no function at all, except to talk in an attempt to direct policy. I am not saying that we on the back benches on either side do not have any influence. What we say probably does have influence—three or four years hence; and what we say in party committees certainly does have influence. So I am not suggesting that we are completely wasting our time, but that the decline of Parliament's prestige in the country is due to the fact that everybody knows that when we have our major debates the decisions are already made and that it is very unlikely that anything we say will be able to alter those decisions.
Permanent specialised Committees were introduced by this Government, and I pay all credit to them for so doing, and particularly the former Lord President of the Council, whose baby, if I may so put it, was the introduction of the Committees; but I have a feeling that the Government have rather lost their nerve at the moment and maybe having second thought. I hope I am wrong, as I would like to see the Committees extended, because I believe they are the way to build team work on both sides of the House, and the way to improve the status of Members of Parliament. Not everybody can be a Minister or wants to be a Minister, but the fact that one is a Member of a permanent Select Committee, in which one has a real interest and does a full-time job of work, adds to the status of the average Member of Parliament and also, let us face it, increases his status in his own constituency and in the country and gives him a real job to do, and that is of benefit both to his own party and to Parliament as a whole.
That is as to the value of the Select Committees. Now I turn to the need, which has already been referred to by other speakers, but which I believe to be twofold. First, there is in defence probably more advance in technology than in any other single field. Secondly, we are, after all, considering sums of £2,000 million a year or more of expenditure on defence. I believe that probably if, for

1465
example, we had had a Select Committee on Defence at the time of the Conservative Government some eight years ago we might have succeeded in persuading the Government to adopt the Buccaneer for the R.A.F. and that would have saved an awful lot of money. Again, if we had had the Select Committee on Defence during the time of the Labour Government we might have decided to go on with the TSR.2. With hindsight we can say that that would have been the right answer. I agree that that is not a Conservative plane any more than the Buccaneer was a Socialist plane, but Select Committees cut right across party line and in Select Committees we get well thought out advice from experts from both sides of the House and that can only be of value to the country.
I had forgotten about it until this debate, but I now remember that a couple of years ago I was asked to write for Brassey's Annual an article dealing with the amount of time spent in this House in discussing defence compared with the Senate and Congress. It is really six days, two on defence in general, one of each of the three Services, and one day subsequently on the various Votes, with possibly one other single debate later in the year. Whereas in the United States they spend five months in select committees in both Houses, and then six days in Congress and the Senate, and they really get down to the nuts and bolts of the problems and save a good deal of money for the taxpayers in so doing.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be a nuisance, and I thank the hon. Member for giving way, but has he in fact seen the servicing staff which an American select committee of this kind has? When he talks about nuts and bolts, would he agree one needs engineers, accountants, lawyers, to back one up?
Mr. Wall: I accept that I should have said hardware rather than nuts and bolts, as it would be wrong to go into too great detail. Perhaps in the United States they go to the other extreme. I am not suggesting that we have half the senior officers of the three Services spending half their time giving evidence to a Select Committee. However, the principle is a good one, because the expenditure on defence, even in this country, is very large; £2,000 million a year is a very
1466
large sum of money, and its outlay ought to be properly discussed and well thought out, the Committee should therefore be able to call witnesses from the Civil Service as well as the Armed Forces to speak on behalf of their Services.
If I may recount two personal experiences, having been a Regular Marine myself, I find that my friends and colleagues who are still serving in the forces tend to run a mile when they see me in case I talk to them on technical subjects which may be discussed in the House and therefore embarrass them in their Service career.
Again, some years ago I was allowed by the Americans to see their Polaris submarines in Holy Loch, and of course they first gave me security clearance, but when much more recently I asked the Admiralty to see a tactical training teacher exercise at Woolwich I was told I could not do so because it was programmed for a confidential exercise. I make this point not because I have any quarrel with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy with whom I reached a compromise, but because it does seem extraordinary that a Member of this House should be able to visit the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch but should not be able to visit a tactical training teacher exercise in his own country. This is the kind of absurdity which I believe makes Parliament itself look rather stupid.
I believe that a Select Committee would breed expert knowledge on both sides of the House. I think its members would have to have security clearance, otherwise one would not be able to discuss secret matters which I believe are bound to be discussed by a Committee of that type.
I would like to see Ministers concerned with defence expenditure discussing their Estimates with such a Committee. They could have a preliminary discussion with the Select Committee before coming to the House with their Estimates. I would remind the Patronage Secretary that the Agriculture Committee, on which I served, suggested that the Minister might come to the Committee to discuss the Agricultural Price Review before going to the House with it, and I think the Minister would get a much better reception in the House if he had thrashed it out with the Select Committee before putting it to the House.

1467
I found, in the Agriculture Committee, that it seemed to be resented by the Civil Servants in the Ministry to start with, but later they realised that Select Committees run completely across party lines. Although in agriculture there is party controversy now, because the Opposition want to change the policy of support prices, guaranteed payments and so on, this did not come into any of our debates, and I found that the whole attitude of the civil servants changed during those months when they realised that the Committee was trying to be helpful to the Ministry.
I think that in general the whole idea of specialist committees on the lines we are discussing is resented by many Ministers and shadow Ministers who feel that it would tread on their toes, either in their present positions or in the jobs they hope to occupy. Possibly it is also not very popular among our colleagues who are part-time M.P.s, but I am one of those who believe that we will have to be full-time M.P.s if we are to do our job properly. I believe however that these specialist committees would lead to better-thought-out government, less wastage and greater efficiency. They would do much to restore the prestige of Parliament, and provide more control over the Executive, which I think it is generally agreed is needed. They would build up team work and give backbenchers a real function which would be recognised by the country.
I believe a Select Committee on Defence, to which the taxpayer has to contribute so much money, would be one of the most important, and I think there is a growing feeling among backbenchers on both sides of the House who have some expertise on this subject, that this form of Committee is needed.
I sometimes think the best form of Parliamentary democracy today is when back benchers on both sides of the House get together against their Front Benchers, as we have seen on a number of occasions recently and I hope they will continue to press the Government.
1 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The whole House will be grateful to the
1468
hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for initiating this debate. He played a distinguished part as a Defence Minister in the previous Administration, and we are glad to have his expertise today.
In making his case, however, he widened the argument for a Select Committee on Defence to that for Select Committees in general, and this point was well taken up by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Any argument in favour of a Select Committee on Defence must accept that it should be one of a number of Select Committees, and I think that both hon. Gentlemen were gracious enough to pay some tribute to this Government for their setting up of Select Committees.
These Committees owe their genesis to the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st April, 1966, and it is worth recalling what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion:
"I believe the time has now come when we might consider an experiment to extend this system over a wider field of public administration"—
that is to say, beyond the Select Committees concerned with Public Accounts, Estimates and the Nationalised Industries.
"Accordingly, the Government will enter into discussions through the usual channels with the two Opposition parties on the suggestion of establishing one or two new Parliamentary Committees to concern themselves with administration in the sphere of certain Departments whose usual operations are not only of national concern but in many cases are of intensely human concern."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1966; Vol. 727. c. 76.]
That was just under three years ago, and it is worthwhile looking at the record today. Since then, we have set up Select Committees on Education and Science, Race Relations and Immigration, Science and Technology, Scottish Affairs, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Agriculture, and we have already promised a further one on Overseas Aid and Development. Seven new Select Committees have been set up in under three years. That, in itself, is not a bad record.
When one considers the request of the hon. Gentleman and those who have supported him for a Select Committee on Defence, the Government must also take

1469
into account requests for other Select Committees, and perhaps I might tell the House what those requests have been.
The following additional Select Committees lave been suggested by hon. Members, each of whom no doubt attaches as much importance to the Select Committee suggested as hon. Gentlemen tonight have attached to a Select Committee on Defence. They have been concerned with Welsh affairs, economic affairs, trade and industry, the status and development of Her Majesty's Government's Dependencies Overseas, pre-Iegislation, statute law repeal, Members' outside interests, an all-women Committee to investigate the rights and obligations of women in a free society, and then, if one includes Committees set up for a specific short-term purpose, 16 separate Select Committees on information leaks, the brain-children of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). That is quite a formidable list, and I think that the House would agree that it would be rather a foolish Leader of the House who did not consider all these very carefully.
I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that it is quite impossible in this evolutionary stage of Parliament, to set up every single one of those Select Committees, or even every single one that hon. Members here might consider to be essential. One has to move at a reasonable pace and, in talking about the seven Select Committees set up since 1966, I would have said that that was a very reasonable pace. I know that there are hon. Members who are much more impatient and would like to move even more quickly.
One or two points must be taken into consideration. First, not every right hon. or hon. Member is convinced that the Select Committee is the best way of considering our affairs. The American precedent, quoted by the hon. Member for Harwich, does not find universal favour in this House.
I think that possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) put the problem fairly clearly to us in what I thought was an inspiring speech because, in saying that defence was a bors, he also pointed out that he intended to make his speech on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend said that the choice lies between conflict
1470
and the vitality—and both exist a great deal of the time in this Chamber—the specialisation, the expertise, the bi-partisanship of the Select Committee.
I rather liked the visual image put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire of the opposed benches against the semi-circular benches—that is, the shape of the Chamber. It put in a very neat form the truth of the matter. It is no secret that hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would be most disturbed to see the power of this Chamber flowing into Select Committees.
I do not say that this should be the last word; I merely say that this is something that we must take into consideration. But, even if we accept that the right evolution is towards a greater number of Select Committees, we must do it in the correct manner. For example, we must see that they are properly staffed. I think that this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and it is worth considering. Although I have no personal knowledge of American select committees, I gather that they are well staffed not only with clerks but with experts of one sort or another. The House may yet have to accustom itself to this. We must go to the limit of the assistance that we have. At this moment I think that we have perhaps reached that limit.
There is another factor—
Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the real emphasis on defence is because of the immense development of technology year by year and the very large sums of taxpayers' money? I think that gives it a certain priority.
Mr. Silkin: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be patient with me. I was intending to come to this through my own rather devious means.
I was about to put the point to the hon. Gentleman that there was another factor that we had to take into consideration. I well recall a certain amount of irritation in this Chamber towards the summer term of last Session and complaint that hon. Members were being overworked on committees. They meant not only Standing Committees, but Select

1471
Committees. This is a danger that we have to face in our present evolutionary stage.
The House must bear in mind that when we come to Whitsun time there may be twelve or thirteen Standing Committees considering Bills. This is the natural way in which we have evolved our method of legislation. This means that over 300 Members are engaged on standing committees. It also means that at that time—and this will be within the recollection of hon. Members who served on Select Committees—attendance on Select Committees tends to go down and the figures of attendance are not as impressive as we would like.
These factors have to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it seems to me, and to the Government, that this suggestion, like the other suggestions, is worthy of very considerable attention. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) asked me to assure him. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this will receive considerable attention.
The position really is that the time has come for the Government to take stock of this whole experiment, for experiment it was, of Select Committees. I hope that the House will never abandon Select Committees. Indeed, I doubt whether it ever could. This idea has gripped the consciousness and general fibre of Parliament today, and Parliament would be a very much poorer institution without Select Committees. But the House must consider not only the experiment as a whole, but the experiment individually. I think that it would be very foolish indeed to give a simple non possumus to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harwich, but, equally, this is a matter which must be carefully thought out and given some study, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is what the Government intend to do.

MOTORWAYS (SERVICE STATIONS)
1.11 a.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It seems rather an anti-climax to turn from the important matter of whether we should have a Select Committee
1472
for Defence to considering the catering facilities on the motorways of this country, but I make no apology for doing so, except to say that I shall be as brief as I can.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is to answer the debate may say that there is not much more to be said about this matter which we have discussed by question and answer on the Floor of the House. I would disagree with him if he were to say that, because the catering facilities on the M roads are of growing importance to a huge number of people who travel on them. As more M roads are made available, so more people travel on them, and the facilities they find on those roads are of importance to them while they are undertaking their journeys.
There is a great deal of interest in what is going on, and in the standard of service which the public receive at these service stations. It is not my purpose to lambast the Minister or to try to make him give any particular assurances that things will be changed. Nor is it my purpose to complain bitterly about the catering contractors, who are doing the best they can in all the circumstances. I understand the Minister's position over this matter. He will say, as he has said before, that contracts have been entered into between the contractors and his Ministry, and that there is no question of these contracts being set aside and renegotiated. I understand that, and I do not intend to ask him to do that.
I want to put forward only two suggestions, but before I do so I think that I should describe to the House, or to those who will read HANSARD tomorrow because the House is now as empty as I have ever seen it, the hon. Gentleman and myself being the only two Members present, what I am trying to get at. I am not criticising the standards of hygiene in the cafeterias, the restaurants, and the lavatories. I travel a great deal on the Ml and the M4, and I stop at many of the service stations on those roads. I have no complaint to make about the standard of hygiene at these service stations.
My complaint is that the standard of service in the cafeterias has deteriorated, and has been doing so particularly over the last 18 months. The service is extremely slow. There appear to be fewer

1473
people serving now than was formerly the case. The quality of the food has deteriorated. I do not want to weary the House by describing the thickness of the sandwiches, or the kind of cream filling in the buns. I hope that the House will take it from me that the quality of the food has declined. The bread of the sandwiches is thicker than it used to be, and one gets stale bread and buns. And the prices have not gone down: like all catering prices, they have risen. I am talking about the cafeterias and transport cafes, where the general public normally go, not the restaurants, where slower service means that one must wait an hour or more. Such things as skim milk instead of pure milk are offered in the cafeterias. As I found out only a week ago, one has to queue for a quarter of an hour for a cup of tea, or, if one has been immediately preceded by a coach party, half an hour.
The standard of service is one side. But the contractors have the capital cost of their buildings, a conservative estimate of which must be £500,000. The Ministry lays the road surface, and the contractors must then maintain it, which must be a considerable expense. They must also pay a fixed rent and a percentage of their turnover. Their agreements with the Ministry are freely negotiated, so they must be far, so long as they are able to tender on a fair basis. But this is not exactly what happens. The Minister does not behave like an ordinary property owner and tell them, on tender, the price he wants. The Treasury is bound to accept the tender of the person who is prepared to pay the highest rent and presumably the highest percentage of turnover. Some contractors have rushed in with tenders which were too high. The Minister might say, "More fool them," but the public suffer. So far as I can tell, after speaking to all the contractors on the M1, only one is making a profit. The rest are either just breaking even or losing money, which a public company cannot afford, so the public suffer.
The Minister has no control over conditions of service. When new contracts are negotiated on virgin land as more M roads are built, instead of sticking to the existing formula of accepting the highest tender, the Minister should tell the contractors what he thinks is a fair rent, perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 per
1474
annum, or between the two. The Minister should say, "This is the rent I want for this service area. I will provide the tarmac surface and, from then on, you are on your own". The Minister should then negotiate the percentage of turnover required and lay down the standard of provision which the contractor should provide to the general public.
It would then be up to contractors to do their computations and either accept the Minister's terms or reject them. The main thing is that the public should be provided with adequate facilities. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to simply agree to my suggestions off the cuff. He must consult his colleagues at the Treasury. However, I hope that he will agree to look into the matter, remembering that we both have the benefit of the public at heart.
Secondly, as I understand that only one contractor is making a profit—with the rest either breaking even or making a loss, with the result that the public are not receiving the service to which they are entitled—and while I appreciate that the contracts with the contractors cannot be renegotiated, is it possible for the Minister to reconsider the percentage of turnover factor so that, at least for a time, these contractors may improve their facilities?
I am not trying to cause difficulty in raising this matter. The position is unsatisfactory. If the Minister drove on the Ml now to, say, Sheffield or further north he would be horrified at the standard of food and general facilities available.
1.23 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for raising this matter because it gives me an opportunity to get the facts straight about service areas. I am also grateful for the generous way in which he dealt with the subject.
The rents paid to the Ministry by service area lessees were not laid down by the Ministry. They were freely offered by the companies in their tenders in open competition with rival concerns. We did not twist their arms to make the offers. They bid what in their judgment would secure them the lease and give a reasonable financial return.

1475
In return for the rental and their investment in the site, the companies are given a 50-year lease of a valuable site, with a franchise to provide catering and to sell fuel, with virtually no competition, over a considerable length of motorway. The lessees on their part undertake to provide good quality meals and refreshments at reasonable prices for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, if required.
This is the basic policy adopted when the leases for the first service areas were let in 1959. Although some changes in detail have been made since then, the same basic policy is broadly being followed today.
The business of running a service area is a commercial undertaking. Day-today management must be left to the lessees, who are experts and have other interests in this field, and who themselves have invested large sums in the business. The Ministry, on its part, carries out regular and frequent ad hoc inspections at all hours of the day and night to ensure that the terms of the leases are being complied with. Ministry staff maintain a close liaison with service area lessees, and discuss suggestions for improvement wherever they see the need. All complaints are followed up, and we know from experience that lessees are most meticulous in seeing that where complaints are merited matters are put right.
Motorway service areas are probably more open to public scrutiny than any similar undertaking. There is no lack of unofficial inspectors. Hon. Members on both sides have looked into their operation with critical eyes, and all sections of the Press have carried out surveys of varying depths from time to time. The A.A. magazine Drive, Motoring Which? and several national dailies have recently looked at service areas in fairly great detail.
Surveys of this kind provide a reliable yardstick for measuring the standard of service and quality. They do not support the allegation that standards are deteriorating. The Motoring Which? report of last summer said:
"With very few exceptions, we found that motorway service areas were places to stretch your legs, rather than havens of luxury—as you might expect. In particular, the food was rarely very tasty—good enough to cheer
1476
the weary traveller but not up to Good Food Guide standards…lavatories were, in the main, spotless…one or two places also stood out for their good food,…"
The Times article of 3rd March said:
"The lavatories were particularly well looked after. The food was by no means imaginative nor was there great variety; but it was reasonably good. Nor did I find prices much different from, say, those of a railway buffet".
There is general acceptance of the fact that service areas on the whole do the job for which they are intended.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In the articles in Motoring Which? and The Times no differentiation is made between restaurant facilities, which I have said are quite adequate, and cafeteria facilities, which I have said are not.
Mr. Brown: The Motoring Which? article was fairly comprehensive. I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman, but it specified restaurant and cafeteria services. Its comments were fairly comprehensive. I freely concede that service areas do not set out to provide a cordon bleu service, and we would not want them to do so, but they aim to provide not only what the great majority of their users demand but also to lift the standards within the prices that the public are prepared to pay.
This brings us to the vexed question of prices. Of course, we would all like to see prices lowered. Of course, we would all like to see larger portions, and thicker slices of ham for our money. But many many factors go towards the make-up of the price of a cup of tea and a ham sandwich.
There is much more to a service area than the cafeterias. Included in the price of a customer's tea and sandwich are elements for building, maintaining and cleaning the free toilet and wash-up facilities, which lessees have to provide for all-comers—whether they spend a penny in the service area or not; elements for maintaining the free parking areas and, on newer sites, rest and picnic areas, and elements for the cost of providing a 24-hour, all the year round service.
The knowledge that one can be certain of getting something hot at 3 o'clock on a winter's morning on a motorway, when everywhere else is closed, is something that many people have found

1477
comforting and valuable and in some of our recent icy spells such meals would have been cheap at twice the price. Other catering establishments are free to close down completely whenever business slacks off. The cost of keeping service area, open 24 hours a day has to be paid for. General overheads, rent and rates; and the cost of cleaning and litter collection must be met: so must the cost of bringing in staff from surrounding areas, especially in the more rural districts. To digress on the question of prices, it might well be that if the general public were not quite so filthy in the amount of litter they deposit, service areas would be much cheaper to maintain.
An element of cost must be allowed, too, to cover the appallingly high level of pilferage and vandalism. We have a great deal of sympathy with the lessees on this score. I want to quote just one or two random examples: In one service area, 7,500 teaspoons were stolen in seven months. Every porcelain fixed ashtray in the men's toilets was smashed with a hammer in one evening. Large china and glass ashtrays were all stolen from a transport cafe on the very day they were put out. One thousand yards of lavatory chain were stolen from one service area in six months. I do not know what anybody wanted to do with 1,000 yards of lavatory chain. All this has to paid for by the ordinary service area user in the price we pay for meals and snacks.
The thoughtlessness, and sometimes downright destructiveness, of a few makes conditions very unpleasant for many others, until the mess can be cleared up or the damage repaired.
I was extremely impressed with the organisation and cleanliness of a service area which I visited last week. Shortly before I arrived a coach load of 42 youngsters drew up and used the toilets. They put their hands over the taps and squirted one another with water. The net result of their visit was that the toilet floors were covered in several inches of water, liquid soap, comics and chewing gum. By contrast, on the previous Saturday, 8,000 Swindon supporters had been catered for, I believe to their satisfaction, with absolutely no damage or litter. All credit is due to the Swindon supporters, particularly in these days of mental aberration
1478
which seem to afflict many football fans.
The effect which rents have on prices can only be marginal, and even if it had been possible to renegotiate leases, as suggested by hon. Members, the reduction in prices which could be achieved would be so small as to be unnoticeable. But we could not agree to renegotiation. Considerable public funds are invested in these sites and must be recovered. Although clearly the operators want to make a return on their capital, the public also are entitled to a return on their investment.
It is complained that we have caused developers to over-provide by giving over optimistic estimates of traffic flow and likely usage. We have never attempted to give forward estimates of likely usage, and with only two exceptions traffic on the motorways has reached forecast figures within three years of opening at the very latest.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Parliamentary Secretary should make it clear that the public investment in the service areas consists solely in making up the surface area. The buildings comprise capital expenditure undertaken by the contractor and not by the public purse.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the laying out of the site ready for the developer to develop his facilities is a considerable public investment. Just as the service area operators wants a return on his money, so does the public. After all, we are the guardians of the public purse. The public have a right to expect a return also.
We have reason to believe that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggested, most service areas are in, or before long are likely to be in, a profit-making situation. Naturally, one hears more in the Press about any which are not making the profits they had hoped for. In two cases where action by the Ministry, in diverting traffic away from the motorway for a protracted period, has affected service area operations, agreement has been reached with the companies concerned on some easement of the terms until the situation changes.
There is no evidence that rental terms or non-profitability have affected standards and service. In The Times article of 3rd March the Rank Organisation was

1479
quoted as saying that high overheads had not lowered standards. The article reported:
"On hygiene they said they had to adhere to the strict requirements of the Ministry."
The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that they are doing so.
Nor is it true that existing operators are holding back from tendering for new sites. So far this year we have awarded two concessions for new sites, and we are now considering tenders for two more. We have also tested the market on the normal basis for sites at the northern end of the M6 motorway, where conditions are much different from those on most of our other motorways. As a result of a lack of response we are now asking for tenders on a new basis. The first of the new type tenders were opened this morning, and the response has been encouraging.
Since the first service areas were opened almost 10 years ago many lessons have been learned and applied in the more modern developments. Some features of the earlier sites which could with justification be criticised are not being repeated on later developments. One of the major problems of the first service areas is that they were soon found to be much too small to cope with the enormous demands made on them. The blame for this cannot be laid at the door of the lessees; no one in those days was able to foresee what the demand would be, but the lessees are severely hampered in their efforts to improve the service they give by the lack of room for expansion. Before long we may have to develop "infill" sites to relieve the pressures.
Some of the service areas on M.1 are dealing with more than 6 million customers a year—in peak periods up to a quarter of a million people a week. It is the complaint that makes the headlines, not the praise. Some measure of the success with which the service is run can be gauged by the fact that during the last 12 months when 15 service areas were in operation, only 28 written complaints were received by my Ministry.
I suggest to the House that this very low level of complaint is the significant point at issue in the debate.

SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION)
1.38 a.m.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I should like to begin by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the Member for Leeds, South East (Miss Bacon) for having brought her back from Paignton to answer the debate. I particularly regret this because my quarrel is not so much with her as with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
He made a speech on the occasion of the opening of a school at Alnwick in Northumberland on 20th January the tone of which was, to say the least, a little shrill. Sections of it struck some people as even being perhaps a little hysterical. My right hon. Friend suggested that it was proper for Christians to man the barricades, and that, if they did not, within a matter of two generations this country would cease to be Christian, whatever that may mean. He was referring to the 1944 Act, and his intention to renew its terms. I should like to spell out briefly some of the terms which it is intended to renew. The first is that every day shall start with an act of religious worship, and the second is that every class shall have regular religious instruction according to a syllabus agreed by local committees. On the other hand, the Act allowed the right of conscientious objection or withdrawal to teachers and parents.
So much for the 1944 Act. I think we would all agree—and historians now turning their attention to this period write—that this was something of a political compromise. It settled a dispute which stretched back into the early 19th century between the Established Church on the one hand and the Nonconformist Churches on the other and the State. It is interesting to note the view expressed by Lord Eccles in a recent debate in the House of Lords. It is a novel view and I have never heard it expressed before. It may well be shared by many hon. Members who passed the 1944 Act. Lord Eccles said:
"— I have the very firm impression that we supported the religious provisions because we were greatly disturbed and not a little guilty to see all round us the moral damage caused by the total warfare in which we were engaged.

1481
To make religion stand out as the only compulsory subject in the curriculum was really an act of penitence, or, if you like, the best hope we could see of repairing the moral damage of the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 740.]
It may be that that is an isolated view but it is probably shared by many other hon. Members.
The 1944 Act is 25 years old and I find it curious that a formula thought proper in terms of the opinion of 1944 should be thought proper today. No one would deny that we are becoming an increasingly secularised society and that the intensity of religious belief and the commitment to organised churches is declining. I and many others, therefore—not only Humanists but Christians—find it surprising that the Secretary of State should reiterate his determination to continue with a formula worked out in 1944.
It is proper to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Secretary of State was repeating a minority view. I do not think that he will deny—he makes great use of polls—that only 7 per cent. of the population attend church regularly. Some 42 per cent., in a recent poll, indicated that they subscribed to the idea of a personal God. That is a minority, although perhaps he might argue by way of rebuttal that the majority said they adhered to membership of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or the Nonconformist Churches. It is nevertheless significant that only 42 per cent. had any conception or any belief or adhere to the idea of a personal God.
I presume that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is familiar with the Secretary of State's speech. He made a great deal of opinion polls. I want now to turn to these. He quoted the figure of 85 per cent. of teachers in State schools who, he said, supported religious education in schools. That figure was accurate according to the poll. But I ask my right hon. Friend to examine the significant small print. This figure arose from replies to a question about teaching Christianity—not instruction in Christianity. As a Humanist, I am in favour of teaching about Christianity but not in favour of indoctrination or instruction in Christianity. This poll and others quoted by the Secretary of State
1482
were undertaken by committed Christians.
I could argue that there are certain methodological weaknesses in the survey. On the second survey quoted there was something like a 56 per cent. response rate. Statisticians would argue that one cannot base conclusions on such a low response rate. The survey about the attitude of teachers suggested that 34 per cent. were against compulsory religious instruction or unsure about it, and 40 per cent. were against compulsory worship, or unsure about it. Similarly, 25 per cent. of parents were unsure, or opposed to, compulsory religious instruction.
I am worried, and my right hon. Friend should be worried too, by the reliance of my right hon. Friend on the evidence of opinion polls. We would all agree that it would be improper to frame our legislation in terms of opinion polls or the results of plebiscites. If we did we might find ourselves introducing an Act of Parliament requiring every State school to introduce a class in horoscope, because my right hon. Friend probably knows that a large number of people believe in this. I am surprised that such reliance should have been placed upon opinion polls. If we took a poll on the teaching of mathematics, no doubt the majority of parents would say that it would be proper to teach every child the "twelve times" table. We would never have had any beginning of the new teaching in mathematics. The opinion of specialists was taken, and acted upon. Apparently on the question of religious instruction, the Secretary of State thinks that it is proper to be guided by popular opinion.
When we come to argue this in the next Parliamentary Session we should hear less about public opinion polls and more about the merits of the case. When we examine the merits we might find that they are illusory. The Secretary of State argued in a speech at Wolverhampton recently that every school should become a Christian community. This is a rather hypocritical view. Large numbers of people do not subscribe to the Christian religion, not only children, but parents. This view, particularly in respect of teachers, is forcing them into a false position. This has been acknowledged by Government spokesmen. I draw my right hon.

1483
Friend's attention to a statement by Baroness Phillips in the House of Lords in November, 1967, when she said:
"I think it is fair to suggest that in relation to teachers and promotion that a criticism"—
of the present system—
"is justifiable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th November 1967; Vol. 286, c. 831.]
That most certainly is justified. I will quote one example, not from England, but from Scotland, relating to the appointment of a headmaster at Douglas Academy, Bearsden. There was a Rev. Dutch on the appointing board who asked searching questions as to the religious views of the candidates. He was criticised by a councillor, and justified his position by saying:
"I don't care whether he be Church of Scotland, Congregationalist, or Methodist so long as he is a member of a church. It does not necessarily follow, because of this, that he is a good Christian. But it does ensure that he is not an atheist".
I find it worrying that this statement by one member of the committee should be supported by the chairman of the committee, Councillor Matthew Bisset, who said:
"It would be grossly unfair to ask what political party they belonged to, but as regards religion I think a member has every right to ask this".
Does my hon. Friend think it right and proper that candidates, when being interviewed for headships, should be questioned about their theological beliefs? There is a current view in the teaching profession that this is done and many humanists who are indifferent to religion adopt what I can only regard, and I hope every hon. Member would regard, as a rather hypocritical rôle.
I regard the position of children in schools, living under such a régime of forced religious instruction, as somewhat hypocritical. They are conscious, as I was conscious at school, of being forced to learn religion. They feel that they are being "got at". Some hon. Members, when I talk to them about their attitude to religious instruction, have said, "I would like to see a continuation of the present system because we produce more humanists, more anti-Christians, by the existing authoritarian system than we might otherwise do". That is a rather dishonest approach. If I could be personalised,
1484
I would say of my own intellectual development that I became a humanist because my views were not not accepted at school, since I was forced by my parents to go to Sunday school. I objected. I resented bitterly the authoritarianism and indoctrination in the schools that I attended.
I think that my hon. Friend would agree that the Christian tradition has a privileged position. Why, in this day and age, should the Christian religion have such a position? I am not opposed to the teaching of the Christian religion, but I am opposed to giving it a privileged position. I should like to see a more open approach adopted whereby all religions, all the world philosophies, are taught. I should like to see children given the intellectual equipment to allow them to evaluate other philosophies and one religious approach with another. This is not possible under the present system. Children are expected to undergo an act of worship which many of them find meaningless.
As the Secretary of State is fond of quoting surveys, I should like to quote from a survey in the education magazine Where. It is a very limited survey undertaken by a master in a northern school. He asked the pupils throughout the schools to write short descriptions of their impression of the morning assembly. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to two descriptions. They are typical of the many given in the write-up of the survey. The first reads:
"It's boring and hypocritical. By hypocritical I mean that by the prayers and things we do it is made out to be thanking God, but our assembly has nothing to do with God. It is cold, empty and utterly meaningless. I mean by this if it were a true service in dedication to God we wouldn't have to stop when the Hymn singing isn't loud enough because God doesn't mind how we sing. This Assembly is all for show and nothing else".
Obviously this is an intelligent child who sees through the hypocrisy of the form many assemblies take. On a slightly more amusing note, my second quotation is:
"I think it is a very moving experience when one gets clouted round the nut for talking during the hymn."
"I think the teachers should join in more in the hymn, because they don't attempt to even talk behind their hand. I have never had the pleasure of fainting and being dragged out. but. I was sick once though. Luckily I got out in time. To sum it all up in a nutshell. Alleluia the Kingdom of the Lord is at hand."

1485
Obviously this child is completely irreverent in her approach to assembly. For her, it is perhaps not hypocrisy. It is meaningless. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the minority view of the Plowden Report. I regret the cavalier way the recommendations of that minority—and it was not a small minority, but one of eight or nine dissentients—are to be ignored by the Secretary of State.
I turn to the main part of the Report which in some ways was in advance of previous thinking, but nevertheless did not go as far as I personally would have liked. In paragraph 572, the Plowden Report, "Children and Their Primary Schools", said that children
" should not be confused by being taught to doubt before faith is established."
That is significant: "before faith is established". I put to my right hon. Friend: is it proper, and is it the job of schools to produce converts to Christianity? Obviously, in the eyes of the Plowden Committee it is proper that schools should do this, but I do not think so, and I hope that she does not either.
I and many Christians regard the present situation as counter-productive not only to the children, but to religion too and this fact is underlined by the Schools Council inquiry into early school leavers. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to these figures. Children—early school leavers—leaving school at 15 were asked to rate the importance they attached to the various subjects they were taught at school. With the exception of music, the rating of religious education was last of the lot. Only 22 per cent. of the boys and 32 per cent. of the girls found it useful; while only 18 per cent. of the boys and 31 per cent. of the girls found it interesting. Many subjects, maths, history and geography, which we do not require schools to teach, but which nevertheless are taught, were found interesting by something like 90 per cent. of those questioned.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the present situation is divisive, and divisive not only between home and school, but between cultural and racial groups. We are moving in a multi-racial society and, to illustrate my point, I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to
1486
a school—not a typical one, I admit—Clissold Park at Stoke Newington, where there are 1,050 children of whom 61 per cent. are immigrant children, covering 26 nationalities, speaking 21 different languages and the staff are of nine nationalities, speaking 11 languages. What would happen if all these minority groups—and the majority is made up of minority groups—were to exercise their right of conscientious excusal? In that event, there would be a situation of segregation by race, and that, I hope, my right hon. Friend would regret.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend would care to comment on the words of the Secretary of State recently when he opened a new school at Wolverhampton. He said that attendance at school would
" mould the several races into one unified Christian community".
I find that a rather arrogant view. I think it proper that there should be some degree of integration, but I regard it as arrogant to expect immigrant groups to adopt the religious views of the host country. Apparently, that is not the view of the Secretary of State. He thinks it proper that, when immigrant children go to school, they should take on not only the dietary habits but also the dominant religion of the country.
It is argued widely that without the teaching of religion people would act in an immoral or amoral way. If children act morally only because they believe in God or subscribe to a particular form of Christian doctrine, the root and basis of morality is removed once they start to doubt the Christian doctrine, as many of them do as they grow older. I argue that, if we are to underpin our values, we should try to secure somewhat firmer foundations than Christian values which many will in later life come to reject.
Moreover—this is spelled out to some extent in the minority Plowden Report—the majority of children, particularly between the ages of 5 and 12, cannot understand Christian or religious matters. I quote in aid here the work undertaken by the Christian educationist, Ronald Goldman:
" No real awareness of the nature of the Bible is grasped until well into the secondary school course, and even here literalism lingers on for a considerable time".

1487
There are authorities who would argue with Ronald Goldman, who feel that incomprehensibility has a certain attraction and that it should be no bar to the teaching of religion to young people. I quote in aid here the work of Norman Bull in his book, "Religious Education in the Primary School":
"Above all in the primary school we must avoid the passion for intelligibility—the totally unwarranted assumption that we must use nothing that cannot be understood by children.…Think of the words of some of the hymns we adults sing, for example. ' consub-stantial, co-eternal, while unending ages run '. Should we ourselves care to describe exactly what that means?".
Mr. Bull has a point there. Many of us—not I, since I am not a Christian, but many of those who subscribe to the Christian religion—would have great difficulty in defining precisely what those terms mean. Mr. Bull goes on to inquire whether we should insist that children should understand every word which is taught.
I feel that that is a rather reprehensible view. If I were a Christian, I should not endorse it, though, obviously, it is Mr. Bull's view and it may well be the view of many others.
Misunderstanding leads to a whole series of grotesqueries. Here are one or two which have been brought to my attention and which, though amusing, ought to be noted as examples. One child talked about "life of elastic", obviously having learned by rote. What in fact he or she meant was "life everlasting". Another talked about "Harold be Thy name" instead of "hallowed be Thy name". The fact that children between 5 and 12 can talk of "life of elastic" and "Harold be Thy name" indicates quite clearly that they fail completely to comprehend religious categories, and yet it is thought proper that next session we should contiue to impose this regimen.
Those may be amusing examples. I will cite a rather more horrific one. One child, I am told, thought that Christening was taking little children and nailing them to a cross. Again, I should not like to say how typical that may be, but, having sat in, as I have, at some of the classes in religious instruction in primary schools I think it very probable that the majority of children are completely confused.
1488
I turn, very briefly, to the rights which parents enjoy. Parents can, as the Secretary of State has pointed out on more than one occasion, withdraw their children from religious instruction classes, but the majority of parents do not do so. I would not withdraw my children, because I know very well the damaging effect which this has on children. A child feels a sense of isolation if it is withdrawn from a class. If there were more children withdrawn together, more parents would be prepared to withdraw their children, but if only half a dozen children are withdrawn from a class the parents of the other children are not prepared to withdraw theirs. So it does not strike me as being in any way curious that parents decline to exercise this right.
One headmaster in Leicester thought it proper to draw parents' attention to their rights, and we know the result. He was severely attacked by the Bishop of Leicester. He suggested that if children were to be withdrawn they should be given additional lessons in English and arithmetic. I think it probable that if parents realised that additional classes would be organised in English and arithmetic many would adopt that option. Of course, this does not happen. There are instances of children not being withdrawn from the classroom at all but being told to go and stand in the corner. I have written to my right hon. Friend about such a case. I am sure that it is by no means unique. Where there is an integrated curriculum the situation is clearly impossible. I think that was recognised by the Secretary of State in a reply to a Question on 24th October, 1968. He recognised that there is a genuine problem where there is an integrated curriculum.
To conclude, I suggest that the present situation has led not only humanists but many Christians to a feeling of disquiet. Even among Christians there is a certain degree of questioning, and the Church itself has set up a committee under the Bishop of Durham to inquire into religious education. The British Council of Churches has also set up a committee to investigate the situation, and many Christians are identifying themselves with the Campaign for Moral Education.
I think my right hon. Friend misunderstands the views of humanists and

1489
I would like to quote precisely what is the purpose of this particular campaign. It is
"to shift the acknowledged moral basis of public education from conformity to traditional religion to the actual school community with its respected differences and shared tasks and ideals; and to work"—
and the object of this campaign is to work—
"for the amendment of the Education Act".
We are not opposed, I reiterate, to the teaching of religion; we recognise the importance of religion in our culture; but we believe that it should not be taught in any evangelical sense.
Secondly, we believe it should not be taught to children between the ages of 5 and 12. We believe that children should develop their critical faculties, the options and the alternatives should be put to them, and, having developed a critical sense, they should then be in a position to decide for themselves whether they subscribe to the Christian belief or not. That is the case.
I think it is a formidable case, and I think that the Secretary of State should in duty bound give a reply. It is not satisfactory for him merely to rely on opinion polls and on his own prejudices.
2.10 a.m.
Sir Edward Boyle: I wish to speak for only a very few minutes in this debate. On one point I should like to join with the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), and that is in expressing our sense of gratitude to the right hon. Lady who has come to this debate at very considerable personal inconvenience. She and I both have meetings of different kinds at 10 o'clock this morning, so I shall not be tempted to be very long.
I agree also with the hon. Member for The High Peak that in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has taken up such a strong position on this subject, he might have felt it fitting to reply to this debate.
I think that when we are discusssing this subject of moral and religious education it is particularly important that we choose our words in this House, or outside this House, with considerable care. I speak as one not associated with any campaign, either religious or secular. If
1490
I wanted to describe, very briefly, my own position, I would say that I am someone who feels a deep sense of mystery about the universe, and certainly also a sense of mystery about human nature, but I get less and less certain with the passing years that I shall ever feel that I have penetrated these mysteries.
But after all, we are dealing here not just with our own feelings, but with the attitudes—expressed and unexpressed—of very large numbers of parents in this country. I would simply say this to the House; certainly, as the hon. Member for The High Peak said, we are today a more secular society than we were 10 years ago. I think a recent book by Dr. Bryan Wilson, whom I always respect, in the New Thinkers Library series, is one of the most interesting expressions of that point of view. Yet I do not think on the available evidence, with all its imperfections, that public opinion wants to see a major change in the law as it relates to religious education in the schools. Furthermore, I believe that this is a subject on which it would be wrong for Parliament to try to get too much in advance of public opinion.
There are some subjects where I think it is right for Parliament to be in advance of public opinion. I would say this, for example, about capital punishment, but I would not say this about the law relating to religious education.
There is one point which should always be remembered in this House. It would have been one thing never to have legislated for religious instruction in the schools—never to have passed Section 25 of the 1944 Act, but it would be quite another thing, having put this Section on the Statute Book, to remove it. I believe that that would cause a very considerable amount of concern and distress among some parents. It would certainly evoke a great deal of controversy in this country, both reasoned and unreasoned.
There is this to be said about the views of a large number of parents, which the House ought always to remember. For many parents, even if they cannot believe or do not believe anything like the whole of the Christian dogma, Christian standards are guideposts in a world where social and moral assumptions are changing with what they think of as bewildering rapidity, and guideposts which they

1491
want their children to learn to recognise. I do not think that there is anything irrational or unreasonable in a number of parents without strong dogmatic beliefs themselves none the less wanting the law to remain as it is.
Having said that, I hope that we in this House will give our minds to this subject, as many people are now trying to do both inside and outside the Christian churches. It is not enough just to react emotionally or with a sense of outrage that anyone should question our present arrangements.
I believe that many people who do not wish to see the removal of Section 25 would none the less support some liberalisation of its operation. I detect a good deal of concern in the country today that children should have an opportunity to learn about other religions besides Christianity. Perhaps I was luckier than the hon. Gentleman—I did not have an authoritarian upbringing. The only direct religious instruction from my father that I can remember was his strong conviction that there was "probably something of truth and certainly something of value in all the world's great religions." That may have been a rather typical 19th century view, but it was none the worse for that.
Many people have welcomed more opportunity for serious discussion among older children of the general theme of what life is about. Sooner or later, young people will learn that the world is made up of people of all faiths and none, and surely there is a need for open-ended discussion of fundamental religious issues.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman wasted rather too much powder and shot in his comments on morning assembly. I regard the quality of the religious instruction periods as rather more important than morning assembly, particularly for older children. Do not let us bother too much about the rather period language of some Victorian hymns. That does not seem to me to be very important one way or the other. But it is important to give an opportunity in religious instruction periods for serious open-ended discussion of fundamental religious issues and the purposes for which life exists.
1492
One quotation which the hon. Gentleman read out suggested that a number of young people who are highly critical of morning assembly will none the less welcome religious instruction periods and opportunities for discussion, if they are well conducted by properly qualified teachers. We should not forget the efforts being made by the churches themselves, and in colleges of education, to improve the standard of R.I. specialists. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will tell us something of what is being done in colleges of education, because I believe that there is more effort being put in here than perhaps we realise.
The second respect in which many people will support some liberalisation of our present procedures is this. There is clearly a need to respect the views of parents who want to withdraw their children and, specifically, those of parents who may genuinely not want moral teaching for their children to be validated by religious doctrines which have no meaning for them. If there is a home in which parents genuinely do not have any religion, obviously they will be uneasy about moral teaching being validated by reference to religious doctrines.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on one other point. If parents withdraw their children, it is sensible for proper arrangements to be made for those children. It is obviously absurd to crime a headmaster because he makes good and suitable arrangements.
Church people and humanists are beginning to discuss these questions together, and I think that there is a need today, not least in this House, both for caution and thoughtfulness in the discussion of these issues. As I said at the start of my speech, I disagree, as I am sure virtually the whole of my party would disagree, with those who want here and now to delete Section 25 from the 1944 Act.
But I differ also from people who regard all those who question the operation of Section 25 as enemies to whom no quarter should be given. And I was glad in this context that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to Lord Eccles who made a characteristically thoughtful and original speech in another place on this subject.

1493
I will end by quoting to the House some words that I once used in a debate rather more than five years ago. I was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) who was concerned about a speech made by an officer of the Department which I then represented. I said:
"My hon. Friend…will know the importance which I personally attach to personal integrity and to boys and girls being encouraged to think seriously for themselves both about the objectives which they are to pursue in life and about the standards by which they are to live. Of course there is need for guidance, but in all humility, I suggest to th'5 House that worthwhile guidance may often best be given by those who, in the words of the Newsom Report, understand the sincere
' differences…which separate men and women of real moral sensitivity.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, cc. 773–4.]
I still think that the Newsom Report had much that was valuable and sensible to say on this subject.
I hope that this House will think very hard before deciding to make any major change in the law. But I would strongly support all those who are trying to operate religious instruction in such a way to help young children discover for themselves values and a sense of conviction and maturity which will help them through life.
2.22 a.m.
Mr. William Hamling: At this early hour of the morning I will not detain the House very long as my right hon. Friend has come to the debate at considerable trouble to herself.
I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) who made, I hope he will sincerely accept from me, a characteristic speech worthy of the traditions that he has built up in this House in this sphere. I am glad, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) raised this matter.
I do not find this topic easy to discuss. I do not feel that one can speak about the place of religious instruction in our educational system with the dogmatism and the assurance that some people do.
I must declare an interest. I am a parent who has never withdrawn his children from religious instruction, al-thought I am not a Christian. I speak
1494
also as a teacher who has been involved in teaching children and teaching religious knowledge over many years.
One of the difficulties of many teachers, like myself, is that we have been involved in teaching religious knowledge, instruction, scripture, or whatever we call it, although we are not believers. This may strike some people, particularly some Christians, as rather anomalous. I never found much difficulty about this, partly because I was a Christian at one time. Perhaps I might be called a failed Christian inasmuch as I lost my faith.
I find this a very difficult question to evaluate, as, I am sure, do many other quite sincere people. I think that we ought to approach this subject with a great deal more humility and possibly a great deal more scepticism than we have done hitherto.
I should like to underline what the right hon. Member for Handsworth has said already: that we should not be as dogmatic as some people have been in stating quite firmly that we ought to adhere to this particular Section of the 1944 Education Act. I suggest that there ought to be some examination and some loosening up of attitudes.
I am not too sure, either, about public opinion. It is very difficult to evaluate public opinion on this, as on other things, and on this matter we are perhaps even less certain that we are on many others because so many of the people who make up public opinion are not at all sure themselves whether they have any religious beliefs, and whether those religious beliefs amount to very much more than a vague urge towards having some belief. I think that when one talks about public opinion one ought to do so with a great deal of reservation.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about parents wishing to have some Christian guideposts. I speak as a teacher and as one who had a great deal of contact with parents. Very few of them ever said that to me. I think that most of the parents of the children I taught took it for granted that scripture, or religious knowledge, call it what one will, was on the timetable. I do not think they ever expressed any strong views in favour of it. Most of them accepted it as part and parcel of the normal school timetable.

1495
My hon. Friend said that very few children found religious knowledge interesting. This may simply be a reflection on the fact that it is badly taught. I find it difficult to be dogmatic about why this should be so. When I was a boy I went to a Church of England school, and I enjoyed the religious instruction that I received. I do not know what there was about it that appealed to my young mind, but I enjoyed it. That was a very long time ago, so much so that when I think of the religious instruction I received at my old school I am reminded of that admirable chapter on the scripture examination in Flora Thompson's book "Lark Rise to Candleford". I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers it. I read it with a certain amount of affection.
One of the things that I taught as a teacher was to doubt, to be sceptical, and this raises very seriously the question of the age of the children taught. My hon. Friend talked in general terms about this matter, but I am sure that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate she will have very seriously in mind the fact that we are speaking about children of various ages.
I taught in primary schools, and obviously one does not teach primary school children to doubt in the same way as perhaps I taught my university extramural students to express their scepticism, or my apprentices at a technical college, or the young people I taught in secondary schools. Certainly one cannot generalise about the attitude to religious instruction and ignore altogether the real problem of age.
My hon. Friend talked about the campaign for moral education. I find this rather artificial, because I have always thought that morals enter into education at many levels and in many ways. I can remember, for example, when I was at school my teacher talking about justice, about goodness, not so much in the religious instruction lesson, but in many other lessons. I was going to say that I had the advantage of a classical education, but I am not sure whether in these days this is considered an advantage. Certainly I regard it as such, and I regarded it as such at the time.
People brought up in the classical tradition looked at some of these philosophical
1496
questions far more deeply than many young people today. This was not formally part of religious education. I cannot understand how one can talk about moral education as distinct from education as a whole. Surely the Christian teaching of Christian teachers in a Christian society extends into fields apart from formal religious education—English, history appreciation and so on. This talk about a campaign for moral education is mechanical, because moral education is part of education anyway.
I have great difficulty in approaching this subject, as a non-Christian. Some knowledge of religion should be part of the tradition of our civilisation. A very close person in my own life told me only yesterday that she regrets never having learned about Christianity at school, because, being Jewish, she was withdrawn from religious instruction. She felt that a good deal of our history, civilisation and tradition was closed to her. Knowledge of religion and discussion of religious experience is part of the education of the whole man or woman. I learned a great deal about Greek classicism, and this inspired my attitude to life, politics and moral questions. Similarly, everything which I learned about Christianity is part of me today. I think of the richness of some of my English lessons at school, which were based upon readings from the Old Testament and the fine language of the Authorised Version of the Bible. Some of the passages in Ecclesiastes and the Songs of Solomon are all part of the tradition of the educated person in our society.
Yet on the other side of the medal, there are some primary schools where children are frightened by fundamentalist teaching. The consciousness of sin and fear of retribution which is brought home to youngsters of eight or nine surely disfigures Christian teaching and does far more harm to Christianity than atheists ever did in all the great days of Ingersoll and the rest. This is worth watching. I am not happy about compulsory religious instruction in schools. Learning about Christianity is part of the whole person's education, but not compulsorily. It is the compulsory nature of so much of this instruction which destroys a great deal of its humanistic quality.
2.35 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): This has been a thoughtful debate and I only wish that I were a little more wide awake to reply to it. As hon. Members have observed, I have come here at considerable inconvenience. I spent most of last weekend in bed with 'flu. I then travelled to Paignton, where I made a speech yesterday morning, and I have to attend another meeting at 10 o'clock this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) gave some examples of what children thought they were singing and saying. I came across such an example some time ago; of a boy who happily declared, "He leadeth me into the paths of ripe chestnuts." I am sure that no harm was suffered by that youngster, who probably preferred to be led into that path than into the path of righteousness.
Reference has been made to two national surveys of parents and teachers on this question. Those opinion polls—and one selects what one wants from the results—clearly showed that the overwhelming majority of people desired the present arrangements to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak thought that considerable doubt was thrown on this because so few people were churchgoers. However, 90 per cent. of those interviewed wanted some sort of religious education in schools. This means that the majority of parents, even if they do not attend church, want their children to have moral standards in the wider meaning of the term.
My hon. Friend quoted from majority and minority reports. It would be as oppressive to deny this right to parents who want this teaching for their children, because a small minority do not want it, as it would be oppressive the other way round. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, we must take note of the opinions of parents in this matter. Not only the opinion polls but the many letters which the Department receives are in favour of some sort of religious education being given in schools.
My hon. Friend said that the Education Act, 1944, was now nearly 25 years old. That is true, but things have not stood still in our schools during that time.
1498
We may be working according to the 1944 Act, but the aims of religious education as viewed by most specialists have changed since that date and particularly in the last 10 years, as have the methods and techniques used in teaching.
The aims of progressive religious education teachers, teacher trainers and others concerned with religious education are much the same as those of education generally; to assist the process of personal development, to broaden the knowledge and understanding of life of pupils and to help them to make good, cooperative and tolerant relationships with other people.
In the curriculum proper it is now an important aim to relate religious education to other branches of the humanities and the social studies. This meets the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).
But the teaching cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the curriculum and from the organisation of the school. The whole effort of the teachers must be directed towards creating a sense of community, of being part one of another, and of the ideal of service which is the consequence of this concept of community. I hope that all schools will include voluntary service to the community as part of their religious education.
Education is incomplete without information, and the particular subject matter of religious education in a Christian context includes biblical knowledge and the history and culture of Western Europe, so far as it is has been influenced by the Christian tradition. As pupils mature in the middle and later years of secondary education it is considered right also to acquaint them with the Christian faith, but not, in county schools, to attempt to persuade them to accept it.
The aim is to provide them with sufficient information about Christianity as a way of life to make their own decisions whether to accept it. Religious teaching in denominational schools may go beyond this in both teaching denominational doctrine and presenting pupils with a personal challenge; but not all denominational schools now agree that the latter is right. Since the aim of religious education is to give pupils a broadening and enriching experience in common with

1499
that of the other aspects of the school curriculum, the tendency in primary schools is to integrate it to a considerable extent with the whole of the curriculum, and this is being done in most schools.
In secondary schools the field of religious education is seen first and foremost as helping the pupil to develop attitudes to life; it is concerned with social and personal issues, having much in common with history, social studies and literature and making considerable use of discussion techniques, so that pupils can argue things out for themselves.
Most religious educationists now consider it important that members of other faiths shall have the opportunity to pursue them so far as is possible in school; the law is not altogether clear about the extent to which instruction in other faiths may properly be given in county schools, but in practice many schools with immigrant communities are trying to make such opportunities. They view it as equally important to respect the integrity of the agnostic pupil. It is also regarded as desirable to give secondary pupils of all persuasions an acquaintance with the tenets of other major religious faiths as well as of Christianity.
Discussions on the best way of achieving these aims are taking place in joint working parties of teachers and members of the churches, and the British Council of Churches is conducting an inquiry. Informed public interest is growing and much useful discussion is taking place, which should, among other things, eventually clarify what statutory provisions in a new Education Act should attempt to say.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was happening inside the colleges of education. Religious education in colleges of education is studied as a main subject by 8 per cent. of all students, mainly in the primary or primary-secondary age groups, and in order to meet demand the Department has recently authorised an additional 150 places a year for religious education. Both the voluntary and the maintained colleges share this work. In addition, religious education is studied by the colleges as part of the professional work,
1500
particularly for younger children, and is frequently studied in conjunction with a general curriculum or method course covering the humanities. Both the voluntary and the maintained colleges play their part in this and religious education receives an ample share of the time available in courses of initial training.
The work done in the schools is already beginning to reflect some of the new ideas about the teaching of religious education. In some areas the agreed syllabuses have been reviewed, and this may hasten the process of change. Measures designed to meet the needs of an increasing number of non-Christian immigrant children will no doubt give further impetus to the achievement of more broadly based syllabuses. This is important.
A committee of the Schools Council keeps the religious education curriculum under continuous review. The Council is mounting a project on religious education in primary schools. It will survey recent research work and work of outstanding quality in various types of primary schools, with the object of producing a document which will be of particular use to teachers and heads. The project stems from the recommendation in the Plowden Report that
"Further inquiry should be made into the aspects of religious faith which can be presented to young children."
This project will be based on the University of Leeds Institute of Education and will cover a period of 18 months.
In the secondary field, the Council will publish in the fairly near future a working paper entitled "Humanities for the Young School Leaver; an Approach through Religious Education". This will be a discussion document aimed at stimulating discussion and experiment by teachers and inviting them to submit views and comments to the Council.
In his speech at Alnwick my right hon. Friend reiterated that in any new Education Bill there would be provision for religious education. He did not say that it would be precisely that which was in the Education Act, 1944. As has been said tonight, we have to devote much thought, not only to what goes into an Act, but to how it is interpreted within the schools. There is a great deal of room for taking advice from a variety of people so that when we get to an Education Act we can be supplied with the

1501
very best ways of having religious education in our schools and of providing for those of faiths other than the Christian faith.

HOSPITALS (ELDERLY PERSONS)
2.48 a.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I want the House to move from the consideration of the teaching of the young to hospital treatment of the elderly in rural areas. The National Health Service has achieved a great deal, but the plain, blunt truth is that in the treatment of the elderly in hospital we are practising barbarism and cruelty far greater than was practised 30 years ago before the National Health Service started. All of us, without any question of party, are rather apt to draw a curtain of complacency over the problem until the curtain is roughly parted by incidents such as the fire at Shelton Hospital or the allegations regarding the Ely Hospital at Cardiff.
I want to concentrate on the problem of the treatment of the elderly in rural areas. This is not because there is not a problem in urban areas. There is similar cruelty there, but it arises in a different way. It Comes from congestion and overcrowding, whereas the cruelty I am speaking about comes from the ruthless separation from home and friends which is a main characteristic of the treatment of the elderly in rural areas.
When we are seriously ill, whether we are old or young we require the best treatment available, and for this to be provided nationally without astronomical costs patients will have to travel considerable distances. Therefore, no one quarrels with the present policy of centralising surgery and skilled medical treatment in district hospitals that draw their patients from very wide areas. This applies to both young and old patients.
But the problem is very different when the patient is recovering from an operation or illness, or is not seriously ill but is suffering from a deterioration in physical condition due to age. The siting of the hospital, the distance from home and neighbours, is vastly more important for the elderly patient than it is for the young. The young usually have a husband
1502
or wife, or a parent, sister or brother, earning a wage that enables them to afford to travel the long distances to the far off hospital on visiting days, and they have an urge to do so. But the contemporaries of the old do not have the means to travel those distances or the physical capacity to do so. Just because the greatest problem of the old is loneliness, there are very few who want to go to the trouble of visiting the old when they are in hospital some distance away.
There is, therefore, a need in rural areas for a pattern of hospitals, with large district hospitals that cater for serious operations and illnesses and a number of small hospitals that will nurse patients when they are convalescent, and in particular treat the elderly patient suffering from minor disorders. But under the Government's present policy such small hospitals are not being built, and many existing small hospitals are being closed.
This policy is as uneconomic as it is inhuman. The present cost of a patient in a district hospital is about £42 a week. In the small cottage hospitals, though it varies from region to region, it is below £30 a week. Therefore, by closing these small units and building large new units for elderly patients, we are wasting money as well as manufacturing suffering.
Let me illustrate the position from my constituency. In the area of Ryedale with a population of 32,000, there are no geriatric beds but patients have to be sent either to Scarborough or Whitby, which are from 25 to 35 miles away, or to York or Driffield, which are from 30 to 40 miles away. Fortunately there is in the centre of this area at Kirkbymoor-side an orthopaedic hospital which takes some elderly patients.
A fortnight ago there were 12 elderly patients who could be classed as geriatric patients. Sometimes the figure is as low as six. Under the Government's policy of closing small units, this hospital will be closed at the end of 1969. Every plea which has been made that the hospital should be kept open for elderly patients, closing the orthopaedic side, has been turned down.
Next year, the whole of this area, which has one of the highest proportions of elderly in the population, will have no geriatric bed within 25 miles and in the whole area only eight geriatric beds for

1503
1,000 old people, whilst in the other areas of this country the figure is normally from 13 to 16 beds per 1,000 of the population.
Two consequences arise from this. Waiting lists build up at the district hospital and the elderly in rural areas that are remote are not on the waiting lists because they are reluctant to go to hospital and leave their homes for what they suspect will be for the last time. Last year, 57 people from this area died in hospital. Only one died in the orthopaedic hospital I have mentioned. All the remainder died in hospitals which were from 25 to 40 to 50 miles away from their homes.
It is this situation on which I believe historians in future will base their accusation of this generation of barbarism and inhumanity towards the elderly. What is preventing a change of policy to secure for old people hospitals near their homes where they can be visited by their relatives and friends and looked after and cared for by local nurses and doctors? I put this question to the Secretary of State for Social Services on 3rd March. I quoted the illustration I have given. I should like to read you his reply, Mr. Speaker. He said:
"The prime objective of hospital care of old people should be rehabilitation and return to the community. It is essential that such care should be supervised by experts and conducted by a qualified team working in properly developed centres with full facilities. An inevitable consequence of providing this level of care is that those living remote from these centres will not be near their homes when they are in hospital."
This is very clearly put, and it is the whole fallacy in the present policy of the Ministry. These old people must be cared for by experts when they are ill. Good heavens, is not the local G.P., who spends his day working on his rounds, seeing these old people every hour, who has done that year after year, as great an expert as any in this country on how to treat these old people and their illnesses?
I remember that when I was Minister of Health I went to what was then the most up-to-date geriatric centre and watched the modern ideas of the expert. The old people were taken up parallel bars and exercised, and I was told that they never returned to that hospital. This
1504
is not really the most humane way of treating the normal geriatric case. The normal case of the elderly person in hospital can best be looked after by a G.P., working as a clinical assistant in a geriatric hospital.
On that day, when I questioned the Secretary of State, I went on to ask questions about hardship. I quoted figures, and he said:
"I think he has given the figures correctly for beds in geriatric wards of hospitals. I made a special study to see what the provision for old people's homes was in the area and found that there the accommodation was by no means inadequate by average."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 6.]
One cannot, in dealing with sick old people, say that it is all right, we have not got enough hospital beds, but there are some good hostels for old people provided by the local authority. My local welfare authority has discharged its duties, but the Minister is failing to discharge his. I beg the Minister and the House to reconsider the whole of this policy towards old people. Let the Minister visualise the fears of old people, knowing that they ought to go to hospital, but thinking that if they do they will never come back; they will be wrenched away from their homes and friends, taken to a long ward in some distant hospital, to be cared for by strangers and never again have sight of anyone or anything that they have known in their 70 years of life. Is it any wonder that when old people go to these distant hospitals they deteriorate, crumble and die?
It is a sad reflection, even on the procedure of this House, that the only way to raise a question like this, which affects 20 per cent. of the population, is to do it at five minutes past three o'clock in the morning. While the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, has great talents and great humanity, he has got no responsibility for this problem. It is a sad reflection that this matter which intimately concerns the constituents of every one of us is not his responsibility. The Minister responsible is not in this House but is in the other place.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to reply to this debate. I beg him to take this matter back to the Ministry and to discuss it with the Minister responsible. This is not a party

1505
matter. Both parties have been culpable. Let us try to achieve a better policy for the treatment in hospital of old people in rural areas.
3.5 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals)rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House to speak again.
Mr. Ennals: I was about to ask for leave to speak again, Mr. Speaker.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for raising this matter, though it be at this late hour. He has shown a great deal of knowledge and humanity in raising it. I know that he feels deeply about it on behalf of his constituents. He and I have discussed it previously. What he has said about old people naturally arouses the sympathy of hon. Members. I was sorry that on one or two occasions he perhaps over-stated the case when he talked about barbarism and cruelty in the National Health Service. Very much of the lack of care for old people in the past has been due to their neglect in geriatric hospitals. Certainly there is no complacency in my Department about the problem.
In view of our inheritance of very old hospitals which were inadequate to meet the needs of this generation or of a past generation, and in view of the very inadequate expenditure on hospital building when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, it does not come well from him to accuse the present Administration of barbarism and cruelty. We are seeking to tackle a chronic problem in the care of the elderly. We should not always generalise. When we talk about the care of old people, we are sometimes talking about those who through illness have come into hospital but who, we hope, will not spend the rest of their lives in hospital. The right hon. Gentleman's assumption that an old person admitted to hospital is ipso facto there for life may have been accepted by a previous generation. It may even have been accepted when he was in office. We certainly do not accept it today.
1506
Increasingly the responsibility which falls on the hospital service, the doctors and nurses is, first, diagnosis and, secondly, active treatment. In many ways, improved treatment and equipment can ensure that a larger number of people admitted to hospital at an old age are restored to health so that they can return to life in the community. Too often in the past have we supposed that we are dealing with terminal cases, that it was simply a matter of a little kindliness, that specialties did not matter, and that the general practitioner could look after the continuing long-term needs of patients who would remain in hospital. There is such a category, but happily it represents a decreasing proportion of old people who will be admitted to geriatic hospitals.
Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman is right generally. But does not he realise that by taking the old person away from his locality and sending him to a distant hospital he is making his chances of recovery much less than they were in the old days when he was in a cottage hospital near his home?
Mr. Ennals: That is a problem we have to balance. We have to take into account the advantage that exists where we have the modern facilities of a district general hospital that has all the specialist care and ancillary services to enable patients to be restored to health and to return home. We have to set that against the disadvantage of patients having to travel a great distance. I recognise that we have to seek a balance in this respect.
If the right hon. Gentleman talks about the old days—and one can apply this to psychiatric and psycho-geriatric cases—the assumption then was that for an old person to be admitted to hospital was in a sense a conclusion of a problem, whereas today we are concerned that a patient, be he or she psychiatric or geriatric, should be returned to the community.
Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The point which my hon. Friend has missed—and I take up the point the right hon. Gentleman opposite made—is that people admitted to geriatric wards generally have no hope of being reclaimed to their normal domestic environment. I should like to speak about the particular example of my own father—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. They cannot be speeches.
Mr. Griffiths: One point which the right hon. Gentleman opposite made was that a lot of geriatric sections would not be in new modern buildings, but are like the workhouse which we knew in earlier days under a Tory administration. I do not wish to make political capital out of this.
Mr. Ennals: Of course, there is political capital to be made out of it, but I am not going to make it.
It is essential that we should get away from the concept that the geriatric hospital is the workhouse hospital and that the purpose of the geriatric wards is to provide for the last few years before death. This is not the concept of medicine today and increasingly the concept is that patients should be rehabilitated and that the maximum proportion of people should return to the life of the family and the community.
I accept that there will be a proportion, but a small proportion—increasingly small—of elderly patients for whom the highly developed resources of a geriatric unit can do little, but who are in need of nursing care. It is the second group about whom I am talking. Some may be admitted to hospital in the expectation and hope that they may return but they may not be in this position. Our concern is that, where possible, long-term geriatric patients should not be far removed from family and friends and there should be sufficient transport facilities for people to be able to visit them, and that they should not be cut off from the community.
This is especially so in rural areas and I am not arguing that all patients in a geriatric ward must be treated in the district general hospital. I am saying that it must be so for the majority. However, one must recognise that there will be a proportion of patients who will not be expected to be totally rehabilitated, but for whom it is important that there must be prolongation of a useful life in the community.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite referred especially to the Ryedale area of the North Riding, and this raises a number of issues which flowed from or led up to the issue of Adela Shaw Hospital
1508
in Kirkbymoorside. This hospital is a specialist hospital and has for some years been providing facilities for elective orthopaedic work for a large part of the Scarborough and North Riding area, as well as services for a number of long-stay children, most of whom come from outside the area.
The decision to remove these services to new accommodation in Scarborough and elsewhere was taken for good reasons, on which I need not enlarge in the present context, since the hospital has never provided a geriatric service. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that from time to time a number of elderly patients from the local area, who would be better described as geriatric patients rather than orthopaedic patients, have been accommodated at the hospital. But they have been only a small number, and that has not been the principal purpose of the hospital. It was done by local arrangement when there happened to be an orthopaedic bed available at the time. In no sense has the hospital ever offered a regular or substantive geriatric service.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the population of the area as 32,000. I think that that figure includes Malton and Norton, where there is a small general practitioner hospital. The figure of population which I have for the catchment area of Ryedale is only 19,000, though we need not argue that further now.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been long, careful and detailed consideration about the future of the Adela Shaw Hospital by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The fact that the Leeds Regional Hospital Board, as the responsible body, finally decided to recommend the continuance of out-patient service at the hospital is an indication that it is ready to consider with great care local representations made to it in matters of this sort. It has been decided to continue the present level of hospital out-patient service there, and this will mean for old people that they will not have to travel greater distances away from Ryedale. They will be able to undergo out-patient treament there.
In a situation of that kind, the facilities of a health centre may well ease the

1509
difficulties. I am glad to say that the county council for the North Riding of' Yorkshire is considering the provision of a health centre in the Ryedale area and will be bringing the regional hospital board and other interested parties into its consultations on the matter. I imagine that that will be encouragement in the area.
Now, the question of in-patient services. The scale of provision of geriatric beds in hospitals in relation to the population served at present varies, for historical reasons, quite considerably from one area to another. The recommended national average is 10 beds per 1,000 of the population aged 65 and over. A major factor in judging whether this national standard reflects the need in a particular area is the extent to which the various community services for the elderly are developed—for example, residential homes, sheltered housing, home nurses, home helps, as well as day-hospital and other out-patient services.
Reverting to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) as well as by the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that the very improvement in community services provided by local authorities will lessen the need for people to be taken into geriatric hospitals. I have no doubt that there are today a good many people occupying beds in geriatric hospitals who ought not to be in hospital and who would not be there if better services were provided in the community.
In the area with which we are here concerned, Scarborough, Ryedale, Mal-ton, Norton, Whitby, Bridlington and Driffield, with a population of about 180,000, the proportion of geriatric beds is 10 per 1,000 elderly people, which is the same as the national average.
As I said earlier, we have to strike a balance in meeting the need to provide the most modern diagnostic and treatment facilities in our district general hospitals, and particularly our improved hospitals. The Leeds Regional Hospital Board has plans for considerable developments for the geriatric hospital services in the area about which we are speaking, including considerable new accommodation in Scarborough and new units in Whitby and Bridlington. We have to balance this with the problems of transport and communications and the need of
1510
patients to maintain contact with their communities.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, when considering any proposals for closing geriatric hospitals, my right hon. Friend will certainly take due account of any increased difficulty there may be for visiting long-stage geriatric patients. As I said to him, I have great concern that old people who may not be able to return to health and return to their communities should, so far as possible, live in hospitals where they are in touch with their friends and relatives, in order that in their last days they are not out of touch with the communities of which they have been such an essential part.

OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
3.21 a.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I much regret that in spite of the very great deal which has been said in recent years on the subject of the protection of beneficiaries' rights in occupational pension schemes it is still necessary to refer to the matter. There seems to be very little in the Government's mind about it at the present time. I looked forward with the greatest interest, and in no partisan spirit, to the publication of the White Paper on national superannuation because I felt that, after all that had been said, we should find some recommendations on the subject of transferability of pension rights; but I looked for them in vain. In paragraph 158 one finds a virtual retreat from everything that had been promised. That paragraph is a winding down of commitments, it seems to me, on the whole subject.
At this hour of the morning one is torn between reading into the record an entire pamphlet on the subject—which I have no intention of doing—or offering a mere outline. I do not wish to go to either extreme, but I should like to use the time available to me to make a series of specific recommendations on the subject.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that the recommendations he makes must not involve legislation? We are debating the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. It is

1511
in order to criticise administration, but not to suggest new legislation.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I will endeavour to adhere strictly to that Ruling.
To a very great extent this matter lies in the hands of the Inland Revenue. Possibly the hon. Gentleman who has come here, I fancy, to reply to this debate is not the man who will be able to take up some of the points which I wish to make. Nevertheless, I hope I shall not be out of order.
In the first place one ought to consider the protection of the rights of people in existing schemes. I should like to come back in a moment to the question of the transferability of pension rights. There are some 60,000 or more of these schemes, and I think that there is the serious possibility of some laxity in the control of these funds by the trustees. Trustees are enabled to take advantage of taxation concessions, but whether in all cases they follow the standards one might expect is somewhat open to doubt in view of the very large number of these schemes and their rapid growth in recent years. It would be disastrous for this important branch of savings if there were a failure by a big scheme or a well-known scheme through lack of sufficient foresight or lack of sufficient clarity by the trustees in estimations of their future requirements. The tragedy would be all the greater if the firm in question were under the impression that it was fully funded at a stage of staff rundown and the gradual dispersal of its work force and if it were to pay out pension rights initially in full so that in the end the money available were to be used up while there were a large number of outstanding claims.
There is some conflict, which I have pointed to before, in the way in which administrative control is maintained over these schemes. There is a Registrar of Non-Participating Employments; some of the schemes come under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Friendly Societies; and the bulk, I suppose, are under the tutelage of the Inland Revenue.
The Inland Revenue seems to be somewhat out of place in this, because if our policy is to increase savings through these schemes, the Inland Revenue's interest is, on the other hand, rather to protect
1512
the Revenue; it is not as enthusiastic to see the growth of these schemes as it no doubt is in preventing the schemes from running away and offering opportunities for tax evasion. In my opinion, that interest ought to be a secondary one. I would like to see the duties and status of trustees much more clearly defined, so that schemes which are going to claim the benefit of tax concessions should be under much greater compulsion as to the precise formula that they adopt and the methods by which they proceed.
I should like the degree of funding to be laid down much more precisely; that is to say, the calculations which establish the degree of funding to be established much more precisely than they are now. Beneficiaries should have much better information than they have now as to where they stand. It is quite wrong that the beneficiary of a pension fund should be obliged to ask where he stands or the extent to which the fund is fully paid up at any time, because in practice the management is very soon going to become aware of the people who are thinking of leaving by reason of the fact that some people inquire as to their pension rights and others do not.
Rather considerable pressure is, unfortunately, brought to bear on employees, in that they dare not inquire where they stand in regard to pensions because they are afraid of attracting adverse criticism. This is something which I feel is within the scope of the authorities at this time but is being neglected.
In speaking of the question of the value of the asset which the individual employee has in his firm's scheme, I am coming to my most specific recommendation, because whether we are talking about the protection of a man's asset in an existing scheme or ascertaining the conditions under which he might transfer from one scheme to another, what we come back to again and again is the problem of the valuation of the individual man's rights.
It is because people have shirked this particular problem that the difficulties of transferability have seemed so great. If, however, we were once to come to grips with the problem of the valuation of the individual brick in the total fund so that each man might learn to identify the

1513
asset which the trustees are holding on his behalf, it would become very much easier for him to judge the extent to which his employer is fulfilling the conditions of his employment by actually meeting his promises in regard to superannuation. He could also calculate what he could take with him if he changed his employment.
I recognise that when we discuss problems as abstruse as this we are bound to accept some compromises, and there may always be some degree of unfairness. But rough justice is a great deal better than no justice. I also acknowledge that there is bound to be a degree of intrusion by the authorities into personnel policy. But if the outcome of the tightening up of the regulations affecting private occupational schemes is an improvement of personnel policy in the sense that there is an improvement in communications between the management and the employee and in the imparting of knowledge, that would be a secondary benefit and one which we might do well to take into account.
My special interest is in the circum stances which arise on a change of jobs. I believe that the Government should seek at every stage to apply the principle that a pension is a form of deferred pay. I have attempted to make this point be fore. If a pension is recognised as a form of deferred pay, the funds in the hands of the trustees are seen as inalienably the property of the beneficiary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in and knowledge of this whole subject, but I think that what he is suggesting now could not be obtained except by legislation, and he cannot ask for legislation in this debate.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I accept your Ruling at once, Mr. Speaker.
The Inland Revenue exercises extremely close tutelage over occupational pension funds, and the most abstruse and recondite points are brought up in the course of a year as a result of the strange and peculiar cases which have to be put up to the Inland Revenue for solution. I have studied a number of these cases, and I feel that administrative policy is coloured sometimes by considerations which are rather different from the principles
1514
which I am outlining and which, I think, should be the fundamental ones running through the Government's attitude to this problem.
First, I think that we must always identify the pension rights as a form of deferred pay. Second, we should colour everything that we do on the understanding that the trustees hold this money in trust for a specific purpose. Therefore, it is quite wrong that in any circumstances they should refund that money to the employer. But this is frequently permitted. In fact, it is insisted upon by the Inland Revenue in the event of the beneficiary electing to take back his own contributions. If he should be so minded, on leaving his firm, to take out his own contributions, the Inland Revenue insists, in effect, upon the trustees confiscating anything which might be deemed to have been put into the fund on that man's behalf by his employer. This contravenes the basic principle which I suggest should rule all these administrative matters.
As to the question of preservation or transferability, which is the principal problem which troubled the authors of the Morgan Report and which is probably the locus classicus in this whole business, it seems obvious that transferability is the right target. We must struggle until we find our way to that. We must not allow ourselves to be waylaid into thinking that preservation is the only satisfactory alternative.
I will give a simple example. In a scheme which aims to give the beneficiary on completion of his service two-thirds of his retirement salary, a man who changes his job halfway through his career at a salary of, say, £1,200 receives, in respect of that part of his service, a pension of £400. If he goes on to retire at £1,500, on the other half of his service he receives a pension of £500. So the two preserved pensions would amount to £900 a year. If, however, he stayed with the original scheme or had the benefit of transferability and retired at £1,500 he would receive £1,000. In that simple and very common case we find that transferability would have given £1,000 a year and preservation only £900. Preservation is, therefore, an option which is 10 per cent. less attractive to the beneficiary.

1515
There is, of course, also erosion by inflation, as well as by the sheer mathematics of the operation. It seems wrong that the trustees should be permitted to pocket the capital gains which naturally accrue with the passage of time in inflationary conditions, because they are allowed to maintain the assets in then-own hands while leaving their commitment in terms of out-of-date values. The beneficiary pays in good money and draws out bad.
The Minister gave us an estimate not many weeks ago that preservation of pension rights, if employers granted that in full, might cost £20 million to £25 million in a year, but transferability would cost £100 million more. This seems to give 100 million reasons why we should fight our way through to transferability and not come to rest simply on preservation.
About twelve months ago I raised this subject when I had the good fortune to win the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. I said then that this was a veritable minefield of technicalities. So it is, but I have had the good fortune to be guided safely through this minefield by extremely expert people who have been taking an interest in what I am trying to do in this sphere. I am delighted to give the benefit of this advice to the Minister for what it is worth.
I suggest that the Minister should regard the problem as purely one of valuation. He should not allow himself to be bemused by the multiplicity of schemes with all the different benefits which are permitted by the Inland Revenue for tax concession purposes. Once the basis of valuation has been established, all that is necessary is to ensure that it is enforced.
The problem is aggravated because final salary schemes are becoming increasingly popular. In simple money purchase schemes, the difference between preservation and transferability was not nearly so significant, but, because of the general acceptance of inflation as an inevitable condition of our life, final salary schemes are becoming more and more popular, since they give the beneficiary protection at any rate up to the point of retirement.
1516
To define the individual beneficiary's rights in occupational pension funds based on final salary, I do not think it is necessary to go into the hypothetical flights of fancy indulged in by some people when dealing with the question of job trajectories. Obviously it is right that the final salary should be the salary at the completion of the man's career and not the salary on the completion of his work for a particular employer. When trustees are dealing with a man who has left in mid-career they are introducing a new and artificial element if they take the salary which the man happened to have reached at the time when he left the firm. It is a purely arbitrary figure, and an entirely wrong basis of valuation.
The necessary basis of valuation is the salary that the man would reasonably have expected to reach had he stayed in the original firm until the time of his retirement. This is where there is a danger of being taken into hypothetical flights, into the estimation of salary trajectories, which lead one into a mass of doubt and dispute. I suggest that one should ascertain quite clearly what the employer has, in fact, paid over to the trustees in respect of each individual; that is, what the employer's own calculation was in topping up the fund, as he will have had to do annually—or more often—to ensure that the trustees are in a position to meet their eventual commitments.
I think, too, that it is necessary that we should establish very clearly the percentage to which at any time the trustees are in a position to meet the total commitments on the fund; that is to say, the percentage to which the scheme is funded. Many people think that their schemes are fully funded, but if they were to estimate the value of each employee's rights instead of using aggregations they might find that they had not fully covered the eventual obligations of the trustees.
If, however, we use the simple rule of thumb that we need to ascertain only what the employer himself has calculated in making payments into the hands of the trustees we arrive at a figure which the trustees can write on a chequer to the trustees of the new fund. This is the most important thing, because the same formula can be used for buying

1517
rights in a new scheme as are used in taking rights out of an old scheme, even though those schemes are completely different in the sort of benefits that they are allowed to give.
Private occupational schemes are approved sometimes on the basis of 60ths, or sometimes 80ths, some with retirement age of 60, or 62, or 65. Some give protection to widows and others do not. Some include life insurance provisions and others do not. This is the multiplicity of schemes, all of which come within the general approval of the Inland Revenue. If we are to fight our way through to transferability between schemes which are incompatible—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to take note of what I have now said several times. I imagine that the transferability of pensions cannot be achieved except by legislation. The hon. Member can ask for all the inquiry that he wants into the administrative valuation of pensions. The hon. Member is debating, not a Motion, but the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, on which to suggest new legislation is out of order.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate that, and I am sorry if I have given the impression that I am disregarding your Ruling because I am doing my utmost not to do so.
It is clear from the survey by the Government Actuary that a certain number—all too few, but a certain percentage—of existing schemes endeavour to give transferability, but for various reasons employees opt not to take the benefit of transferability. I think that this is because of the way in which the matters with which I am dealing are handled by the Inland Revenue. Many people—indeed I myself—decided that the transferability of pension rights in the circumstances in which such a thing was obtainable was not an attractive option. It is to a certain extent an administrative change which is required. It would be obtained more radically by a statutory change, but if that is out of the question, administrative changes could take us a good way down that road. The fixed points in determining a man's rights for leaving the fund are his age, salary and length of service, and the
1518
problem is to reckon the value of his asset at that time. In the new scheme there would be the same fixed points; that is, his age, his new salary and the value which he can bring with him in the form of a cheque from one set of trustees to another. The problem then is to reckon length of service—
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I do not want to urge the hon. Gentleman to transgress the rules of order or to curtail his speech, but, so that I can reply, would he say specifically in what way the Government can influence these matters without legislation? I am genuinely anxious to meet his points, but my advice is that there is virtually no way in which his points can be met without legislation.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman has studied the subject, and if that is his conclusion, I hope that he will act upon it. There are certain points which are entirely within administrative discretion. When a man contributes to a new pension scheme, some topping up backwards should be permitted. If he is offered perhaps eight years back service on the strength of his cheque from his previous employers, the Inland Revenue should not prevent him from adding to that from his own resources to lengthen the period of service that he can purchase in the new scheme. It may seem like tax evasion, and any fairminded person must recognise that the employee should not be allowed to go back to before Methuselah and get totally unreasonable tax concessions; but within reasonable limits, some topping up should be permitted.
I am concerned about the problem of lump sums, a system entrenched in the public sector, which is not permitted except in certain types of schemes in the private sector, which are known as the 388 schemes, which do permit some capital payment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I hope that the hon. Member will take some note of the Chair. The absence of lump sums in private schemes cannot be changed by the Government except by legislation. The lump sums in Government pension schemes cannot be changed except by legislation.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I have, finally, three specific recommendations to make which arise if the Inland Revenue is bent upon helping the growth of savings through occupational schemes and we are willing to shut our eyes to some extent to any possibilities for tax evasion. The Inland Revenue should ease the restriction on the two-thirds maximum, particularly when taking account of previous preserved pensions which are small. The Inland Revenue has devised a system of what it calls "uplifted sixtieths" which is purely an administrative invention and which represents a nonsensical formula since it has no foundation based on a concrete principle. Concessions could be made in the value of the pension which the final employer might be permitted to give but which at present is restricted by the Inland Revenue.
The Inland Revenue could also ease the restrictions on post-retirement pension increases so as to take into account the real changes which take place in capital values. This would be much preferable to an arbitrary formula. Equally, the rules applying to the administration of double schemes, in which trustees run 379 and 388 schemes simultaneously, could be more generously applied.
There are many other points of detail with which I could deal, but I will not delay the House at this hour. I urge the Minister to abandon the spirit of the Morgan Report, which was a defeatist document, and recognise the need to protect pension rights by full transferability. He would make millions of people grateful if he would act on this matter at once.
3.52 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): You will appreciate the difficulty in which I find myself, Mr. Speaker, in what must, by the nature of things, be a short reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). The hon. Gentleman not only drew attention to a matter which might hypothetically concern legislation, but also referred to a matter on which the Government have already expressed their intention to introduce legislation. I am, therefore—because of the rules of
1520
order—precluded from answering most of the points he covered.
Two main themes ran through the hon. Gentleman's remarks; first, what should be done by the Government by way of legislation—I am precluded from commenting on that—and, second, what might be done by private schemes, a matter which is virtually, in every respect, out of the Government's control, unless legislation were introduced—and I am, therefore, precluded from commenting on that, too.
Out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman and the House I will reply on the basis that his speech was a criticism of the general judgments that the Government have made in, for example, the White Paper "National Superannuation and Social Insurance." The hon. Gentleman described that White Paper in general, and Chapter VI of it in particular, as a retreat. He also said that it was difficult to understand what was in the mind of the Government.
The White Paper could not have set out more clearly what the Government have in mind on this issue. It stipulates clearly—and Chapter VI explains the reasons why—that it is not the intention of the Government in a political sense, but more because of the inherent difficulties involved, to adopt some of the courses urged on us by the hon. Gentleman. Chapter VI makes it clear that, for reasons of administration and calculation of benefit, transferability is not possible. It also points out that, in our judgment, the preservation of deferred pension rights is possible. Nothing could be more specific in arguing that, while both schemes are fraught with difficulties, the difficulties of transferability are insuperable while the difficulties of the preservation of deferred rights can be overcome by certain means.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The second of those could be carried out only by legislation.
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was merely hoping to show that the Government had made a judgment about the different difficulties, but I pass on immediately to the second point raised by the hon. Member. He asked the Government to consider safeguards for any scheme of transferability, or preservation which might exist, and suggested

1521
that the safeguards already operated by the Government were inadequate. I would remind him of those safeguards, which are three in number.
First, the general laws applying to trusts and trustees apply to the trustees of pension funds in the way that they apply to the trustees of other trusts. Those are considerable.
Secondly, any scheme approved by the Inland Revenue as appropriate for tax relief must submit its rules to the Inland Revenue. That is the second important check.
The third safeguard, as the hon. Member pointed out, is that schemes contracting out, or applying to be contracted out, for graduated pensions must be referred to the Registrar of Non-Participating Employees, and he, as well as carrying out his other examinations, makes a judgment about the schemes' viability.
Those are three safeguards which, in the Government's view, must apply to all schemes, irrespective of whether they offer their participants, privately or unilaterally, the prospect of preservation or transferability, and they are safeguards which remain appropriate whether that prospect of preservation and transferability is offered or not. We would not consider it appropriate to insist on wider and more positive safeguards for schemes offering transferability or preservation than for schemes in general. I believe that this is appropriate for a scheme which offers transferability for its members even in the absence of legislation—a scheme which is voluntarily seeking to make itself transferable, assuming that there are other schemes into which it can be transferred.
The hon. Member went on to say that the basic problem was the problem of the transfer of values and rights into the new schemes. He urged the Government not to shirk the problem of analysing the transfer value. It will not do for him simply to say that the only difficulty is the calculation of the value which might have accrued in the old scheme and be transferred into the new. This is the nub and centre of the difficulty. The Government's advice on transferability and preservation in relation to private schemes, and their views on the desirability of transferability and preservation, are based on the knowledge that calculating the value in the old scheme and its
1522
transfer value into the new is a problem of almost insuperable difficulty, not only because of the variety of schemes which exist at the moment, and not only because hardly any two schemes outside the public sector have the same rules, offer the same benefits and require the same contributions. Even when one has two virtually identical schemes the calculation of rights in the old scheme and their transfer to the new, in any meaningful sense, can be done only after detailed and specific negotiation between scheme and scheme. Even then the recipient may not receive anything of greater value than his accrued rights in the original scheme which could have been obtained by way of a deferred pension.
The hon. Member went on to urge the Government not to regard transferability as a goal which they could not reach ultimately. Again, the rules of order prevent my making any comment on that attitude. All I can say to the hon. Member is that we are acutely aware of the actuarial difficulties in respect of the transfer of pensions. We are acutely aware of the need to encourage private schemes so to calculate their arrangements that voluntary transferability is occasionally possible and voluntary preservation is certainly possible. As to our general intentions outside that voluntary area, I can only remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government's attitude has been made clear on many other occasions. Whilst the rules of order prevent me from explaining it in any detail this morning, the hon. Gentleman will know, both from the White Paper and from the debate on 29th April last, what our general proposals are.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that some hon. Members have been waiting now over 12 hours to take part in this debate. Reasonably brief speeches help.

ANGUILLA
4 a.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: I shall raise the question of Anguilla, on which we have already had a number of debates, by way of a series of questions. I do not want to debate this question very much. There are, however, questions which need to be cleared up. As the House has been sitting for a long

1523
time, as you have just pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I would not necessarily expect the Under-Secretary to be able to give me the answers off the cuff to all my questions. On the other hand, perhaps he will be good enough to give me written replies to those that he cannot answer now, after consideration. He should be able to answer most of them now. It would be fair, in the circumstances, if I were to receive the written answers to my question within about 48 hours, because the answers must be known. It is only because of the late hour that I endeavour to let the Minister off the hook on some of them.
My first question refers to the conference of the Caribbean Commonwealth States. The Secretary of State used these words in the debate on 24th March:
"at a conference of all the independent Commonwealth States and the Associated Commonwealth States in the Caribbean, a very solemnly worded Resolution was passed requiring us to take action".
I interjected there and asked, "What action?" The Foreign Secretary said:
"That was not specified, but it was action which was to provide an answer to the Anguillan situation".
Later in the debate an extract was given from that communiqué issued by the Conference, saying:
"The Conference called upon the Government of the United Kingdom to take all necessary steps"—
it does not say "action"—
"in collaboration with the Government of the State"—
that is presumably the Government of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla—
"to confirm the territorial integrity of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla."
That is what our Commonwealth colleagues were asking us to do—
"to confirm the territorial integrity of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla."
The report reads:
"It noted that the ' situation arising from the attempt by the island of Anguilla to secede illegally from the State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla remains unresolved '."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1069–1164.]
In other words, the whole purpose of the communiqué of the Commonwealth Ministers was that Anguilla should be restored under the legal rule of St. Kitts.
1524
The Foreign Secretary said that we were going to take action in pursuance of the Resolution of the Commonwealth Conference. Contrast that with what he said on 18th March:
"It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 207.]
I would agree. But if the object of this operation and its justification was to bring Anguilla back under the St. Kitts Government in accordance with the Ministerial Resolution of the Commonwealth Ministers there is some confusion.
In his statement at the airfield at Anguilla, the Under-Secretary said:
"Our wish is to ensure that you should be administered in a way acceptable to you."
He said much the same thing as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told the House, but that is not at all what the Commonwealth Ministerial Conference said. Its slant on the whole thing, was exactly the opposite—that Anguilla should be restored to St. Kitts.
Therefore, my first point is to ask that that matter be cleared up. Has Mr. Bradshaw agreed that Anguilla shall be split off from the associated status? If he has not, I find it hard that the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary can give the assurance that if the people want to break away we shall see to it that they do, which is virtually the assurance given.
Second, could he give that assurance? Perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary may claim that it can be done under the Order in Council made on 18th March. That may be so legally, but the Under-Secretary really made the same point on arrival at the airport a week earlier. How did he think, under the then existing associated status, he could possibly give that assurance?
My third point is one that has an element of mild criticism of the Under-Secretary, but I am sure he will not mind my making it. It is a point I tried to make at Question Time on Monday, when he told me that when he arrived at the airport he made his statement in front of the crowd. He read it out as a message to the people. I am sure that the House is now well familiar with it, and I have a copy here. I want to question the wisdom of reading out his proposals at that early stage in his visit.

1525
I know that it is easy to look back, and I know that it was an emotional moment for him. The people of Anguilla were there. He was surrounded by the crowds on that rather warm and agreeable airstrip. I can just picture it. But, looking back, does not he agree that it would have been better to give the crowds a rather general greeting and say, "I am now going off to have lunch and possibly have a swim and a sleep, and then I shall have a chat with Mr. Webster. We shall have a working dinner together, and tomorrow we shall get down to work and get this all agreed."? Then, at the end, as he left, he could have triumphantly made his declaration at the airport of what his proposals were. From my own experience of negotiations, as a rule of thumb I would never disclose my cards so early in any visit. But the hon. Gentleman may have had some reason for taking action in that way, and I should like to know it.
My fourth question is rather parochial. I understand that the hon. Gentleman went off to have lunch. It is not quite clear to me—and it is slightly relevant in my piecing together of the history—who else was at the lunch party. I do not want a great list. Was it held at the home of Colonel the Honourable Henry Howard, and was he there as the host?
The Foreign Secretary, on 19th March, explained why the Government took action. He said:
" We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 495.]
A lot has been talked about this in the House, but I have never really heard a satisfactory answer. I should like the hon. Gentleman to have another go at it. How was our defence made impossible? What were the external affairs which were made impossible? How were they made impossible? It is all very well to talk about these things in broad terms. We are entitled to know the details which made both defence and external affairs impossible.
As far as I can see, without the information which I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us tonight, it is just an excuse and I am far from satisfied that it has any reality. If he can give facts for both reasons he will do the country
1526
and the House a service. As far as I can see, it was an internal dispute between Anguilla and St. Kitts.
The Foreign Secretary also said that we could not discharge our responsibilities for the nationals of other countries and therefore we had to go in and protect the situation, otherwise we would have liability for the property and persons of other nationalities. Let us clear this up.
I do not expect an answer to this question tonight, but how many nationals of other countries were in Anguilla? This point must be known and I expect an answer within 48 hours. It must be known because it was a reason for the invasion. What were the nationalities? I think the answer is that there were very few other nationals, mainly British and American. If that is so, is action going to be taken in St. Kitts itself, where almost precisely a similar situation exists and where there are nationals of other countries, where there was a British national who had property there which was expropriated and who was imprisoned for quite a long time? No action was taken there. I believe this is the most transparent of all the excuses.
The right hon. Gentleman also claimed that force was necessary because the wishes of the great majority of the people were being frustrated by the few. Is it the doctrine of the Government now that we have to use force where the wishes of the great majority of the people are being frustrated by the few? That is a terribly dangerous argument. We are almost in this situation in this country. Would it not have been better to have said at the outset, to avoid what one hon. Member called"double standards ", that this was an occasion which had to be settled, that we would not use military force? The Government will come under very severe pressure on this point as the weeks and months roll by. They said about Rhodesia that we would not use force. Therefore, why should we not say it here? The conclusion one is tempted to draw—and if the Minister can dispel that conclusion the whole House would be grateful—is that we were prepared to use force here because it is a black and undefended island, whereas in other places there are whites who are heavily defended.

1527
My seventh and main point is that the House has not had nearly enough evidence to support the action of the Government. We have had a lot of talk, but we have not had much concrete evidence. We want it. Talking about the justification for the invasion, the Foreign Secretary said on 24th March:
"At the same time there was gathering round Mr. Webster a group of people whom I think I rightly and moderately described as disreputable characters … we knew also that a number of them were bringing in supplies of arms to the island…"
It would be useful to have a list of the names—and I would not expect them tonight, but within 48 hours, because the Government used this as the main reason for their invasion—of these disreputable characters. Why were they disreputable? And, if they are disreputable, let us have it clearly down in HANSARD why they were disreputable. Who were the people whom the Government knew were bringing in supplies of arms to the island? I want their names. If this is the reason for this very serious action the Government must know the names, and there is no reason on earth why they should not be disclosed. I am not in any way trying to defend them or what they were doing. What I want to know is what was the extent of the evidence on which the Government based this connection?
Reference was made to the "gathering round" Mr. Webster of various people. Take the case of Barbuda, a similar, small island which wishes, from time to time, to separate from Antigua. Has not the precedent been set whereby the people the Barbuda can invite in a few of what the Government call disreputable characters, and if they want their independence from Antigua they merely create a situation in which, if the Government are logical and consistent in this—and I doubt whether they will be—they would invade Barbuda? Perhaps, because it is a smaller island, there will be fewer parachutists. On the same point about arms, on 24th March the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who wound up the debate, gave us an important statement with the first facts we have had about it. He said:
"… we have received a number of reports of the illegal importation of arms into Anguilla since 1967. … It is believed that there were 60 or more weapons, including
1528
some machine carbines, on the island before we intervened. It is clear that there must be other deposits, and these are now being sought by the troops and police."
If there are 60 weapons on the island, I query whether that justifies even with some of the other matters mentioned, the use of all these troops in such a dramatic way.
I was in Anguilla nine months ago and I remember sitting on a balcony with Mr. Webster. We were looking over the sea towards St. Kitts and we were talking about the possibility of an invasion of Anguilla by Mr. Bradshaw's forces. I said to him, "How many weapons have you for your defence if he invades?". Mr. Webster estimated that he had about 40. I accepted that as the situation. The Minister of State on 24th March said that there were 60 or more. I imagine that that means between 60 and 70, otherwise he would have said 70 or more. Does it make sense to launch an invasion of this nature in front of the world because in nine months, if what Mr. Webster told me was correct, the total armoury of this island of 6,00C people escalated from 40 to 60? If 20 weapons come in in nine months, why did over 200 parachutists have to be dropped? This is the sort of thing we want cleared up.
When I got back from my visit to Anguilla, I went to see Lord Shepherd. We discussed whether the Anguillans would fight if attacked by St. Kitts. I repeated to Lord Shepherd what had been said to me when Mr. Webster threw up his hands and said, "I do not think we shall. We place all our trust in God." That made an impression upon me, and I remember repeating it to Lord Shepherd.
On 24th March, the Minister of State also said:
"…we have received a number of reports of the illegal importation of arms…".
May we have the sources of those reports if they are not secret intelligence? Were they assessed as being from reliable sources, or semi or unreliable sources? Were they in part, perhaps, propaganda put out from St. Kitts and picked up as intelligence reports, perhaps from Antigua or another island? Were these reports, when they came in, checked, cross-checked and verified? It is extremely important, when judging whether

1529
this operation was sensible, to see whether the intelligence was likely to be true or a lot of rumour and gossip. The Minister said about arms:
"It is clear that there must be other deposits".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1072 and 1166.]
May we know why it is so clear that there should be other deposits?
The Government must produce the evidence on all these matters about which I have asked, and it must be substantiated. It is no good telling the House that they have had a rumour here or a message there. If the evidence was all right and acceptable, was it right to send in forces from the United Kingdom? We know that there is a local frigate, if not two, on board which there are marines and a helicopter. That should have been adequate force if force had to be used, which I do not accept for one minute.
When the policemen went out—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) may deal with this—did we need so many policemen? I suggest that perhaps 12 or 15 could have gone out on a B.O.A.C. aeroplane to Antigua, disguised, in so far as police can disguise themselves, as civilians. If that had happened, it would not have had as much international effect as it has had. I was sorry to hear the Foreign Secretary say that none of our allies has criticised us. They do not because they are polite, but I was abroad last week in the country of one of our allies, and ministers there were very critical of what happened, so the Foreign Secretary should not go away with the idea that he is not being criticised.
The final point of my catechism is to ask why action was not taken earlier. The Minister knows well the point I am going to make, but I have never had a satisfactory answer. On 17th December I raised this in a debate on the Question that the House should adjourn for Christmas. I said:
"I would withdraw my objection to this"—
the adjournment—
"if I could have an assurance from the Leader of the House that a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will go out there post haste to talk this situation over with the two leaders before 8th January. If someone went there and made proposals to the islanders—perhaps that they should come temporarily within the administration of the British Virgin
1530
Islands, or prolong the stay of Mr. Lee the administrator, or some special membership of the Commonwealth—a solution might be found and wiser counsels will prevail upon the leaders of the island."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1176.]
I did not expect an answer immediately from the Leader of the House but I know, from a word I had, that this was discussed and that my proposition was turned down. I have never understood why. The Foreign Secretary said, on the 24th:
"It was not during the period of the interim settlement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969, Vol. 786, c. 1071.]
but he is wrong and confirms that he is wrong from a previous statement in col. 494 of the Official Report of 19th March.
On 17th February, at Question Time I referred to a shoal of
"financial sharks which may be moving in for a killing in that area"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1968; Vol. 784, c. 16.]
I was probably referring to the same people as the Government have had in mind at the time. The lesson was then that, had the Minister got out there in time, all this could have been avoided. We all know what is wanted in future: aid; work, roads, water, schools, particularly primary schools, electricity and, as the Minister will know, the airport must be improved. The Anguillans wanted at one time—and I am not sure whether they still want it, but I hope so—a direct link with the Crown and they want nothing to do with St. Kitts. I suggested last year some arrangement with the British Virgin Islands nearby, but this means consultation.
Associated status does not seem to be likely to be effective unless the British Government are responsible for internal security. I do not see why small islands like this should not have a Government adviser paid for by the British Government and with direct links back to Britain, so that the adviser can help them and can deal with internal security, and Britain can deal with defence and external affairs. This would not be costly in the long run. This is an important matter and we have not had an answer. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to give all the answers I want. If I can personally be of help in Anguilla I will do what I can to help the charming and God-fearing people who live out there.
4.30 a.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Whosoever among us in the House has reason for praise or blame on the subject of Anguilla, it will be agreed on both sides that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has a remarkable record of having seen this problem clearly and having spoken on it clearly in advance. In the light of his record, he is entitled to ask the questions which he put to the Minister, and I hope that he will be given satisfactory replies to his request for a bill of particulars.
Whenever British troops are engaged in the field, all of us should be reluctant to criticise the operations which they are undertaking, and, as the Minister will be the first to agree, there is a great deal to admire in the efficient and humane way in which our men have been conducting what is, obviously, for many of them a distasteful operation. But the Government cannot claim the same immunity from criticism.
It seems to me that the Foreign Secretary by over-reacting has transformed a minor Caribbean incident into an international furore. It is the lack of perspective which I find most distressing. At the time of the Under-Secretary's visit to Anguilla, I was visiting Washington. The Government have been quick to say that they have had support from some of our allies, but they should understand that the private sentiments of important Americans on this matter are of bewilderment and derision. I shall not go into that at length. I simply make one short quotation from the words of a distinguished person in Washington. When discussing this matter, he said that, as far as he could see, the Prime Minister had "lost his marbles".
Against the background of the anti-ballistic missile decision and the Sino-Soviet confrontation on the Ussuri River, it came as something of a surprise to our allies in Washington that there should be emergency meetings of the Cabinet, with the chiefs of staff called in, to deal with an island of 6,000 people in the Caribbean.
My second general comment is that the operation, well conducted as it may have been by our troops, has exposed our country to international charges of racism. I greatly regret this. I believe that ours is the least racist of nations in
1532
the whole world. But anyone who has travelled in the Caribbean, as most of us here have, will know that a consciousness of colour and of blackness in particular, is an important phenomenon. It is something which has arisen to great strength in the last 10 years; it has become an important political as well as emotional fact. It should therefore have been clear even to the densest of observers that to land a white military force on a black island is "nowadays to take a great risk with racial harmony. I can think of nothing more calculated to consolidate the people of the island behind Mr. Webster than the action which the British Government have taken.
Through an odd courtesy of the B.B.C., I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Webster on the telephone yesterday. I formed no clear impression of Mr. Webster over the telephone. However, I was very clear about one thing, and that was that, if his position had been insecure in Anguilla two weeks ago, he thinks it is very secure indeed today. Such opposition as undoubtedly he had in the island before the Under-Secretary arrived is now comparatively muted, and there seems to be a considerable surge of feeling in favour of Mr. Webster. Anyone could have predicted this. Immediately one lands white troops and white policemen in a black island these days, it guarantees, alas, that the vast majority of black people will go to the aid and comfort of their black leader. This is so elementary as not to require stating, had it not been the fact that the Government ignored it.
I want to deal with one specific aspect of the operation, on which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, I shall be obliged if the Minister will reply now or reply in writing if he needs to obtain further particulars. I want to ask him about the Metropolitan Police contingent which is now serving, I think with some distinction, in the island. I should declare an interest: as the House knows well, I have a special connection with the Police Federation.
I start by asking the Minister if he will obtain for me an exact legal definition of the status of the police in Anguilla. Are they or are they not still members of the Metropolitan Police? If they are still members of the Metropolitan Police will the Minister give a categorical

1533
assurance that their pensions are safeguarded and that their group insurance policies, for example, will continue to remain in force? This is an important matter, because the Minister will understand that many of these group insurance policies arise precisely from the fact that they are members of the Metropolitan Police and, indeed, members of the Police Federation. If they cease to have membership of the Metropolitan Police and the Federation it is a good question whether those insurance policies would remain in force.
I am familiar with the terms and conditions of service, of which the police themselves have been informed, and, as far as I can make out—I express here a personal judgment—the financial terms are very satisfactory; indeed, some of them are generous.
But the Minister must answer the question. If the police are not, at least for the time being, members of the Metropolitan force, to whom precisely are they responsible? To whom does their commander, the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Ray, report? Does he report to Mr. Anthony Lee? If so, will the Government please spell this out, if need be in an Order to be laid before the House? Or are the police in Anguilla still responsible in some curious way to the Commissioner for the Metropolis and through him to the Home Secretary? We need to know precisely to whom they are responsible.
From the advice I have been given and from the researches I have made it looks to me as though the police are responsible for the time being to the Foreign Secretary. He, after all, is paying the additional foreign allowance which they will receive. But in what capacity is the Foreign Secretary now their employer, and what legal responsibility does he now have for the welfare of those police officers in the island? Does he intend, for instance, to enter into negotiations with the Police Federation in respect of those matters of welfare which it is its statutory duty to oversee? The Federation has a clear statutory duty to its members, and I should like to know if the Foreign Secretary proposes to take over from the Home Secretary any negotiations with the Federation.
1534
Above all, in respect of the police, what is the future? How long do the Government intend to keep these policemen in Anguilla? For the time being, of course, many of them are enjoying themselves, and I know that no hon. Member of this House would begrudge them a swim in those pellucid waters. We are all delighted to see them getting a winter holiday. But sooner or later, as the Minister must know, they will get a little bored. Their wives and families left behind and watching their husbands on the television screen will get even more so.
What is to happen as time goes on if these policemen find themselves in a progressively more difficult—not to say dangerous—situation? There may be violence. Indeed if the Government are right and there are all these disreputable men, and gangsters, and hidden arms strewn around the island, then the chances of violence are very real.
What is to happen to the police if the combat troops are withdrawn? Are these policemen to be left to face violent men, unarmed? If so, are the Government going to face up to the possibility of transforming this essentially civilian group into a para-military force? Are they going to expect these Metropolitan policemen to carry arms and, if need be, to use them?
These are real questions, and I wonder if the Government have thought them out. It would be possible to visualise all kinds of difficult situations in which these policemen may find themselves through no fault of their own. It would be unwise for the House to indulge in speculation which might only make the position of these policemen more difficult, and increase the anxieties of their families, but it is the Government's responsibility to face up to the contingencies which could arise.
With the greatest respect, I would advise the Minister to pay attention to four specific points on the police, and I hope that I shall have his comments on these.
First, the exact legal position of the policemen on Anguilla needs to be spelled out to Parliament and to the police themselves. This is not a situation like Cyprus or Gibraltar, because in those cases there was no question at all of our sovereign responsibility for sovereign

1535
British territory. Anguilla is not any longer sovereign British territory, and therefore we must have a clear legal definition of the status of the police in Anguilla. We also need to know exactly what the chain of command is, to whom these men are responsible, who is to pay them, to insure them, and who is to look after their relatives if—as God forbid—anything were to happen. I appreciate that the hon. Member who is to reply to the debate will not be able to answer these precise questions at this late hour of the night, but I ask him to find that legal definition and the consequentials as rapidly as possible.
Secondly, there must be no question of turning this police unit under any circumstances into a para-military force. They are not trained for that purpose, and none of the individuals who have been sent to Anguilla volunteered in the belief that they would be turned into a para-military group. They did not join the Metropolitan Police with that kind of service in mind.
Thirdly, some kind of time limit—the shorter, the better—must be placed on this police operation. The Foreign Secretary has warned us that it may be a matter of years, though he seemed to recede from that position the other day. In the hon. Gentleman's message to the people of Anguilla, which I understand that he gave to 500 people at the airport, he said:
"We realise this may be some years."
So we have from two or more Ministers the suggestion that it will be a considerable time before peace and harmony are restored. But, to quote a famous phrase, I hope that the police unit will be engaged in Anguilla for a matter of weeks and not months.
Fourthly, the Government must as a matter of urgency take steps to regularise the position of the police in Anguilla by setting up, if they can, a proper Anguil-lan police force. In reply to an intervention of mine during his speech in the Foreign Affairs debate, the Foreign Secretary said:
"I hope that we shall be able to establish an Anguillan force and that there will be help from other Caribbean countries of a kind agreeable to the Anguillans as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780. c. 1077.]
1536
That was a very fair and welcome statement, but I hope it will not be long before this regularising process takes place. In my view, the Government should have produced some form of police force of this kind from the very outset.
In my judgment, it would have been wiser and certainly was possible to have approached our other Caribbean partners in the Commonwealth with a view to arranging that any force sent to the island also consisted possibly of Jamaicans, Trinidadians and Guyanans. The hon. Gentleman may say that they are not willing to do that, and he may be right. But that is precisely the greatest criticism of the Government's policy.
It has been said again and again that this is a Caribbean matter. My own instinct is to get Caribbeans as far as possible to resolve Caribbean problems. How much wiser it would have been if, as a result of the delicate negotiations which no doubt Ministers were undertaking, we had been able to place on Anguilla a force primarily consisting of black Caribbeans, with the necessary stiffening of white troops and civilians from Britain.
I conclude with three observations. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, we must have the evidence that the Government rely on to justify their action. Where are the Mafia-like characters? We need their names and particulars, and, once they have been identified, justice demands that they be brought before a court of law. We believe in the rule of law. If the Government have the evidence, let them cite it and let a magistrate judge it. If we do not do that, the smear of "disreputable characters" attaches to all those who live in Anguilla. All of them will be characterised as disreputable people, gangsters, and the like, until a court of law has decided whether the charges against particular persons are justified.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will tell us to what extent the other Caribbean Governments were consulted about this invasion. We are entitled to know why, following the general approval that Ministers claim they obtained from Jamaica, Trinidad and Guyana, these Governments have now gone back on those approbations and apparently want nothing to do with this invasion.

1537
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will say, because it would bring relief to the House, that the Government are prepared to hold a referendum or election of some kind in Anguilla very soon. I recognise the need for order, but I cannot believe, with such a large force on so small an island, that there could any longer be any question of people being too terrorised to go to the polls. I hope that the Minister will further say that, if that expression of opinion indicates that our Commissioner should leave the island, he will be brought home at once.
Lastly, I put a general legal point, whether the Minister feels that the Government have powers under the West Indies Act, either under Section 7(1) or (2), to establish on the island a permanent police force. It seems to me extremey doubtful, reading the language of the Act, that those powers are available. I realise that the Government are entitled to change the internal laws, but I do not feel confident that they have the power to set up an ordinary police force to deal with ordinary matters on the island unless they can show that this is necessary for external defence.
Other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will do his best to reply to my point on the police in particular tonight. If not, I assure him that we shall be waiting anxiously for his reply in writing.
4.52 a.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) have put these searching questions to the Minister about Anguilla. Despite the fact that the subject was discussed in Monday's debate on foreign affairs, the full truth, even now, has not been told and the appalling complacency of the Government leading to the events of the past week has not yet been fully revealed. Moreover, by their action, the Government have cast a cloud not only over tiny Anguilla, but over the whole Caribbean, for no one can tell now what lies ahead in this volatile area with its numerous Commonwealth sovereign and associated states, republics, dictatorships and, at is heart, of course, Communist Cuba. Indeed, it is very odd that the
1538
consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury in the early part of his speech never seemed to enter the Government's mind before they embarked upon their military adventure. I wish, therefore, to divide my remarks into two parts: first, the origin of this unhappy affair and the events leading up to the Government's decision to intervene with force and, secondly, the future.
When it was decided to grant associated status to St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla, the Government knew that they were taking a risk. A constitutional conference, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), attended by the then Chief Minister, Mr. Southwell, Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Adams, the People's Action Movement representative from Anguilla, and Mr. Walwyn, took place in London in May, 1966. A report was signed by all those who attended. It was published in June, 1966, and its main provisions were that St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla should have associated status, the Government of St. Kitts would have complete responsibility for all internal affairs, but Britain would remain responsible for external affairs and defence. It is interesting to note that the association could be terminated by either side at any time after various procedures had been gone through.
Paragraph 50 of that report read as follows:
"The Constitution will provide that there shall be a Council for Nevis and a Council for Anguilla; that the Council for each Island shall be the principal organ of local government for that Island; and that at least two-thirds of all members of each Council shall be elected on the same franchise as members of the House of Assembly."
Even so no action was taken to prepare for elections for the local councils until January, 1967.
The West Indies Bill was debated on Second Reading in this House on 31st January. This was an enabling Bill to allow the British Government to grant constitutions to various West Indies territories, including St. Kitts, on appointed days in accordance with the various constitutional conferences which had been held. The appointed day for St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla was 27th February. The matter was rushed through with great speed, and the report stage was taken on 2nd February.

1539
After all the stages of the Bill had been completed in the Commons, but before the Committee stage in another place, Dr. Herbert, the leader of the People's Action Movement, and Dr. Adams, a member of the same party from Anguilla, came to London and raised a number of objections. Their main worry was about the local councils. They said they did not believe that Mr. Bradshaw was going to set up these councils in accordance with the report of the Constitutional Conference, and they brought with them a letter from Mr. Bradshaw which supported that view.
There was also the question of a possible suspension by Mr. Bradshaw's Government of local councils in Nevis and Anguilla. It was also feared that the Government of St. Kitts was not going to comply with paragraph 14 of Appendix B to the report of the constitutional conference which laid down that if the Constitution was to be amended as regards local government in Nevis and Anguilla there should be a referendum in these two islands.
My noble Friend, Lord Jellicoe, raised those matters in another place on 14th February during the Committee stage of the West Indies Bill. He asked the Government spokesman,
"if he has any information about the reported disturbances in Anguilla; if he can assure me that the local government provisions provided for or foreseen in paragraph 50 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference will in fact be brought into effect; and if it is his information, too. that they will be in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14."
In his reply the noble, Lord Beswick, said:
"The position at the present time, as I understand it, is that the Government of St. Kitts have every intention of implementing the provisions of the Constitution mentioned in Clause 50 in the Conference Report; indeed, my understanding is that the necessary implementing legislation has already been drafted; that its terms will be published within the next few days, and that in due course it will go before their Parliament in St. Kitts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords; 14th February, 1967, Vol. 280, cc. 159–60.]
That was the first of a long series of soothing statements about the situation which from now on began to deteriorate.
Dr. Herbert and Dr. Adams also saw the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) who at that time was
1540
the Minister of State. A communiqué was issued after that meeting, and it included the words:
"the legislation to introduce local government in Nevis and in Anguilla will be enacted before Statehood Day."
The communiqué also made it clear that the local government would consist of nominated members until elections were held in December, 1967.
On 23rd February my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) wrote to the right hon. Lady, who replied on the same day saying that
"subsidiary legislation providing for election procedures and other matters will be enacted within the next two months and preparations for the election will be made so that they can be held not later than July, instead of, as originally proposed, by 1st January, 1968."
On 22nd February, no doubt believing what they were telling hon. Members, the Government went ahead. An Order in Council giving St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla a Constitution, was made, and it came into force five days later. Paragraph 109 provided that there should be a council for Nevis and a council for Anguilla, which would be the principal organs of local government in those islands.
Unhappily, no one on Anguilla believed that Mr. Bradshaw would implement the promises made at the constitutional conference. When the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), representing the British Government, having attended the independence celebrations in St. Kitts on 27th February, flew to Anguilla on the following day, there were scenes. It was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 1st March that he was taunted—thus the Under-Secretary is not the first to have had this sort of experience—by 6,000 demonstrators. There were other reports of demonstrations.
But when he came home and was asked about this in the House on 16th March, the right hon. Gentleman told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood):
"I am glad to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reports which I read about the troubles in Anguilla were exaggerated. There certainly was a small demonstration, but, by way of a change, it was for Her Majesty's Government to continue to control Anguilla. However, it is quite clear that Anguilla is a part of St. Kitts and Nevis, and when I met

1541
the Deputy Premier, it was clear that the bulk of the people expressed that wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 715.]
But it was not at all clear. It never has been clear. On 21st March, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington asked a Question in the House. The reply from the Minister of State was extraordinary:
"…I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen since the inauguration of Statehood."
My right hon. Friend then asked:
"Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that considerable opposition to these proposals still exists? What can the British Government still do to allay the very real fears which are entertained? "
The hon. Gentleman replied:
"My understanding"—
ominous words—
"is that a great deal of the feeling has died down."
Yet the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East had decided earlier that it was clear from the start the bulk of the people were happy with the situation. He added:
"I believe that we must now give a fair chance to the Statehood which is being inaugurated"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1435.]
On 20th April, my right hon. Friend again wrote to the right hon. Lady about local government. She answered on 28th April that one of her senior officials, a Mr. Hall, had been to St. Kitts at the end of February, and that it had then been agreed that elections should be held by not later than July. Soon after Mr. Bradshaw came to Britain and it was quite clear that he had no intention of holding any elections in July, and felt himself committed to holding them only before the end of the year.
On 2nd May, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked a further Question about local elections, to which the right hon. Lady replied:
"Preparations for the elections, which are somewhat technical and complicated, are now under way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 301.]
By this time, the Government would believe anything.
The right hon. Lady then wrote to my right hon. Friend on 16th May. It was clear that no action had been taken about legislation to enable elections to
1542
be held, which of course conflicted wildly with the assurances given by her in her letter of 23rd February that consultations would be begun in two months from that date and in accordance with the assurances given before statehood had been granted. On 31st May, after growing tension in Anguilla, the police force of about 27 men was expelled and the island then declared its independence. Mr. Bradshaw asked Britain for help which was refused, and then asked for help from other West Indian territories, and this also was not forthcoming.
On 11th June, after an alleged armed attack on the headquarters of the police and defence forces in St. Kitts, Mr. Bradshaw arrested the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Herbert, other Opposition leaders, and two United Kingdom subjects, Mr. Milnes Gaskell and Miss Diana Prior-Palmer. The latter was treated abominably and then deported.
Accordingly, on 2nd June my right hon. Friend asked a Private Notice Question about the situation, and the right hon. Lady ended her Answer by saying:
"There is complete uncertainty about the whole thing".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 434.]
On 22nd June my hon. Friend Lord Jellicoe put a Question in the House of Lords asking about Mr. Milnes Gaskell. Lord Beswick replied that Mr. Gaskell had been given the grounds for his detention on 17th June, which were that during 1967, both within and outside the State, he had encouraged civil disturbances, thereby endangering peace, public safety and public order. Lord Beswick went on to say that he had asked that Mr. Milnes Gaskell should be brought before a tribunal as soon as possible so that the charges might be either substantiated or withdrawn.
On 26th June, answering further Questions about Mr. Milnes Gaskell, the right hon. Lady said he had been visited on 21st June by a representative of Her Majesty's Government. There was, therefore, a gap of 10 days before he was visited by a representative of his Government.
I have deliberately catalogued these events in detail. Within a few months of the "soft" answers given in the debates on the West Indies Bill, we had a situation in which a new Constitution

1543
was being used for suppression by the premier of St. Kitts and his Government. Opposition leaders—not only from Anguilla, remember—had been thrown into jail, resolutions of no confidence in the courts were being passed in the legislature, jurors were being threatened, and British subjects were being seized and deported.
This was not being done by the rebel Anguillans. So far, there were no Mafialike elements intervening in that unhappy island. It was being done by the Government of St. Kitts, who were rapidly becoming an embarrassment not only to Her Majesty's Government but to every Commonwealth Government in the Caribbean. Despite the warnings that had been given by the Opposition in this House and in another place, Her Majesty's Government allowed the situation to deteriorate. They took no action to see that arrangements were made for elections to the local council to take place between May, 1966—the date of the constitutional conference—and January, 1967, when they sent a representative to the territory. It was then too late to organise these elections before the end of February when assertive status was granted. They misjudged the likely course of events and they played down the difficulties. They also misjudged the character of Mr. Bradshaw. They did not take steps to make certain that they had up-to-date information about what was going on—time and again Ministers replied that they were not sure of the situation in the territory. They took no firm action in the case of Mr. Milnes Gaskell, who was detained without being charged, and they did nothing about Miss Prior-Palmer, who was treated disgracefully.
The Government then tried to buy time by sending Mr. Lee to spend a year in Anguilla, but as The Times pointed out on 17th March last:
"… the time was not used to rethink the the whole problem. The British Government seems to have hoped that Mr. Lee would somehow persuade the Anguillans to return quietly to the unsatisfactory relationship with St. Kitts. Hardly surprisingly, this did not happen. When the year was up in January, Mr. Bradshaw demanded the departure of Mr. Lee. as he had a legal right to do. Britain then withdrew not only Mr. Lee but also development aid. The Anguillans voted by 1,739 votes to four for independence under a new constitution. But they made it clear they were still anxious for special links with Britain".
1544
The Times was absolutely right, for as recently as 5th February the Under-Secretary was revealing that the Government had learned nothing and offered nothing. In a Written Answer he referred to a letter Mr. Webster, the Anguillan leader, had sent on 30th December, 1968, to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Mr. Webster said:
"With the ending of the agreed interim period, Anguilla re-acquires the full independence and freedom of action which it had prior to our letter of 18th December, 1967"
Mr. Webster refers to an earlier request to the Government made in July, 1967.
"We wish to explore status of Associated State or other arrangement of freedom and local self-government within the Commonwealth."
Commenting on this letter, the Under-Secretary said:
"Since the status of Anguilla as part of the Associated State is laid down by Parliament in the West Indies Act, 1967, and cannot be changed in this way, Her Majesty's Government do not regard Mr. Webster's purported declaration of independence as having any effect. Under this Act, Her Majesty's Government can only legislate to change the status of Anguilla at the request and with the consent of the State concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 128.]
It is easy now to talk of the need to quell a rebellion, of Mafia-like influences—hastily downgraded by the Foreign Secretary to "disreputable characters"—and to talk of the existence of a vast armoury of 60 or more weapons—I guarantee that there are about that number of weapons in almost any village in this country—and for these reasons to mount a great invasion. It is easy now to talk about these matters. But the root cause of the trouble was the failure of the Government, from the begining, to grasp the fact that if promises made to the Anguillans at a constitutional conference were not kept, and the ruling Government behaved like tyrants, the constitution itself would be imperilled. All this was predictable. Speech after speech has been made about it. We had Adjournment debates. Questions were asked across the Floor of the House, and Ministers simply brushed these aside.
Let me remind the House what the Anguillans said in their proclamation after they had declared themselves "absolutely and conclusively independent from

1545
St. Kitts." They declared that the decision was one that "will never be undone"and went on to say, with touching and simple faith:
"The history of the British Empire and the Commonwealth gives us high hopes that we, as others, can enjoy both freedom and allegiance to the Crown. We humbly beg our Queen and the people of Britain to talk with us about sharing the future."
I met Mr. Webster last year with other Anguilians when they were over here pleading with the British Government to help them in the same spirit as that declaration which I have just read to the House. Mr. Webster struck me as being an honest, rather single-minded man, who wanted a straight answer to a question. He was sent home empty-handed. I met Mr. Lee at the same time, and I want to say at once that I thought then, and I think now, that he was a dedicated official who cared deeply for the Anguilians, but had been put into an almost impossible position by the Government.
All that Mr. Webster wanted last year was a firm declaration that Anguilla would not be returned to St. Kitts rule. Was that so unreasonable, against the background that I have described?
Then we had the decision to send troops and police. What was the purpose of this exercise? It was surely to persuade the Anguilians that they could have everything that they were asking for two years ago. That is the only logical conclusion one can reach from the protestations made by the Foreign Secretary in the last week. According to him:
"It is no part of our purpose that the Anguilians should live under an administration they do not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 207.]
Indeed, the very message which the Under-Secretary took to Anguilla made concessions in this direction. It said:
"Our wish is to ensure that you should be administered in a way acceptable to you. The proposal which I am authorised to make to you is that Her Majesty's Government should establish in Anguilla a Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Rt. Hon. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs."
Hitherto the Commissioner had been there by the grace of Mr. Bradshaw. The situation had now obviously changed. The message continues:
1546
"In order to enable the Commissioner to carry out his important task the British Government would take steps to endow him with the necessary legal authority under the West Indies Act, 1967."
If when the Under-Secretary arrived on the shores of Anguilla and was met by a welcoming crowd waiting to hear the message he had brought them, a message which said that power existed to enable a commissioner to be appointed directly by the British Government, why had not this been used before? If it had been used before, there would have been no need for crack troops and the flower of the Metropolitan Police to have been sent to Anguilla.
Perhaps by this time there were unruly elements in the island. I have no information to say that the Government are wrong about this. But it should have been crystal clear by now that the islands would prefer to be ruled by anybody—the Mafia, "disreputable elements", even by Her Majesty's Government—to being ruled by Mr. Bradshaw. Why had this simple fact not penetrated the minds of the various Ministers and their advisers who have been handling this affair since 1966? So much for the past. I turn briefly to the future.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend elucidate one point pertaining to the past? Is it not true that this is the second British armed landing and not the first? The matter was put to Lord Beswick in another place and he denied that there had been a previous landing of British marines. Can my hon. Friend say if this is so? Was this the second landing?
Mr. Braine: There was at one time a suggestion, I believe, made to the Caribbean Governments that some force might be provided. The great difficulty that the House is in and that I am in is that we have had little information from Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. I think that this is yet another question that the Under-Secretary should endeavour to answer.
Having committed one set of errors, Her Majesty's Government now seem set fair to commit another. We have the Secretary of State talking of British direct rule in Anguilla for some years to come. How in heaven's name can this be justified? We are dealing here with a tiny community of 6,000 people. With British

1547
troops and police now on the island, surely the unscrupulous intimidators, if they exist, can be dealt with. If indeed there are large numbers of them, they now must be presumably under lock and key. If they have committed offences, wild accusations will not do. They must be brought to book and the justification for the Government's action must be made plain, not merely to Parliament, but to the whole world. Why cannot arrangements for a referendum be made speedily? On the assumption that the unruly elements have departed and that everything is now under control and that the Anguillans have come to realise the noble intentions of Her Majesty's Government, surely there is no need for British direct rule for years to come.
The House wants to know whether there will be a speedy referendum, giving the Anguillans a clear choice. There are six possible choices. They could remain part of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. It will be interesting to see how many Anguillans opt for that. They could have complete independence, though it is very difficult to see how a small island—and this is not the only small island left in the world—can maintain a viable independence. They could have separate associated status by themselves. They could be joined with the British Virgin Islands, or the American Virgin Islands if they chose. Or they could return to straight colonial status.
But what is imperative is that they should be given the choice, and given it very soon. Such a referendum should be held just as soon as—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Now.
Mr. Braine: I see no reason why not, and with Commonwealth observers present, as in Gibraltar. Delay will only inflame passions. It will cast doubt on Britain's motives, and throw away the opportunity to get a just decision which the military intervention has provided.
The Government need not think that we shall leave them alone on this. Exactly a year ago on last year's Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading we were obliged to raise another matter. Some of us had received a letter from the members of the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands, in which we were told that:
1548
"… negotiations are now proceeding between the British and Argentine Governments which may result at any moment in the handing over of the Falkland Islands to the Argentine."
That was from the senior elected representatives of the Falkland islanders. The letter said that the inhabitants of the islands had never yet been consulted about their future, although they did not want to become Argentine. It said that they are as British as we are and are mostly of English and Scottish ancestry, even to the sixth generation. This was the first news any of us had had that the Government were negotiating in secret with a foreign Power over the possible transfer of sovereignty of a British territory.
It took us long months to get the Government finally to abandon the idea of pressurising the Falkland islanders into accepting the inevitability of a transfer of sovereignty, which no Falkland islander had ever asked for. Indeed, they had sent their own views on this to the United Nations some years previously. But the Government had been negotiating secretly on this subject, and it was not until that debate on this day a year ago that we were able to get any kind of assurances from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the subject.
The Government can expect us, therefore, to press them continuously on the Anguilla issue until an honourable settlement has been secured. I serve notice now that we expect them to arrange an early referendum and to keep our partners in the Caribbean fully informed. I also serve notice that we are closely watching what action they take elsewhere in the Caribbean, particularly in British Honduras, where fears have constantly been expressed over the past year, and are still being expressed to us, that the Government may grant independence before the people there have had an opportunity to have a general election. I do not say that this will happen, but the clumsy handling of every aspect of Commonwealth affairs by the Government gives us no great hope that it will not.
Therefore, I trust that a very full answer will be given, if not tonight then in the form of a letter by the Under-Secretary, as my hon. Friend requested. These questions must be answered. The Government must come clean. They

1549
have to explain to Parliament and the nation the justification for the action they have taken; they have to put the record straight; and finally they have to see that, at the end of the day, justice is done to this small community in the Caribbean who at no time have ever expressed anything but the greatest devotion to the British Crown and people.
5.25 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): I have been asked many questions, some of which I cannot answer without notice and some of which cannot be answered yet. Some, indeed, may never be answered because the information on which the answers could be based will no longer be available on the island. It is not there any longer.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred to the conference in Port of Spain of Commonwealth heads of Government recently, when we were asked to take all necessary steps to preserve the territorial integrity of the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. Here we had a situation under the West Indies Act, 1967, in which Anguilla had illegally seceded from that State. How could we, then, attempt to carry out what the whole of the Caribbean States wanted us to carry out and yet at the same time somehow enable the Anguillans to work out their salvation in the way I suggested they could do in the message I delivered?
My presence in the Caribbean recently was, first of all, occasioned by the fact that the Associated States had been in operation for two years and it was felt that I should go and see their Governments and find out how they felt about the manner in which the situation was working out. I had talks with all five Associated States.
While in the area, I took the opportunity to talk not only with these States but with anyone else who would talk to me about the Anguillan problem because I knew the strength of feeling of Anguillans about returning to St. Kitts. The Arguillan antagonism towards St. Kitts has a very long history. It goes back into colonial days. Long before Mr. Bradshaw appeared on the scene,
1550
there was hatred of St. Kitts, and that hatred now is personified in Mr. Bradshaw.
All these things I had to bear in mind when talking with people from the Caribbean, including many Anguillans in the islands outside Anguilla. Some of these Anguillans supported Mr. Webster; others did not. But most of them believed that the future of Anguilla lay outside the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.
It seemed to me, therefore, that if we, within the West Indies Act, legalised the temporary severance of Anguilla from the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, this would be a solution, provided that it was acceptable, of course, to the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.
Accordingly I had long conversations with the State Government during which there was a statesmanlike recognition of the strength of feeling in Anguilla about a return to the State Government. It seemed to me that this strength of feeling, if it were ever to be dispelled, could only be dispelled over a long period, and, therefore, I discussed with the State Government the proposals which, later on, I took to Anguilla.
Because of this statesmanlike recognition by the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla that there was this terrific feeling in Anguilla, my proposals were agreed to by the State Government. The next step was to tell the rest of the Caribbean about it, which I did. My proposals were acceptable to those Governments in the Caribbean with which I was able to discuss the matter. I then went to Anguilla, knowing before I went that there were arms on the island, knowing that three days before I went there a consignment of machine guns had been taken there. This was a report which came out of the island. These machine carbines had been taken there in addition to the arms which already existed.
Mr. Marten: As the hon. Gentleman knows exactly about this report, can he tell us who took them there, how many guns, and to whom they were delivered?
Mr. Whitlock: We know who took them there. I will not mention that man's name now. We know that there were three crates of these guns. This was a report that came to us. The arms were on the island, I saw them and they have

1551
been acknowledged to be there. Mr. Webster acknowledged that he had arms there.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Whitlock: I will deal with these points when I come to them, if I come to them.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is extremely important. If the Government can establish that three crates of machine guns were taken into Anguilla it is a very serious matter. May we know what "crates" means? Is this of the order of 30 or 40 machine carbines, or two or three, and what is the quality of the report? Have these guns been found?
Mr. Whitlock: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants me to describe the crates to him, their markings—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes.
Mr. Whitlock: We had reports—this is all I have said—that these crates had been landed by a man on the island who is known, and reports came out that they were machine guns.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Have they been recovered?
Mr. Braine: Have they been found?
Mr. Whitlock: I will come to these points, if I am given time. If hon. Gentlemen want me to reply they will have to wait. I will do it in the manner in which I have decided to do it, and in the sequence in which the questions have been put to me.
The hon. Member for Banbury was somewhat critical of the manner in which I am alleged to have behaved at the airport. Quite a lot has been said about this by Mr. Jack Holcomb at the United Nations. I landed at the airfield, where some 500 Anguillans were assembled to greet me. I did not ignore Mr. Webster, as has been suggested. I shook hands with him and stood with him before the crowd, and then walked to the air terminal building, where he gave a message of welcome to me. Significantly, he said that he hoped that all would join, hand in hand, to give me safety and a full measure of security. That was a rather peculiar thing for the head of a State to say if he was quite sure that I was safe on the island. Mr. Lee had
1552
told him two days before that I would be coming, and he had given a guarantee that I would be safe. Yet at the airport he asked the people to secure my safety. He then asked that we present the message we had to give. I spoke, presenting the message, which hon. Gentlemen received, and making a few comments in addition. Even if I had behaved tactlessly at the airport, as has been alleged, was that a justification for running me off the island at the point of a gun? I should like the hon. Gentleman to say whether he believes that it was—because I was run off the island at the point of a gun.
Mr. Marten: I never made that allegation. The only faint criticism I made—and I made it very mildly—of the hon. Gentleman's conduct concerned the wisdom, when Mr. Webster invited him to make a speech, of deploying there and then his proposals. Would it not have been better, in view of the experience of diplomacy that certainly some of us have had, to have gone to have lunch and a chat, have discussions the next day and then deploy his proposals? That was the only criticism I made of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Whitlock: Mr. Webster asked in his speech of welcome at the airport that we present the proposals, and this was done. I then said that I would remain on the island to talk about the proposals—because they were no more than proposals—about which I wished to consult the Anguillans and talk with anyone who wished me to talk about them. I went off to lunch, which had been arranged for me. The hon. Gentleman asked me where I had lunch. I had it in the house which I have since learnt—1 did not know it at the time—was once the house of the administrator on the island. I do not know whether that has any significance for the hon. Gentleman, but that is where I went.
Mr. Marten: Was Henry Howard there?
Mr. Whitlock: No. I met no one there named Howard.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we could justify the use of force. I thought that in our recent foreign affairs debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

1553
Affairs justified that decision to the hilt. We used arms in order to carry out our defence and external affairs responsibilities. There is, as a matter of law, an Associated State which is an integrated whole, and the United Kingdom is responsible for the external affairs and defence of this integrated whole. We could not properly discharge those constitutional responsibilities unless, first, the Government of the State could effectively exercise their powers in each part of the State, which was not the case in Anguilla, or, second, if the Government could not operate effectively, the United Kingdom is, under the Act, in a position to ensure such conditions locally as are compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities. That is what we are doing in Anguilla, and that justification was given in the debate the other day by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Banbury asked how many nationals of other countries were on Anguilla—
Mr. Marten: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the last point, could he say—and I am sure that he should be able to answer this question here and now, even though it is nearly six o'clock—what were the defence and external affairs reasons why we could not manage? That is the whole point.
Mr. Whitlock: I have explained that. We could not properly discharge our constitutional responsibilities unless, first, the Government of the State could effectively exercise their powers in each part of the State—
Mr. Marten: That is not an answer.
Mr. Whitlock: It is the answer. If the hon. Gentleman looks tomorrow at what I have said and then looks at the Act, he will see that this is a complete justification.
Mr. Marten: It does not make sense.
Mr. Whitlock: The hon. Gentleman asked how many nationals of other countries were in Anguilla. He suggested that Anguilla is a very small place and the number of nationals of other countries on Anguilla was very small. I am not in a position to say exactly how many were there.
Mr. Marten: Why?
Mr. Whitlock: Because we had no one on the island who could tell us. From the time Mr. Lee was withdrawn we had no one to say how many were there or who had left.
Mr. Marten: That is precisely the reason the Foreign Secretary gave for launching the attack—that there were people there and protection was needed.
Mr. Whitlock: There were people there, but how many no one could say. We knew there were people but there was no one there to count them on our behalf.
Mr. Marten: Why was Mr. Lee withdrawn?
Mr. Whitlock: Why was Mr. Lee withdrawn? Because Mr. Webster had refused, in his talks here, to continue the interim settlement. He declared it at an end. Mr. Lee was there as part of the interim settlement. He had to leave because Mr. Webster said so, and in the circumstances which applied on the island, we had to use force. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that this was because of the pretty disreputable characters who were there.
Mr. Webster, when he was here last October, had discussions for two and a half weeks with me and Mr. Bradshaw, and was adamant in his stand that he could not accept any other arrangement but that of the independence of Anguilla or colonial status under Britain. I tried to persuade the two to come together in some agreement on some kind of confederated set-up for the three islands. Mr. Bradshaw was willing to make concessions, and the lawyer who represented Mr. Webster was also willing to talk about concessions, but however far we got on the road to these concessions, Mr. Webster would come back again and say that it would be suicide for him to go back with any agreement other than independence or colonial status. I somehow feel that the use of the word "suicide" was of some significance when we bear in mind what has happened on the island and what Mr. Webster had to say at the airport when he asked the people to band together to ensure my safety and when I was pinned down in the house on the island. Mr. Webster came to see me and said that it was on his instruction that I was pinned down. He was an

1555
extremely frightened man. I believe Mr. Webster was not the master on the island at that period. These characters who chased me off the island were in control of the island and of Mr. Webster.
The hon. Member for Banbury asked me to give a list of names of these people, almost as if one could not make an accusation of robbery unless one—[Interruption.]—has the names of those who carried it out. Robbery has taken place and one knows that it has taken place and that on the island there were disreputable characters. They were known to be there and they ran me off the island. We do not know the names in every case. Maybe we shall never know. Does the hon. Member for Banbury expect them to stay there and give themselves up and say where the arms are? Is it not likely that we shall never find the arms and that they have been taken off the island?
Mr. Marten: The Foreign Secretary said that Mr. Webster was surrounding himself and that this was the real danger, and it is that allegation with which I was dealing, not the gunmen who blew off a few West Indian shots round the hon. Gentleman. It is these people that the Foreign Secretary believes were surrounding Mr. Webster. These are the names I want, and this list must be given.
Mr. Whitlock: Those disreputable characters were surrounding Mr. Webster on a hill in full view of the house in which I was pinned down. They had arms. They had revolvers, pistols and machine carbines. I saw them. We have the report of the inspector of the Special Branch who was with me. He saw them, too. They were there. If anyone doubts my word, there is the evidence of others that they were there.
Mr. Webster has boasted that he has had arms, and he has been photographed proudly with some of them. We know there were weapons on the island. They had arms, and those arms were used. They were used on that occasion to stop me from talking with the Anguillans about these proposals, which I passionately believe were acceptable to the Anguillans as a whole and could have been a solution to the problem.
Mr. Braine: It was no part of my purpose to question the Under-Secretary's
1556
conduct on the island. I did not refer to it. He need not defend himself in this recent episode. We know him very well, and none of us can judge what the situation was at the time. My purpose was to show that a situation had built up over a long period of which the hon. Gentleman has now become, really, the first victim. What I hope he will do is to make some reference to the extraordinary complacency of those who preceded him in this matter. There is no need for him to justify himself; that is quite unnecessary.
Mr. Whitlock: I was coming to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Associated States. The system of associated statehood is unsatisfied in a number of ways, but it was devised because it was recognised that these very small islands could support internal self-government but could not support all the trappings of external affairs and defence. So associated statehood was dreamed up, to put it like that. It was not an ideal solution. But what else could one put in its place? No one has yet produced the answer on what is ideal for the islands. I have had conversations now with the five Governments of the Associated States. Some of them have certain feelings about the way the associated statehood pattern has been working out, and in which they want change. But not one of them yet wants independence. That is significant.
We have to have some form of statehood which is not colonial status, which is not full independence, but which is between the two. This is the best we have been able to devise so far.
In going round the States, I found that three of the five Premiers were much concerned about their internal security. On some of these islands are the same kind of people as I encountered, on Anguilla. The same kind of people were inducing the opposition daily, in one case, to talk about force. They cannot wait for the next election—"Let us bring the Government down by force". In such circumstances, internal security shades over into external affairs, and because of these elements coming from outside, we should be looking very carefully at what is going on and keeping a close eye on them.
The hon. Member for Banbury asked why nothing had been done between

1557
January and the conference last October when I spent about two and a half weeks trying to get agreement between Mr. Webster and Mr. Bradshaw, during which period, incidentally, I spent quite a lot of time with Mr. Webster himself and came to know him particularly well. I had letters from him afterwards to say how much he appreciated the way in which these things had been handled.
Why was nothing done between then and January? Of course, lots of things were done. Attempts were made by Mr. Lee to persuade Mr. Webster not to go again along the course which he took in January. Letters were sent by me to Mr. Webster and to others on this matter. Every possible effort was made to induce the two sides to come to an agreement. It was not possible at that stage.
I hoped on my visit recently, having talked with the Government of St. Kitts, that I might go to the Island of Anguilla and explain to Mr. Webster and all the Anguillans exactly what I had in mind, and that over a period the Caribbean as a whole would see on the Island of Anguilla the development coming along which we now want to put on the island, and the Anguillans would be able to express themselves freely and without fear of intimidation; I hoped the whole Caribbean would see the Island of Anguilla ever increasingly getting to know its colleagues and St. Kitts and maybe—only maybe—wanting to go back to association with St. Kitts, or making it evident to all concerned that there was no hope of that reconciliation ever taking place again.
Those were the things which I tried to achieve, and which I am quite sure I could have achieved had I been allowed to do so.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has also asked me a number of questions about the police force. I am afraid that I cannot deal with all the technical points he has raised with me, but I will write to him later on giving him answers, if I can, to all the points he has raised.
The police contingent there is known as the Anguillan Police Unit. It is a British civil police force established in pursuance of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman knows very well. The members of
1558
the force will be engaged under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the performance of police duties on behalf of Her Majesty's Commissioner on the island. Operationally, the force is under the command of its own senior police officer.
There are a number of precedents, for the establishment of British civil police forces overseas. Hon Members will recall that in the immediate post-war period there were British civil police forces in Germany, Austria, Greece and Trieste, and later in Malaya, Cyprus and Nyasaland.
As contemplated by the 1945 Act, my right hon. Friend has made regulations as respects the government and discipline of the Anguillan police unit.
All members of the police unit have come from the Metropolitan Police Force, and I am most grateful indeed to the Commissioner for the Metropolis for making the men available. I would like to emphasise that the Anguillan police unit is a civil police unit which will perform police duties in Anguilla in broadly the same manner as the Metropolitan and provincial police forces are accustomed to perform their duties in this country.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The question of crucial importance for a variety of reasons is: are they still members of the Metropolitan Police or not?
Mr. Whitlock: I am coming to that, but I was dealing with other points which the hon. Member raised. I understand that Her Majesty's Commissioner on the island will ensure that the members of the unit will get the same powers, privileges and immunities as members of the local police force in Anguilla.
While serving in the unit the men concerned will continue to be pensionable under the Police Pensions Regulations, and on completing their service in Anguilla they will be entitled, under the 1945 Act, to resume service with the Metropolitan Police and reckon their overseas service as police service for the purposes of pay and increments.
I am confident that the unit carries with it in Anguilla all the best traditions of the police in this country, and I think

1559
we have a police force which is second to none anywhere in the world.
How long the police will be there, we cannot at the moment say. I hope that it will be for as short a period as possible. We want, of course, to have an Anguillan police force. There may be, before that comes along, a Caribbean police force. One of the things which I did in the Caribbean when explaining my proposals about Anguilla to other States was to say that in the initial period, at any rate when the first danger was over, we would hope to have, as envisaged at the Barbados Conference of 1967, a Caribbean police force, and some States promised that once the trouble was sorted out they would provide that police force.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) rehearsed a great deal of the sorry story of past misunderstanding and past events which increased the bitterness between Anguilla and St. Kitts which already existed. That bitterness I hope is going to die down. It is extremely unfortunate, and a matter of great concern to me, that what I had carefully worked out in the Caribbean, which I thought was acceptable to the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and which I still think was acceptable to the Anguillans as a whole, it was not possible to put to them in the way I had hoped when I went to the island.
Our aid is now going into the island, and I think the islanders will increasingly have the knowledge that throughout the Caribbean, and not merely in Britain, there is sympathy with the point of view that they hold, and that the whole of the Caribbean wants the future of Anguilla to be worked out in accordance with the wishes of the Anguillans, but that whatever changes come shall be brought about lawfully and in accordance with law and order.
If that can be done, then I am sure that the future of Anguilla is a bright one. Having met these people both here and elsewhere, and finding them extremely likeable, peace-loving and Godfearing people, it will be my great wish that in the not-too-distant future this little island will settle down happily to fulfil the destiny which I am sure everyone in this House wishes it to have.

HOSPITALS (SOUTH-WEST SCOTLAND)
5.59 a.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: Even at 6 a.m., I am very pleased to have this opportunity of raising the problems of the hospital services in South-West Scotland. I am very glad to have with me my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who will speak particularly about the hospital service in his area, if he is fortunate enough to be called.
For some years I have been pressing the Minister and his predecessors to implement the hospital building programme in relation to Dumfries. It is an old hospital. I do not know whether or not it is the same building in which Sir James Simpson did the first operation under chloroform, but I can well believe that it is. In it, the consultants, specialists, doctors and the nursing staff give first-class attention to their patients, but the hospital serves a huge area and it is hopelessly inadequate to its task.
I give an instance of the increasing demand by stating that in 1967 the number of out-patients treated at the hospital was 80,468. In 1968, this increased to 86,266—a really dramatic increase in 12 months. There has also been a 30 per cent. increase in the use of the out-of-hours X-ray department. This is caused by the unfortunate increase in road accidents, and the accident unit has been very busy and very valuable in helping with this problem. The use of the radiological department, too, has been rising by about 10 per cent. per annum.
There is no room in the hospital for an intensive care unit for specialised post-operative treatment. There is no cardiac ward or specialised coronary care unit, and this work has to be carried out in a general ward. In general, there is a shortage of specialised accommodation.
It is important that everyone in Dumfries should realise that first-class attention is available at once if he or she requires urgent medical care. But why should doctors and nursing staff struggle with antiquated buildings to provide it? Space is seriously limited, and simple general surgical cases often experience delays of six months. In some cases, 12 months will have elapsed before a

1561
patient has an operation, and for cases of low priority there are often delays of 24 months. This sort of situation is quite unacceptable. No one looks forward to an operation with any enthusiasm, and to have it hanging over one for such a long period is not to be tolerated.
The board of management is doing a first-class job in difficult circumstances. Certainly the delays are caused to some extent by the shortage of staff, especially of anaesthetists. But, with all the staff in the world, the situation could not be improved without adequate operating theatres and wards. For this reason, some operations are done at Lochmaben Hospital, which is another elderly hospital which was used originally for T.B. cases and is now used for geriatric cases—
Mr. John Brewis: And at Castle Douglas, too.
Mr. Monro: As my hon. Friend says, at Castle Douglas, too. How right he is.
It is no use doing short-term improvements. The hospital's services are stretched to the limit. No more steam can be provided, electrical circuits are fully loaded, and I understand that the plumbing arrangements will be difficult to improve satisfactorily. I am sure that the Minister realises that these problems are mounting fast, due to the lack of space.
In Dumfriesshire, there are pluses on the credit side. In recent years, a new accident unit has been provided at the Royal Infirmary, and I was very honoured to be asked to open it. There are a new laboratory, X-ray facilities, a women's clinic, and a bio-chemistry department. Above all, there is a first-class training school for registered and enrolled nurses, and the congratulations of the whole area should go to the matron and her staff on making it such a success.
It is a happy hospital, and many volunteers willingly give their help. But it is a hopelessly out of date hospital. There are 220 beds. The new hospital is designed for 400, plus the 150 geriatric beds which are to be placed in the present Royal Infirmary. As there is a serious shortage of geriatric beds throughout the South-West of Scotland, these will be a very valuable addition.
1562
I know that we are to lose other elderly hospitals and convalescent homes in the neighbourhood, but I think that the position will be accepted when people see this great new medical complex on its magnificent site near Crichton, not far from Cresswell, and probably with the health centre close by.
Where exactly do we stand? First, I want to look at costs. As the Minister knows, the project was designed and planned a long time ago. Two years ago it was estimated to cost £4·6 million. Those of us who looked at the Civil Estimates, published yesterday, will be very concerned to see the tremendous escalation in the cost of hospitals at present under construction. I need only instance the new hospital in Dundee: original cost £10 million; present cost £15¾ million; or the General District Hospital in Glasgow, which is perhaps of more comparable size: original cost £5 million; present cost £6¾ million.
If the Dumfries hospital was to cost £4·6 million two years ago, it will obviously be well over £5 million by the time construction starts. Yet I hear that the board has been asked to prune off £250,000. Setting this against the escalation in costs, I am concerned that we are bound to lose facilities and services that have previously been agreed. I hope that the Minister will say that this is not so.
I turn to the timetable. This hospital was in the 1962 Hospital Plan (Command 1602/1962) starting in the period 1966 to 1971.
In 1964, when the first revision came out, this was accelerated to start in the period 1964–65 to 1968–69. In a way this was confirmed in the 1966 Hospital Plan when it was in the period 1966 to 1971. I presumed, in the light of the revised plan of 1964, that it was early in the programme. To confirm this I put down a Question for 9th March, 1966, when the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who was then the Minister responsible, confirmed:
"This project is expected to start in 1968 and to take about four years to complete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 519.]
As the Minister knows—and I am grateful to him for being present at this early hour of the morning—I raised this matter in the Estimates Debates for 1966,

1563
1967 and 1968. Yet he gave no indication in those debates that the priority had changed. But 1968 has gone and nothing has yet happened on the ground.
The staff had a feeling, through hospital board sources, that it might be commenced in September, 1969. But when I put down a Question on 12th March, 1969, the Minister said that the start would be in May, 1970. This is getting a long way from the original intention. The medical staff are particularly disappointed at this recent Reply. I know that it must be for financial reasons. It cannot be because the building resources are not available. Dumfries has a high unemployment rate of six per cent. I am certain that the building trade would welcome the project now.
I hope that the Minister will explain these delays and tell me whether he really understands the consternation that has been caused at Dumfries Royal Infirmary. The staff want and expect better conditions. They are concerned that further postponements will follow and that other projects might jump the queue. For instance, there are thoughts that the new town at Irvine might have to have a new hospital and that it might come ahead of Dumfries. This would be quite unacceptable.
I welcome the fact that we have a very fine maternity hospital at Cresswell, and that there are, too, small but useful cottage hospitals in the county. They are all doing excellent work, and we wish to retain them. I have no time to go over all these services because I want to say something about the Crichton Royal.
As everybody knows, or should know, it is the finest hospital of its type in the country, and of which we are justly proud. Like the Royal Infirmary, it has a first-class staff, and a first-class nurses training centre, but during Estimates debates over the last three years, by Questions, and by letters, I have been urging the Minister to provide a unit for mentally retarded adolescents. There is an excellent unit for children up to the age of 14 at Ladyfield as part of the Crichton. After this age the problem becomes acute, particularly in secondary education.
The board has been pressing for a long time for a new unit of about 30 beds.
1564
The Western Regional Hospital Board indicates that perhaps the year 1972–73 might be the period when this new unit could be constructed, but I think that this is too long to wait. I think that now is the moment to act. When we have the new social work departments going we shall be able to use many of the workers in these departments to help in visiting homes and preparing homes for children coming back from the Crichton. I think that we should be able to integrate this service even more than is the case at present. I should like the Minister to say that it will be possible very soon to provide accommodation for adolescents.
I have also raised with the Minister the slightly different problem of mentally defective children who have to go to the Royal National Hospital at Larbert. The Minister knows that it is a relatively inaccessible place for visits by parents at weekends, and that it is a long journey from Dumfriesshire. It is extremely important that these children should see their parents as often as possible, and I am sure that just as soon as finance is available the Minister will make a really big effort to provide facilities in the South-West of Scotland.
I conclude where I began, at the Dumfries Royal Infirmary. It has a first-class medical staff—as indeed have all the hospitals in South-West Scotland—who are devoted to the service of their patients. In emergency and serious cases, immediate attention can and will be provided. Everyone can have confidence in that, but I hope the Minister will realise from what I have said that the building is hopelessly inadequate and is causing despondency amongst the staff. I want a firm promise that the latest postponement is the last, and that if possible the starting date will be brought forward to this year. I am sure that that can be done if the will is there.
6.14 a.m.
Mr. John Brewis: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in his remarks about the hospital service in the Dumfries area, which is of great interest to people in my constituency. Last year I had the pleasure of opening the new medical ward at the Garrick Hospital in Stranraer, and it is now a modern hospital serving a wide area.

1565
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the bad accommodation at the Clenoch Maternity Hospital and also at the Waverley Home for Elderly Patients at Stranraer, both of which leave much to be desired. The Clenoch is housed in temporary buildings which were originally, I believe, a Royal Naval fever hospital. The Waverley Home is over 100 years old—a great gaunt building both costly to maintain and imposing unnecessary burdens on the staff. For some time now, a composite building to replace both has been planned on a site which is already available near the health centre in Stranraer. When will approval be given to starting this work? There is a constant stream of official visitors to the Garrick Hospital and the health centre, but the two other institutions never seem to be included in any of the programmes. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us good news about both these buildings.
The Royal Infirmary at Dumfries serves the population in the east of my constituency, and the building of a proper district general hospital has been postponed for far too long. I, too, remember when it was first mooted, in the Hospital Plan back in 1962. It is no exaggeration to say that this postponement is causing the greatest possible inconvenience. The waiting list for operations is very long. One patient, for example, has been waiting for his operation since 21st September, 1966, and an Army wife from Town-head Range has waited almost as long. As military tours of duty are usually only three years, her husband may be posted before she gets her operation. Neither case is serious, but having to wait for so long is clearly unsatisfactory.
Nor is the accommodation in the Royal Infirmary of the best, although I know that the staff work very hard to make the best of a very difficult job. There is no accommodation in Dumfries, for example, for geriatrics. The occupational therapist lives in a separate town, Lochmaben, several miles away. Sometimes, surgical and medical cases have to be catered for in the same ward, so great is the lack of accommodation. Clearly, a new hospital to be the focus of treatment for a wide area is urgently needed.
I also support my hon. Friend's remarks about mentally retarded
1566
adolescents. This is a problem that one continually comes across in constituency visits, and I hope that we shall get a new unit—if possible, before 1972–73.
I should like to turn now to the ambulance service. When such large distances are involved, the efficiency of the ambulance service is very important—and I am convinced that it is efficient. I should like to know whether any research has been done to see whether ambulances can be made more comfortable for patients, as they should be if a patient has to be rushed, for instance, 60 miles to Dumfries or Ballochmyle in Ayrshire over country roads.
In urban areas, it is usual to have two men on an ambulance, but often the ambulances in country areas have only one. That means that he must get assistance with a stretcher case, which can be very awkward if it is an old patient living in an area with mainly elderly neighbours. Sometimes a helicopter service is suggested, but I doubt whether it would save much time, except in wintry weather. There is also the danger of shock to a very ill patient who has never flown before.
I understand that there are inflatable splints, but I gather that they are not generally available in Scotland. Cannot more use be made of mini-buses for patients who are capable of walking, as well as a greater use of private cars?
It would be helpful for patients from my constituency if a separate day could be set aside for those who must travel long distances. In some instances they must wait about for some hours after their appointments, and often this results in their missing their buses home. It would be an idea, too, if more use were made of the radio telephone to enable country G.P.s to be connected to the ambulance service wavelength. This is not an idea borrowed from the Australian outback; it is already in use in, for example, Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will wish to join with me in paying tribute to Dr. Bruce Dewar, who did so much for the Regional Hospital Board. I also pay tribute to the devoted staff, doctors and ambulance drivers for the excellent work that they do in the hospital service for the South-West of Scotland.
6.22 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I am glad of this opportunity to answer some of the points that hon. Members have raised. I appreciate that there are difficulties in the hospital service in South-West Scotland, but I hope that it will become apparent from my remarks that I am in no way complacent about the situation either there or in other parts of Scotland.
Before dealing with the situation in Dumfries and in other parts of South-West Scotland, I must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that all this depends on increased hospital capital expenditure. I am entitled to remind them of this because their hon. Friends take the view that public expenditure is too high and should not be continually rising. If, however, one examines particular spheres of public expenditure, one sees how easy it is to make out a case for yet more to be spent. Hospital building is one such case. We are all aware of both local and national problems which need more public expenditure for their solution.
However, increases in hospital capital expenditure have been considerable in recent years. While in 1964–65 we spent about £8 million on hospital building in Scotland, we shall this year be spending more than £14 million, a considerable increase which, we hope, will continue.
We in Scotland are now paying the penalty for a long period—it started with the first Labour Government after the last war and went on until only a few years ago—when very little was spent on hospital capital building in Scotland. The result is that we now have a considerable backlog; and it is against this background that we must consider the hospital building programme.
I need not say much about the present position at the Dumfries Infirmary because it is accepted—I certainly acknowledge this—that the situation is unsatisfactory. I have visited the Infirmary and I confirm that it is a tribute to the staff that so much is being done in what are admittedly inadequate conditions by modern standards. Perhaps I could also pay my tribute to Dr. Bruce Dewar, whom I had the pleasure of meeting when I visited Dumfries, and whose work for
1568
the whole area played a considerable part in developing the hospital services in the Western Region, and particularly in Dumfries.
The situation at Dumfries is that we can get adequate services there only with the building of the new Dumfries District General Hospital. Therefore, it is true that it is not possible to make temporary improvements in Dumfries which would make a substantial improvement to the present situation now that we are dealing with the question of the start of the new district general hospital. The position, as I stated in a Written Answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on 12th March, is that
"The regional hospital board hopes that the tender for this scheme will be let towards the end of this year, with a start on site about the beginning of the financial year 1970–71."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March. 1969; Vol 779. c. 283.]
It is true that the original starting date was to be 1968, but this scheme, among others, suffered deferment by an announcement made in 1968 dealing with the hospital building programme as a whole. This was for reasons which had nothing to do with any cut-back in the total hospital building programme but was for a number of special reasons affecting the Sick Children's Hospital in Glasgow, and one important reason, namely, that we are now making quicker progress in the planning and construction, once the construction starts, of hospitals. We are spending money more quickly on hospital building than we expected two or three years ago, because of the greater facility in planning and the greater experience that the new hospital building programme has brought to the regional hospital boards. The deferment was nothing to do with the cutting back of expenditure; in fact, the expenditure envisaged in the review of the hospital plan for Scotland in February, 1966, is being fully maintained and, if anything will be rather enhanced compared with what we expected it to be when published in the review.
But there was a year's delay because of that, and there has been some further delay since. But the position is, as I said on 12th March, that that position will not be affected by any other development in other parts of the Western

1569
Region in terms of priority. It is now firmly fixed that this priority will not be affected by any subsequent development. The position now is that the planning is at the sketching and drawing stage. Plans have been completed, and final cost limits are being negotiated now.
The hon. Member is right in what he says about the ultimate cost of the project. It is not possible for me to say what the final figure will be, but I hope that these current difficulties will be overcome and that we shall be able to get to the tendering stage later this year, so that we can start in April, 1970. That is what the hospital board is working for at the moment, and the board of management is keen that there should be no delay in this development.
The hospital may take about four years to complete, although with the increasing expertise that we have got in building hospitals it is possible that the programme will take rather less. The board would like to see this. But to be realistic about this one should look upon it as a four-year construction period. When that is completed it will be possible to close down a number of units in Dumfries and the surrounding area, and the infirmary can then be made available for a geriatric hospital, meeting a considerable need for additional geriatric accommodation. Everything depends on the progress of the district general hospital.
I hope that what I have said today, though it does not add anything to the existing position, has at least reassured the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of this hospital being displaced from the programme. It is now firmly fixed in the programme and sufficiently far ahead for there to be no question of its being displaced by any other project coming forward within the near future.
The Crichton Royal Hospital is a hospital which I have visited and by which I was considerably impressed. Some of the work which is done at this hospital enjoys a reputation which extends well beyond Dumfries, and, indeed, well beyond Scotland. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two separate questions. One was the question of the mentally defective children who at present have to go to Larbert. I agree at once that this
1570
is not a satisfactory position. It is necessary in dealing with mentally defective patients to get a sufficiently large unit to be able to deploy all the necessary skills in dealing with the patients. Therefore, it is not desirable to have small units spread over different parts of the country. I accept that the situation with regard to children in the South-West area is unsatisfactory.
The last occasion on which I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about this was in September, 1967, when I pointed out that the long-term position was that there was a proposal that there might be a 350-bed mental deficiency unit set up at the Crichton Royal but that from the short-term point of view the possible first development of that would be a further 30 mental deficiency beds at the Crichton Royal. I have very little to add to that at present. This, again, is a question of fitting the project into the hospital building programme. At present there is no unit for mentally deficient children at the Crichton Royal firmly fixed in the forward programme, but this is a matter which the Department will be discussing, among many other matters, with the Regional Hospital Board. I know that the local board of management is very anxious about this unit. I am not able at present to say when such a unit might be provided. All I can say is that I am by no means unmindful of the necessity to have accommodation in this area of Scotland nearer than the accommodation which is at present provided in Larbert, which is obviously, from the children's point of view, not satisfactory.
The other question concerned what the hon. Gentleman described as mentally retarded adolescents. I think he meant to say maladjusted adolescents. There again, there has been a good deal of discussion about the possibility of providing a unit for maladjusted adolescents at the Crichton Royal. I recollect that this question was raised with me when I visited the hospital about 18 months ago. As I understand it, there has been discussion between the Western Regional Hospital Board and the board of management, but the situation at the moment is that a firm proposal by the board of management is now awaited by the regional hospital board. Therefore, I am not able to say anything definite at present.

1571
In some respects the position in Southwest Scotland is not as unsatisfactory as in other parts of Scotland because of the existence of the unit at Ladyfield. I have found considerable difficulty in getting provision for disturbed children in my constituency, and in many cases the only provision possible has been at Lady-field. So in some cases the movement is the other way, from Glasgow down to Dumfries. There is great difficulty in providing accommodation which is reasonably geographically spread because of the small numbers being dealt with.
The position on the question of the maladjusted adolescents is that discussions are still taking place between the board of management for the Crichton Royal and the Western Regional Hospital Board. I can say no more about that now, except that priorities in this, as in so much else of the hospital building programme, are in the first instance not for the Department and not for the Government but for the hospital board, which has planning responsibility for the hospital building programme.
I now turn to the situation in Stranraer raised by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). He said that when official visitors came there they visited the hospital but did not visit the Clenoch or the Waverley Home. When I visited Stranraer, largely at the hon. Gentleman's insistence, I visited both, and therefore I know the situation there. There is no question of pretending that the situation is satisfactory. It is not. That is why there is the project in mind for the replacement of both. I felt that the Waverley Home in particular was completely inadequate. Some of the accommodation there is among the poorest I have seen anywhere in Scotland, and so I accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms on this.
There is now agreement with the county council about the joint scheme for the replacement of the residential accommodation along with the hospital accommodation. I cannot be more definite about the timing than to say that it will, I hope, start sometime in the early 1970s. That is the latest position I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot add anything substantial at present. But it will be a joint project
1572
for the replacement of Clenoch and the Waverley Home.
If there are any particular difficulties in South-West Scotland with regard to the ambulance service, I shall be glad to look into them, but the questions the hon. Gentleman raised were largely general criticisms which are made elsewhere. There has been a good deal of research into the design of ambulances and improving patients' comfort, and so on. The new ambulances that have been introduced in Scotland are a considerable improvement on the older conversions from many points of view, including the comfort of the patients. But very difficult technical problems are involved, and it would be misleading to say that I think we have solved ail of them and produced a completely satisfactory ambulance.
But we have done a great deal in the way of looking at questions of ambulance provision. I am speaking off the cuff now because I did not realise this point would be raised. There were two working parties, one on the training of ambulance crews and the other on ambulance equipment, which reported about 18 months ago. Their recommendations are now being considered through new central committee arrangements that we have established to deal with matters of this sort on a United Kingdom basis, in which the Scottish ambulance service will be represented. I hope very much that we shall be able to announce proposals about the training school arrangements for Scotland and elsewhere reasonably soon. I hope that both in training and equipment we shall be able to make very considerable progress in the next few years. We are introducing double manning again as quickly as funds allow. Many parts of Scotland have double manning already, although single manning exists to a considerable extent.
The question of the use of mini-buses raises wide questions about the organisation of the ambulance service, but there are areas where mini-buses—or private cars, for that matter—are operated on a kind of voluntary basis. For example, the W.R.V.S. operates car services in some areas whereby patients are taken to hospital without the use of an ambulance.
All this raises the question of the organisation of the ambulance service.

1573
It is a difficult service to organise to suit both aspects fully—the hospitals, which are the main users, and the ordinary patients in providing them with a service which will take them to hospital and bring them back home without excess waiting. A study is being carried out of the ambulance service by a research fellow of Strathclyde University with two post-graduate students, and matters of this sort are among the things being looked at.
On the main question of the hospital services, I do not think that I am able to add much to what I have already said. I hope that both hon. Members will accept that the position in Southwest Scotland is appreciated by the Department and by me, that in the case of Dumfries there is a certainty about the project which I have been able to indicate, and that in the case of Clenoch and the Waverley Home we fully appreciate the unsatisfactory position and that it is simply a question of having to fit the project there, which I would accord a high priority, into the programme against, unfortunately, the many competing projects, many of which are also of considerable urgency.

HIRE-PURCHASE CONTROL ORDERS
6.43 a.m.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: Nearly five months ago my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced a hire-purchase control order and a control of hiring order. The effect was to increase the minimum down payment and reduce the maximum payment period allowed under this type of transaction. This was not by any means the first time such orders had been introduced. At the time, my right hon. Friend said:
"The Government have been reviewing the level of domestic demand. There are now signs of continuing buoyancy of consumer spending which, if it were to continue unchecked, would pose a threat to our balance of payments objectives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 345.]
I accepted then, and accept now, that there can be occasions when there needs to be some measure of control exercised over consumer spending and when those circumstances arise I do not dissent at all from the proposition that hire-purchase, credit sales and rentals, and other
1574
forms of credit trading, must bear their due share of any controls exercised. I should like to offer some criticisms of the concept of this form of hire-purchase control. Since these orders were introduced the Chancellor has introduced other measures intended to exercise a measure of control over consumer spending. In so far as these are not devoted exclusively to hire purchase and credit sale or rental, they are good. They are generally broad and to some extent flexible. The measures imposed on hire purchase and other forms of credit trading are precise, rigid and inflexible.
I have four particular criticisms to make of this concept of hire-purchase control orders. I want to argue first, that they make forward planning difficult, if not impossible; second, that they permit members of the public to adopt what I call devices, some within the law and others not within it, to avoid the provisions of the orders. Also, there is a tendency for such orders to promote "dissaving" which is directly contrary to the Government's professed objectives. Fourthly, in so far as they are effective in reducing credit trading, that effect is simply to increase other forms of consumer spending.
I deal first with forward planning. It is regularly argued that our export trading, particularly in cars, one of the items most closely affected by this form of order, needs a large home market. I have never been satisfied that it needs a large home market, but I can understand that a successful export trade needs an assured home market so that the manufacturers can rely, with some confidence, on their home sales, and plan ahead for the amortisation of their property and the depreciation of their plant and so on. Since 1958 there have been quite a number of changes in hire-purchase regulations. It is rather a pity that I have no way of reading a graph into our records because it would make much clearer the point I am trying to make.
In the absence of that facility I will have to have recourse to words. I have a schedule setting out the effect of hire-purchase controls since 1958. First of all, to deal with cars. I begin in 1958, because at that time there were no restrictions. In 1960 the minimum down payment was

1575
increased to 20 per cent. In 1965 it went up to 25 per cent.; in 1966 it went up to 40 per cent. In June, 1967, it was reduced to 30 per cent. and in August, 1967, it was reduced to 25 per cent. In November, 1967, it went up to 33⅓ per cent. The order I mentioned at the beginning of my speech increased the down payment on cars to 40 per cent. At the same time the repayment period was subject to fluctuating regulations.
Starting in 1958 there were no restrictions. In 1960 a maximum repayment period of two years was imposed. In 1961 that went up to three years and then in 1965 it was cut to two and a half. In February, 1966, it was cut further, to two and a quarter years and in July, 1966, it was cut again to two years. In June, 1967, it went up to 2½; in August, 1967, it was extended to 3; but in November, 1967—this is three changes in one year—it was cut to 2¼ years. Finally, it was cut back to two years.
I could quote similar instances of fluctuations, but I will not weary the House with a detailed list of the goods subjected to orders. However, I should like to quote one other instance—television sets. In 1958, there was no minimum deposit. In 1960 the deposit was made 20 per cent. In 1962 it went down to 10 per cent.; 1965, up to 15; February, 1966, up to 25; July, 1966, up to 33⅓; 1967, down to 25; and 1968, up to 33⅓per cent. The repayment period varied from 2 years, up to 3, down to 2½, down to 2, up to 2½ and down to 2. With all these fluctuations, it must be very difficult for any manufacturer to plan his production ahead on a rational basis.
I should like to quote a few words from the Radcliffe Report of 1959, an admirable document in many ways. On this topic, paragraph 468 reads:
"… the exercise of these controls has fallen heavily on certain industries, among them new and progressive branches of light engineering. These industries complain that production schedules are expensively dislocated and that the forward planning so necessary to efficient production has been made almost intolerably difficult".
Paragraph 472 returns to the point and reads:
"The light engineering industries have been frustrated in their planning, and the public corporations have had almost equally disheartening experience. … It is far removed
1576
from the smooth and widespread adjustment sometimes claimed as the virtue of monetary action; this is no gentle hand on the steering wheel that keeps a well-driven car in its right place on the road".
My next criticism is that the imposition of these controls tempts the public to adopt devices. Before I was elected to the House, I worked in the hire-purchase business for 16 years. Therefore, what I say now is not taken at third or fourth hand. I quote the case of a motor car dealer who used to keep an old "banger" in his back yard. When high deposits were required and a customer could not find the money, he would trundle out this car and sell it to the customer for £5. Then he would increase by £50 or so the price of the car the customer wanted to buy and the customer would sell the "banger" back to him for £55 as part of the deposit. This is entirely illegal, but it is not easy to check.
The business of another motor dealer was divided into two parts, one normal retail motor business, and the other car-hiring business. The car-hiring business was unusual in that the rental transaction aimed to cover the whole cost of the car within two years. This is not the usual form which rental transactions for cars take, but this did. As the down payment was at this time appreciably less on rental transactions than on hire purchase, it could be said in a sense that offering rental of this kind presented an attractive feature to customers.
They had to hand the car back at the end of two years and they handed it back at one end of the building, the end occupied by the car-hiring business. The car-hiring section, having cleared their outlay on this vehicle, could sell the vehicle to the car sales part of the business at a fairly nominal sum. The car sales department would put the car in the showroom at a bargain price and who should walk in to snap up the bargain but—surprise, surprise—the man who had just handed the car in at the other end of the building. I am not sure whether this transaction was illegal or not, but if so, it would be hard to pin down.
These are all devices of doubtful legality but there are alternative methods of obtaining credit which are perfectly legal. We have seen a significant increase in provident check trading. This type of trading escapes all control orders, because

1577
it is not hire purchase. There is no deposit and this is attractive to the public but I sometimes suspect that the public who use these facilities are not aware of the rate of interest being charged.
This is what I have to say about the devices which may arise when hire purchase control orders are in force. My next criticism is of the possible effect of these orders in producing a dis-saving among the general public. What I have to say relates to these orders, and although I am not going to mention it in this debate, the argument would also apply to an increase in Purchase Tax.
I have here some statistics from the Building Societies Association, taken from last year when the various methods of consumer control were intended to be in force. They compare 1968 with 1967 savings. I have figures for the first three-quarters of each year only. I shall quote them. Savings withdrawn during the first three-quarters of 1967 were £270 million; £254 million were withdrawn during the second quarter and £257 million during the third quarter, an average of about £260 million a quarter. In 1968, savings withdrawn in the first three-quarters were £382 million. £349 million and £378 million. Here we have a distinct dissaving effect. I notice, in support of this, that certain suggestions have been made that some parts of the national savings scheme are not doing as well as they used to. Some are doing better, it is true, but Defence Bonds, Savings Certificates and the Post Office Savings Bank are not attracting savings to the extent that they did. I associate this with attempts to exert some control over consumer spending. I suspect that the public. if difficulties are placed in the way of their obtaining credit, are only in part deterred and, in part, dip into their savings. If that be so, the effect is entirely the opposite of what the Government intend.
When my right hon. Friend introduced these control orders, he argued—I am sorry that I have not been able to find the reference—that he did not expect anything more than a temporary effect and that in six months we should be back to the rate of business which had obtained before the orders were introduced. I agree that we see a certain law of diminishing returns in the effect of these hire-purchase control orders over the
1578
years, but I submit that there are other explanations for those diminishing returns.
I believe that we see the diminishing effect principally because people are now learning to find other methods of obtaining credit or are dipping into their savings. When the concept of the hire-purchase control order was first thought of 10 years ago, we heard nothing about a diminishing effect or a period of six months after which we should be back to square one. At that time, such orders were something of a novelty and people had not learned how to encompass and circumvent them. But now, perhaps, people have become more sophisticated or more experienced, and I doubt that such Measures have the same effect.
In part, the effect of these control orders may be to reduce expenditure on the form of goods covered by them, but consumer spending on other articles not so covered increases by a parallel amount. I have some rather interesting statistics here taken from an article in Credit, the Journal of the Finance Houses Association. In July, 1966, some control orders were imposed. One can see the effect on goods covered and goods not covered by comparing like periods of months in 1966 and 1965.
First, sales of new cars: in August, 1966, the month following imposition of the order, sales of new cars were 12 per cent. down on August, 1965; in September they were 23 per cent. down on the previous September; in October, 29 per cent. down; in November 25 per cent. down; and in December 24 per cent. down. Thus, it might be argued that the control order was having a beneficial effect. We see parallel figures for furniture, which in the five ensuing months compared with the five parallel months of the previous year were down by 1 per cent., 4 per cent., 6 per cent., 8 per cent., and 6 per cent. So far so good.
Now, what about sales by mail order during those same comparable periods: they went up by 14 per cent., 6 per cent., 8 per cent., 6 per cent., and 10 per cent. So there was an increase there counterbalancing the decrease in the sale of motor vehicles. Next, sales in public houses of beer and so on, taking the same two five-month periods: up by 4 per cent.,

1579
7 per cent., 3 per cent., 6 per cent. and 3 per cent.
Thus, when the totals are all taken into account, one sees that the net effect in those five months following the 1966 orders was no different from the aggregate level of consumer spending during the parallel five months of 1965. Mr. H. D. Oliver, who wrote the article and who is personally known to me, has this comment to make:
"It is a curious philosophy that considers it helpful to the national effort to cut back on cars and furniture and expand on mail order, drinking and fancy goods."
I am bound to say that I think there is some force in that comment. During the past 10 years consumer expenditure has gone up. Again, it is a great pity that I cannot write a graph into the record to make my point. But although consumer spending has gone up the hire-purchase debt during the same period has remained practically level and, if anything, has slightly gone down.
I should like to quote again from another article in Credit. Since 1955 the hire-purchase debt outstanding to finance houses has actually fallen by 3 per cent., whereas the advances by American banks, to take one example, to United Kingdom residents and local authorities have gone up, since 1955, by 53 per cent.; advances by accepting houses by 29 per cent.; and other increases could be quoted.
So it appears that the effect of these hire-purchase orders, in so far as they do have any effect, and I have indicated my reasons for suggesting that the effect is not quite so great as the authorities would like to suppose, bears heavily on finance houses but gives an opportunity to institutions offering other forms of credit to advance at a much more rapid pace than otherwise they would do.
Ten years ago, when the Board of Trade dreamed up this system of hire-purchase orders, it was a big idea and very successful, but because it is easy to operate there has been no fresh thinking, and we are going on with diminishing returns on these lines. It seems to me that these orders are unsatisfactory, abrupt and jerky, and very partial in their application, and that a number of institutions are not affected by them. I urge upon the Government that it is time there was rethinking about this topic. We
1580
have regulations attempting to control the price of credit; we have regulations attempting to control the demand for credit. It seems to me most desirable and most urgent that the Government should give urgent consideration to measures to restrict the general supply of credit, because I feel sure that it is through that that the solution of control over consumer expenditure must lie.
7.7 a.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) on being here at this hour of the morning to raise this subject? When we first saw the draw it appeared that he might be unfortunate, but by sticking things out while others have been cancelling right and left he has had his well-deserved opportunity to raise this matter in the House this morning. Certainly it is a subject on which he is an acknowledged expert, and I entirely accept it when he says that on this subject he certainly does not speak without authority but from very considerable personal knowledge.
He makes four criticisms of the hire-purchase control system, with which I will try to deal in turn, as he did. His first criticism—and this is a criticism I can well understand—is that these controls, and in particular the continual changes in these controls, make forward planning impossible; they create uncertainty as to the likely level of home demand, and, therefore, make it difficult for manufacturers who are producing the products subject to the controls to plan forward expansion, to decide how investment should be planned, and so forth. As I say, I well understand this criticism, but I think we should start with the point which he made at the beginning of his speech—and it is an important point—that it is necessary to control credit in this country. I think he will agree that it is true that any controls of credit, whether they be hire-purchase controls or other forms of credit control, which one might work out and substitute for them, would have, and would be intended to have, an effect on home demand, and, therefore, would create this element of uncertainty.
My hon. Friend may say "Yes, of course, but the hire-purchase control has its particular impact on a fairly limited

1581
range of goods where it is frequent that purchases are made on the basis of payments over a longer period than nine months"—in other words, those types of credit purchase which are subject to control—and that it is on these particular industries that the impact mainly falls.
Of course one has to accept that there are other forms of credit sale which are not subject to hire-purchase control, but nevertheless it remains true that any form of credit control will have the same effect. And hire-purchase controls, while they may have defects, have certain very positive merits.
The first of these positive merits is their speed of effect which few, if any, other regulators can match. My hon. Friend has referred to what has been said in this House and elsewhere, that the impact of this type of measure may fade away gradually with time. Nevertheless, the hire-purchase control does have an immediate effect on consumption, and this is a positive merit which it possesses.
Another positive merit it possesses—and I suggest that this goes some way to meet my hon. Friend's point about inflexibility—is that it can be adjusted selectively as between different industries. One can imagine other forms of credit control which might be produced as a result of examination into this field which is currently going on, which might not have this merit and which might be less satisfactory than a system of hire-purchase control which can be adjusted selectively as between different industries.
These are certainly advantages which we at present cannot forgo. One of the reasons why there are frequent variations in the degree of restriction is because on the one hand it is not wished to maintain a very high level of restriction longer than is necessary, but on the other if the economic situation of the country, the balance of payments situation, makes it necessary, one has to introduce stiffer controls whenever necessary.
My hon. Friend discussed the interesting and important question of whether one need;; an assured, or, as some people argue, a large home market in order to promote exports. I think it is certainly useful to have an assured or a large home market in order to promote exports,
1582
but I think this is a complex question and one which is legitimately subjected to much study. I think the degree of the importance of the home market depends to a large extent on whether the industry is capital intensive, and whether high demand is necessary to get low unit costs.
Now we come to the basic question in our present situation—whether there is high demand from overseas markets as a result of the devaluation of sterling. If that is the case, one can get low unit costs out of one's export business. Therefore the fact of high export demand puts a very different complexion on this whole question. There is no basic limit to the percentage of one's turnover which can be exported.
Important as the home market may be, desirable as it is from the point of view of the manufacturer to have a large home market or what my hon. Friend referred to as an assured home market, one should not become too much a slave to this argument. We should investigate fully, as industry in this country increasingly is investigating, the opportunity to reduce one's unit costs by means of increasing exports.
My hon. Friend then came to his next criticism, which dealt with the evasion of controls which takes place—illegal, he says, and legal evasion. To use the technical jargon of the subject, I suppose that one should speak of evasion and avoidance.
I note what he said about the illegalities, and I hope that such examples are not too frequent. Despite the fact that there may be a few illegalities of the sort which he described, the system has a very considerable impact.
As to the systems of avoidance by methods such as check trading and personal loans, I would refer my hon. Friend to the appeal which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on this topic, asking those who operated other systems of credit control to come, in spirit if not in form, within the system. We have not been able to devise any workable solution which does not raise more problems than it solves, whether or not that solution would involve legislation.
Personal loans for cars generally are granted on terms closely following those

1583
imposed by hire-purchase control, but, cars apart, there is evidence of some diversion of business to other forms of credit. Certainly that causes me concern. I have discussed the matter with representatives of a number of industries who have put this point to me. I am sorry that I have not been able to give them a better answer, but the picture is that we are not at the moment able to provide a better overall form of credit control and, therefore, we have to rely on the hire-purchase and hiring controls. After all, a considerable volume of business is is still done on this basis, and this control is effective and worth while as a regulatory instrument.
It was in part because of our concern about the inequitable impact of existing forms of credit control that we appointed the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit. We think that its eventual proposals for reform will provide a foundation for a more comprehensive control of the volume of consumer credit by whatever means given.
My hon. Friend's third criticism was of what he described as the dis-saving effect. I was interested to note that my hon. Friend said that this criticism would apply equally to increases in Purchase Tax. But he said at the beginning of his speech that, though he found defects in the hire-purchase and hiring controls, he accepted the imposition of the regulator which followed, in November, the imposition of the hire-purchase and hiring controls.
Mr. Macdonald: The point that I was anxious to make in my very early remarks was that I accepted the principle of measures that have an effect over a broad range of activities. I do not know that I was anxious to imply unqualified approval to every one of these broad measures.
Mr. Dell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining exactly what he had in mind at that point in his speech. However, I think that we are both agreed on the importance of having some means of controlling domestic consumption.
It is true that if we attempt to limit domestic consumption in one way or another, this may have the effect of people realising their savings in order
1584
to maintain their standard of living. This is certainly a possible effect of any such attempt. It is uncertain to what extent this effect operates. I do not think that the statistics that my hon. Friend has given are conclusive on the point. However, I should like to look at them. It is rather difficult to absorb them in the course of a debate on the Floor of the House. I will certainly write to my hon. Friend after I have had an opportunity to consider the particular statistics that he mentioned.
My hon. Friend's fourth criticism was that one effect of these forms of control is to divert spending to non-durable goods. I think that we should first be clear here that at worst what we are speaking about is the down payment, not the total purchase price. It is merely the down payment which can be diverted to spending on non-durable goods. Nevertheless, I do not think that it can by any means be certain that it will have the effect that my hon. Friend suggests.
After all, there are a number of possible effects from the introduction of stiffer hire-purchase controls. For example, it could be, and indeed probably is, quite normal for a person who finds that the minimum deposit has been increased to go on to collect whatever is necessary for the additional down payment. I suppose the fact that many people suddenly find themselves faced with having to collect the additional down payment is part of the reason for the immediate impact of the hire-purchase control system. This is one possible effect, and the evidence of common sense suggests that this is what a large number of people will do.
Another possibility is that a person confronted with this situation will abandon the purchase and decide to save the money that he would otherwise use to make the purchase. I can imagine that hapenning in a number of cases. He may realise existing savings to make it possible to make the down payment or he may spend the money on non-durable goods.
All these are possible alternative situations. However, I do not think that the evidence is that the diversion effect to which my hon. Friend referred, is any more than marginal.
My hon. Friend referred to certain articles in the magazine Credit which, on

1585
the basis of Board of Trade statistics of sales, claim to demonstrate that an intervening tightening of the control had led to a decline in the sales of cars and durable goods while retail sales as a whole were rising. We have looked at this evidence and are far from convinced that this provides a real statistical basis for demonstrating any connection between changes in net borrowing and changes in consumer expenditure on non-durable goods. In other words, while there may be some diversion at the margin, it is scarcely significant.
My hon. Friend ended by making an appeal for fresh thinking on this subject. I certainly do not deny that fresh thinking on this subject is necessary. The need for fresh thinking was the reason why we appointed the Crowther Committee. I understand the type of anxiety to which my hon. Friend has referred and, as I have said, I have considerable sympathy with at least some of what he said. I hope that the fresh thinking that we will get from the Crowther Committee will help us, if not to solve, at any rate to mitigate the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Committee this day.

SHIP REPAIRING INDUSTRY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]
7.25 a.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody: I am fortunate at the end of this long all-night sitting to be able to raise the important subject of the ship repairing industry, and I am raising it particularly in connection with the foreign currency saving rôle of the industry. I do this now because of the economic situation that the country is facing. I believe that this is perhaps the most important and topical element amongst the various elements that make up the problem which the ship repairing industry is facing.
I am bound during the time that is available to me to discuss some of the
1586
technical problems, some of the international commercial aspects of this industry, and also some of the general consequences of changes in the industry in the future, because these are all inevitably interlinked.
I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend is to answer the debate because I know not only of his interest in and responsibility for this industry but of the number of visits that he has made to ship repairing yards in different parts of the country, and in particular his valuable visit to the yard at Falmouth in my constituency, a yard whose problems and difficulties have stimulated me to apply for this Adjournment debate.
This is a rapidly changing industry, and the changes affect both labour and management in many different ways. It is an industry that is becoming increasingly specialised. It is an industry that is making much greater demands for skilled labour and for technicians of one sort and another. Perhaps more striking than anything else, it is a highly competitive industry on a worldwide basis. It is because of all the rapid changes that we have seen in recent years that some of the difficulties which have arisen have to be faced by the British ship repairing industry.
The foreign currency saving rôle of the industry is considerable, and the potential saving is far greater than it is now. In a moment or two I shall quote some figures for earnings in the industry and for expenditure on ship repairing which I think will illustrate that. I think one should emphasise that there are two elements in this foreign currency saving rôle. First, there is the fact that if we can keep British ship repair work in this country we shall save foreign currency which otherwise would be spent on repairing British ships in foreign yards. Second, if we can, as we do—although not to the extent which I should like to see—attract foreign ships to our repair yards we earn foreign currency.
I believe that ship repairing is the cinderella of the shipping world. Compared with ship owning and ship building, ship repairing all too often seems to be left out in the cold. Although as an industry it benefits from the general financial assistance that is available to all kinds of industries, for one reason or

1587
another—for example, because many of these yards are situated in development areas—there have not been any special incentives for this industry of the kind that we have seen in other industries. There have not been the incentives and inducements that we have seen in many manufacturing industries. There has not been the Government action that we have seen in some other industries in recent years.
In agriculture considerable efforts are being made to achieve a vast import-saving programme. It is hoped to save £160 million in a few years' time. In the tourist industry about £8 million a year is to be spent by the Government to attract foreign tourists in order to earn foreign currency and save foreign currency by retaining in this country some of the tourists who otherwise would go abroad. More generally, we have recently had introduced the import deposit scheme, which has had an effect on our trading position, on the import situation, and, therefore, on the balance of payments.
I am not asking for a handout for this industry, but I am asking for two things. I am asking that it should be treated equally with other comparable industries in the United Kingdom, and that it should be enabled to compete effectively with its overseas competitors.
The competitiveness of this industry is one of the major problems, and it is shrouded in mystery. There is a sucession of rumours, innuendoes, and sometimes even accusations which considerably affect its foreign currency earning and saving capacity. There have been some disturbing trends in the past three or four years. I was very unhappy to receive in answer to a Parliamentary Question the information that between 1964 and 1967 the amount of foreign currency earned by the industry dropped from £10·4 million to £8T million, a considerable drop, especially when one takes into account inflation over this period. Yet over the last three of those years, 1965–67, expenditure by the British industry in British yards has remained static at £49 million.
When one remembers that the amount of ship repairing in the world is almost certainly increasing fairly rapidly, the declining work in our yards is very disturbing
1588
and shows how much must be going to foreign yards. Unfortunately, information on this aspect of the problem does not seem to be available to the Departments concerned.
The first obvious reason for this problem of competitiveness is that many new foreign repair yards have been built, with considerable capital investment. For instance, a new yard at Lisnave near Lisbon can take for repair oil tankers of 250,000 tons and in a few years will be able to take tankers of 750,000 tons. We have nothing of that size; so that must mean increased competition.
Some of these yards have a better geographical position than ours; some are situated further down the merchant vessel routes, particularly those of the oil tankers. It is often said that the rates of pay of workers in foreign yards in direct competition with us are lower than those in this country or that working conditions are inferior and trade union organisation is not at such a high level. It is sometimes said that manning scales in this country in some trades are higher than those abroad, and that overseas industry receives subsidies which are not available to our industry. The example of United States legislation which encourages American shipbuilding to use American repair yards is frequently instanced.
Another factor to be remembered is the general attitude in some parts of the industry, on both sides. It has faced dramatic changes in recent years, which have not always been easy for management or workers to adjust to. We must remember this attitude and the industry's communications when talking about competitiveness. This is a field in which my friends in the industry, rather than the Government, can do most, and they must act in certain respects if the industry is to survive.
I would ask my hon. Friend to answer some of the questions about competitiveness. Will he make a detailed assessment of the situation in some of the European repair yards in direct competition with us? That would be well within the capacity of our commercial attaches at embassies in such countries as France, Spain and Portugal. It would help us to assess our competitiveness more accurately.

1589
Will my hon. Friend consider the question of conducting a full examination into the industry in Britain; into the whole aspect of its efficiency, productivity, the use it makes of its resources and its future development? Perhaps machinery like a little "Neddy" could do the job. Will he also look into the promotion of British ship repair yards among British shipowners, since I am sure that more could be clone by way of publicity, advice and so on?
In coming to the regional implications that any changes might have, I stress that this is an industry which, perhaps more than any other, is situated in areas which have serious regional problems. Certain towns, some of them quite small, are utterly dependent on the industry. I am particularly concerned with the situation in Falmouth, my constituency, because in the near future certain sections of the industry in some areas may face a critical situation. The economic pressures are not only intense but are increasing, and towns like Falmouth, which are far from centres of population, are particularly vulnerable because of their relative isolation.
I would not ask for a vast subsidy to be poured into the industry, but steps should be taken to help the industry to help itself. I therefore feel justified in asking for some assistance. If there were a severe rundown in the industry—this particularly applies to West Cornwall and Falmouth—or if a closure occured or even a break-up of the permanent labour force, it would be little short of a catastrophe.
In the area with which I am particularly concerned a permanent labour force was established as the result of an agreement between management and unions. It was a courageous agreement from the point of view of both sides. It was entered into a few years ago, and it is costing a great deal now because of the rundown which has occured in the amount of work available. The catastrophe resulting from, for example, a closure in my part of the world would be of unprecedented magnitude because not only is West Cornwall and Falmouth largely dependent on the industry but our unemployment figures are already a number of times that of the national average. The workers in this area could not find
1590
alternative employment within a radius of 100 to 150 miles.
It would be a catastrophe from a national point of view as well. We should disperse a highly skilled labour force, we should lose managerial know-how that has been built up over a number of years, in Falmouth we should lose the nation's premier oil tanker port, and we would lose a ship repair port of considerable strategic significance from the point of view of Falmouth being the first port for ships coming across the Atlantic and from the Mediterranean.
It is reasonable to say, therefore, that Falmouth is a special case. In case a crisis should arise before the assessments and general considerations to which I have referred have been carried out, I hope that we shall be given an assurance that the Minister will consider taking some sort of emergency measures, perhaps of a temporary nature. This would tide the industry over. If such emergency measures were not taken, the Government's problem in the long run would be even greater.
I have been speaking of an industry which has a real future. It must have the courage to accept change and be willing to re-examine some of the past assumptions that have been made on both sides of it. On the part of the Government there should be greater understanding and possibly assistance. I hope that this debate will help us to achieve these two aims.
7.39 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) has raised this matter, because it has enabled him to develop in an extended form some of the matters which he has recently been seeking to raise in Questions. He has been doing this on behalf of his constituents and in respect of an industry which serves his constituency. I am sure that there can be few hon. Members who are as diligent in the defence of the interests of their constituents as is my hon. Friend.
This also enables us to debate at a little greater length the situation in the ship repair industry and the various possibilities which have been suggested in the House of late for helping that industry.

1591
My hon. Friend says that he wants essentially two things—first, treatment for the ship repair industry equal to that of comparable British industries and, second, the creation of the ability in the British ship repair industry to compete on equal terms with foreign yards.
I should like to begin, therefore, by saying a word about these two general propositions. Taking the second one first, my hon. Friend perhaps falls into a trap when he talks about the subsidies reputed to be given in many foreign countries, and when he speaks of the difficulty that British yards may have in competing with them—the trap of exaggerating in some degree the governmental or other help which our foreign competitors receive, using this as an explanation or an excuse for a failure on the part of the British industry, if such a failure there be, to get its proper share of the world market.
I do not necessarily accept that there has been a significant failure on the part of British industry in this respect. The danger is that if we suggest that all our difficulties flow from governmental or other assistance to our competitors abroad we are almost inciting our own industry to say, in the words of Shakespeare, but using modern terminology, "The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the Government and not in ourselves."
There is a danger in this, because there is no incentive to the industry to make efforts to improve its international competitiveness. I do not wish to imply that it has not been competitive, in the international sense, in the past, but if it is to remain so there is no point in just running on the spot; obviously the pace of international competition is becoming more severe with every week that passes.
My hon. Friend alluded to some problems which the industry has met. He alluded to the growth of new foreign yards and suggested that we had nothing in this country to compare, for example, with the Lisnave yard at Lisbon in terms of size. He said that that yard could repair tankers of 250,000 tons, and soon would be able to repair tankers of 750,000 tons, and that there was no comparable yard in this country. That is true. As my hon. Friend says, this means that tankers of this size are inevitably repaired at Lisbon or elsewhere, and not
1592
in this country. But, as he rightly pointed out, one of the great difficulties for Britain is her geographical situation in respect of large tanker repairs. The normal practice with a large tanker is to clean out its tanks in the early part of its return voyage, which inevitably means that the tanker does not repair at or close to the point of discharge. It is much more likely to repair at some mid-way point on its return voyage.
In this eventuality it is difficult to see what one could do to get this country a fair share of the repair business for large tankers. I do not in any sense rule out the possibility that it may be necessary, at some point and in a suitable location—after receiving a sensible and economically costed proposition—to consider whether or not to invest in a larger repair dock in this country. On the other hand, I do not want to encourage people to believe that this would necessarily mean that we should get a large share of the repair business for large tankers.
My hon. Friend referred also in the same context to the statistics, which indicate that up to the end of 1967 the amount of business taken by British ship repair yards from the British shipping industry was relatively static over a period of years and that the amount of business it was gaining from foreign customers was declining at the end of that period. I draw to my hon. Friend's attention one fact about the last year in the series which he quoted which will explain to him why the figure for the business taken by the British ship repair industry from British shipowners was the same that year as it was the previous year and not higher and why the amount of foreign business that the industry gained was lower. It is a simple fact which one might subsume in one word—Suez.
As my hon. Friend knows, one of the effects of Suez was to place considerable strains on the resources of the world shipping industry. Repairs were put off where they could be put off. In consequence, business necessarily declined for not only the British ship repair industry but for most of the world's ship repair industries in the latter part of 1967 and, indeed, into 1968. It was only in the course of last year that business began to pick up again. It is reasonable to assume that in default of any further major disturbances to the pattern of world shipping

1593
1969 will prove to be the first normal year for some little time. It may therefore be wiser, in comparing a series of annual figures, to wait until we have the figure for this year before deciding whether there is any long-term trend. So I ask my hon. Friend not to be despondent about the moral to be drawn from the figures he quoted.
My hon. Friend also suggested on this same general topic—of creating a new ability on the part of the British industry to compete with foreign yards—that we might look at the legislation of some of our foreign competitors. Not least he referred to the United States. It is well known that the United States provides considerable incentives for its own ship repair industry. In the United States there is a duty of 50 per cent. on nonessential repairs which are effected outside the United States. This is a considerable incentive. This policy is in accord with the Americans' general subsidies to ship construction and ship operation.
Our policy is, and has been for some little time, on the contrary, to try to reach an international agreement on the containment and removal of such barriers to genuine competition. Even if we were to adopt the American measures, it is very doubtful whether it would be to our overall advantage.
Here I come to a very important point. Whereas the American fleet is largely engaged in coastal trade—if trade to Hawaii and Alaska is included in coastal trade—the British fleet is to a considerable extent engaged in cross trades. Many British vessels seldom, if ever, touch our own shores. In this event, it would be patent nonsense to introduce legislation on the American pattern, even if it were desirable in the sense that we believed that we should encourage international subsidies to the ship repair, shipbuilding and ship operating industries, rather than seek to work for their removal. It would be patent nonsense simply because it would be impossible for many British ships to repair in British yards, and it would add to the difficulties of the British shipping industry if British vessels were in general required to repair in British yards, because that industry, too, faces fierce international competition. Anything the Government did to
1594
add to the costs of that industry by forcing it to repair in Britain, rather than in what proved to be the most convenient and economic points for a particular ship on a particular voyage, could only lead to its becoming internationally less competitive.
Therefore, any suggestion that we should ape the United States is perhaps a little wrong-headed. There are other countries that in some degree help their ship repair industry, but there is nothing in the world comparable to the United States' legislation. Italy, for example, gives subsidies for conversions in Italian yards, and Canada grants tax benefits for conversions, but this is a rather specialised field.
In general, we find that most countries adopt the same practice as we do. Denmark, Federal Germany, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and Greece, just like the United Kingdom, give customs duty rebates on imported materials for ship repair work. That is the sum total of their direct subsidy to the industry. In this sense our industry is on all fours with most of the world's ship repair industry.
My hon. Friend also asked for comparable treatment with other British industry, and he instanced agriculture at some length. I am not sure whether the parallel is or can be with agriculture, and I am not sure where the parallel can be with much of manufacturing industry. The best thing I can do on this topic is to tell him that if he can make some detailed and sensible suggestion as to how we could help the ship repair industry in such a way as to increase its long-term competitiveness, rather than, to use the popular phrase, to feather-bed it in the short term, I should be very happy to consider it and to think again as to whether anything could be done to help this industry specifically. But to date I have never seen such a proposal.
In most areas in which the ship repair industry flourishes—by no means all, but certainly in my hon. Friend's constituency—the industry already receives pretty hefty regional benefits, not only in terms of help for new investment but R.E.P. and S.E.T. premiums, which help with labour-costs in what is essentially a labour-intensive industry. If my hon. Friend can think of any other substantial way in

1595
which we can help the industry I shall be glad to hear it.
It has been suggested that we might encourage re-grouping inside the industry. There is possibly something in this, but much of the industry is already grouped. One can point to the Swan Hunter and Smith's Dock consortium, and the Falmouth firm of Silley Cox is linked with R. H. Green and Silley Weir in the Port of London. So one could go on. There has been grouping, and this is not an industry where one could expect a response to grouping of the kind one can expect in ship building, because there the economies of scale are likely to be substantially higher. If my hon. Friend will think again about this, I am quite prepared to think again myself.
1596
My hon. Friend spoke about the regional implications of the difficulties of the firm in his constituency and firms elsewhere, and asked whether I would consider emergency measures for Falmouth in the event of a crisis. If there were a serious crisis of employment in Falmouth, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments would, of course, immediately consider what the Government could do to help. But I cannot give him any assurance in advance today that we should be able to help a specific firm in a specific way.
I hope that my hon. Friend will rest content with what I have been able to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock a.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Official Transport (Expenditure)
  Official Transport (Expenditure)
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Flood Damage
  Flood Damage
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance
  Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Zoos
  Zoos
  York (Lord Esher's Report)
  York (Lord Esher's Report)
  Countryside (Long-Distance Routes)
  Countryside (Long-Distance Routes)
  Sand and Gravel Reserves
  Sand and Gravel Reserves
  Water Resources
  Water Resources
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1968
  Leasehold Reform Act, 1968
  Industrial Floor Space (Park Royal)
  Industrial Floor Space (Park Royal)
  Gatwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  Gatwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  River Authorities (Water Abstraction Charges)
  River Authorities (Water Abstraction Charges)
  Television Masts (Siting)
  Television Masts (Siting)
  Abandoned Motor Vehicles
  Abandoned Motor Vehicles
  South Hampshire
  South Hampshire
  Houses (Betterment Charge)
  Houses (Betterment Charge)
  Sausage Factory (Complaint of Nuisance)
  Sausage Factory (Complaint of Nuisance)
  Rivers (Minimum Acceptable Flows)
  Rivers (Minimum Acceptable Flows)
HOUSING
  House Improvement Grants
  House Improvement Grants
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Interest Charges
  Interest Charges
  Multiple Occupation
  Multiple Occupation
  National House Builders Registration Council (Certificate)
  National House Builders Registration Council (Certificate)
  Electricity (Resale Charge)
  Electricity (Resale Charge)
  Home Loans
  Home Loans
  Accommodation (Advertisements)
  Accommodation (Advertisements)
  Windows
  Windows
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
  Mortgage Option Scheme
  Mortgage Option Scheme
  Land
  Land
  Leaseholders (Harassment)
  Leaseholders (Harassment)
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Council Houses (Floor Area)
  Council Houses (Floor Area)
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Earned Income Allowance (Guide Dogs)
  Earned Income Allowance (Guide Dogs)
  Building Societies (Taxation)
  Building Societies (Taxation)
  Bank Rates
  Bank Rates
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Fanning Industry (Bad Weather Conditions)
  Fanning Industry (Bad Weather Conditions)
  Legal Charges (Duty)
  Legal Charges (Duty)
  House Mortgages (Stamp Duty)
  House Mortgages (Stamp Duty)
  Unpaid Taxes
  Unpaid Taxes
  Public Expenditure and National Income
  Public Expenditure and National Income
  Nationalised Industries (Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (Loans)
  Budget
  Budget
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Rambi Island
  Rambi Island
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Granite Quarries, Boddam
  Granite Quarries, Boddam
  Deep-water Iron Ore Terminal, Hunterston
  Deep-water Iron Ore Terminal, Hunterston
  Loans (Waiver)
  Loans (Waiver)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Life)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Life)
  Steelworks, Sheffield (Capital Investment)
  Steelworks, Sheffield (Capital Investment)
ELECTRICITY
  Oven Door Catches (Charges)
  Oven Door Catches (Charges)
  Costs (Nuclear Power Stations)
  Costs (Nuclear Power Stations)
ROADS
  Maintenance Expenditure
  Maintenance Expenditure
  Snow Clearance
  Snow Clearance
  Highway Strategy (Green Paper)
  Highway Strategy (Green Paper)
TRANSPORT
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northern Ireland (British Standard Time)
  Northern Ireland (British Standard Time)
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Assizes (Shrewsbury, Stafford and Worcester)
  Assizes (Shrewsbury, Stafford and Worcester)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Drug Offences (Harrow)
  Drug Offences (Harrow)
  Drunkenness Convictions, Young Persons (London)
  Drunkenness Convictions, Young Persons (London)
  Violence
  Violence
BOARD OF TRADE
  Newspaper Industry
  Newspaper Industry
  New Towns (Industrial Investment Grants)
  New Towns (Industrial Investment Grants)
  Art Auctions
  Art Auctions
  Plant Hirers (Grants)
  Plant Hirers (Grants)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Heathrow Airport (Aircraft Movements)
  Heathrow Airport (Aircraft Movements)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Research Establishments (Staff)
  Research Establishments (Staff)
  Information Officers
  Information Officers
  Civil Service College Branches (Scotland)
  Civil Service College Branches (Scotland)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Fortuna Special Steel Company Limited, Chesterfield
  Fortuna Special Steel Company Limited, Chesterfield
  Tile Hill, Coventry
  Tile Hill, Coventry
  Telephone Calls (Charges)
  Telephone Calls (Charges)
  Electronic Exchanges
  Electronic Exchanges
  Telecommunications
  Telecommunications
  London Telephone Exchanges (Sites)
  London Telephone Exchanges (Sites)
POST OFFICE
  Telegrams
  Telegrams
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Wavelengths (International Conference)
  Wavelengths (International Conference)
SCOTLAND
  Education (Draft Regulations)
  Education (Draft Regulations)
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Lanarkshire Schools (Football)
  Lanarkshire Schools (Football)
  Deep-Water Berth and Ore Terminal, Clydeside
  Deep-Water Berth and Ore Terminal, Clydeside
  Part-time Education (Glasgow)
  Part-time Education (Glasgow)
  Laurel Hill, Stirling
  Laurel Hill, Stirling
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Social Work Department
  Social Work Department
  School Staff (Lanarkshire)
  School Staff (Lanarkshire)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Employees)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Employees)
  Primary Schools, Lanarkshire (Size of Classes)
  Primary Schools, Lanarkshire (Size of Classes)
  Conditionally Registered Teachers
  Conditionally Registered Teachers
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Crofter Counties Road Programme
  Crofter Counties Road Programme
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service School Accommodation, Hamm
  Service School Accommodation, Hamm
  R.A.F. Potential-Officer Training (Comprehensive Schools)
  R.A.F. Potential-Officer Training (Comprehensive Schools)
  Northern and Western Commands (Future)
  Northern and Western Commands (Future)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  ANGUILLA OPERATION (SECURITY)
  ANGUILLA OPERATION (SECURITY)
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT PROCESSES)
  CIVIL SERVICE (RECRUITMENT PROCESSES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Pensions and Average Earnings
  Retirement Pensions and Average Earnings
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Medical Graduates
  Medical Graduates
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Doctors (Emigration)
  Voluntary Help
  Voluntary Help
  Health and Welfare Services Employees (Wales)
  Health and Welfare Services Employees (Wales)
  Members' Letters
  Members' Letters
  Census
  Census
HOSPITALS
  Hull Maternity Hospital (Nursing Auxiliaries)
  Hull Maternity Hospital (Nursing Auxiliaries)
  Hull Royal Infirmary Children's Convalescent Home
  Hull Royal Infirmary Children's Convalescent Home
  Hull Royal Infirmary
  Hull Royal Infirmary
  Children's Convalescent Home, Hornsea
  Children's Convalescent Home, Hornsea
  Ely Hospital, Cardiff
  Ely Hospital, Cardiff
TECHNOLOGY
  Naval Air Department, Bedford (Catapults)
  Naval Air Department, Bedford (Catapults)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Chelmsley Wood
  Chelmsley Wood
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Highley Colliery (Redundant Miners)
  Highley Colliery (Redundant Miners)
  Strikers (Temporary Employment)
  Strikers (Temporary Employment)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nuclear Planning)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nuclear Planning)
WALES
  Severn River (Survey)
  Severn River (Survey)
  Planning Act (Local Authority Functions)
  Planning Act (Local Authority Functions)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Capital Grants (Private Sector)
  Capital Grants (Private Sector)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967
  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education (Brighton)
  Comprehensive Education (Brighton)
  Medical Students
  Medical Students

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

ABORTION STATISTICS
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, who is ill, I beg to ask the first Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of abortions carried out since last April under the Abortion Act 1967, distinguishing if possible those carried out under paragraph 1(1)(a) from those under paragraph 1(1)(b); and also the number of abortions carried out in each of the three previous years.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, 28,849 abortions carried out under the Act in England and Wales were notified to the Chief Medical Officer during the period April 27, 1968, to February 25, 1969. The number of abortions carried out during the period on each of the grounds specified in Schedule 2 of the Abortion Regulations 1968 were as follows:

Ground 1—risk to life of woman

1,350

Ground 2—risk to physical or mental health of woman

20,746

Ground 3—risk to physical or mental health of existing children

1,137

Ground 4—risk of bearing physically or mentally handicapped child

965

Ground 5—emergency — to save life of woman

14

Ground 6—emergency — to prevent grave injury to woman's health

38

1136
A further 4,599 abortions were stated to have been carried out for more than one of these reasons.
The estimated numbers of therapeutic abortions carried out in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales during the last three years for which information is available were as follows: 1965, 4,530; 1966, 6,380; 1967, 7,610. The numbers of abortions carried out before April 27 last in places other than National Health Service hospitals are not known.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, which will be carefully studied.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell the House how many of these abortions were carried out on persons not domiciled in this country?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am aware of reports in the Press and elsewhere to the effect that a number of foreign women are coming to this country for the purpose of having a pregnancy terminated privately. The latest information available indicates that at the end of 1968 about 50 abortions were being performed each week on women from abroad, almost all of them in approved places and concentrated in London.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a recent television programme suggested that a great number of these private abortions were carried out by surgeons not properly qualified? Have the Government looked into this matter?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I did not see the television programme to which the noble Lord has referred. Naturally my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are keeping this matter under close review, and we have no evidence substantiating the kind of point that the noble Lord has just made.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the figures she has given for the three years preceding the passage of the Act bear absolutely no relationship to the numbers of abortions actually carried out over that period?
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the extortionate charges of some private

1137
nursing homes for performing this operation, would my noble friend consider asking her right honourable friend whether in some cases the Minister would consider withdrawing approval from these nursing homes for the carrying out of these operations?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am aware of the concern which has been expressed in the Press and elsewhere about the rate of charges for abortions carried out in private nursing homes. I must remind the House that the statutory limit on fees chargeable by practitioners to their private patients in National Health Service hospitals was removed in January, 1967. It would therefore be difficult for my right honourable friend to reimpose charges throughout, but I have taken note of the noble Lord's point and we will consider the suggestion he has made.

IMMIGRANTS AND ILLEGAL ENTRY
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the second Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the effect of the provision in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 that an illegally entering immigrant becomes immune from further proceedings if not required to submit to examination within twenty-eight days from the date on which he landed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that an illegal immigrant becomes immune from proceedings after 28 days. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 extended from 24 hours to 28 days the period after landing in the United Kingdom during which a Commonwealth citizen can be required to submit to examination and can be refused admission if the immigration officer considers that to be the proper course. But the Act also made it a criminal offence for a Commonwealth citizen to land in the United Kingdom without examination by
1138
an immigration officer, and for this an immigrant is liable to prosecution, subject only to the general limitation of six months on the institution of proceedings for summary offences. The Act of 1968 has proved to be a notable deterrent to clandestine immigration. Instances are rare, and there are adequate powers to deal with them.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is it the case that if a prosecution is successful a deportation order can be made?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is the case that a deportation order could be made, but it would be entirely a matter for the decision of the Home Secretary according to the circumstances of the case.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS LABOUR FORCE
2.42 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: 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, arising out of the Statement on Defence Estimates, they will adopt a more liberal policy regarding industrial development certificates and office development permits for the towns with Royal Dockyards, so as to allow adequate time for the planning and building of alternative places of employment; and whether they will bear in mind that most other industries employ a lower proportion of male labour so that considerable development may be necessary to absorb the male labour that would otherwise have gone to these dockyards.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords: the reduction in the labour force in the dockyards at Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport will take place over several years and will largely be achieved by natural wastage. The industrial development certificate and the office development permit controls are administered flexibly and full

1139
account is taken of local employment needs.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that in the Portsmouth area the percentage of wholly unemployed has for many years been well above the national average, and that unless action is taken it is likely to be something like 5 per cent. in the winter months?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that Portsmouth's average of wholly unemployed is some 0·8 per cent. above the national average but as my noble friend will know, because of his relationship with that part of the world, ambitious plans exist for the development of office accommodation in Portsmouth, and the Board of Trade are giving these plans urgent consideration.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord.

POSTMARKING OF MAIL
2.38 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that all mail is postmarked with the date and the time, as well as the place, of posting.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, postmarks are impressed to cancel the postage stamps and to enable the Post Office to control the handling of mail. First-class letters posted in letter boxes hear impressions related to the date and time of collection. Times are omitted, however, during the Christmas period, and since 1922 they have not been shown on some printed papers and more recently on second-class mail. Bulk postings handed in at post offices hear a code or other impression instead of a date. These arrangements have proved satisfactory. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has no cause to make any change.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask whether he is aware that in
1140
some cases the stamps are franked, but without the date and without the time, which leaves it impossible for anyone to know when the letter was posted?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord does not remember that there was a Post Office strike at the time this happened, which commenced on January 29 of this year. In the circumstances, the second-class mail was set aside so that the promised priority should be given to first-class mail.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the strike is over and that I received yesterday four letters paid for with 5d. pre-paid stamps, which were not cancelled with either the date or time or place and had no franking on them whatsoever?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that was probably due to a mechanical failure. Perhaps I may tell the House that a noble Lord who is not a member of my Party told me—and I am quite prepared to give details after these questions—of a big business in the City of London, where 400 to 500 letters arrive every morning. A special check was made on these deliveries and no fault whatever was found with any of them.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, how can the noble Lord claim that 94 per cent. of first-class mail arrives the day after posting, if on some occasions the date and the time are not mentioned on letters?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have answered that point already.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider that it was due to a mechanical failure that a letter with a 5d. stamp, posted to me at 7.30 one night, eleven miles away from my home, was delivered 60 hours afterwards?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will kindly let me have that letter I will look into the point.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, 30 noble Lords have put their names down to speak on the Private Member's Bill which we have before us later this afternoon and clearly this poses some problems. Dinner

1141
will be served between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. this evening, which solves one of the problems. I venture to say that another could be solved if Peers were rather more sparing of words than was the case last Tuesday. Even allowing for adequate time for my noble friend Lord Raglan, who is moving his Bill, if each Peer were to restrict his speech to 10 minutes—which is one column length of The Times—the debate would take rather less than six hours and we could rise well before 10 o'clock. I believe that this would commend itself to the House as a whole, and I trust that noble Lords may not find disfavour with it.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
RYDE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Horserace Betting Levy Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Use of spring traps other than approved traps no longer to be authorized]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 2 of this Act,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are two Amendments to this Bill and I propose to speak to them together. The Amendments are consequential upon the new clause, now Clause 2, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and carried on a Division at Report. They are drafting Amendments, the effect of which is to make the new clause acceptable and to fit it in properly with the text of the Bill. The first clause removes, from the appointed day, the Secretary of State's power to make and withdraw orders authorising the use of unapproved traps, subject, in the terms of the first Amendment, to Clause 2, which removes that power so far as otters are concerned from the earlier date. The second Amendment corrects the way in which Clause 1 is referred to in Clause 3. This is necessary because the new clause has been inserted as Clause 2, and the original clause has become Clause 3.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me while I briefly draw attention to one consequence of the new clause, which does not, however, give rise to an Amendment. The clause will have the effect of repealing completely the present order authorising the use of gin traps against both foxes and otters. The order will not be repealed only in so far as it applies to otters, which I am sure was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Barton. However, this does not present us with insuperable difficulties, because the Secretary of State can readily make an order authorising the use of gin traps against foxes only to come into operation on July 1. That order would, in turn, be nullified on the appointed day referred to in Clause 3 of the Bill. On the assumption that the Bill is enacted in its present form, it would be the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to proceed in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Meaning of appointed day]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("the foregoing section") and insert ("section 1 of this Act"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment Report received.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
2.53 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As many of your Lordships know, this subject is not new to your Lordships' House. In 1936, a Bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia was moved by the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulebrede. In 1950 my noble friend Lord Chorley (who to his great regret cannot be here to-day) moved a Motion calling attention to the need for legalising euthanasia. I shall not refer to those debates to-day except to acknowledge with deep gratitude the efforts of both those noble Lords and of those who supported them at the time, including my noble friend Lord
1144
Huntingdon, who I am glad to see will be speaking to-day.
I think that I have good reason to believe that opinion generally has become so favourable to a change in the law that the time is ripe, not to bring a Motion to test your Lordships' opinion but to introduce another Bill incorporating changes in the proposed formalities and safeguards, which I think were rightly criticised in the previous Bill, and which I, with some confidence, hope your Lordships will think a sound basis for legislation. When my noble friend Lord Longford was criticising the Abortion Bill he made a prophecy that it would be "euthanasia next". In fact, it was quite a safe prophecy to make, because this Bill, as I see it, is one in line with recent measures, such as the Suicide Act and others, which betoken a change of attitude in our society towards the freedom of the individual.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lord, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it may have been absolutely safe at the time, but it was treated as completely ridiculous. I do not know whether that is within the recollection of the noble Lord.
LORD RAGLAN: There is nowadays less inclination to demand that the State should legislate in areas of private conscience and behaviour: on the contrary, there is a growing demand for the repeal or modification of existing legislation where it is thought to be unwarrantably restrictive of private choice. In fact, it may seem in some respects surprising that voluntary euthanasia has not already become legal, but the chief reason is, I believe, that those who most wish for it, the old and the very infirm, are, by their very nature, not in a position to mount an energetic and articulate campaign. Those who suffer and die slowly may not have much to say for themselves; and death itself is the most private experience of all. So it is left to their relatives and friends to ponder the matter and to wonder, too, whether they will have to suffer in the same way. One American journalist, who had watched his sister die, wrote that,
"spending up to 22 hours a day for almost two months, in the hospital room of someone you love, witnessing not the prolongation of life but the long-drawing-out of dying, leaves you looking at such things quite differently to the way you ever had before."

1145
I do not think I can adequately describe the feelings of the people who have written or spoken to me, and I will not quote them. But it may seem paradoxical that the science of medicine, by the very competence of its resuscitatory techniques, has increased many people's fear of a vegetable existence beyond their normal span. I know that there are objections to this Bill. They are moral and ethical, religious, medical and practical. But I am bound to say to your Lordships that since the Bill was published I have been constantly encouraged and heartened by the sheer number of people, strangers as well as friends, who have wished the Bill well; and the letters I have received have been overwhelmingly—ten to one—in favour of the Bill.
It is a fact that most dying people cling to life. But the purpose of this Bill is to give to others, though they be the minority, the freedom not to live on if they do not or would not choose to. It has not always been considered that one's life is one's own. It used to be thought to be the property of the State, and to some extent it still is the case. Conscription into the Armed Services is one example. But, since the 1961 Suicide Act, to kill oneself is no longer a crime, a felony, and one is free to attempt it without fear of prosecution. So it is not a question of whether people should be given the right to kill themselves—this they already have; it is whether that liberty should be extended, under certain safeguards, to those dying people who are in no position to help themselves and would like to have their lives terminated by the kindly action of medication administered by the agency of another.
Voluntary euthanasia has a very ancient history on the battlefield. Many a dying soldier has asked his friend to kill him. The circumstances in which euthanasia is wished and prayed for, in hospital or the home, are of course quite different from those of the battlefield. Modern methods can keep people alive, sometimes it seems almost indefinitely, and they can lie in a twilight between life and death for long periods and in great discomfort, misery and world weariness, severely maimed in body and perhaps in mind, and the will to live long gone. Their bodies and their personalities may have disintegrated to such a degree that life has become a meaningless burden to
1146
them and they look forward to the relief which death can bring them.
Some people think that the process of dying should be and can be spiritually ennobling and even quite a cheerful experience. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, himself a distinguished geriatrician, for taking me to see the wonderful work of Dr. Cicely Saunders at Streatham. It might be said that if everyone could spend his last days in such surroundings there would be no need for this Bill. But not only would that leave out of account the fact that, out of the approximately 680,000 people who die in this country every year, only a tiny fraction can go into such an institution—though with money and education that situation might in time be changed—it leaves out those who do not wish to eke out their lives in this way. Indeed, about half the 680,000 I have mentioned die in their home or a relative's home, and it seems very understandable that they should wish to. I myself should like to die in my own home if I could.
Dr. Saunders's objection to voluntary euthanasia is that it is:
"a flat denial of God's power and wisdom, and above all, of His love".
I would put it the other way round: that her loving care and zealous attention are the manifestation of her personal faith, a reconciliation between it and the facts of living and dying. My belief, and I hope it is that of your Lordships, is that others should be allowed to be free, not only to form but to act upon their own interpretation of those facts, because in so doing what they ask for is only between themselves and their Maker, or if they are agnostic they believe it will affect only them. I hope very much that the kind of work which Dr. Saunders and others are doing will be followed, at least as far as more normal staffing ratios will allow, and especially as, with the modern break-up of family units, the old and the dying simply do not get the family affection and attention which they used to be able to demand.
But the provisions in the Bill go hand in hand with improvements in care and treatment, and I think that no one should seek to deny them to those who want

1147
them on the grounds that they are unethical or immoral. We all have the right to live as long as we can. But in the end, as we all have to die, surely it is right that, having filled life with as much as luck, medical science and our own abilities and opportunities have enabled us to do, we should all be allowed to die at such a time and in such a way as we would choose and not just in the way that someone else has chosen for us. I am in no position to pronounce upon the theology involved but I would point out that pain and suffering used to be declared God's punishment for sins, and that the more one suffered in this world the better place one would be likely to obtain in the next.
It may seem hardly believable now that the introduction of anæsthetics was opposed, as indeed it was, for just those reasons. I think that before the days of anæsthetics such an idea would indeed have been a great consolation to those in pain—to believe that they were being prepared for the Great Beyond—but this doctrine has now very largely been abandoned, I think, and doctors of all creeds now give large doses of sedatives, even though by doing so they may be shortening a person's life. Many doctors maintain a distinction between shortening a life and actively terminating it, but the principle has become established that it is better in terminal cases that a human being die than that he be allowed to suffer great pain. I think it very important in any discussion upon voluntary euthanasia that the general acceptance of this principle should be borne in mind.
So now I come to the doctors' part in this matter, which of course is very important indeed. I am informed that the British Medical Association are opposed to the Bill. I think that I can not inaccurately sum up what I understand to be their opinion in four words: "Leave it to us". That it is left to them, and that most of them shoulder the responsibility, is exemplified in the reply by Dr. Donald Gould in a B.B.C. television programme on the 7th of this month. When referring to such a thing as the withdrawal of antibiotics leading to death, he said:
"This has been done—it has been done throughout history, I imagine; that the doctor does, at a time when his sensibility tells him it is the right thing to do, help some un
1148
fortunate suffering creature over the edge and, you know, out of the condition of distress."
This is borne out by a poll conducted by National Opinion Polls in January, 1965, on a sample of 1,000 doctors: 76·2 per cent. agreed (I quote from the question) that
"some medical men do in fact help their patients over the last hurdle in order to save them unnecessary suffering, even if that involves some curtailment of life".
Though it does not generally seem to be admitted by those who oppose voluntary euthanasia, it is easier for the wealthy to choose a doctor or nursing home to minister to their every want, including their desire for a peaceful death. This is no allegation that hospital doctors are less humane than others; such an allegation would of course be absurd. It is simply that it is usually the case that, especially in National Health hospitals, they have to have very strict rules and, what is more, those who themselves believe in euthanasia can be reported by those who do not. So, apart from the usual luck of the draw as to who happens to be your doctor, what we have at the present time is a better opportunity for the rich than for the poor. Again, it is a criticism by those doctors who advocate the legislation of voluntary euthanasia that many doctors who do administer euthanasia do so too slowly and too late, and that the enthusiasm of physicians for modern methods of resuscitation blurs their judgment. Doctors are taught to look upon these things as technical problems and not as individual human problems. So it becomes the medical ethic and medical ambition to keep people alive for as long as possible.
It has been said that doctors can, and should, be taught a different attitude towards their patients, and as I intimated earlier I am sure that much could be done in education aimed at providing better terminal care. I believe that there would be general agreement on that point. But this still would mean that the doctor would be in a constant dilemma of reconciling, on the one hand, the fundamental objective of his calling—which is the preservation of life, with something that is subjective, the prevention of needless suffering. So far from making legislation unnecessary, the contrary is the case, because under this Bill a doctor would be able to obtain guidance from the patient as to how these

1149
rival considerations might be balanced in the patient's case.
I find it hardly surprising that, of the doctors who were questioned in the survey I have mentioned, no fewer than 36·4 per cent., said that if voluntary euthanasia were made legal they would be prepared to administer it, because it would let them off the hook by bringing the patient's wishes into the calculation. I pointed out earlier that in one respect doctors have already achieved this reconciliation between the objective and the subjective, between the technical and the philosophical, and that is in the relief of great pain. The patient cries out, and a dose is given; then next time perhaps the dose is a bigger one, until such a large dose has to be given that it proves fatal. So the patient has asked for relief and the doctor, in his compassion has given it, even unto death. This is established practice and therefore I do not think many doctors will disagree with Clause 8 of the Bill, which has been inserted for the removal of doubt and the endorsement of law.
But the doctor's dilemma—and it is an awesome and lonely responsibility—comes principally where there is not the presence of great pain to provide an an obvious guide as to what to do. I will not give instances, but there are irremediable terminal conditions which can be accompanied by great mental suffering. It is in conditions of this kind that a person may feel that he is no longer a person, but just existing, perhaps a travesty of himself. Good doctors are aware of this feeling in the patient, but as the law stands there is nothing they can do. In such a situation, the declaration in the Schedule to the Bill would give them ethical guidance as to what the patient wished, and the doctor would be enabled to accede to that wish.
I will now take your Lordships through the Bill as shortly as I can. Clause 1 makes it lawful for a physician to give enthanasia subject to the provisions in the Bill. Clause 2 says that a declaration will come into force 30 days after being made. This avoids the death-bed formalities which were so criticised in the case of the other Bill. Unless revoked, the declaration will remain in force for three years. After three years it automatically lapses, unless it is re-executed within the 12 months preceding its expiry date, when it will remain
1150
in force for life. Thus it is assumed that if a person has twice signed such a declaration he really means it.
Clause 3 makes it clear that a declaration can be revoked at any time. Clauses 4 and 5 are straightforward, and give the duties, rights and protection of physicians and nurses. Clause 6 makes it an offence wilfully to conceal, destroy, falsify or forge a declaration. Clause 7 says that no policy of insurance which has been in force for 12 months shall be vitiated. Clause 8 I have already mentioned. The first part entitles a patient to whatever quantity of drugs may be required to keep him free from pain. The second part deals with severe stress which cannot be relieved by the ordinary pain-killing drugs, and would make the law clear on a point on which I am advised it is not clear at the moment. Clause 9 gives the power to the Secretary of State for Social Services to make regulations under the Act. In the Schedule will be found the proposed declaration, which I think is self-explanatory. I am perfectly prepared, of course, to be told, that a better form of words could be found, or that modification to the existing words should be made. I am open to all suggestions, and should welcome them. In substance, however, I hope your Lordships will be reasonably well satisfied that the declaration says what it means.
Some of your Lordships may have visions of friends or relations clamouring that some poor old aunt should put her name to a declaration, so I hope your Lordships will notice that the testification will be by two people of recognised stature, to be approved by the Secretary of State, and that they will have to declare that they know of no pressure being brought on the declarant. This is a much better safeguard than the law at present requires when a will is made. Nevertheless, I think I should say that a declaration bears not the smallest resemblance to a death warrant; it only indicates to a doctor a declarant's wishes, and it is only at the discretion of two doctors that euthanasia would be administered. I must emphasise that there is nothing in this Bill which makes anybody do anything, except perhaps in Clause 8 which gives the patient in certain circumstances a right to drugs.
My Lords, it has been alleged that the provisions in the Bill would destroy people's confidence in their doctors, and

1151
that they are inconsistent with the doctor/patient relationship. As I have already said, this Bill would for several reasons be a practical help to both patients and doctors. But, in any case, not only would no one sign a declaration unless he wished to, but no one would sign a declaration unless he had full confidence in his doctor. The confidence would not be that the doctor would, in his case, try to keep him alive for as long as possible, but that the doctor would end life when it became unbearable. Therefore, far from destroying the doctor/patient relationship it would undoubtedly help to generate more confidence and trust than exists at the moment, at any rate in some cases.
Lastly, my Lords I have heard it said that the Bill if enacted would cheapen life and would lead to an attitude in which life was not held to be so precious as it is now. But we are now slowly emerging from past eras when life really has been held cheaply; when battle, murder and sudden death have been the common experience of mankind. At no time in history has life been held so valuable as it is to-day. And, due to medical science, at no time have people been able to look forward to so long a life as they can now. I think it is highly significant that for the first time, up and down the country, we are talking not only about the length of life, but about the quality of it, too. This Bill is a liberal and humanitarian measure for those who treasure for themselves the quality of life as much as its quantity. It is because I believe that this balance between quantity and quality is one which people should be free to strike for themselves that I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now read a second time,
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Raglan.)
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out the word "now" and insert at the end "this day six months". I find myself in a position of some strangeness, for I am about to urge the rejection of a Bill while approving, or at any rate sympathising with, its aims. Indeed, few. I think, would fail to sym-
1152
pathise, for the motive that informs it is compassion, and the deep and genuine compassion of its sponsor has been made perfectly clear beyond all doubt by the noble Lord's own speech.
I oppose the Bill because I believe it to be a bad Bill, inadequately thought out, ill-drafted and riddled with loopholes and ambiguities of the most dangerous kind; and above all because it fails in what it chiefly ought to do and what its supporters claim it does do. It provides no reliable safeguards for the the patient. For some patients it provides no safeguards—none at all—and a few it even exposes to the risk of manslaughter and conceivably, in extreme cases, of murder. All this I say without meaning to imply either disapproval or approval of the idea behind the Bill. Debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia as a principle I leave to other noble Lords who will follow me in the debate.
Euthanasia, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition, is:
"Gentle and easy death; the bringing about of this, especially in case of incurable and painful disease".
For the purpose of the Bill, therefore, it is the bringing about of gentle and easy death. The Bill defines it in Clause 1(2) as "the painless inducement of death". But an inducement is something you offer to somebody to persuade him to do something, and painless death can be brought about with a hammer or a hand grenade. So it is not, to put it mildly, a very good definition. Incidentally, it contains the only mention of pain in the whole of the Bill. Perhaps noble Lords will suspect me of triviality in picking on so small a thing, but the point is this: what kind of Bill are we to expect from a draftsman or draftsmen capable of so grotesque a definition of the very thing that forms both the subject and the object of the Bill? Will anyone blame me for reading on with a suspicious eye?
I began to be suspicious of this Bill at a very early stage. My attention was directed, as I suspect was that of most of those who have read the Bill, to what are described, and have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, as the safeguards, and of which I have said in fact there are none. I find, to my astonishment, that there are only two safeguards properly so-called, and they operate only

1153
with the declaration itself that the person or future sufferer has to make. I refer to the two subsections of Clause 6 which impose appropriately strong penalties for misdemeanours in connection with the declaration itself. From that point onwards such safeguards as there be are for the protection of the doctor or the nurse, while the patient is on his own. This is so far removed from the obvious intention of the Bill that I must be at some pains to explain why I believe it to be true, but I think I shall have little difficulty in convincing your Lordships that I am right if you will follow me in considering what might happen in one or two particular cases.
To begin with, a person—not yet necessarily a patient but a person—signs the declaration set out in the Schedule, or something substantially in that form. For the moment the only part of what he has actually signed that we need pay attention to is that part contained in some of the words in paragraph A:
"If I should at any time suffer from a serious physical illness or impairment reasonably thought in my case to be incurable and expected to cause me severe distress … I request the administration of euthanasia."
In these words he has signed, if not an authority, at least an indemnification for his own manslaughter, if not murder.
But before I explain that highly provocative statement perhaps noble Lords would glance at the form of attestation in that last paragraph of the Schedule on page 4. This has to be signed by two witnesses under appropriate safeguards which the noble Lord has mentioned—safeguards, that is, concerning the reliability and standing of the witnesses—and they will be deemed to have committed an offence under the Perjury Act 1911 if they wilfully put their signatures to a statement they know to be false. In point of fact they have to sign six statements, five of which could almost certainly never be quoted against a signatory witness in evidence of perjury. Those five are:
"The declarant"—
that is, the prospective candidate for euthanasia—
" … appeared to appreciate"
the significance of the declaration that he signed.
"We do not know of any pressure being brought on him …
we believe it is made by his own wish.
1154
So far as we are aware, we are entitled to attest this declaration and
do not stand to benefit by the death of the declarant."
"So far as we are aware", "the declarent appeared", "we believe"—how could you ever hope to pin anyone down on such negative non-committal testimony as that? It leaves only ore statement genuinely amenable to sanction of the law, namely:
"We testify that the above-named declarant signed this declaration in our presence."
But suppose he did not sign. Then his life might depend on the word of any two people who are prepared to testify that he
"… was unable to write but assented to this declaration in our presence, and appeared to appreciate its significance."
I said the Bill was full of loopholes. These words provide a loophole big enough for murder.
Now let us return to the declarant. All we know about him at present is that he is over the age of majority and that he has signed the declaration. A couple of years or so later he re-executes it, and unless he revokes it, it remains in force for the rest of his life. The years, go by and he falls ill. More, he becomes a "qualified patient" as defined in Clause 1(2). To this status of qualified patient he is appointed by the action of two physicians (one being of consultant status) who certify in writing that the patient appears to them to be suffering from a serious physical illness reasonably thought in his case to be incurable and expected to cause him severe distress. This condition would be met if these two doctors, either singly or together, were to certify that he was suffering from, say, chronic bronchitis or some other severely distressing complaint that they though: could reasonably be described in his case as incurable. Interpretation of "serious illness" and "severe distress" is left entirely to their discretion.
More time goes by. The patient falls on evil days. He loses his wife, his livelihood, his home. Life holds no solace for him any more and he gives way to despair. He succumbs to an onset of his "irremediable condition". To the doctor who attends him—a strange doctor, possibly, whom he has never seen before—he presents his declaration and certificate or certificates and asks for euthanasia. The doctor considers his own duties and rights

1155
under Clause 4(1) of the Bill and finds that all that is required of him is that he shall satisfy himself that the patient is mentally responsible and that
"… the declaration and all steps proposed to be taken under it accord with the patient's wishes."
There is no difficulty about that, and the doctor is perfectly free to decide at his own sole discretion and without reference to anyone whether or not to kill the man. Suicide by proxy—is that what you intend, my Lords? I do not know; but that is what you would be legalising if you passed this Bill as it now stands. Is it right to put such responsibility on to the shoulders of a doctor? Five doctors are to speak in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
Let us suppose a different sort of case. Imagine that in his early days a man has had a morbid fear of cancer and has made his declaration with that possibility in mind and no other. Many years later he is badly injured in a motor accident, perhaps irrevocably paralysed; perhaps he loses both his legs. He is taken to hospital in a coma of unpredictable duration. There is no difficulty here of certifying him as a qualified patient. Somebody comes forward with his declaration that he has signed years before and the request for euthanasia is complete. Since he is not mentally responsible, the declaration exactly covers his present condition. He is even asked in paragraph B of the declaration that no attempt shall be made to restore him to consciousness, and there is no one who knows that he never intended his declaration to operate in such a situation as this. Again, the responsibility lies with the doctor; but this time he has no means of knowing whether the lethal needle will be an instrument of longed-for mercy or of legal manslaughter.
There are endless permutations of the possibility of error and also of abuse which I think it is hardly necessary for me to indicate. However, may I briefly mention just one other conceivable contingency. Once more we have a "qualified patient", but he is conscious and mentally responsible and has no intention of giving the go-ahead for his own extinction as required by paragraph A of the declaration. The physician (who knows of the declaration but has no thought of
1156
implementing it) prescribes some drug. A nurse in error administers an overdose and the patient dies. The doctor learns what has happened. If he wishes to cover up for the nurse he has only to declare that she was acting correctly on his instructions, and the patient's own declaration is his or her warrant, for no further signature or authority is required of the patient. His spoken request to a single doctor is enough, since in paragraph C of the declaration the patient has said that:
"… any request I may make concerning action that may be taken or withheld in connection with this declaration will be made without further formalities."
And who but the doctor can ever know, once he is dead, that he never made any such request?
Perhaps your Lordships begin to see why I say that such safeguards as the Bill contains operate only in favour of the doctor or the nurse and not in favour of the patient. I take it as clear that such safeguards are of literally vital importance and will certainly have to be in the Bill. But what do we find? We find in Clause 9(1) that the making of them is to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is to make regulations for, among other things,
"the prescribing of any matters which he may think fit to prescribe for the purposes of this Act."
If a Bill is to be drafted in that sort of way, we might almost as well leave out everything after Clause 1(1) and tell the Secretary of State to write the rest of it himself.
What else do we find under paragraph A of the declaration? We find that it is permissible to ask for death in case of a serious physical impairment reasonably thought to be incurable and likely to render the sufferer incapable of rational existence. Many of us who are neither priests nor doctors must have seen this happen. We know only too well—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, as a geriatrician will confirm this—that age itself brings on many a condition that is bound to end, unless life ends first, in rendering the patient incapable of rational existence. Hardening of the arteries is perhaps the standard example.
We touch here upon the dilemma of the modern doctor who has learned how to keep us alive without curing us of our

1157
complaints. Here, if he is prepared to accept it, is a possible escape from his dilemma, for he will be allowed at the patient's request to put an end to his life, not merely when he is in extremis but when he, the doctor, sees senile degeneration inevitably coming on. But would the doctor ever be sure that he was really doing it for the benefit of the patient, rather than for the benefit of those whom the patient loved and to whom he wished not to be a burden? Again, suicide by proxy, the responsibility being handed over by the patient to the doctor.
And what of the old who have already passed beyond the power of rational existence? Having once signed the declaration perhaps years before, they could all be quietly put away. "And why not?" perhaps I am asked. In which case, I reply only with further questions: How do you know if the patient is suffering, and how much? I would not ask this question if I thought that the decision would always be left to the genuinely sole discretion of the doctor. But think of the pressures that would be put upon him by loving relations! Has anyone who signs such a request when in full health and in his right mind any idea of what life will be like for him if ever he loses the power of rational thought? Can you be certain that senile dementia in any particular case means agony? Surely, the most that the doctor can do is to give the sufferer the benefit of the doubt. What is the benefit of the doubt—life or death? Even leaving moral considerations on one side, ought we not to ponder long and deeply before making a law to legalise the putting away of the helpless old?
I could go on dissecting in this way subsection by subsection, but I doubt whether your Lordships would applaud me, and I desist. It may well be said that I have not yet made out a case for the rejection of the Bill. I may be told that it would be nut right by debate and Amendment in Committee. I say, No; and for two reasons. First, such a process with a Bill such as this would produce virtually a new Bill, and a botched-up one at that. Far better that it be taken away now and replaced in time by a new one evolved after wise deliberation and far, far deeper thought. Secondly, I question whether a Bill—
1158
any Bill—is the best vehicle in which to bring so high a matter as this before Parliament for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, did not think so when he initiated his debate on euthanasia 18 years ago.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It is the second time this matter has been before Parliament. A Bill was introduced in 1936.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I think this is the first time that a Bill has been before this House. But surely the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was right in taking the view that the way to such a measure should be paved by means of dispassionate debate in your Lordships' House: by a debate that had no chance, as this one has, of issuing in a Bill, but which, by exploring the subject in both width and depth, should provide a ground without which it would be unwise to proceed to legislation. It is my personal hope, therefore, that this debate may perform that function and no more; and, in the hope that your Lordships may approve my Amendment, I am more than ready to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for performing a most important public service in initiating it.
Eighteen years is a long time, and much has changed. On the one hand, the whole climate of opinion has changed in many ways, and it may well emerge that the general attitude to euthanasia has become more liberal. Supporters of the Bill may take comfort from that. On the other hand, medical science has made advances and the ability of doctors to reduce suffering has increased, perhaps sufficiently to eliminate the need or even the justification for such a Bill. I do not know how the balance between these two factors will be found to lie, but perhaps this debate may help us to find out.
I do not think, however, that the introducing of the Bill was a mistake. We know now, and with this debate the knowledge becomes public, that euthanasia is an issue that the public conscience has to face. From now on, it is permanently in the air. No longer is it a topic of academic debate, but a hard fact of life of our time, to take or put aside. If we refuse to accept it this

1159
afternoon, we shall not have abolished it. It will come back; I am quite sure of that. We shall only have pushed it back. But I hope that by that time, when it does come back, the debate will have spread out far beyond this Chamber, into the Press, into the correspondence columns, and into all places in which such matters as these are properly and authoritatively discussed.
A Second Reading debate is not simply a discussion of a printed Bill. It is discussion of the import and intentions of the Bill, and of its ultimate effects. In such a case as this it is concerned also with morality, humanity, religion and metaphysics. We ought also to be sure that we have got the logic of the matter right, for if we have not we may be setting in motion a logical train the implications of which we shall find horrifying. For example, if we accept the desirability of euthanasia for "qualified patients" as defined by this Bill, I foresee no difficulty at all in making out a rational case for its acceptance on behalf of the psychotic criminal, and thereafter for the acceptance of non-voluntary euthanasia for the congenitally insane. I know that this is a misuse of the words "non-voluntary" and "voluntary", but I take it from the title of the Bill, and I am sure that I shall not be misunderstood. Who knows where we might be asked to go from there along the path that was followed in Nazi Germany?
We must bear in mind that, as I remarked earlier, we are being asked, among other things, to approve of suicide by proxy, which is a somewhat subtler notion than might at first appear. A "qualified patient", as defined in this Bill, might easily find himself in a position to administer euthanasia to himself—indeed, some do. Why then, in such a case, should we empower a doctor to do it for him? If a man is deterred by some scruple from taking his own life, what are we to think of him if he finds it possible to overcome that scruple by shifting the responsibility on to someone else? We are bound to think less of him, are we not, since a scruple is a matter of conscience: so why should we extend this mercy to him yet deny it to one who has no such scruple and to whom life has become, from quite
1160
other causes, a drab monotony of bitterness and despair?
My Lords, you will have had enough of my unanswered questions. It is time for me to give way, and give others a chance, if they feel so inclined, to answer them. I have restricted my remarks to some of the dangers that I see implicit in this premature and, as I believe, woolly-minded Bill. Others will attack it on these more philosophical grounds that I mentioned a minute ago. I hope that these two lines of attack—separate but converging—and perhaps others that may be joined on to them, will together be powerful enough to persuade your Lordships to support me in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, "Take it away, my Lord; take it away!" I beg to move.
Moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read 2ª, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan—and I am sure the whole House will agree with me that he is warmly to be congratulated on the way and the manner in which he introduced his Bill—we are once again debating a social question with a high moral content, and most of us, I suppose, can do no more than express our own personal opinions. Neither my Party nor, so far as I know, any other political Party has, thank goodness! an official policy on euthanasia, and the fact that I am speaking from this Box means no more than that, since somebody has to speak from this Box, the duty has fallen upon me. I noticed in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that the columnist "Peterborough" prophesied and deplored that the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and I would steer a neutral course. Much though I should enjoy steering a course with the noble Baroness, I must point out that "Peterborough" did not consult me, at any rate, before making his prediction. In fact, I am not going to steer a neutral course and I never intended to, but I should say that the views that I am going to express are entirely my own and nobody else's, unless they happen to agree with me.

1161
The main purpose of this Bill—and I put it simply and starkly, leaving out for the moment the procedures to be gone through and the safeguards to be provided—is to make it lawful for one person to kill another if the second person wants to be killed and is apparently suffering from an incurable physical disease. This raises a deep issue of principle; but superficially it looks like a straightforward question. Actually it is not straightforward. There is an even deeper question of principle and it is this: should it ever, in any circumstances, be lawful for one man to kill another at his request? My answer is "No". To me the idea is abhorrent and immoral. That is sufficient reason for me to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, as I do; but I recognise that because I am expressing what philosophers might call an "absolute ethical judgment", some of your Lordships may feel that it is not good enough for me just to stand upon it.
Apart from the basic principle, to my mind some of the details of the Bill are immoral in themselves, even if one accepts the principle. The Bill ignores both the occasional fallibility of medical diagnosis and the wonders which medical science performs and which, one can confidently hope, it will increasingly perform. But I am thinking particularly of Clause 2 of the Bill which provides that if a healthy young person, initially aged, say, 21, makes two declarations within three years, that will hold good for the rest of his life unless he remembers to revoke it. But if, in the fullness of time and years, that formerly young and healthy person becomes gravely ill—perhaps paralysed both in speech and in limbs—is it to be believed that it will be possible to ascertain with complete certainty what his wishes as to euthanasia really are? My Lords, I do not think so. Surely it must be within the experience of all of us that whatever view an individual may express in his youth, the nearer he gets to death the longer he wants to live—unless he is suffering great pain, and I will come on to that in a moment.
I have said that to the question "Should it ever, in any circumstances, be lawful for one man to kill another at his request?" my answer is "No". The answer of the noble Lord, Lord
1162
Raglan, and his supporters must, on the other hand, be "Yes", and so for them an awkward consequence automatically follows. Since their purpose is to permit release from suffering and all its attendant misery, it is illogical of them to limit the release to release from physical suffering only. One way of describing this Bill is to call it the legalising, in certain circumstances, of suicide at one remove—or suicide by proxy, as my noble friend described it; the taking of one's own life by the hand of another. Fear of painful illness or death is one reason why people commit suicide; but they also commit it because they are afraid of going mad, or afraid of being a burden on those nearest and dearest to them, or because they have lost those nearest and dearest to them, or because they are bankrupt, or because they fear prosecution for a serious offence, and so on. In other words, people kill themselves because, for a variety of reasons, life has become intolerable and they no longer have anything to hope for.
Now, my Lords, until quite recently—as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, reminded us in his speech—attempted suicide was a crime. But when Parliament decided to change the law, Parliament did not make suicide or attempted suicide legal for specified people only; it made it legal for all. The Bill before us would legalise what I have called "suicide at one remove" and my noble friend, Lord Cork and Orrery, called "suicide by proxy" for specified people only, and not for all. Why this discrimination? I very much hope that in the course of this debate those who support this Bill will give us the explanation. The answer may be that they are frightened of going too far and, that, if they did go too far, the Bill would not stand a chance of reaching the Statute Book. But it seems to me that in the application of a moral principle one should be logical and consistent, and if being logical and consistent leads to embarrassment or absurdity then one should re-think the principle. However, we have in this Bill the limitation of physical suffering—the limitation of the "qualified patient" as defined in Clause 1(2).
This brings me to the point that, given this limitation, the Bill is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because of the practice

1163
of doctors as broadly described in Clause 8, a practice which the Bill seeks to remove from legal doubt. I thankfully know—surely we must all know from our own experiences and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan admitted it—that doctors relieve pain even though life may thereby be shortened. Doctors exercise their discretion, and I am sure that they should continue to be trusted to exercise it. I am equally sure that it would be a mistake for Parliament to lay down a code of medical practice, as Clause 8 seeks to do, for abuses would then creep in. When one knows what one has to get round, it is easier to do so. For example, every lawyer knows that it can sometimes be important that one person should die before another, even though it is only just before.
Being opposed to the Bill in principle, I will make only brief reference to its details. I suspect, subject to what the Minister of State may tell us, that if the Bill gets a Second Reading it will need re-drafting from top to bottom. I was glad to know that my noble friend Lord Cork thinks so too. If I may give one illustration, who on earth is a "mentally responsible patient", the phrase used in Clause 4? This phrase is not defined in the definition clause and, so far as I know, it does not occur in any Statute, though I am open to correction. I recognise, as does my noble friend Lord Cork, that the safeguards in the Bill are well-intentioned, but, like my noble friend, I doubt whether they are adequate; and he gave good reasons for his justification of that fear. I do not even believe that the safeguards, such as they are, are adequately spelt out in the Bill—which again, I suppose, goes to the question of drafting.
Under Clause 6, if my interpretation is right, a spouse, or son or daughter is liable to imprisonment for life for concealing or destroying a declaration requesting euthanasia, even though that declaration may have been made fifty years previously. How barbarous can zealots become? I feel, without wishing to give offence to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, the the prescribed declaration in the Schedule is too ludicrous to deserve much comment. The most extraordinary part about it is that it gives an invitation to a healthy young adult above the age of
1164
majority, whatever that age may be, to say:
"I wish it to be understood that I have confidence in the good faith of my relatives and physicians, and fear degeneration and indignity far more than I fear premature death."
Even if a young adult is prepared to testify to that when still a young adult, how on earth can he or anyone else know that when he reaches the age when euthanasia may have to be employed he will still have confidence in the good faith of his relatives and physicians? It does not seem to be sensible.
The worst bit of the Bill is the omnibus Clause 9, which places on the shoulders of the unfortunate Secretary of State the duty of regulating lawful homicide. That is not a duty which I should like to assume, and I do not think that it is a duty which should be entrusted to any Minister in any Government. This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will refuse to give it a Second Reading.
3.55 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, we all have a great deal of sympathy with the object of the Bill which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. We all want to see the relief of suffering, sick patients made comfortable, and the situation that people who are going to die should be able to die in peace and dignity; but I am doubtful that the method commended by the noble Lord will enable these purposes to be carried out.
I should like to touch upon the question of the use of drugs in relief of pain. We are told that certain people are suffering great pain because they have some kind of incurable disease and are not being given the appropriate drugs. This may have been the case at one time, when the only drugs available were opium and morphia. These were dreaded by patients and their relatives. When given in large quantities over a long period of time, they led to distressing deterioration of personality, which was unpleasant for the relatives and distressing for the patients. Surely the situation has now changed a great deal. Many more drugs are now available and do not have this distressing effect.
Before the days of the National Health Service—from about 1926 to 1928—I was

1165
closely associated with a hospital in the North of London which was called, "A Home for the Dying". There were about 50 patients there who were nearly all dying of cancer. A first-class matron was in charge—though she had a good deal of trouble in getting nursing staff—and there was a very good doctor looking after the patients. I have never been in such a contented hospital and, in a curious way, in such a happy hospital. That is probably still the case to-day, although I gave up my connection with the hospital when the National Health Service came in.
In coping with pain we have to concentrate upon the training of our doctors, and we must carry out more research into methods of dealing with pain. One can do a great deal in the training of young doctors. At present, because the curriculum is so full and crowded, there is not a great deal of time for the teaching of ethical and moral matters. Nevertheless, a certain amount is being done, it has been well received, and has had encouraging results. It is far easier to train young doctors in hospital wards when they are carrying out their first resident appointments than when they are at medical schools. There is a body with which I am now associated, called the London Medical Group. That is a voluntary organisation run partly by the Church and partly by doctors. The object is to give lectures to students—medical students, divinity students, nursing students, social worker students—in the evenings upon these moral and ethical problems. About 50 lectures a year are given under the auspices of this body, and they are very well attended and popular. This shows that there is a great wish among the students and young doctors to learn what to do in cases such as those we are talking about now which do not come under the normal medical curriculum.
The second question that I should like to put is: what exactly is the demand for euthanasia? That is something which we have never really been told. For seventeen years I was in charge of a geriatric department consisting of 120 beds in one of the London hospitals. So far as I remember, not one patient of mine ever said, "Will you please put me out of my misery or pain"; and I think the nurses would have told me if that
1166
had ever been said to them. There was a good deal of pressure from some of the patients' relatives to get that done, but that is quite a different matter. The relatives were feeling upset and were feeling —I do not mean this unkindly—sentimental about their relatives, and they put that suggestion to one.
I am sorry, my Lords, but I remember that there was one patient who did ask me that question, and that was an old lady of over 90 who was comfortably and happily married for 62 years. Her husband died and she rather let herself go. She came into hospital with nothing physically wrong with her, but she said that there was no point in her living and asked whether we could help her to die. That is the only case I know, but it would not come under this Bill because the patient was not in sufficient mental or physical stress to qualify. The old have a fear of death. I do not mean that they are frightened of dying, but they have a fear of death. They would rather welcome the act of dying, provided that it was not encouraged by anybody. They do not want to feel that they are being encouraged to die, but when the moment comes for them to die they face it with a great deal of calmness and serenity. I know that may sound a rather difficult psychological paradox to put to your Lordships, but that has been my experience and one can speak only from what one has seen.
One must be careful not to prolong the act of dying, and people must therefore be encouraged to use sense and sensibility in the care and treatment of unconscious or semi-demented patients. Indeed, you can permit sins of omission there, rather than sins of commission. I do not use the word "sins" in any pejorative sense, but I think your Lordships will know what I mean. I was at one time a member of a small committee working under the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham (who I am pleased to see is to speak to-day) and we went into the problems of decisions about life and death. I shall not now go into that aspect this afternoon, and will leave the points raised then to the right reverend Prelate.
One has been told on more than one occasion (I do not say that this comes into the Bill) that if people can have euthanasia made available it will relieve

1167
a great burden that falls on their relatives and on society. That is entirely false reasoning. If the care of the sick relative is too much for the rest of the relatives, and if it is said to be throwing too much of a burden on society, then surely the right thing to do is to encourage the building of more accommodation to take more of these people. I know I shall be told that we cannot afford to do that at the present time, but even less can we afford to drop our moral standards by encouraging the belief that these people should be killed.
One is told, too, that if more of these homes are established it will not be possible to find staff to serve in them. There is a certain truth in that, but I know of various places where incurables are taken care of, and although such places have trouble in getting staff they manage to do it by having a good matron to look for staff and to encourage them. The atmosphere of a place has a bearing on whether or not the getting of staff is easy. It seems to me important that the confidence of the patients in doctors and hospitals should be maintained. We do not want the patient to feel that the man with a syringe is going to be a killer, and not someone who is going to relieve pain. We do not want it to get known, as might quite well happen, that certain hospitals are places at which people can get good euthanasia if they apply, because that will surely mean that patients will not go there when they do not want euthanasia. So there is going to be a great deal of mental and moral difficulty there.
My Lords, the best definition of the purpose of a doctor occurs in that short French saying:
"Guérir quelquefois, soulager souvent, consoler toujours".
It is the "consoler toujours", which I want to stress now, but I do not think that is going to come in by some system of voluntary euthanasia. Therefore, if we go to a Division I propose to support the Amendment and not the Bill itself.
4.8 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we have all listened with close interest and attention to the discussion which has so far taken place on the Bill, whose twin aims are to legalise the administration of euthanasia and to enable persons to make
1168
and revoke an advance declaration in favour of euthanasia. This Bill raises the fundamental issue—a highly controversial one whether considered from the ethical, social, legal, or medical point of view—of whether a new approach to euthanasia can be justified, and whether such a practice could be safely codified into law. Considerable arguments both moral and practical, for and against, have already been deployed by the four noble Lords who have spoken so far; and I have no doubt that they will be followed up with equal vigour as the debate proceeds. Some will argue that any individual who is suffering severely from an incurable condition should have the right voluntarily to ask for his life to be ended in a peaceful and dignified way, rather than have to endure continuing pain or to face what may become no more than a distressing, irrational or purposeless existence. Others will maintain that any taking of human life, however well intentioned the motives, is indistinguishable from the act of murder and that it would be wrong in any circumstances to legalise such conduct.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, reminded us that these matters were debated in your Lordships' House in 1936 on a Second Reading debate, and again in 1950 on a general Motion. In both debates those in favour of voluntary euthanasia and those against it spoke with matching fervour from their respective points of view. It was clearly predictable that, notwithstanding the increased permissiveness in our society to-day, the long debate we are to have on the Second Reading of this Bill would continue to reflect those differences with undiminished vehemence. This is essentially a matter of conscience on which, as with all other issues of this kind, the Government think it right, so far as the main principle of the Bill is concerned, to leave the verdict to the free vote of individual Members of the House.
I must, however, ask all noble Lords to examine very carefully indeed the administrative provisions which the Bill involves, with which the Government must clearly be closely concerned even at Second Reading stage. Even among those noble Lords who give their support in principle to the arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia, there must, I believe, be many who will entertain grave

1169
doubts whether the burdens of responsibilities and duties which this Bill would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to lay upon doctors, nurses and other hospital workers would be an acceptable one. This point has already been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. At present, some doctors may, in the course of their treatment, for example, to relieve pain, take steps which may hasten the patient's death. Such action is the result of a positive decision made by the individual doctor in accordance with his clinical judgment and the dictates of his own conscience.
What this Bill appears to do—and I must confess that I find it not at all clear on this point—is to require my right honourable friend to appoint hospital doctors (and hospital doctors only, as I read the Bill) who are willing to administer euthanasia and who alone would be authorised to administer it to those patients who have asked for it. I should point out here that it is not only full-time National Health Service doctors who could be appointed under the Bill as drafted, but also those whose practice was only part-time in the National Health Service and also doctors who practise wholly or partly in private hospitals. If my reading of the Bill is right, the limiting of appointment under the Bill to hospital doctors in itself could give rise to difficulties in that a family doctor, although clearly a physician as defined in Clause 1, would not be able, even if he was willing, to administer euthanasia to one of his own patients who wished to die at home. He would instead have to call in an authorised hospital doctor to do this for him, or refer his patient to an appropriate hospital. I would also point out that the Bill permits an authorised hospital doctor to delegate his duty of administering euthanasia to a nurse.
There would be a further difficulty for authorised doctors in that they would have to be sure that the patient knew what he was doing when he made his request for euthanasia; that, as noble Lords have already pointed out, he was under no external pressure from, for example, his relatives; that the witnesses to his declaration really did not stand to benefit from his death; and that he had not changed his mind. I shall deal
1170
more fully with some of these points a little later. Moreover, we believe that the medical and nursing professions in general would oppose the introduction of legalised voluntary euthanasia, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, indicated in his speech; so we might be faced with the practical difficulty of finding sufficient doctors and nurses up and down the country who were in fact willing to undertake the duty of administering euthanasia. These are formidable practical difficulties, and because of them my right honourable friend is not willing to accept the regulation-making duty conferred by Clause 9(1), and all that this involves.
I should like now briefly to turn to some more detailed points of administration in the Bill. Although the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill refers to
"the administration of euthanasia in certain specified circumstances one or more of which has eventuated",
the Bill itself does not make clear at what stage of a patient's illness he would become qualified for euthanasia. A patient may be suffering from an incurable illness
"expected to cause him severe distress or render him incapable of rational existence"—
(I am quoting here from subsection (2) of Clause 1) but for the time being the patient may be capable of leading a reasonably satisfying life, and the distress or incapacity may not reach an acute stage until some time in the future. Even if euthanasia were acceptable in principle, it would seem wrong to permit it to be carried out before the patient's illness had reached a stage where he was suffering pain or incapacity. It might be possible to incorporate some safeguards in regulations made by my right honourable friend, or in conditions attached to the patient's own declaration, but in a matter as important as this, my Lords, surely the position ought to be made clear in the Bill itself. Yet it might be extremely difficult to devise a satisfactory provision for this purpose. A further point that must be made, and which I have no doubt will be made again and again in the course of this debate, is that, as Lord Horder so wisely observed in the course of the 1950 debate:
"… it is a fact that the disease that is incurable today is cured next year"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/11/50, col. 567.]

1171
The Bill would also seem to have serious gaps in relation to persons who are mentally incapacitated, either at the time of the declaration or at the time euthanasia is administered, or who are unconscious at the time euthanasia is administered. There is no requirement as to the state of mind of a person signing a declaration other than the statement by the witnesses that he appeared to appreciate its significance, and cases might occur where a person makes a declaration, apparently of his own free will, but without clearly understanding its import. Such a person might also agree to euthanasia being administered without fully realising what was being done. Clause 4 of the Bill requires a doctor, before causing euthanasia to be administered, to satisfy himself, in the case of a mentally responsible patient, that action is being taken in accord with the patient's wishes. In other words, he has a final opportunity to change his mind. There is, however, no such requirement if the patient is not mentally responsible then, but who may have been responsible when he signed his declaration. He thus has no last chance to change a decision which may have been made many years earlier.
The same situation applies where the patient is unconscious at the time euthanasia is administered, for there would be no way of determining whether or not this was still his wish, and in some cases the declaration being acted upon might have been made, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I believe, pointed out, many years previously. I must remind the House here that although Clause 2(1) limits an initial declaration to a period of three years, Clause 2(2) would enable it to be re-executed for an unlimited period. There would, therefore, be the practical difficulty in some cases of ensuring that any action taken was in accordance with a genuine wish of the patient at the time; and the possibility of abuse cannot be entirely ruled out.
Even if all the practical difficulties of ensuring that all the safeguards incorporated in the Bill were complied with, it would be by no means certain that even these safeguards would be adequate against abuse. Supposing, for example, euthanasia were administered on the basis of a declaration which was afterwards alleged to be forged, or signed tinder circumstances which rendered it
1172
suspect, the Bill would appear to protect the doctor who in good faith administered euthanasia, but it might in practice also protect those who had been responsible for the false declaration. The vital witness would in many cases be the patient himself, and once he had died it might be virtually impossible to prove whether the declaration had been genuine or not, particularly if the witnesses could not be traced; and even if there were strong grounds for suspecting that the declaration was not genuine, it might be difficult to prove who had been responsible.
Among other points that cause concern—and this was another point which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, raised—is the tact that Clause 3 provides for a declaration to be revoked by destruction or by notice of cancellation shown on its face. But what happens in the case of a patient who had expressed a wish to revoke his declaration but where, for some reason, no action had been taken to destroy the document or to endorse the revocation on its face? As the Bill is drafted, it appears that a declaration might be made many years before it came into effect. Thus a person may re-execute his declaration under Clause 2(2) at the age of 23, or presumably at 20 if and when the age of majority is lowered to 18, and find it being acted upon 50 or even 60 years later. If by then he is mentally incapable or unconscious, it would be acted upon without his knowledge or his being given a chance to alter it. It seems desirable, to put it no higher, that in a matter affecting life and death a declaration should not be acted upon many years later unless there was equally well attested evidence that the patient was still of the same mind.
Again, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which the provisions for conscientious objection (Clause 4(3)) and for the appointment of responsible physicians (Clause 9) could not be reconciled with the form of declaration in the Schedule. This, among other things, gives discretion to "the physician in charge of my case", and the physician in contemplation when the declaration was made will often be different from the physician in charge when the patient qualifies for euthanasia. Another difficulty is that Clause 8 appears to give

1173
a patient a right to pain-killing drugs. This was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and those of your Lordships who, like him, are members of the medical profession may feel that there is a fundamental objection to this clause, in that in speaking of entitlement to drugs it trespasses in the field of clinical judgment, and that far from removing doubt it may, because of its introduction into a Bill concerned with euthanasia, undermine public confidence in the administration of pain-killing drugs in connection with less vital medical and surgical procedures. This I find to be a very real fear.
The difficulties to which I have alluded do not form an exhaustive list, but I am conscious of the number of noble Lords who follow me and your Lordships may think that that list will suffice to demonstrate that the provisions of this Bill exceed in our view the bounds of what is practically possible, both in terms of safeguarding the rights of patients and of appointing doctors with special responsibilities in relation to them. I would only say, in conclusion, while again stressing that this is clearly a matter for the individual conscience of each noble Lord, that it is the Government's firm view, ethical considerations apart, that the practical difficulties of prescribing by Statute for the administration of euthanasia are so grave as to render this Bill unacceptable.
4.24 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, my first reaction to this Bill is one of extreme distaste and of some dismay that it should have been introduced. My distaste for the Bill did not extend, with certain reservations, to the actions of those who are sponsoring it. I modified my distaste because I thought that the essential motive for introducing the Bill was compassion. This can be a worthy motive and deserves respect. But in such a weighty matter as definitive, premeditated killing it is essential that the whole substance of the proposal should be looked at calmly. Our compassion should be restrained and controlled by reason.
But I could not understand Clause 2 of the Bill, which states that the declaration of the wish to undergo euthanasia shall remain in force for three years and that by a patient's re-executing the
1174
declaration it will remain in force for the lifetime of the declarant. When I turned to the Schedule, on page 4 of the Bill, which sets out the form of declaration to be signed, I had my explanation. It is simply that it is suggested and intended that it will be possible for a healthy man or woman to request that he or she be put to death if at some unspecified future date, perhaps many years ahead, he or she is thought to have a serious physical illness or impairment reasonably thought to be incurable and incapable of alleviation from suffering by treatment. In this, we lose the atmosphere of compassion. The procedure is more like joining a sort of club, or a gimmick of some sort. It is so naive as to be breathtaking. Instead of "Alcoholics Anonymous" we have elective euthanasia. This proposal is so unacceptable that I do not wish to give it any more consideration in this debate, except to say that the very fact of its being in the Bill destroys one's confidence in the sole redeeming feature which it seemed the Bill might have; namely, the quality of compassion.
My Lords, in common with most of you I am filled with compassion for those unfortunate individuals at whose release from pain and suffering this Bill is in some part directed. As a doctor I have seen, and still see, many harsh and tragic cases for which death alone can bring release and relief from suffering. This I freely admit; and in this regard I respect the motives and emotions of many of those who sponsor or support the Bill. My compassion for the sufferers, my recognition of the compassion they deserve, does not, however, lead me to support their killing by doctors. It is not possible or reasonable to brush aside the ancient Commandment which forbids killing and which has been ratified by many nations for many millennia. Now we have, in the baldest terms, the proposal that killing can be made legal by an Act of Parliament.
Those, my Lords, are my general thoughts, as an ordinary individual, on the proposals in this Bill, and I put them forward for what they are worth. But I must also speak as a doctor and give what I think should be the thoughts of most doctors. I cannot speak for all doctors for, like any other community doctors will have different views, experiences and thoughts. We are all exposed to the

1175
argument that the proposed killing is mercy killing, disguised in some part by the term "euthanasia". Many lay people, and doubtless many noble Lords in this House, may feel that mercy killing by the State is justified and acceptable. It is my responsibility to try to present what I consider should be the approach, the actions, of doctors to this proposal. It is quite simple: they cannot and should not, as doctors, have anything to do with it. For doctors the problem should begin and end there; but some elaboration is needed.
The essential, the absolute, duty of a doctor is to his patient. Once he accepts a human being as a patient that patient's interests are paramount. The basis, the absolute essential, of the relationship between patient and doctor is complete confidence and trust. This is a relationship that is almost peculiar to the practice of medicine, and without it the rock on which the successful practice of medicine is built would crumble away. If the patient is aware that at some secret, unannounced moment, his doctor may kill him, all confidence goes and is replaced by fear. The same applies with no less force to the nurse, who is also empowered by this Bill to kill her patient. But, the Bill says, killing is to be countenanced only if the patient makes the solemn declaration of his firm wish to be killed. This is a shallow and unacceptable argument, and a particularly perverse one, because it seems or claims to be founded on the desirable motives of mercy and compassion. If I were speaking as a layman I would comment that "The Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes"; but I must confine myself to the duty of the doctor.
My Lords, I accept that circumstances or conditions may exist in which death is a happy release for a particular individual. His suffering may be more than he can be reasonably expected to bear and more than anyone could wish to continue. But to end his life by killing should not fall to the doctor: the law should not direct, permit or encourage him to do so. If society wishes to kill the sick and suffering then it should do it itself, as I understand is customary in some primitive tribes, and not try to persuade the medical and nursing professions to do so. I do not intend to argue, to
1176
itemise, to present in detail arguments against encouraging or persuading the doctor to kill. I merely state that the doctor—all doctors—should resist it.
In case your Lordships should think that this view is mine alone, I will read to you an extract from decisions of the Council of the British Medical Association, and one from a report of the Central Ethical Committee. The first is a minute of a meeting of the Council in 1950. It reads as follows:
"RESOLVED: That the World Medical Association be informed that the Council concurs with the following pronouncement.
'Whereas, the Council of the World Medical Association believes that the practice of Euthanasia is contrary to public interest and to medical ethical principles as Nell as to natural and civil rights, and
'Whereas, such practice is contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Geneva, therefore.
'BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the World Medical Association in session at Copenhagen … recommends to the national medical associations that they condemn the practice of Euthanasia under any circumstances'."
Secondly there is the Report of the Central Ethical Committee to the Council of the British Medical Association. It reads as follows:
"The Committee received a resolution passed by the National Council for Civil Liberties at its A.G.M. calling attention to 'the natural right of individuals to seek euthanasia for themselves when their lives have become intolerable, and for their doctors to be able to help them without risking a felony prosecution'. The Committee could not subscribe to this view and reiterates the policy of the Association that the practice of Euthanasia under any circumstances be condemned."
No doctor of any experience could have failed to learn from his knowledge of human beings and of his patients that no patient can be a proper judge of the desirability or inevitability of his death. The chances of error on the part of the patient, or of his relatives, are great and complex. The chances of error on the part of the doctor, even of two doctors, one of whom is of consultant status, are so great that I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by elaborating them to an intelligent audience such as I now address. It would be easy, but tedious, to elaborate on many instances and precise examples in which gross, unforgivable error could occur and has occurred. Some excellent examples have already been given by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.

1177
Even if the patient's wish to die were based on great suffering and the incurable nature of his complaint, the knowledge that at any moment his doctor or his nurse would destroy him could create a terrible situation. Every time his doctor entered the room his thoughts could be, "Is this man about to kill me?" Again, doctors of experience will have no difficulty in knowing the nature of the patient's reaction. I repeat, my Lords, if society wants to destroy the sick then it should do so itself and not get doctors and nurses to do it.
Not many months ago we were debating the legislation of abortion for social, non-medical reasons and I recall what I wrote and spoke about this only two years ago. I said:
"If the will expressed in the Bill is to be implemented it will be necessary for the Government to provide the individuals to do these operations. Unless doctors in sufficient numbers are willing to comply this will mean a new cadre; a form of public official; a public abortionist, similar to a public executioner. Such a calling is not likely to remain restricted in what it does for long. The next step would be sterilisation of men and women on demand or by direction on purely social grounds. The next logical step after that would be euthanasia on demand or by direction."
I never thought, my Lords, that in my own lifetime, indeed, after barely two years, I should see an attempt to enact this legislation.
This is what I classify as a "road to En-dor situation." It reminds me of Rudyard Kipling's verse about the road to En-dor:
"Oh! The road to En-dor is the oldest road And the craziest road of all!
Straight it goes to the witch's abode
As it did in the days of Saul.
And nothing is changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor."
My Lords, we have already set our feet on the road to En-dor and we should tread carefully, lest we plunge down a slippery slope to much sorrow.
I hope that I have not given the impression that doctors have, and should have, little or no compassion in the presence of severe and prolonged subterminal suffering. Of course they have. The attitude the doctor should have is best presented in the "12th Commandment "—
"Thou shalt not strive
"Officiously to keep alive."
1178
The meaning and teaching is reinforced if we add it to the 7th Commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill—but thou shalt not strive
Officiously to keep alive."
Up to now I have spoken in general terms of my thoughts on this Bill. I wish now to make certain specific proposals within the Bill. I have already referred to the extraordinary and naïve intention of the Bill:
"… to enable persons to request in advance the administration of euthanasia in the event of their suffering"
some irremediable condition at a future date. I can understand, and indeed support, the anticipatory bequeathing of various tissues or organs for grafting purposes after an individual's death, but the present proposal is completely unacceptable. Clause 5(2) states that:
"Physicians and nurses who have taken part in the administration of euthanasia shill be deemed not to be in breach of any professional oath or affirmation."
Again, I find this breathtaking in its naïvete.
My Lords, it is commonly thought, and often stated, that doctors take a professional oath. I am told that there are some universities and medical schools in the world who require their medical graduates to affirm solemnly the Hippocratic oath; chiefly, I imagine, to impart a flavour of antiquity and historic atmosphere. But the vast majority of doctors, and certainly of nurses, take no such formal oath. All the same, they are bound by certain standards of conduct and behaviour, perhaps even more than if they had affirmed by a solemn oath. This conception, this intrinsic sense of duty and standard of conduct, applies to other professions and to many other things in life as well as to the obligations, responsibilities and duties that a doctor recognises.
Some things are not binding by oath but are governed by codes and standards of conduct stronger than those imposed by the taking of an oath; perhaps fortunately so, when we are now told that an oath is never so binding that it cannot be evaded by an Act of Parliament. There are certain things that are not done and which cannot be made right or acceptable by legislation. As a crude example, it would not be the thing to expectorate on the Floor of this House, or to kick a

1179
policeman in the face when he is lying defenceless on the ground. You cannot make such things right by an Act of Parliament, and I cannot see how you can tell a doctor or a nurse that by means of an Act of Parliament it is all right for them to kill a patient. The only thing an Act of Parliament can do is to permit or direct someone, anyone other than a doctor or nurse, to do so.
Finally, my Lords, Clause 8 states that in a terminal state a patient whose severe distress cannot be otherwise relieved should be entitled to drugs rendering him continuously unconscious. This is an unnecessary and irrelevant observation and I would remind your Lordships of a remark I made earlier:
"Thou shalt not strive
Officiously to keep alive."
I hope, my Lords, that you will not give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.36 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brock, has just remarked, all who have seen people dying in circumstances of great agony and distress, and all who have shared in the distress of relatives on those occasions, will surely sympathise with the compassion and concern which undoubtedly lies behind this Bill. Further, I frankly acknowledge, as the debate no doubt will make plain, that there is no one Christian view on voluntary euthanasia. As the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has already said, the theology of suffering and illness (and I say, "Thank God for it!") has changed enormously over the past three or four hundred years.
But, variations aside, on this issue all Christians will, I think, share with all others a respect for human life; a conviction, as Professor H. L. A. Hart put it, about the natural right of a man to survive in society. And then, as Christians, they will be guided by the work of Christ in healing and relieving distress, the parables of compassion; and, not least, the two great Christian Commandments of love. They will also take into account the point that no man ever lives—or dies—to himself; that there is a social dimension to all we do. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I do not think that any of us are ever, in life or death, isolated individuals with that kind of isolated freedom.
1180
But against that background one thing has to be said when we attempt to relieve distress and to show love and compassion in a way that brings death: is this to respect human life and to do justice to the right of a man to survive in society? That is obviously the basic question of euthanasia, and it arises, as your Lordships will recognise, in four possible contexts: the context of pain, the context of keeping alive by highly artificial means, the context of severe mental distress and, last of all, the context of alleged social desirability. With my eye on the time, and bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said to us earlier, I shall not go into details.
Summarily, I would say that in the context of pain the argument for voluntary euthanasia has been much weakened by the developments in pharmacology and with analgesic drugs. Something like euthanasia might well in principle be morally justified in the keeping alive of people by extraordinary means. The Committee of which I was a member, whose Report was published under the title, Decisions of Life and Death, decided after long consideration that in some particular cases of what is popularly called "vegetative existence", and under certain conditions carefully laid down, it could be morally justifiable for those extraordinary means to be withdrawn at some particular stage. Euthanasia—and obviously I speak now out of much ignorance—would, I think, be highly problematical in the case of severe mental distress largely because, if I may presume to say so, of our relative ignorance of mental illness, and, because, in an area of this vital importance, where the facts may be in doubt and the full circumstances elusive, we surely have a duty to be cautious when we are dealing with human lives. I hardly need say anything more about the fourth case than that euthanasia is likely to be particularly hazardous in the case of alleged social or (dare I say?) political desirability.
Part of the trouble with this Bill, it seems to me, is that it tries to cover too many cases and to range over too wide a spectrum. Supposing we agree, as I have done, that in some cases euthanasia might be in principle justified; supposing, in other words, that we hesitated, as I hope we shall often hesitate, to have any-

1181
thing like a universal moral negative, does a prior declaration, which seems inevitable if euthanasia is ever to become a legalised general practice, help? Or does it make present difficulties even worse? That, it seems to me, is the crucial question which this Bill raises. Does a prior declaration, which seems to be an administrative and legal necessity if we wish to give individual moral decisions a statutory context, help the case? My view is that the undoubted need for a declaration brings with it so many difficulties that the Bill turns out to be not for the benefit for humanity but to its detriment.
A declaration might seem so reasonable for each of us in Westminster, in the cool hour, something like a private affair between ourselves and our doctors, and something done with the reasonable approval of, and after full philosophical discussion with, our relatives. But I fear that, once we make anything possible in law, legality is often interpreted by the ordinary man as conveying some kind of universal encouragement, and even prescribing a duty. In this way, it seems to me, society would be in grave danger of complicating an already difficult situation by encouraging fears and increasing anxieties—in order words, of developing the very kind of situation which the Bill in principle is designed to avoid. For illness always involves a mixture of fears and confidences: fears of the illness and its outcome; fears of death; fears of the implications for one's family, and so on. Normally, these fears are overcome by a confidence in nurses and in doctors, in relatives and, finally, no doubt, in the law. But would not a declaration made in altogether different circumstances from those in which it was used become the dominant and crucial feature in this highly complex and far-reaching personal situation? Is it right that this should be so? Let us think just a little more about this situation.
By contrast it might be said that, taking only the case of pain or the use of extraordinary means, these situations involve the balancing of so many different and delicate considerations that the decision might most reasonably be left to a doctor, in whom one had confidence, and one would have the greater confidence the greater the doctor's expertise and the better his training in moral-decision
1182
making. Such a doctor, I hope, would as a student have been to courses like those to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred, organised by the London Medical Group, or in later life might have shared in some of the discussions that are organised by the Institute of Religion arid Medicine. It is of course obvious that the alternative to euthanasia is not the delaying of death by all possible means, as some seem to think. As the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, said, there is no moral difficulty whatever, on any theory, about administering analgesic drugs which would at the same time both lessen pain and shorten life. There are many moral devices—appeals to a doctrine of necessity, or the law of double effect—which can explicate the legitimacy of such action.
But, my Lords, I come back to my point: are there not too many particular difficulties about the declaration? It is obviously very difficult for people who are seriously ill or dying to make, a month before their death, a reasonably clear declaration of their intentions and desires. Yet we need also to reckon with a general disinclination to talk of death—evident in the case of wills—even when a person is in the best of health. It is "not clone" at tea-time on Sunday afternoon to start long discussions about death: there is felt to be something slightly improper about it. When should we start the discussion leading up to the declaration? In any case, let us never underestimate the ordinary man's difficulties with forms—and none of us would want euthanasia to be a privilege of the highly educated. Further, even if a wish for euthanasia is expressed beforehand, various difficulties arise, against which witnesses are no guarantee. Could circumstances at such a distance ever be specified in sufficient detail? To take a phrase from the present Bill, how severe must "severe distress" be?
Once a declaration had been made, it would subject doctors to all kinds of complex and unfair pressures, which could well become intolerable. Relatives may be unscrupulous but it would be just as difficult if they were equally insistent and pleading. Supposing they said, "Don't do it for him, doctor," what then would the doctor do? Sooner or later, the relatives would want to know whether or not the death had come about because

1183
of the declaration. New and highly complicated ingredients would be brought into what is already a highly complicated situation. The point has already been made by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery: was this precisely the kind of "severe distress" which the patient had in mind all those years ago? Further, always over-arching the situation is the utter finality of death, so far as human life goes, and the difficulty that, from the nature of the case, this declaration becomes of use only in circumstances in which the patient has no power whatever to withdraw it. The point has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. Again, let us recognise that it is easy to misconstrue remarks made by sick people in relation to the possible demands mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. When patients say, "I want to die", what is most often wanted (even perhaps with the lady in her nineties to whom the noble Lord referred) is help and treatment. "I want to die" is most often a plea that something should be done to make life more bearable: it is very rarely a request that death should be brought about immediately.
My Lords, I am very concerned for the ordinary man and woman, lying in a hospital ward where some have made declarations and some have not. A patient in one bed dies. Imagine the whisperings around the ward when the sister has gone out: "Did he ask for it?" Or the reply, "No, but I think I ought, or should I not?" Or when the declaration has been made, the patient may worry. "Where now did I leave it? The last time I saw it, it was in the bottom drawer of the dresser. But did someone spring-cleaning happen to remove it and tear it up?—because if, so, it has been revoked." Not everybody has boxes and safes in which to keep these precious documents. They could just as well be put in with the gas bill or the butcher's bill down in one corner of an old drawer at the back.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, suggested, hospitals and doctors might well get the reputation, just or otherwise—it may be utterly unjust—of either welcoming most those who had declarations in their hands or of taking a wide view of severe distress, or even taking people's word for it that a declaration had been
1184
made. You can picture the conversations: "Oh, has he gone into North Street Hospital? Well, it won't be long now before he's gone." Again, who injects the lethal dose? It would often, I fear, be a poor nurse, who even after what I hope would be a prior consultation, and a genuine consultation, might well be haunted, as I know some nurses have already been, by the thought, "I killed him." Then she might say: "But he must have wanted it. Or did he, in those circumstances?" And we see all the difficulties, the distress, the uncertainties and anxieties that would be generated.
In any case, if I may say so, it would seem to be a singularly inopportune time—and I deliberately refuse to use the words a "ripe time", which is always pejorative—to introduce these practices, for, I repeat, I fear that the medical profession is becoming more and more associated in the ordinary person's mind with death and experimentation rather than with health and care. I am sure that no one would resist that judgment, even the doctors themselves, who must be distressed by it.
My argument is not however that we leave things as they are. Nor would I want my own decision to be determined by the possible risks that this Bill might bring in, say, the field of alleged social and political desirability. I am quite prepared to see that any moral advance brings with it great risks and it will be an extremely disastrous day when Christians give the impression that they will not take any risks in reaching moral decisions. They will then, indeed, display that harsh, unyielding obscurantism, and even give the impression that they know all the answers beforehand.
My positive suggestions would be these. There is an obvious need to disseminate by teaching and practice recent knowledge about drugs and terminal illness. I fully support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that we must have better terminal care of the kind that already exists in a number of institutions. We need to bring together those whose experience is of people dying even nowadays in great pain, and those who have already found ways of enabling terminal illness to have such relief as to leave the patient mentally alert and peaceful. Let us see just how far those residual cases of pain and

1185
distress, sometimes given as 15 per cent., could be reduced.
Thirdly, I wish, with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that medical education could take more serious note of the daily increase in the number of medical social problems for which there should be explicit training. In the absence of these, or even as a supplement to them, we must certainly publicise and develop the work of such groups as the Institute of Religion and Medicine and the London Medical Group. Finally, if there is any doubt whatever about the legality of withdrawing artificial means of survival when a considered medical moral decision judges it to be right—though I am not convinced that there is—no doubt this is something which needs seriously following up.
But looking back on the Bill as a whole, I am bound to conclude that, far from being a great asset, it would be an enormous liability to the community because some kind of declaration is in principle an assential feature of the Bill. I hope that the concern, compassion and sympathy which surely lies behind this Bill can be shown in other ways without eroding confidence in those on whom health and life depends, and without increasing the anxieties and distress it seeks to reduce: in short, my Lords, without introducing more difficulties than it avoids. That is why, if it comes to a Division, I am bound to vote for the Amendment.
4.55 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, we have listened to the right reverend Prelate with the greatest interest, but I rise to support in a few words the Second Reading of this Bill, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on his courage in presenting it and the skill with which he introduced it. He will not be deterred, I feel sure, by whatever volume of opposition he will find and, in fact, has already found in regard to this measure—opposition that was powerful enough to defeat both a similar measure in 1936 and a Motion on similar lines in 1950. My own impression is that public opinion on this matter has changed since those days, and is gradually moving in the direction advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and his supporters.
1186
What is the aim and object of the Bill? Is it not just this—to use the words of the late Lord Denman in the debate on the 1936 Bill:
"To substitute for a slow and painful death a quick and a painless one."?
That seems to me to put the matter in a nutshell. Further, is it not to provide a sufferer undergoing ceaseless pain and agonising suffering an escape route should he desire to take it? Is it not to extend to the human sufferer the same degree of consideration and compassion that we extend to our ailing and ageing animal companions? Why are we more merciful to our four-footed friends than we are to humans? How can such a palpable anomaly, or, as I would call it, patent idiosyncrasy, be justified?
I give way to nobody in my admiration for the skill, care and devotion of the medical profession; and after reading the speeches of distinguished doctors and surgeons in the two former debates in your Lordships' House on this subject, I do not underestimate for one moment the difficulties, or fail to understand the medical standpoint. Nevertheless, it is interesting to remember, in this connection, that the Voluntary Euthanasia (Legalisation) Bill in 1936 was conceived by one of the most distinguished surgeons of the day, the late Lord Moynihan, who, alas! died before he was able to introduce it in your Lordships' House. That Bill, as your Lordships know, was moved in the event by the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and was defeated by 35 votes to 14.
My Lords, if I wanted any reassurance of my own views in favour of euthanasia, I got more than enough a few day s ago while visiting an old people's hospital. Rows upon rows of beds, each holding a human being lying there inert, some sleeping, some perhaps under sedation, some with their eyes open looking utterly listless, hopeless, lifeless, in a kind of torpor. One felt stifled with the all pervading apathy, the lethargy of the whole atmosphere, the intense sadness of the whole scene. If ever one wanted confirmation of the urgent need for a reappraisal of the whole subject of euthanasia—and this Bill mercifully lights the torch in that direction—here it was in all its pathetic reality, the crying need to offer these poor creatures the one

1187
remedy one felt in one's bones that they might accept gratefully and thankfully grasp.
But the noble Earl and his supporters will have none of it. They would deny them—I must say that I do not want to misinterpret what the noble Earl has said; he spoke with great sympathy on the salient features about what we were trying to do—this relief, this escape. He would withhold from them this boon, this milk of human kindness. My Lords, that is a melancholy thought.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I hope I made it plain that I was not opposed to euthanasia. I was opposed to this Bill. I have said nothing—if I have, I now contradict it—which would in any way justify the noble Lord in saying what he has just said.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, if I have in any way misrepresented the noble Earl, I withdraw immediately.
As to the religious side of this problem, I am a little daunted by the somewhat imposing phalanx of lawn sleeves and other accoutrements facing me. Nevertheless, I must say my piece. I suppose it is natural and perhaps inevitable that right reverend Prelates should oppose this Bill. And yet, all teaching of the Church is based on the theme of an after life. Surely it can be argued that a suffering mortal in this world should be given the right to opt out of his present existence when his agonies or other pressures become insupportable, and be wafted painlessly into the life to come. If I may be forgiven for further trespassing in the realm of Lords Spiritual, can we not resolve this terribly important question by emulating the words of St. Paul in I Corinthians, XIII, 13:
"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity"?
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has spoken with immense conservity and I can agree with one thing, at least, he said—I think only one, but one thing—when he paid a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for the courage and skill, and he might have added the dignity,
1188
with which he introduced this Bill. I may come back to one or two things which the noble Lord said, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him closely but turn instead to a brief statement of what may be called the ordinary Roman Catholic point of view. We Roman Catholics are not so monolithic as we used to be. One of my Anglican friends—a Bishop, indeed, or one almost higher than that, if one can be higher—said to me not long ago, "I feel much more in sympathy nowadays with you fellows who are having such good rows. We have had them, of course, for years." Certainly there is much more variety of opinion, or openly expressed opinion, in the Church than there has been in the recent past. But on this one subject I do not think there will be any difference among the Roman Catholics one is likely to encounter.
A moment or two ago I had pressed into my hand this telegram. If I quote it, it is not because I think it is going to impose its authority on anybody outside my Communion, but it might just interest the House:
"Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland meeting in Aberdeen gravely disturbed at proposed legislation on euthanasia. Strongly support all who oppose this Bill. It will undermine Christian principles of morality and maintenance of human rights".
That is signed by the Secretary of the Roman Catholic Scottish Episcopal Conference. I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales will agree with that.
We Roman Catholics—and if I speak in that way it is not to imply we have some unique doctrine here—together with all who believe in a personal God, regard God as the supreme Lord and Master. In an absolute sense, all things belong to him. We are the custodians of life—that is all we are—and the life of each person in the world belongs to God. If one starts from that point of view one is opposed to all forms of euthanasia. In principle we consider that we human beings have no right to take life, whether our own life or someone else's and whether or not that someone else, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has requested this operation to take place. That is a short statement of the Catholic and, I should think, the general Christian standpoint in its simplest form; and it is not likely, I should judge, to be altered.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to ask him a question? Does that law apply to the killing of other people in war?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, strangely enough, with my great pacifist friend to follow me, it occurred to me that he might ask that question. I would only say that the question of killing in war has tortured Christians, as he is well aware, throughout the centuries. But when I have finished I must leave him to decide. He has every opportunity of commenting on my remarks as he speaks next. I leave him to decide whether or not euthanasia, according to the principles I am enunciating, would be justified.
If one takes the ground I have just ventured to take, as an ordinary Roman Catholic and possibly as an ordinary Christian, I think one must meet one particular question that has been running through this debate without perhaps being posed in quite this form. Someone called euthanasia "suicide by proxy"; but at any rate it is an arrangement under which a doctor is allowed to help a patient to commit suicide. I may be asked—and I think one must face this question quite fairly—"If suicide is now legal, or at any rate not illegal, why should it he a crime to help somebody to commit it?". That seems to me a point which anyone who is strongly opposed to euthanasia and accepts the Suicide Act 1961 must fairly meet. Briefly, as I see it, the answer is this. Leaving out a few extreme cases which some would call suicide and some would not but where life is surrendered in the interests of somebody else—such as (shall we say?) in the case of the heroic Captain Oates—we do not approve of suicide. We are full of compassion, I hope, for anyone who commits it. We are very loath, indeed rightly, to prosecute anybody who tries to commit suicide because we consider that he is labouring under tremendous stress. The balance of his mind in a general sense can fairly be said to be disturbed. We are, as I say, full of great sadness and great compassion for anybody who commits this fatal act. But that does not provide any sort of justification for the particular kind of suicide conspiracy suggested in this Bill.
1190
We must assume that all the doctors concerned are in their right minds; they are not mentally disturbed. There cannot be any alibi on those grounds. And in most cases I think, though not all, under the proposals of the Bill the patient when he makes a declaration is himself supposed to be in his right mind. Even if that is not so in all cases, we must assume that the doctor who is to be given this licence is not to be excused on the ground of any sort of mental disturbance. So that argument falls to the ground.
I have stated a simple principle, but we are all well aware that nothing in life is quite simple and that every statement of broad principle gives rise to legitimate questions. I shall be asked whether our insistence on the sacredness of life means that doctors are not to be allowed to relieve extreme suffering for fear that death may follow or that life may be shortened. I shall further be asked whether patients are to be kept alive indefinitely by any means, ordinary or extraordinary, long after their existence would normally have ended. The answer we give in each case is, "No". In the Roman Catholic view, it is ethically acceptable for the doctor to use any means within his power to ease the suffering of any patient in any sickness. The distinction which can and must be clearly drawn is between a treatment intended to ease the patient's lot and a treatment directly and purposefully intended to kill the patient outright; and that is t distinction I think we are all capable of making
It may well be, and indeed it often happens, that the medication recommended by the doctor will inevitably, and to the doctor's confident knowledge, shorten the life of the patient. We must face that fact. But so long as the purpose is to alleviate the suffering, the shortening of life is only a secondary or side effect, and the doctor is entitled to recommend that medication. That is our point of view.
I will now go further in dealing with the second point I raised. In our view it is quite wrong for doctors to maintain in a state which can biologically be called "life" patients who are dead to all intents and purposes; patients who are so damaged in the brain that the regaining of consciousness is impossible. One has heard of these cases. Of course, we have

1191
all heard of cases where patients are kept alive by the resuscitatory techniques. In our view this is all wrong, and here I think I am in line with the right reverend Prelate. If there is any doubt at all—and I do not say that there is any doubt—about the law at the present time I would be perfectly happy to see a declaratory Act framed and passed regarding the propriety of stopping resuscitation in these cases; but it is generally regarded as the doctor's duty to keep the patient free of pain. If there is any doubt on this matter let the law be dealt with by some sort of declaratory Act, but I am not myself aware that there is a large measure of doubt. None of this is relevant to the present Bill. I bring it in merely in order to explain the philosophy of some, at least, of those of us who are opposing the Bill.
Before I close, I want to offer two personal convictions to the House. They do not depend on any particular religious belief. They will be widely held, I should think, within the Churches, but they may be just as widely held outside. Those who oppose a measure of this kind (and it is, after all, not only strange to our law but is, I understand, unparalleled in any other country), see this, not surprisingly, as the thin end of the wedge—and none of us can see how far that wedge will penetrate. The supporters of the Bill, especially if they are young and innocent, will bristle with indignation and accuse us of misrepresentation or of introducing a red herring when we talk of, "the thin end of the wedge" or "the slippery slope". A measure of this kind is important, but there are consequences, good or ill, and one must be allowed to point out what seem to us to be the consequences.
Most of us who oppose this Bill, and certainly I myself, have no doubt that voluntary euthanasia, if introduced, will lead to compulsory euthanasia as sure as night follows day. Take the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn—he said that we ought to treat our human friends as we treat our animal companions. No one can say that when we bring to an end the lives of our animal companions we are relying on voluntary euthanasia. The noble Lord slid over from one to the other as merrily as might be. He was drawing the example in the animal world
1192
of straightforward compulsory euthanasia, and he saw nothing odd, nothing inconsistent, in discussing the two matters as though they were part of the same issue. That may well have struck other noble Lords.
The House may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was good enough to mention that when we debated abortion, not two years ago, I was bold enough to predict that if legislation on abortion were passed legislation on euthanasia would follow closely on its heels. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, tried to remove any great credit I might have for this policy by saying that it was so obvious that any fool could see it. So far from it being obvious, I was rebuked far and wide by the supporters of abortion—I forget quite what they called it but it was treated as, shall we say, a typically donnish or Roman Catholic trick. It was not the sort of thing that they cared for. It was thought to be in bad taste to talk about such a thing.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, perhaps they were thinking of compulsory euthanasia and not voluntary euthanasia.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord referred earlier to me as someone who had made a wise but obvious prediction. I am only picking him up on his own argument and saying that for good or for ill what was ridiculed as an absurd impossibility not two years ago, is now the stage, we are told, that public opinion has reached. So we are entitled to think of this as a dynamic subject. I do not want to say, "I told you so", but I am afraid it is rather obvious that that is what I feel. I do not put this inevitable development which we are likely to see from voluntary to compulsory euthanasia, if and when it comes—I am rather happier about the prospects than I was when this debate started in the way things have gone so far—down to malevolence. No one who knows the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, or, for that matter, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, would associate them with malevolence. They are what I would call "holy innocents", but they may well be in the grip of forces that they do not fully understand. Once you abandon the idea that life is sacred, that the life of each one of us is sacred and is of very great value in the sight of God, I do not see where you are likely to stop.

1193
If you read the writings of some of the experts on the subject they move happily from one chapter to another, from voluntary to compulsory euthanasia, but once you abandon the idea of life being sacred you soon begin to ask yourselves whether there is all that point in the existence of x or Y. It may be a defective child or it may be some elderly Member of the House—and I speak as one who is now past the middle term. Once you reach that position it seems to me that the end for some of us is clear. I am not seriously worried about this House, because it is pretty good at looking after itself; I am speaking of those who are not very good at defending themselves—all sorts of impoverished old people and mentally retarded people and frail and weak vessels of all kinds.
This possibility—to me it is a near certainty—that voluntary euthanasia, if it ever came, would lead on to a very strong demand for compulsory euthanasia is not quite my final reflection. If ever we do pass a Bill to legislate voluntary euthanasia, and even if it remained voluntary, which I do not think would happen, we should be paving the way to a new attitude to our continued existence—an attitude the consequences of which would be calamitous. Suicide as a rational element of conduct had considerable support in ancient times. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, was stretching his interpretation of St. Paul a little wide when he began to bring him in on this side of the argument, but in fact it was the Christians who put an end to the Stoic idea that suicide was legitimate. The Stoics took a very favourable view of suicide on the whole; the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, committed suicide when his finger ached. That is a fact. That was a view that was rejected by Christianity, and I think few of us to-day would favour the Stoic or pagan attitude to suicide.
Quite apart from the question of compulsory euthanasia I think we ought to pause at this point and ask ourselves what kind of national attitude a Bill of this kind would lead to. We have recognised throughout the Christian centuries what can only be called "the duty of living"; the duty of making the most of this priceless gift of life. I suppose all of us admire the sacrifice of life on behalf
1194
of others. We feel poignant sympathy for those who are driven through much suffering to take their own lives because they cannot bear their continued existence; but we have never, surely, throughout the Christian centuries admired the act of suicide as such, and we have never taken any step which could possibly encourage it. The greatest danger in voluntary euthanasia, even if it remains voluntary, is that it would make suicide seem a natural course in many varied circumstances. It would make suicide seem the path of duty to vast numbers of old people who have hitherto believed, quite rightly, that it was their duty to go on living and who have in very many cases set a noble example, even when you could not set out very easily exactly what contribution they were able to make to the country.
Once we adopt this Bill, we initiate the thesis that we should dispatch ourselves when we are no longer demonstrably useful to the community. The question, "What is the use of me?" would begin to carry a widespread terror especially among those with sensitive or scrupulous minds or delicate nerves or, for that matter, with unsympathetic relations. Once adopt this Bill and once get it fairly established as part of our national consciousness, and there is hardly an old person, a really old person, in the country who would not suffer agonies as to whether he was not cumbering the ground and ought not to get himself put away.
This Bill is merciful in intention, mild, public-spirited, and is sponsored by those whose only desire is to alleviate suffering. But I believe that we are meddling here with very deep mysteries. If we pass this Bill, we shall be extending new approval to an attitude to life and death which is opposed to some of the foundations of human society and some of the truest instincts of the human race.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in associating my name with that of my noble friend Lord Raglan, if my noble friend Lord Longford was assuming his prophet's mantle once more. I have to tell him that he will be wrong in this instance, because, though I am in favour of euthanasia, as I understand it, I can not support this Bill. I wish I could, and

1195
I much admire the insistence of the previous speaker in treating this matter as a matter of principle, whereas I could find a good deal of opportunity now, I suspect, in disabling the Bill as procedure, because I feel that it is inept. I feel that much of the criticism that has been levelled against the Bill is acceptable, and I cannot but agree with the noble Earl who proposed the Amendment, that we should not go forward with the Second Reading.
At the same time, the very reasons for which I, for one, cannot accept this Bill prompt me to the reflection that there is a great deal needed of deeper and more profound application to the principles that underly it than hitherto most people, and perhaps we in this House, have given. And it is for this reason that I would offer one or two basic principles which to me seem not only valid but agreeable to the Christian faith which I seek to uphold, principles without which we cannot frame a better Bill—for I should like to see a better Bill appear before your Lordships.
May I first say this? I have no use whatever for the idea that this matter should be left to the doctors. This seems to be a piece of cowardly escapism on the part of people who would rather pretend the problem does not exist than go though the painful trouble of making up their minds what are the principles which should guide their attitude to it. It is a very dangerous thing for anybody to play God, or to be compelled in some representations to Play God. Our experience in the Christian Church is that when parsons play God the history book is littered with their mistakes and failures, and I should not like to think that such an attitude would be imposed on the medical profession, because I do not think they would make a much better fist of it than we have done.
It is our responsibility to think clearly about it. I tried to apply my mind not so much to individual cases, of which I am not ignorant, but to certain of the words we have used, perhaps a little loosely, even this afternoon—words like "life", and "death", and "killing". "Life" is a pantechnicon word. I suppose that at this moment millions of daffodils are being massacred, and certainly hundreds of thousands of animals
1196
are being butchered. Is life sacrosanct in the flower, sacrosanct in the animal? Is it sacrosanct in man? Surely it is sacrosanct in man if in fact he is alive in the self-conscious sense. This again is a difficult word or phrase to be explicit about. But I should have no hesitation whatever in allowing to pass out of existence, as we know it, pieces of mechanism which, while organically considered alive, are yet no longer suitable for inhabitation of the spirit.
From a professively Christian point of view, I am perfectly well persuaded that there are innumerable instances in the dark places of the hospital wards of animate yet not sentient creatures living an entirely vegetable existence—if, indeed, one can say they are living at all. This is a problem upon which much greater research and careful analysis has to be made, but surely it is rather silly to talk as if any organism which shows the outward and visible signs or sense reaction or of mechanical stimulation should be regarded as of sacred value.
In any case, from the Christian standpoint, as has already been said by my noble friend—and I entirely agree—we as Christian people believe it is better beyond, at least for those who have been saved from their sins. Yet I must remind myself that my own acquaintance with people of a professedly Christian faith in their terminal condition, despite the attractions of Heaven, is that very often they cling assiduously to this world as hard as they can. Not so my beloved father, who died at the ripe age of 91 and who was much concerned at the interference of doctors, who seemed in his judgment to be delaying his departure for Heaven. I think he came to feel that somehow the Lord had mislaid his file. He wanted to go to Heaven, and I have no doubt he set out in that direction and has duly arrived. It is a little presumptuous to talk as if the ending of life is extinction. It is the gateway to Eternity, as many of us believe. It is a relevant fact, without which I think the Christian faith becomes absurd.
The second basic principle has already been briefly adverted to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and this is the question of suicide. One of my boyhood heroes was Captain Oates, and he committed suicide. There

1197
is no doubt about it. He left the tent, with his poor frostbitten legs which could no longer carry him and were a hindrance to the possible arrival of his friends at the next staging post. He said, "I am going out. I shall be some little time". He went out, inducing death, and that, by the definition of this Bill, is euthanasia. What indeed of Father Damien? Did he not induce death by going to a leper colony where he was completely and absolutely assured that, sooner or later, he would contract the disease which would bring him to his death. Of course he did. What of Gandhi, and his fasting to death in order to bring moral pressure on those he wished to enlist in his programme of Ahimsa?
We have had a number of quotations from the Book. I would give you:
"Greater love bath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends".
What in some cases is an ignoble and cowardly escape from the responsibilities of life can in other cases be the most sublime consideration for the welfare of others and total indifference to one's own welfare in that process.
Therefore, my Lords, I have come to look at this problem of euthanasia from the standpoint of whether or not a man is justified in taking upon himself the responsibility finally of giving up his own life, giving it up for a worthy and sincere purpose. What I want to say is this: if he so desires, if it is his conviction and his belief, he has a perfect right so to do; and he has an equally perfect right for the rest of us to keep out of the way. This may appear dangerous—indeed, it reflects upon that particular part of the right reverend Prelate's speech in which he talked of "the document". But this is the nub of the whole matter. If I reached a sub-terminal or terminal condition in which I was in great and inconsolable pain, in which I was in such a condition as to be irreparable, and a cause of great sorrow and suffering to those who had to care for me, and perhaps had to spend long hours caring for me when they might be caring for somebody else, I hope that I should have the courage and the intelligence in such circumstances to opt to give my life; and if I did, I believe that I have a right to ask the medical profession to stand back and let me die.
1198
I hope they would give me such medicaments as would alleviate the pain. I earnestly hope that they would provide anæsthesia, if possible. But I would not ask them to kill me. What I would ask them to do is officially not to strive to keep me going as a piece of mechanism when I could verily believe that to be off and away was not only a way of escape from intolerable pain but preeminently a way of relieving other people of unnecessary suffering, and myself into the bargain. This is why, it seems to me, some preparation must be made by a man or a woman when relatively able to make a sober judgment against the day when he or she may be unconscious, or helpless lying upon a bed, or in such pain as to be mentally afflicted and perhaps deranged. This is the problem to which I believe we have to address ourselves much more carefully than is provided for in this Bill.
It is for this reason that I do not believe in the present Bill, which confuses the direct act of bringing somebody's life to an end, and the indirect act, it you like, of being an accessory to suicide. I believe that in certain circumstances to be an accessory to that process of exerising one's right to opt out of life, under conditions which will benefit others and will be of no final benefit to the one who opts out, is a reasonable and a Christian demand; and when we are ready I hope that we shall be prepared to look at a Bill which, difficult as it is, will enshrine in our intelligent and civilised community this human right which I believe is part of our Divine freedom and, when exercised, can be for our good.
5.34 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am intervening in this debate as an opponent of this Bill, since I am particularly interested in the relief of pain and the tremendous and exciting strides made in developing new drugs. May I say now that, like my noble friend Lord Newton, although I speak from this Despatch Box I speak entirely for myself. I have no doubt at all about Lord Raglan's good will and concern for those who suffer; but what he suggests is most dangerous and misdirected. It is dangerous because it can easily be misinterpreted or misused. There are no safeguards which can prevent misuse by the unscrupulous, either relatives of professionals; and I do not

1199
think we could ever find such safeguards, even if we accepted the need in principle, which I do not. It is dangerous, as has been said, because we should so easily find ourselves reaching the point of deciding that others had no right to live. We need not compare ourselves with Nazi Germany, which reached that ghastly state, but, so far as I am aware, we should be the first country to initiate such legislation. Do we really want such distinction for ourselves?
It is dangerous in principle as well as in practice. If we are presented with this alternative, it would be more difficult for senior physicians and surgeons to pass on to students what they know so well, that part of medical education is to learn when to stop the complexities of curative treatment and concentrate on the comfort and relief of an individual person. What we need for this is not legislation for so-called mercy killing, but discussion and education and proper concern for people. Euthanasia is a totally negative approach. Much is said about hopeless pain and about inevitable deterioration and incurability. The situation has changed greatly since the previous Bill was introduced and defeated in this House. We have heard to-day of the immense advances in geriatrics and rehabilitation, and I should like to emphasise our advances in the control of terminal pain and distress.
I have had the privilege of being the Chairman of the hospice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, since its planning and its inception. It was founded by a group of friends who voluntarily raised half a million pounds. It was opened two years ago for the care of patients mostly suffering from terminal illnesses and for whom hospitals could do no more. It is known to some of your Lordships, and I am glad to say that all sides of the House are represented by Vice-Presidents—the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, the noble Baroness, Lady Ruthven, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is over in Newfoundland now. I am against this Bill because I have seen what wonderful things can be done for the relief of pain and suffering by a dedicated and devoted staff. Five hundred people have died at this hospice in the last two years, since its inception,
1200
and none of them has died in pain. Most have been alert in themselves until the end. Although needing skilled use of narcotics and other drugs, these patients did not ask for the lethal injection. They asked for relief of pain, breathlessness, nausea, and so on; and when they had it neither they nor their families, who are far more likely to ask initially, ever suggested such a step.
In our experience it is far more likely that requests might come from a much smaller number of patients with neurological long-term illnesses than those with terminal cancer. I am assured, and I have seen for myself, that distress of terminal cancer can be relieved. The others can be helped through their moments of despair by understanding and affectionate care, and also be enabled to die peacefully, with dignity and without fear. I am told by various doctors that once one can recognise and cope with the cry of despair "I should like to die" as it comes from the clinically depressed patient needing treatment, or the rejected person needing attention to his problems, one is left with but few requests that could possibly be interpreted as a definite decision of the type described.
Hospices or nursing homes such as the one with which I am associated are being planned in different parts of the country. I am glad that many people come down to see what is being done, and that the right reverend Prelate visited St. Christopher's only the other day. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has been there. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. We work in co-operation with treating hospitals, and it is from the clinical judgment of both sides that decisions are made that further prolongation or resuscitation is no longer relevant to the patient's real needs. Attention can, therefore, be given to welcoming them and their families as people who wish to spend the last part of their life together in a situation where distress is relieved and where they can be free to make their own reconciliation with the situation and—although these may seem strange words to use—find enjoyment as well as peace.
What we need in this country is not a Bill such as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has introduced, but more money for geriatric units, for co-ordinating

1201
social services, both of which can help to make so many people active and happy in their own homes, and more hospices where we can be assured they will go gently in the course of illness itself. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for this reference to this hospice and to Dr. Saunders, the Medical Director, but surely it is an appalling confession of failure to admit, as I think he did, that we should legalise euthanasia because there are not enough places like St. Christopher's.
I should like to add a word about the families of such patients. Would they be able to bear the decisions as laid down in this Bill? All of us must have had some experience of bereavement, and perhaps know something of the feeling of guilt—which may be real or quite unrealistic—which accompanies it. I can see such a Bill as this leading not only to agony for a patient who wonders whether he ought to ask to be killed by his doctor in order to relieve his family, but also a desperate feeling of guilt by the family afterwards because they felt the patient had asked this because they had failed him.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a moment? I did not say that we should have voluntary euthanasia because there were not enough places. What I said was much more than that, and much more complicated, but I did not say that.
LORD THURLOW: If I have put the wrong words into the noble Lord's mouth I certainly withdraw them. What I think he did say, after his very nice tribute to our hospice, was how relatively few patients we could look after there—and, alas, we have to turn down five in six cases because there is not room for them—and he went on to talk about the very large number of old and ill people, which rather gave the impression, to me at any rate, that if we had lots of marvellous hospices where the patients could, as he has seen for himself, be given a wonderful end to their lives, there would be no need for this Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, what I said is that I thought there were enormous numbers of people, including myself, as a matter of fact, who would not like to eke out their lives in that way.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, those of us who are concerned in this field feel that our views should not be imposed by lobbying of any kind but by practice and teaching, and that is being done. I do not deny that there is still a great need, or that some people are still suffering, but I would claim that what is needed is not a change of law but a change of attitude. That change of attitude would be hindered, rather than helped, by legislation such as the Bill proposes, and also by uninformed and emotional publicity. I hope that the Government will take note of all that has been said about the need for more geriatric units, more hospices and more research into the relief of pain—though let me pay a heartfelt tribute to the support and encouragement of the Ministry of Health in the endeavours with which I have been connected. I welcome this debate since it undoubtedly underlines these needs, but I do not think that this Bill is the right way of tackling this problem and I personally shall vote for the Amendment.
5.46 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, before I go into some of the points which I wish to bring before you I should like to say something in reference to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has just made while it is fresh in my mind and your Lordships' minds, and because I think perhaps it may clear up a little difference of opinion or emphasis between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I am not so worried about the situation of terminal care in painful inoperable cancer because, fortunately, it finds its own way of termination; and, as we all know, with better drugs than we had a little while ago pain can be much better relieved.
And we all seem to be in agreement that, if the patient's life is somewhat shortened by some of the drugs which we give perhaps rather in excess—perhaps entirely by accident, or perhaps not completely by accident—then we do not mind very much; we have eased a patient out of a dreadful situation. It is much more the feeling that I (or someone I loved) might be struck down by some frightful stroke; might be "paralysed in speech and limb"—as I think the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery said—and might lie there indefinitely for years; a trouble to my relations, useless

1203
to myself and to society, and quite unable to indicate to the doctors whether I wanted to live or die. Apparently the situation which the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, fears might be the result of this Bill is that, because some years ago I signed a document that if this happened to me I wanted to be put out of the way, then somebody might come and do it to me. This seems to me what the Bill is about, and I think that many of the objections which have been raised to it are precisely the points which, to me, make it so attractive: that I can, while I am still in possession of my senses, say that I do not want to be kept mischievously alive if these kind of things happen to me.
Let us take in a little more detail the kind of situations which do arise at present, and in which a certain amount of euthanasia is already used. You have a patient with a serious, painful and incurable disease—let us say cancer in this case—and he develops pneumonia. Are you going to treat him with antibiotics and cure his pneumonia and leave him to eke out the rest of his life in pain, or are you going to withhold antibiotic treatment? I know what my answer is. If you are confronted with such a patient who is in a state of mind to make decisions for himself; and if he wishes to take his own life and indicates—and this has happened to me—that if he were in possession of narcotics which might see the end of his illness he would take them, do you use all your means, do you station policemen and night nurses round him so that he cannot do this? Again I know what my answer is in those cases. Again, he may be given doses of drugs which may shorten his life, and yet unhesitatingly the great majority of the medical profession will do this in cases where they think it is indicated.
Then there are the people who have been referred to already in this debate and who, perhaps as a result of a frightful motor accident, have no hope of recovery of any kind of useful conscious life, yet who are being kept alive by artificial respirators and other machines. Surely in these cases we believe in euthanasia, do we not? It seems that, in answer to a questionnaire which was initiated by the Euthanasia Society (of which, by the way, I am not a member),
1204
70 per cent. of doctors agreed that doctors acted in these ways. The possibility of keeping a sort of "vegetable" existence going by artificial means of resuscitation and the possibility of switching it off at a prearranged time puts a new power in the hands of the medical profession. This can be both morally and legally inconvenient, but it is an inescapable result of scientific progress. If it is possible to switch off the instruments at a convenient hour when the kidneys and the heart can be used for transplants into some other individual, this is already being done and is already being accepted. Therefore, we have gone a long way towards some kind of euthanasia in some cases. What of physicians who, like myself, have made it clear to our colleagues that if we have a serious coronary attack and our hearts stop at the age of 60 or 70, or whatever it may be, we do not want to be resuscitated? Surely we have a right to decide some of these things for ourselves. So for all these reasons I came here with a view to supporting this Bill.
My only real doubts are, in the first place, how much it is absolutely necessary to make laws when a good deal of understanding exists at present, and whether this particular Bill, devising how such laws might be made, is good enough to go on to a further stage where some of the fairly obvious objections to it can be reconsidered. My own view is that those who think, as I do, that euthanasia, if properly handled and controlled—above all, the right to decide beforehand and to tell people who may be concerned what you want done in your own case—is a right and proper thing, should vote in favour of this Second Reading, even though we may have no great hopes that this particular Bill in this form will survive another stage. But we should not show our disapproval of it if we think that in principle euthanasia, in certain carefully defined circumstances, is right, as I certainly do.
I have a number of points which I have written down during the debate relating to speeches made by other noble Lords, but I will trouble your Lordships with only a few of them. First of all, may I say how much I respect the opinions of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in this matter, and how much I agree with him and with other speakers

1205
that education on these subjects is sorely lacking in the present curriculum of medical education as carried out in most, if not all, of our universities. Most young doctors when qualified have no idea how to handle these situations. They learn by experience, but nobody teaches them wisdom and passes on his experience—or at least this is all too frequently what happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Brock, who is clearly and definitely opposed to euthanasia, quoted the British Medical Association and read to your Lordships the resolution of its Council he also read to us the resolution from the World Medical Association, which was dated 1950, quite a long time ago. The B.M.A. resolution said that the Council
"reiterates the policy of the Association that the practice of euthanasia under any circumstances be condemned".
This is not consistent with the views of many medical people at the present day, as was shown by the questionnaire which was quoted to us by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in his opening speech.
The religious arguments may appeal to many people, but some of us believe that moral and ethical laws and medical ethics are not divinely sent to us but are the result of the evolution of thought in a society which is undergoing constant change. My Lords, knowing that there are still many other speakers, and realising that my other points have been covered by other speakers, probably better than I could have covered them myself, I feel that that is all I need to say. I have given my reasons for feeling that, in spite of the many difficulties of this Bill, we should give it a Second Reading this evening.
5.57 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Platt, particularly as I am in agreement with so much of what he said. I, too, shall support the Bill in the Division lobby, even though I realise that it needs considerable amendment. I should like to make a point in rejoinder to those who have put forward the idea of the "slippery slope". This argument does not stand up, ethically or logically. Indeed, I thought that it had been finally disposed of by F. M. Cornford in
1206
Microcosmographia Academica. Surely what we have to do is to decide whether the Bill is right or wrong in itself and not discuss what we may do on another occasion if the Bill is passed or not passed.
The main point I wish to make is not to do with summoning up what might or might not be the views of a large number of sick and aged people. I hope your Lordships will not say that that imputes selfishness to me. I do not embark on this because I think it is too easy. People on both sides are able to conjure up rows of people saying that they would like to die, and other rows of people who say it but do not mean it. All I can talk about is what I experience, what I want and what I feel; and I do not think it is invalid or selfish occasionally to do that.
Here I very much follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I claim the right to end my life when I want to do so. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has, quite rightly, spoken about the social dimension. But that is something which I must take into account when making my decision, because in the long run the decision to take my life rests with me. It is one which, on the whole, no one can take away from me. I reject the right of anyone to say that this right does not belong to me, or to try to enforce the taking away of that right, although I recognise the right of people to say that they do not feel that I have that right. Even the State does not now say that it is a felony for me to commit suicide, or to try to commit suicide.
The only way that right can be taken away from me is if I am in a position where I cannot myself exercise it, which is the occasion when I am most likely to want to use it. So far, I believe, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I go along with him a step further, and say that I do not wish to demand help from anyone who has any kind of conscientious objection to helping me. But I claim to be able to ask the medical profession, if and when they have no moral scruple about this, to help me to perform what I am no longer able to do myself, what I have already decided and stated firmly I want done in a given situation, without fear of retribution from the law. That is the main reason why I support this Bill, in spite of its need for considerable amendment.
6.3 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I think I am the meat in the sandwich of some supporters of this Bill. Having read the Reports of the two previous debates in your Lordships' House, I could not imagine there was anything new to be said. I mentioned that to a doctor friend of mine—a Member of your Lordships' House was present—and all he could say that was new was that the argument used in 1936 by Lord Dawson of Penn, and then again in 1950 by Lord Horder and Lord Haden-Guest, about the improvements in alleviating drugs was an even greater reason, 18 years later, for the Legislature to refrain from inflicting on the medical profession an obligation which the majority do not want. Most doctors already act on the basis that alleviation of pain is of greater importance than the prolonging of dying, and a Bill such as this would overnight ruin the doctor-patient relationship. Instead of the doctor being looked on as a friend, he would be looked on as a potential executioner—and the aged can be very suspicious. Lord Uvedale of North End said in 1950 that there were few cases where euthanasia should be contemplated and that they would become fewer as new remedies were introduced. He said that he already looked on euthanasia as an admission of failure and a counsel of despair. And that was nearly 19 years ago. I am quite certain that, from a psychological point of view, a Bill such as this would be very disturbing to the elderly.
My mother died when I was very young. When I was about 15 my father, who was still a widower, gave me Warwick Deeping's book Sorrel and Son to read. Your Lordships will probably remember that the son becomes a doctor and eventually puts his father down in the classic circumstances quoted by the supporters of euthanasia. I remember my father telling me, "Son, when I become old and useless you must arrange for that to happen to me." He was then in his late thirties or early forties. But in the last two bedridden years of his life, when I sat beside his bed chatting of old times, he made it quite clear to me that the opinions he had in his late thirties were not the same as he had in his middle seventies. On the other hand, there are some people who would sign a
1208
declaration purely because they imagined themselves to be a burden on their relations. Those people need the protection of society, not an added weapon in the armoury of suicide.
I am convinced that in the normal course of events only those suffering from temporary depression would sign a declaration, such as the boy who last week was going to throw himself from a bridge here in London because his girl gave him up. Lord Horder said that from his experience those suffering from the so-called incurable diseases were not those who wanted their lives ended, but only those suffering from what his French colleagues called the misere. Also, it seems impossible to legislate about who is in a fit state to make the declaration, because apart from exceptional cases a man would make that declaration only if he was in pain, and when a man is in pain he is probably under drugs. So that is not an easy situation about which to legislate.
About 10 days ago a young man came to my house. He was to run a discotheque for a dance, and nothing could be more modern than that. While I was discussing this Bill with a doctor friend, the young man was reading it, and he said that he thought it made a mockery of marriage. He said, in other words, "Should my wife be taken from me without my consent, because in a moment of aberration she had signed this document?" That is the point he was making and I quote it because it came from the young. Yet Clause 6 gives life imprisonment for concealing a declaration. I assure your Lordships that if my wife made such a declaration, I should do my best to conceal it.
Ethically, we come back to the value that we have set on human life. Lord Horder said:
"We doctors hold certain basic considerations about life. We think that every man has an inalienable right to live, and that one must not take this right from him, even if he allows one to do so on a set of circumstances outside himself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/11/50, col. 570.]
With Bills such as this we cannot but ask ourselves where it is going to end. It is the "slippery slope" to which other people do not like us to refer.
From a purely materialistic point of view, I would much rather see a Bill to

1209
remove those who are born obviously insane. But there again, Hitler started getting rid of lunatics and moved easily over to the next step, which was getting rid of politicians. I also take objection to the argument that what we do to animals we should do to ourselves. I used to tell with relish the story of how when I was out riding with my wife my horse fell and we were both stunned. My wife, to my chagrin, rushed not to my side but to that of the horse. For a while I went on making a point of this story until one day a laconic type capped it by saying, "Of course, she might have had to shoot the horse".
Reverting to the medical profession, I may say that the first doctor friend to whom I showed this Bill handed it back with the comment, which was also made by Lord Brock, "Why pick on us? Go and get someone else to do your dirty work"; and Lord Horder said:
"… I hope the decision will not lie with our profession. There are some of our critics who might advance the view that we already kill enough people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/11/50, col. 566.]
This country has now got quite a reputation, which started innocently after the war with, "Come here for your teeth or your spectacles". Now, according to "Panorama" and the article in Life, it is, "Come here for your abortion". They tell me people are now running package tours. The question is, are we next going to see that happening with "bumping-off" the old? There was a doggerel in a weekly paper recently which ran:
"They knocked old Granny off you know
She only had a cold.
'Her sufferings,' they said in court,
'Were dreadful to behold.'
The judge was kind. 'Besides', he said,
'She was getting rather old.'
So they left the court and went away
To share old granny's gold."
Medically, this Bill, I believe, my Lords, has been shown to be unnecessary; psychologically, it has been shown to be dangerous; ethically, it has been shown to be wrong. Solving our problems by the short cut of death cannot be right.
6.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have found in the course of my researches, with very great regret, that I am the only Member of this House alive to-day who spoke and voted for the first
1210
Voluntary Euthanasia Bill. I am glad to say that there are two survivors among those of your Lordships who voted against the Bill, one of whom, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, attends very regularly and is almost in the Chamber this afternoon. That Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, reminded us, was introduced by my noble friend the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It is a matter of some interest now, I think (because it shows that over thirty years ago the principle of voluntary euthanasia was already supported by leading members of the medical profession), that that Bill would have been introduced in your Lordships' House by that great surgeon the late Lord Moynihan, the grandfather of the noble Lord who now sits on the Liberal Benches, had he not died the year before.
Some of your Lordships will have noted that the 1936 Bill was defeated, in a very much smaller Chamber, of course, than our Chamber to-day, by a decisive majority on Second Reading. But I believe it started a trend of public opinion that has been growing ever since. Voluntary euthanasia has certainly more adherents now in the professions, in the Churches and among reflective people in every walk of life than it had 33 years ago. It is also much more often discussed in the Press and in broadcasting, which shows a wider public interest in the whole subject. The legalisation of suicide in the Act of 1961 is another symptom of this change in the climate of public opinion; because, my Lords, if you say, as the law does now, that it is lawful to take your own life, it is surely a logical step to go on to say that if you have an incurable and distressing illness which makes you so weak physically that you cannot do this without help, it should also be lawful to take your own life with the help of a doctor—and that is really all this Bill sets out to do.
Moreover, though we have heard, very rightly, a great deal about the ethical case on the other side, I think there is an ethical case for voluntary euthanasia which cannot, as a rule, be made out for suicide. Suicide is more often than not the action of someone running away from responsibility, whereas the decision to end a life that has become a burden to oneself and others is a decision of a highly

1211
responsible person taken after considering extremely carefully the consequences to oneself and to others. Yet, my Lords, as the law stands to-day suicide is now lawful while voluntary euthanasia is not. In view of this shift of opinion towards a recognition of the right of every adult person to choose the manner of his death, thus enlarging the area of individual freedom, and the fact that the public no longer regard suicide as an offence, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, is entirely justified in giving your Lordships another opportunity to change the law.
The argument most often used against legislation, and for leaving the law as it is, is that doctors should continue to be allowed to use their own discretion. This is the attitude of the British Medical Association to the present Bill. This argument has never been more persuasively put than it was by that most humane doctor, the late Lord Dawson of Penn, speaking in this House during the debate on the 1936 Bill. If I may, I should like to quote some of his words. He said:
"For the most part, this silent change has been concerned with the act of dying, and most doctors, where there is pain or struggle, bring peace at the last despite curtailment of life, and with the support and even at the request of lay opinion.… When the gap between life burdened by incurable disease and death becomes wider, then greater difficulty presents itself, and greater variety in practice holds amongst individual doctors and patients. None the less there is in the aggregate an unexpressed growth of feeling that the shortening of the gap should not be denied when the real need is there. This is due, not to a diminution of courage, but rather to a truer conception of what life means and what the end of its usefulness deserves ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1/12/36, col. 482.]
In other words, my Lords, what the late Lord Dawson of Penn said, and what is I think accepted by doctors, is that many doctors practise euthanasia now, regardless of the law.
The answer to this argument is, I think, a fairly simple one. Doctors are in fact saying that they have no objection to euthanasia if they administer it themselves, but they would object to doing it on behalf of society. This surely is an inconsistency that the medical profession must resolve in one way or the other. Moreover, my Lords, it is unfair to doctors that they should be expected to
1212
act upon their professional judgment regardless of the criminal law. A doctor should not have to expose himself to the risk of prosecution by a misguided or vindictive person simply because he does what he believes to be right and in the best interests of a distressed and incurable patient.
It is no less unfair to the patient, if he is the sort of patient who believes in a right to die before his life has lost its human dignity, to find himself, by the sheer accident of where he happens to be living at the time he becomes incurably ill, in the hands of a doctor whose religious or conscientious scruples oblige him to let his patient's illness take its natural course. It is surely also unfair to the patient because, I think—and I have very good evidence for thinking this—the chances of a merciful release will vary according to the patient's means. A patient dying with nursing care in his own home or in the private wing of a hospital will have a better chance of the merciful short-cut than a patient dying in a general or a geriatric ward of a hospital in a poor or working-class area. For in such hospitals—and this is no reflection on the hospitals or the doctors—the doctor realises that a very much larger number of people will know exactly what he is doing and that he is therefore running a greater risk of blackmail or of being reported by one of the staff to the hospital authorities. I am not arguing about the religious or moral objections to euthanasia. I am arguing about what I think is one of the most common practical objections to euthanasia; that is, the practice of doctors at the present time.
But I should like to deal with another objection, one that is due, I think, to a complete misunderstanding of what voluntary euthanasia means. Some people do not realise the difference between voluntary and imposed or compulsory euthanasia. This is the fallacy, if I may say so, of the "slippery slope" and the "thin end of the wedge" argument. This Bill does not propose that euthanasia should be performed except by the express wish of an adult person in a balanced frame of mind. This is the whole object of the declaration of request which can be revoked at any time and which, so that the person can still change his mind, cannot be acted upon for a least 30 days.

1213
Therefore, the mercy killing of deformed or idiot children, or the liquidation by the State of the senile, the incurable or the mentally defective has not the remotest connection with euthanasia by consent, which is what this Bill (and everybody who supports it) means by voluntary euthanasia. Let us decide about involuntary or imposed euthanasia when such a proposal is made in this House. I should certainly oppose it strongly, and I believe that other noble Lords who support this Bill would take exactly the same line. This may sound like underlining the obvious; but I think it must be emphasised so long as people still talk about voluntary euthanasia as the "thin end of the wedge" and as leading by stages to mercy killing or even the official liquidation of the unfit. I think we heard echoes of this sentiment in some of the speeches of several noble Lords this afternoon.
My Lords, the neutral stance of the Government is of course the correct and orthodox attitude of any Government towards a Bill of this kind. This was the attitude of the Conservative Government in 1936 when the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made very much the same speech as we heard to-day from my noble friend Lady Serota. I do not think there was substantially very much to choose between them. It is the attitude invariably adopted towards controversial Bills which do not involve Government policy. Lady Serota, like Lord Gage in 1936, pointed out many of the very genuine administrative difficulties. While she said that the Bill is a matter for every noble Lord to decide upon in principle, as a matter of conscience, she very properly spent most of her speech underlining the administrative difficulties. But the decision—and may I emphasise this?—this evening, as it always is on a Second Reading of a Public Bill, is a decision about the principle of the Bill. The fate of this Bill should turn on whether or not your Lordships consider that voluntary euthanasia should be lawful. That is the principle at stake in the Bill.
There are a number of noble Lords who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia on grounds of conscience or on ethical or religious grounds, grounds which all of us respect; and they, very properly, will vote against the Bill. There are others like myself who support it and who will
1214
therefore vote for the Bill. But I have the impression that there are a number of noble Lords who are undecided or who may be against the Bill because it presents some daunting administrative difficulties, difficulties that have been pointed out very clearly by my noble friend Lady Serota. I very much hope that such noble Lords will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading; for that would enable the House to examine these administrative and drafting difficulties in Committee and, with the help of the expert medical and legal opinion with which your Lordships are so richly endowed, to find out whether these difficulties can be overcome. If they turn out to be insuperable, the Bill can still be withdrawn or rejected. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will resist the Amendment, will give the Bill a Second Reading and will not condemn it without hearing the further evidence that we cannot get until we have reached the Committee stage.
6.26 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford implied, if he did not actually state, that only those who were young and innocent will support this Bill. I do not think that either my noble friend Lord Listowel or I can be included in the category of the young; and I doubt very much whether we can be included in the category of the innocent. I am bound to say that I first heard of euthanasia when I was both young and innocent. I was taking part in municipal election campaigning in Glasgow when one of my opponents, in the characteristic propaganda of the time, accused the Socialists of being in favour of free love, of euthanasia and of everything except the Gestapo, which in those days had not been invented. Of course, what he was referring to was not voluntary euthanasia but what we might now call "Hitlerite euthanasia".
Probably because I was young and innocent, and had had an inadequate education, I did not really know what my opponent was talking about; but as time went on I gave attention to the matter and studied it. I did not become deeply concerned about it, however, until rather more than ten years ago when my mother, then in her eighties, fell and broke her leg and at that age, in the anæsthesia for the setting and pinning, suffered a stroke

1215
from which she never recovered. For at least two years she was what has been described in the course of this debate as a veritable vegetable. She was a helpless, hopeless old lady, with no joy in life; with nothing but misery; with nothing of what my noble friend Lord Longford called the contribution of the old people to make to life. She was a burden on herself, a burden to her family, a burden to the hospital service, a burden to society.
I am bound to say that over two or more years, day by day, week by week, watching my mother in that situation, I thought more and more deeply about voluntary euthanasia. I knew that if a Bill of this kind had been in operation while she was in her seventies—because she was then a very alert, strong-minded, determined old lady—she would undoubtedly have opted to sign the declaration provided for in the Bill, so that when this mishap came about it would have been for the two doctors to decide, as in humanity they would have done, to put her out of her misery. For this reason, my Lords I do not approach this matter from a high plane of moral religious or ethical principle. I approach it from the point of view of practical, humane considerations, and I hope that, however much amendment this Bill may need in Committee, the principle of voluntary euthanasia will be accepted and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
6.30 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I felt that I had to say a few words on this Bill as within my group of hospitals I have an adult hospital for the severely subnormal. I have sought information from two doctors, and they both felt that they did not wish to have the burden of what they called as "acting as God" thrust upon them. Naturally, in my hospital group we have some sad cases of patients who do not know the light of day. I fully realise that these are not covered by this Bill as they could not give their consent. But, my Lords, there are mentally handicapped and confused, aged people who to my mind could be persuaded to sign the form for euthanasia although they might not fully understand the implications of their request.
I have worked for a number of years with the medical profession for whose
1216
members I have the most sincere admiration. I am not prepared to thrust upon them this added responsibility which could be interpreted as to be in conflict with their Hippocratic Oath. Why should we in Parliament rush into legislation of this kind, then quietly pass by on the other side and hand over all the responsibility to the medical authorities? Religious beliefs are still bitterly at variance over the abortion legislation, and now we have before us this Bill which would place in another's hands the responsibility of life and death. Cannot you see, my Lords, that whatever the doctors do under this Bill will appear to someone to be wrong, and that blame for an irretrievable act will be apportioned to the doctor?
My Lords, in this strange world in which we live we have not reached the stage when we can by legislation take the life of an innocent man or woman; and certainly not, to my mind, in this House can we name two doctors as the executioners of a patient. Will not some of the old, and the best of the old, feel that they have become a burden on their family and friends and believe that it is their duty to sign this form? Is this not putting ourselves in the position of procuring murder and the patient in the position of a suicide? We have all known suffering. We have also seen notices in the papers of a death after an illness bravely borne. Let us leave the future of the suffering in the able hands of the members of our medical profession who would not, I feel sure, prolong unnecessarily the life of a suffering patient.
Finally, my Lords, may I say that it is in my opinion a dangerous path that we tread in relation to this Bill. Is it not possible that in years to come this Bill, if it is passed, may be extended to those who cannot speak for themselves? Was this not the horror of the Nazis, in that the first to go were the severly subnormal? I beg your Lordships to cast out this Bill as one that is against all ethics of religion and morality and can only bring unhappiness and a sense of guilt to the doctors concerned and the family of a patient who died under its authority.
6.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, when your Lordships debated the Abortion Bill I repeatedly felt that there was

1217
an imperfect understanding of existing medical practice. I believed that over the centuries my profession had evolved ethics which served well. I deplored the proposition that legal rigidity should be a substitute for medical discretion. I believe that this Bill suffers from a similar lack of understanding. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I repeat what I said on that occasion, because I believe it is relevant to to-day's business. I said:
"The medical profession has been exercising discretion over matters of life and death for a long time. Public approval has not so far been withheld from this inevitable aspect of our work. I am sure that it will not surprise nor dismay your Lordships that when a patient is suffering intolerable pain from, say, advanced cancer, pain-killing drugs are humanely prescribed, nor that the alleviating dose may become so large that a merciful release happens sooner than nature herself would have permitted. That is an example of medical discretion.
I imagine that few of your Lordships would support a Bill at some future time which sought to codify the precise indications for such humanity." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/7/67, col. 329.]
In this Bill Clause 8 is crucial. If current medical practice fulfils the requirements of that clause the others are, in my view superfluous. But your Lordships are entitled to wonder whether our present practice in fact fulfils the requirements of Clause 8. There is no doubt in my mind that it does. If pain cannot be relieved by drugs except in such a dose that will make the patient unconscious, then those drugs are so prescribed. But this is to-day at the attendant doctor's discretion and not, in the words of the Bill, at the patient's "request".
Why do I object to, at the patient's "request"? I object because the request is virtually never forthcoming and legal rigidity, far from easing the path of the dying as is the creditable object of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, would have a contrary effect. "If the patient so requests", really embodies everything that euthanasia means, a quiet and easy death. But if left to the patient alone such would almost never happen. I have been consultant physician at the Royal Berkshire Hospital for twenty years. On only one occasion during that time has any patient seemed concerned over euthanasia. This was a retired General who had a few years previously signed a declaration similar to that proposed in this Bill. His family knew of this and his family doc-
1218
tor also knew. I saw him at consultation, when, unhappily, every personal requirement to ask for the implementation of the declaration existed. It was known that the document was in the drawer of his bedside table. I was rather apprehensive, but his mind was quite unclouded. He never raised the matter. His death was as comfortable as medical discretion could achieve.
When I was preparing my notes, I wondered whether perhaps my professional experience was too restricted and that doctors in other fields more closely involved in these tragic problems might have other experience. I have talked to one senior consultant radio-therapist, a field sadly and uniquely concerned with terminal cancer. He tells me that never, in 17 years of consultant experience, has a request for euthanasia come from a patient, even obliquely. So, in conclusion, may I beg your Lordships to reject this Bill and accept that medical discretion as now practised will, when necessary, humanely ease the road from life to death.
6.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, as I think we all admit, this is a most difficult and controversial subject. The taking of life in any circumstances must make us all reflect very carefully. Recently, I happened to look at a television programme which dealt with cases of hopeless illness. Terrible cases of children who have no hope of survival were shown, but the case that has haunted me ever since was that of a girl of about 14 or 15, who had had a bad car accident, was rushed to hospital, where she was operated upon and her life was saved. So far as her lungs and heart were concerned, she was in perfect health again: but her brain was completely destroyed. A picture of this girl was shown, and the doctor was asked what was going to happen to her. He said that she might live a month or so, or for many years—he could not tell. But whatever happened, her brain could never be restored, and all that could be offered to her was a life in bed and being artificially fed through her veins. That is the sort of case which makes us wonder about euthanasia.
This Bill deals specifically with people who wish to have their lives terminated because of pain and of hopelessness as

1219
a result of having an incurable disease. I want to deal with what seems to me the only strong argument against the principle of the Bill. I do not want to go into the details, which I think should be altered a great deal in Committee, if the Bill gets a Second Reading. Many people have religious objections, that life must not be taken in any circumstances—though, as has been pointed out, exceptions are often made; in the case of self-defence or war, or even capital punishment; but I respect these convictions. It is to others who sympathise with the principle of euthanasia that I appeal.
I do not think there is much chance of members of the medical profession being bribed or suborned in this matter. I have a tremendously high opinion of the medical profession in this country. I could not admire them more for their work, their knowledge, their wisdom and their compassion, and one is reluctant to put more responsibility on them. But whether they like it or not, the responsibility of life and death is already in their hands. And in such modern instances as the small proportion of kidney machines in relation to the number of candidates who require them, or the scarcity of organs for transplantation, the doctors must face these professional problems. I think that these are ghastly decisions which they have to make.
One question that worries me is whether it would be possible for a patient to be encouraged by family or friends into thinking that he ought to ask for euthanasia, when, in his heart of hearts, he does not want it. That is the one formidable danger in the Bill. At the same time, I suggest that there are afeguards against such an abuse. One is the time factor. Such a decision cannot be rushed through It may be easy to persuade a person to come to a sudden decision, but a patient has to be made to stick to that decision for a month or longer which will be much more difficult. And there is a greater safeguard in the fact that many people are involved—the general practitioner, the witnesses, the doctors who decide who should be a qualified person. And, of course, one of the doctors has to be a consultant. I cannot believe that these people would not have had long talks with the patient, found out his or her
1220
state of mind, and would not have discovered whether some pressure had been brought upon him or her. I think that this is a real safeguard against possible abuse.
I was surprised to hear one noble Lord say that there have been so few requests for euthanasia but, thinking it over, I find that this is not surprising. People do not ask for something which they know is legally impossible. All they can ask for is additional drugs to relieve their pain. Many of your Lordships must know of people who have suffered severe pain. I do not wish to harrow your Lordships, but I should like to quote one case, because it brings out points that have been raised during the debate. It concerned a woman suffering cancer, who was in great pain for a long time. She was given quite a lot of drugs, but she was continually begging for more. But the doctor would not give her more for two reasons. He said, in the first place, that undoubtedly the pain would get more severe towards the end of her life, and that a residue of power had to be kept in the drugs to combat this pain when it came. I am not a medical man, and I stand to be corrected; but I understand that drugs lose their power if given excessively, and that therefore a reserve had to be kept. The doctor no doubt was also frightened (I think perhaps unduly so in this case) of giving too many drugs and ending the patient's life. This was an example which struck me as tragic, and which would have been alleviated by this Bill which, on the whole, would do a great deal of good. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
6.51 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords. I am grateful for the words of the noble Earl who has just sat down, because I think he illustrated the fact that there is no very distinct cleavage of opinion on this subject, as indeed the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham, indicated in part of his speech. For my part, I should like to take up the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, when he said that life is sacred in the eyes of God. We are indeed concerned, as he said, with very deep mysteries, and it is that approach to life on which I wish to say a few words.

1221
As one who finds it barely credible that the human ovum at the moment of fertilisation acquires an immortal soul, so am I equally, and perhaps even more, incredulous of the proposition that the human soul invariably leaves the body with the last breath of life. I agree that often it is when the heart ceases to beat that the spirit returns to its Maker. But, to my thinking, there are cases where the human spirit no longer activates the body. In such an event, when both soul and mind have departed, there can, according to my lights, be no justification for keeping the body alive. Speaking only for myself, in such circumstances I should not wish to have my life prolonged unduly, rendering me altogether too dependent upon the care and attention of other people.
I know not how many there are who hold this view to be consistent with their Christian faith; but however small a minority we are, we surely have the right to ask those Christians who hold other views to show toleration of our belief and the consequences of our belief, so long as these consequences are not contrary to the public weal. Likewise I would plead for toleration of those who are not of the Christian faith—and there are many of them. Why should they, or we, when completely inert or chronically infirm and miserable be condemned to live? To-day, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, we are discussing the principle of euthanasia. I trust your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading so that we may have the opportunity of examining with greater care the implications of the clauses, and will not condemn it out of hand, when there is, as this debate has disclosed, so much further evidence to consider.
6.55 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for introducing this Bill and giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to discuss this profoundly important subject. I personally will support the Bill, and I am grateful that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who expressed so sincerely from the Christian point of view what I would maintain from my own point of view. In this matter, which is literally a matter of life and death, I have great respect for those who much search their
1222
consciences and their religious beliefs and who feel that life, even in a broken tabernacle, is sacred, and the many doctors who feel that euthanasia should be left to their compassion and discretion, although, as the law stands, mercy killing as it is now disclosed to be practised is murder and the doctors themselves are at hazard.
For myself I am perfectly clear that, in the words of the poet Seneca:
"As I would choose the ship to sail on, I would choose the manner of my going."
And, like Peggotty in David Copperfield, I would go out with the tide when I felt like it. I am not a morbid person, and I am certainly not contemplating suicide from despair or desperation, but I hope and believe that my general practitioner (I have certain reservations about the objective observer hospital consultant applied by the Bill) would be my pilot on that topic.
Back in the 'thirties, in the days of Lord Moynihan, of Killick Millard and Mr. Justice McCardie, I was very closely associated with the Euthanasia Society. Although the death of Mr. Justice McCardie by suicide made me as a euthanasian pause, it raised the kind of question which my noble friend Lord Huntingdon raised. He was suffering from post-influenzal depression and thought he was useless, finished, through and discarded. But he would have thought quite differently 48 hours later. That is a consideration which every doctor has in mind. I may be a lapsed member of the Society, but not because I have disowned its intentions or its arguments, which I accepted when I was much younger, when I would not have been thinking about death. Then I was influenced by considerations which go far beyond the intentions of this Bill, and certainly beyond the burden of your Lordships' arguments—and the noble Lord. Lord Grenfell, has expressed these arguments most powerfully.
It arose from family circumstances, which sombrely coloured my whole young life. I had three aunts. The youngest was afflicted at the age of two by what must have been some kind of meningitis, which paralysed her, rendered her speechless and left her helpless, a slobbering creature without control of her bodily functions. Her mother, my grandmother, died when that child was four. One of

1223
my aunts, who was a very beautiful and vivacious woman, decided to devote her entire life to this younger sister. She broke off her engagement. There was a noble woman about whose glorious self-sacrifice the ministers in my home town preached sermons. But my other aunt was also sacrificed. She had to go out to work in the mills to earn the keep for the other two. Neither of those aunts ever married; and, in fact, no one could ever come around to the house because of this creature—and she was a creature. This creature lived for 60 years. She outlived her eldest sister, and left her other sister a twisted old woman. My childhood memory, which coloured the whole of my attitude to this question, is of an animal screeching and of an ogress. Fear went far beyond my pity. From there on I had no pity for this kind of creature. The only pity I felt thereafter until now was for my other aunts who sacrified their lives and their happiness. I could not, even with respect to life, feel that two lives should be sacrificed for one.
I know that some of your Lordships will feel abhorrence—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has expressed abhorrence—at the suggestion that medicine would have been, or could have been, more merciful if she had not lived. But I would ask your Lordships to take some account not only of the profound question that we have been discussing to-day—and it is very profound. It is the greatest and most deep in all human philosophies, whether one is an Agnostic like myself, or a Christian. It is the most important question we are discussing. But do, please, my Lords, take some account of human dignity and in any devout belief in the sacredness of human life have some concern for the dignity and the personality of the life that is being preserved, and the indignities and the sacrifices which others have to make in preserving that life. To me it is a mockery, a mockery of everything which is in the nature of man, that we should in fact, under the conditions in which we are trying to prescribe what in fact is the nature of life, bedamn the living and condemn people to a death in life.
Whatever your Lordships decide to do about this Bill, you will at some
1224
time—and the sooner, the better; and so far as I am concerned we shall be brought back to it in some circumstances—have to consider not only what we are discussing to-day; you will have to consider the new factors which science has introduced into the whole estimation of what we are discussing to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, has made this very clear. He could not have made it clearer; he could not have said it more completely, and it could not have been said, if I may say so, more beautifully than the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has said it. How are we going in fact to estimate the meaning of life? We cannot even do it scientifically. We have to take an encephalograph to find out whether a person is alive or dead.
At this point I ask your Lordships very seriously to consider what in fact it is that at this moment we are considering; what responsibility we are throwing on the doctors as to the decisions they must make about helping somebody in misery and in suffering out of life. But let us ask ourselves, and seriously ask ourselves, what the medical profession in its ultimate meaning and contribution is doing in quite a different kind of way. Lord Platt made this point clear, and others have raised it, too. I ask your Lordships seriously—I repeat, seriously—to consider that we are in fact making a travesty of the living. I am not considering now just the pain and the misery. I am considering what we are doing to people whom you and I know; and I am speaking now with deep concern and very great and deep affection for many people whom I have seen go through this condition of being artificially kept alive as creatures they would not have wanted to be.
We are now in this age of bioengineering. We are now capable of transplanting human organs. We are capable of surgical plumbing. We are capable of doing what was reported in last week's British Medical Journal as the last stop-press of medical discovery. To every doctor we give the responsibility of his Hippocratic Oath, which I respect—and I respect everyone who has invoked it here. But if we give him the responsibility of his Hippocratic Oath he must take his latest knowledge and give it to his patient, whether the patient wants it or not. This is a tremendous responsibility which is now becoming the human

1225
artefact: the person who is being composted, created by medical science. I ask your Lordships this question seriously, very seriously. I am not being extravagant. If one follows through what is happening to-day, if one takes the meaning of surgical plumbing, of the transplant, what is being transplanted? What is being kept alive? You can eventually finish up with somebody who is a spare-part creation: he has the liver of somebody; he has the kidney of somebody; he could even have the heart and lungs of somebody—to keep alive what? A being? No. What is being kept alive, by any definition which is left to us (because we have only the encephalograph to tell us what is living and what is dead) is a brain. And the brain is not the mind; it is not the personality. The brain is a biological computer. The mind, the personality, is something more. It is a complete being. It is your metabolism—what you ate for breakfast this morning. It is your endocrinal glands; it is your memory; it is everything else. It is what goes into being the being that you think you are.
By no stretch of my imagination would I ever imagine being kept alive by this method. I reject it completely. I have a human right. I notice that in another House one of the Members is invoking opposition to this Bill on the basis of human rights. I am asking your Lordships for support of this Bill on the basis of human rights. I believe in human dignity. We have a right to dignity. And this is basically what we are discussing. We get to this situation, which I have seen; we all have seen it. I think now of very eminent people with whom I have been associated who have been kept artificially alive because they were eminent people. They might just as well have been embalmed, but they were living when they were not really here.
Here we have a problem which has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and it is this. Take one simple illustration. If you have a kidney machine—and kidney machines are in short supply—to whom do you give the use of that kidney machine? There is an eminent person, perhaps a Member of your Lordships' House or a Nobel Prizewinner—I do not care who he is, but he is eminent—and he has a right, almost a prescriptive right, to that machine be-
1226
cause he is old and because he is dignified. And there is a youngster of 15. We do not even know whether he is going to be a juvenile delinquent or is a potential criminal, but he might be a Nobel Prizewinner. But the choice, believe me, in this "playing at God" in the medical profession, I swear to you, will go to the eminent, the aged eminent. This is the choice that we are already making, and at this stage I sincerely ask your Lordships, in considering this Bill, not only to consider its details (we can argue them out in Committee) but to consider the implication of this situation, which goes far beyond just the question of whether we are going to give someone an additional shot of morphine, which is the old measurement of this. We are talking now about choices doctors have to make, that we have to make, in going forward to create "zombies" and "vegetables". I thank your Lordships very much.
7.9 p.m.
LORD POLTIMORE: My Lords, I feel that I must begin with an apology for being very contradictory. I heartily oppose this Bill in every way, yet if I were given the choice I should moat certainly take every advantage in putting down these children who are born absolutely crippled and wrong. I am also in favour of the death penalty on capital offences. Having said that, I must confess that I have very little medical knowledge. My medical knowledge has been confined to a certain amount of work in Africa, on plantations, before people there could be taken to hospitals and suchlike. I have every confidence in the medical profession, and I have owed them a very great debt of gratitude on several occasions. Nevertheless, I think all your Lordships will agree that the medical profession is not infallible.
I have known cases when operations have been performed and they have been perfectly useless. I have a great friend who, before the First World War, came to me in Africa under sentence of death. He was given eighteen months to live. That was in 1913. In 1915 he came back to this country, he managed to "wangle" himself into the Royal Flying Corps; he was decorated in this country; he was decorated by the Imperial Court of Russia, and he is very much alive to-day. I know that since then we have made

1227
great medical strides, and I personally have tremendous confidence in our medical profession.
I have not a great deal of confidence in Clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill, but that does not particularly worry me because I have always remembered some words of an old song of the music halls of the Edwardian period, "We came into this world with nothing on, and we can't take anything out". I think perhaps those words are very suitable to-day, when one thinks of it. But surely the whole of this question could be put into a nutshell—into eight syllables of the English language: "Man proposes, God disposes". The Germans put it better still; they put it in four syllables, Mann denkt, Gott lenkt. That, I think, is the key to the whole situation. Are you prepared to take a step in your own life, or in the lives of other people; or are you prepared to do something which you are not supposed to do? Surely we have all been put into this world to do a certain job; we admit that we can do nothing without the help of God; and, finally, it is God who makes the decision and not we ourselves.
I consider that if this Bill were carried through it would be a most dangerous thing, because it begins by taking away the responsibility; and you are going to decide and to make the determination whether you have the right to end your own life or the life of anybody else. I ask your Lordships, if it really came to the point, supposing you had a relation or a friend who you knew had a fatal illness and could not live, and who you knew was suffering greatly, would it not require a great deal of courage, a great deal of determination, to sign on the dotted line and to give his death sentence? I do not believe that you would do it, my Lords. I would not do it for one moment. The alternative—what I would do, and what I am sure most of your Lordships would do—would be to pray to the Almighty God that He, in His bountiful mercy, would with all speed give to your loved one
"that peace which the world cannot give, and which passeth all understanding."
And I, as a humble Christian, am sure in my own mind that your prayers would not be in vain.
7.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I do not question the sincerity and the good faith of my noble friend and those who helped him to draft this Bill, but I think that what they have lacked—and I am afraid this sounds a little presumptuous—is some advice from people like my noble friend and colleague, Lord Brock, who I thought made an excellent speech. The point is that this is a matter which cannot be thought of in theoretical terms. It requires close knowledge of death, of the sick room, of suffering, of human nature when faced with all these problems as to whether life is worth living and whether one should weigh up those things that make it worth living or going on with for a little longer—these are the human problems which must be considered when you are drafting a Bill of this kind.
I am not going to deal with some of the technicalities because I must admit that some of them seem a little naïve in their presumptions. I just want to deal generally with some aspects that have struck me. There is a feeling among young people who are "with it" to-day—and we were all "with it" at some time and longing to do something different from our elders—that no individual should be denied the right to release himself from the pain and distress of an incurable disease. On the face of it, that is unanswerable. Well, every individual has that right. In 1961 the law permitted any individual who found life intolerable to take his own life, and of course in those circumstances that is quite right; but that decision involves that person alone. This Bill, dealing with enthanasia, is a different matter. It involves not only the patient and those instructed to take his life but—and this is the point I am going to make this evening—also every other person in the country suffering from some incurable disease.
If your Lordships will forgive me for saying so, I come from a large medical family. I was qualified at 25. My father was a doctor, my husband is a doctor, my daughter is a doctor and I have a number of nephews who are doctors. Naturally we discuss these matters and it is a curious thing that in my medical life never once have I been requested by a

1229
seriously ill patient to give him an overdose. Why is that? The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, emphasised the point that although life may be painful, physically and mentally, although one may get a little weary, nevertheless life is sweet, and there is no positive indication that as life goes on and becomes more painful the individual wants to be destroyed. I must confess that I sometimes wonder just where the demand for this Bill has come from. Is this a great omission in our National Health Service? I have to confess that those of us who were planning the Health Service in the early 1930s did not give any attention to euthanasia; we were much more concerned with the question of conserving life.
According to this Bill, the individual who signs a declaration must be sane. I can only say that a patient suffering from some chronic complaint is not lucid and in full possession of all his faculties, although he may not be mentally ill. Most people are not supermen and they become childlike as they lie and watch a wife or some other near relation toil day and night at tasks which can be uncongenial in the sick room and even repugnant to a person not trained in nursing. This Bill presupposes that this patient, completely lucid, will watch this and then decide to make a declaration; that he will sum up the position, ask for a pen and paper and arrange for his despatch after 30 days have elapsed. I am trying to bring this Bill into the sickroom. In the first place, who is going to tell him that he is going to die? This is a very interesting point. I have never met any doctor who tells his patient that he is doomed and in consequence deprives him of the most comforting assurance, that of hope. Who, first of all, is going to tell him he is doomed in order to set this rather macabre machinery into operation? Of course, we know the relatives are often told; but as the declaration for euthanasia can only be signed by the patient, it must be left to a relative, perhaps with ulterior motive, to remind the sick man of the availability of euthanasia and the part that he must play in the initial stages.
Two doctors have to certify that the sick man is incurable; and, by the way, it seems to me a most curious thing that two strangers in a hospital must certify that he is incurable and one of those undertake the delivering of the coup de grace. But
1230
the general practitioner, who may have brought him into the world, who may have been with him through all the problems of his family, may have nothing to do with his ending. I shall come to that point in a minute. If two consultants have to be invited to pronounce on him, this, of course, can be done by friends who can arrange these preliminaries. Then the stage is set, and any time after the next 30 days the lethal dose can be given, provided, of course, that the patient signs the declaration.
But the instinct of self-preservation is the strongest in all of us. Who has ever heard of a patient with cancer, on leaving, let us say, the out-patient department of one of our big voluntary hospitals, deliberately running under a lorry in order to end his pain? His instinct when he comes out of the out-patients department, although he knows he has cancer, is to jump out of the way, as quickly as a healthy man if he can, such is the instinct of self-preservation. Therefore, my Lords, I very much doubt that this man in the first place will do as expected of him and sign the declaration unless legislation of this kind is put on the Statute Book and it is brought to his notice by somebody.
Of course, there are patients surrounded with loving care, where there is ample help available and where the inconveniences associated with chronic sickness are minimal. But this picture of the sick room is far from universal. Some illnesses involve so much hard work that those in attendance day and night soon show signs of fatigue; and I think the demands on our hospital accommodation provide ample evidence of the problems of the sick and aged in our society. That is the background that doctors see every day of their lives. If euthanasia becomes the law of the land every overcrowded family will be familiar with the terms of the Act, and undoubtedly there will be somebody to remind the invalid of his newly acquired powers over his own disposal. That is an additional horror that can be inflicted by these provisions on all people suffering from an incurable disease.
It may be said, and I think it is true, that perhaps a tiny minority may opt for dismissal; but the majority, with a strong instinct to survive, will suffer intensely from the knowledge that they

1231
could, if they wished, relieve their relations of a burden. The patient may even discover that the family is divided, some wanting to press him to sign the declaration and others against it. It is no good the noble Lord telling me that two signatures are necessary from people who will declare that there has been no pressure. In overcrowded homes pressures can be unspoken; there is no need for somebody to go up and say, "Sign a declaration". There is the old person in a room which is desperately needed by the older children. Therefore this part of the Bill which provides for signatures from people who will declare there has been no pressure is of course nonsense; it is completely unrealistic.
This individual who feels that he is unwanted may soon develop a sense of guilt and may freely respond and offer to sign his own death sentence. But one day, feeling a little better, he will revoke his declaration. That is all provided for in the Bill. Then all the horror of subtle persuasion and a possible further revocation begins again. However, let us assume that he finally signs his declaration. Then he is subject to a new form of mental torture as he waits for the lethal dose.
The Bill provides for the doctor or the nurse to administer the dose. The nurse, perhaps a young woman of 21 who has just become qualified, who went into nursing because she had a big heart, she had compassion, though nevertheless society has always exploited her, given her long hours and low pay—she is to be chosen in this Bill as an executioner. My Lords, who could have been so unthinking as to put that into this Bill? If one or both, the doctor and the nurse, at the last moment, refuse to give the lethal dose, there will be a gruesome search for replacements. Why have the doctor and the nurse been chosen? The administration of the lethal dose will not call for any particular expertise. During the patient's illness many unqualified people have given him medicine, and given him quite possibly an injection. Surely the final act is one which should be performed by someone whose hand would not be infirm of purpose.
I am not being unkind—I am sorry my noble friend is not here—but I thought, if this Bill becomes an Act, who
1232
are qualified to be the executioners? I can think only of people who are dedicated to this particular cause. Therefore, could not the officers of the Euthanasia Society provide a small squad for what is in their opinion a humane function? I have to confess I then looked up the names of the officers, and I found that the Chairman of Committees of this House is the President of the Euthanasia Society. But why not? If you feel that this is what society needs, if you feel that we have been remiss and that we should provide people to kill off the unwanted and the sick, then you should not be squeamish: you should not say, "This hand will not hold the dagger". Therefore, if it becomes law we shall, at the Committee stage, have to look very carefully and see whether the Bill can be amended along the lines I have suggested.
And no doubt if it became law there may be a statutory method adopted for killing a patient as expeditiously as possible. That seems to me logical. If you decide to kill, surely you will decide which is the kindest and nicest method. Here we hanged, but in the United States they have decided to kill their criminals with an electric chair. If we pass a measure which will provide for the killing off of patients, then certainly we must be as humane as possible, and we may need to have a discussion here as to what is the most expeditious way. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of legal cases, because doctors or the members of the Society who are to do the killing will be charged with not using the right methods. Therefore we shall have the most interesting legal discussions. I should also like to know what will be the certified cause of death in these cases. If morphia is used, then while cancer may be a contributory cause the immediate cause will be morphia poisoning. The death certificate provides space for all the relevant details, and these are expected to be supplied in full on it. This is an important practical problem, and I hope that my noble friend who introduced the Bill will provide the information.
So, finally, I would ask those who have supported this measure whether, having heard this debate and having considered the whole question again, they really feel that these provisions are more conducive to a civilised way of life, or whether they represent a reversion to a more primitive

1233
existence in which those who have outgrown their usefulness to the community should be despatched as painlessly as possible.
7.32 p.m.
EARL FERIZERS: My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I should like to pay tribute to her speech, which I found most interesting. It seemed to say so many of the things which I believe many noble Lords must think; yet it said them in a way which everyone could understand and appreciate. I am bound to say at the outset that I am an opponent of this Bill for two basic reasons. One is that I disagree in principle with euthanasia, and the other (and this by no means suggests that it is more important) is that, if accepted, the principle of voluntary euthanasia will in time give way to a more general and less restricted application of the practice.
The great attraction of this Bill, or of the principle of this Bill, is that it appeals, among other things, to the emotional side of people—and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense. It appeals to the kindliness, to the generosity, to the sympathy and even, in some cases, to the humanity of people. To those who might normally be opposed to euthanasia, this Bill, or one like it, has the greatest chance of all of being able to persuade them that, after all, there is a case for an exception. We are obliged to conjure up in our minds the sight of people, probably aged, suffering from a terminal disease, or suffering acute ravages of agony. The thought, as is the fact, is most unacceptable. Yet here in this Bill we are given the chance of relieving them of their agony or, more strictly, of permitting the people themselves to ensure that they may be relieved of their agony.
No one, my Lords, could fail to be disturbed at the thought of such suffering, and I can well understand the sentiments of those who feel that they will be doing a service, either to the sufferer or to humanity, or to both, by allowing the person, at his discretion, to bring forward the date of his inevitable death. But such a rigorous variation of our code of life requires one to look deeper than that. We cannot, I suggest, legislate for the really hard cases, strong as indeed their case may be. We must see what will, or can be, the effect of this law on society as a whole.
1234
I believe that we should be fundamentally wrong to condone the termination of, and to permit members of society to terminate, the lives of others, even within certain defined limits. If one permits life to be so extinguished, one debases, I suggest, the value of human life, and probably debases also the value of the spiritual attainments which one likes to think the human has over the other species. But even if one were to take the view that in these cases of people suffering from an incurable and agonisingly painful disease, disease which can end only in death, one should be permitted to take the more lenient and considerate view, I should be against this Bill, but for a different reason. I think that the pressures that would be put upon people suffering from these ailments would, as the noble Baroness has said, be considerable, unjustifiable, and in some cases, quite intolerable.
There are two types of pressure. There is the active and there is the passive pressure. When people are old and ill they are entirely dependent upon the people around them who look after them. They become dependent upon them, not just for their physical wellbeing and for their needs, but also for their advice, their help, their encouragement and their moral support. It does not need a fund of imagination to envisage an unscrupulous person suggesting to an invalid that he or she takes advantage of the facilities which are now offered to them by this Bill.
This might not be done in a coarse manner such as one might readily imagine, but could well be done out of a genuine desire to try to help. But, of course, it is but one step further down the road of permissiveness or unscrupulousness to see people wanting an aged relative out of the light because they would be relieved of the worry of looking after him or her, and might possibly be financially better off as a result of the death. There would be all sorts of ways, entirely legal and above board, of bringing to the attention of the person in question the possibilities which this Bill contains for him or her. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may say that the Bill takes care of the unscrupulous. I simply do not believe it. It takes care of the unscrupulous who act in an unscrupulous

1235
way, but it does not take care of the unscrupulous who act in a scrupulous way. These are the active and more obvious pressures, but they are none the less important for that.
Then what about the passive pressures? Let us for a moment consider a person aged and suffering when a Bill such as this passes into law, a person who does not need to take advantage of its provisions but who yet feels that he or she ought to. Can one not envisage a person who knows that he requires looking after, who knows that he is a liability on those who tend him, feeling, "I know that I am a liability. I know that I create work. I know that I am a desperate tie on my relatives. It would be much easier for all if I were out of the way. I do not want to die but in the interests of others I feel that I ought to."? What a horrible situation, and what an intolerable pressure to put upon anyone, least of all one who is aged and infirm! Or, if one takes the matter a stage further, one can visualise a person thinking, quite erroneously, that the relatives would be happier with him or her out of the way, and then taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill, to the considerable distress and unhappiness of his relatives and friends.
My Lords, we should be reducing human life, and indeed humanity, to a level of which in my judgment we should not be greatly proud if we permitted the termination of life only at the discretion of an individual and performed by another. I fully see the force of the argument that points to the misery and pain created by disease and illness, and that a service would be done if we were to try to alleviate such cases. But your Lordships know only too well the saying that "hard cases make bad law". I believe that in this instance the cases are hard, but I believe that the law, if we did as is suggested, would be bad.
In considering this Bill, I was reminded of something which the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Canterbury, I think once said; namely, that there is no unreasonable argument that cannot be proved reasonable by reason. I think that we have seen the protagonists for this Bill use reason in presenting their case. They have made the argument look reason-
1236
able, but I believe that, though understandable, it is fundamentally unreasonable. I believe that we should be quite wrong to accept this Bill, and I, for one, shall vote against it.
7.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in a difficult position talking at this time of the evening. I do not want to keep your Lordships from the vote, but I have a number of things that I very much want to say. When it comes to the vote, I am going to be in the unusual position, for me, on a question like this, of going into the Lobby with a great many noble Lords who have spoken. One way in which I could shorten my speech would be to say how enormously I have agreed with the things that have been said. I should then have to read out a list of speakers after the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, including the noble Baroness, Lady Serota; the noble Lord, Lord Brock; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham; the noble Earl, Lord Longford; the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—the last two speakers in particular; and I will leave out many in between.
As so often happens, it seems to me this debate has strayed from what I thought it was originally. I understood that we were going to debate the Amendment to the Bill for voluntary euthanasia. It has now become a question of whether we should give a Second Reading to the Bill with the idea of amending it later; whether we should introduce another Bill later dealing with involuntary euthanasia; or even, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whether one would have to have a new word which meant nothing to do with the taking of life at all.
For that reason, the few things I have to say I shall try to confine entirely to the Title. I had better summarise them quickly by saying that if this is a question of voting for a Bill, or any Bill, for voluntary euthanasia, I would support the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, because it has been proved to me by all the speeches made by those who know about it, to my mind beyond any possible argument, that it is not practical, it would not be possible. I do not want to repeat what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and others as to the difficulties of enforcing voluntary

1237
euthanasia. If it is a question of the principle of euthanasia—which many people have talked about—including compulsory euthanasia, I would be against it because I think it is wicked.
I think I can save your Lordships' time by touching on only two subjects. One was brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, when he referred to the "slippery slope". It was suggested that that is something we should not be discussing because we are merely discussing this Bill. I should have more confidence in that argument if there had not been other Bills which we have discussed recently and which have made me very anxious about legislation of this kind. One has been mentioned by many of your Lordships, the Abortion Act.
I am possibly prejudiced on that subject, but I should like to read, if I may, an extract from a letter from the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists on the subject of that Act, which I think is relevant because it shows how far that Act has gone since it was passed. It was in a letter to the Guardian on February 18, in answer to an article which had suggested that doctors ought to carry out abortion virtually on demand. I will read only two paragraphs. Sir John Peel writes, among other things:
"Your readers will recollect that during the debates on the Bill"—
that is the Abortion Reform Bill—
"in its passage through Parliament its sponsors and supporters declared repeatedly that the object of the Bill was not in fact 'abortion on demand'. Since the Bill passed through Parliament expert legal opinion has been given that the Bill does not in fact create abortion on demand.
In spite of your insinuation to the contrary, the majority of Fellows and members of this College "—
that is the College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists—
"are trying conscientiously to interpret what the Act says is legal, and not necessarily what the public seems to imagine is allowed. It would be well for the public to appreciate more fully that abortion outside the terms laid down in the Act is still a criminal act, and surely it is the role of responsible journalism to clarify the difference between the facts of law and the public's interpretation of them.
"If in fact the object of the Act was the establishment of an N.H.S. 'abortion on demand' service, as your leader implies, then indeed the sponsors of the Bill were guilty of
1238
misleading both Parliament and the public in the most shameful way. To state with approval that independence of clinical judgment is the cornerstone of medical practice, and then to suggest that because consultants are the servants of society they must accede to the 'demands' of their patients in the matter of abortion, is utterly contradictory."
That suggests to me that a great many people, and some very reputable newspapers, are now attacking doctors for not carrying out the law, and suggesting that they should be, as the noble Baroness put it, executioners. In answer to her question: "If one is going to have execution, who should do it?", I think it is possible to argue that if one carries far enough the slogan that the function of a Government is to govern, then the function of an Executive can very easily become to execute.
I believe that this is one of the few Bills in your Lordships' House which is quite incapable of being amended. I can suggest only two Amendments. One would be to make the title "Involuntary Euthanasia", because I believe that is the only kind that is possible. However, that would mean amending the Bill. The other Amendment might be thought frivolous. There is a paragraph to the effect that the qualified patient—and in this case "qualified", rather unusually, means "having agreed to"—must be of the age of majority. I think there would be a case in this Bill for raising the age of majority. I will not say, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, once suggested, that it should be raised to the age of 80; I think raising it to 180 would be the only way that I would feel that this Bill could go through.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said that he was not going to discuss this subject on a highly religious plane. He gave a very moving and graphic account of his experience with his mother. I appreciate that, because my own mother was twice ill in her life. Once she had a depression when she wanted to commit suicide. I am very glad indeed to say that she did not, because she lived a happy life after that. But after a vigorous and energetic life she was dying of cancer—this was quite a long time ago—and it was decided that she was incurable. I was asked by our family doctor, who knew her and us, what was my opinion about their continuing to inject her to keep her out

1239
of pain. They would have to increase the dose, and this might or might not shorten her life. I had no hesitation at all in saying, on behalf of my father who disliked talking about those things, "Keep her out of pain if you can." That is quite a different thing from killing her. It would have been a quite different matter if they had said to me, "Shall we give her something which will kill her straight away?"
I am not being sentimental about this matter, because a great deal depends on what one sees. But I believe that the worst thing about the Bill, if it came into force, would be the strain which it would put on doctors and upon medical attendants. Surely they have quite enough strain of that sort already. A few days ago I was talking to a eminent gynæcologist who is in hospital with a serious illness of the heart. He told me of an incident in the last six months involving a hospital attendant, a porter, who after a legal abortion operation was carrying a baby with instructions to put it in the incinerator. It cried so vigorously that he felt he could not do it. He took it to the pediatric ward and I understand that it died after a day and a half. That is the kind of thing which people have to put up with—and nobody is blaming anyone for that—if laws are passed which involve these difficult decisions. I do not know what the man's duty should have been. I believe that the case is under consideration by the Procurator Fiscal.
Bills of this kind can come in only on the assumption, which is made throughout this Bill, that euthanasia (which in Greek means a good death) means a comfortable, easy death—in fact, the sort of death we all want. Most of us know that doctors will try to give us that, if they can legitimately do so. Therefore it is unnecessary to alter the law in that respect. It is a different matter if it means precipitating death. As the noble Baroness said, we must make up our minds whether we want to put out of the way anybody who may be inconvenient, unhappy or maladjusted in any way. It would certainly be most difficult to know where to stop.
I do not like to introduce a religious note from a lay Bench, but such a note has been introduced by other speakers,
1240
particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who in a moving speech invoked St. Paul to suggest that charity could include killing somebody for his or her own good. Speaking as a layman, I think it is interesting that we were discussing in Advent the Abortion Act which would have made out a good case for preventing Christ from being born. The present Bill, which we are discussing in Lent, assumes, without argument, that a good death and a painless death are necessarily the same. I believe this to be a dangerous fallacy. I believe that a doctor's business is to make death easy, if possible, but not to precipitate it.
The answer to people who ask, "What is a human being?" must be a dogmatic one. The agnostic answer about life and death was given well by Socrates at the end of a long speech in which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, would say he committed suicide, because he invited death. His concluding words were: "This case is finished, discussed. We must go our way, you to life and I to death—and which is the best only God knows". That is all that can be said from the agnostic point of view.
I have a feeling that the right definition of a human being is on the lines of the reply given by an Irish M.P. who, when asked to define a country, said that it was something a man would die for, adding, "Not even the honourable Member would die for the Meridian of Greenwich". A human being, to me, is someone for whom Christ died and who went through the same experiences as Christ is said in history to have gone through: being a child in the womb before birth, living in a body, and dying. In regard to any sort of artificial human being, made out of who knows how many clinical elements, in goodness knows how many test tubes in the future, I shall be open to conviction as to how he could be treated. I feel that it will be much more like—I say this in the kindest way—the way an animal is treated. Human beings, both on agnostic and Christian grounds, have a right to life with which nobody, and least of all doctors, should be ordered to interfere.
7.58 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I support the Amendment which was so

1241
ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. My noble friend Lord Raglan was right to introduce this Bill, which has given rise to an interesting debate. I pay tribute to him for the able, sincere and moving way in which he moved the Second Reading. But however well-intentioned the Bill may be, I feel sure that it will open the way to many abuses. I am the Honorary President of Aegis and I am most concerned about the Bill's implications. We have much evidence that elderly people often become confused, and indeed they could sign their own lives away without being fully aware of the consequences. There is grave danger also that patients would become prey to unscrupulous people over the form of declaration. A patient might be killed by a doctor in good faith as a result of a forged declaration. Here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It would be impossible for courts to discover the truth, for the patient—the chief witness—would be dead. Possibly any witnesses, if they ever existed, might not be found or might themselves have died. There would therefore be no way in which the court could arrive at the truth. This was another argument, and a very strong one, which was often adduced against the death penalty and is a point of view which, paradoxically, seems to be held by those who support this Bill.
My other reason for supporting the Amendment is that the Bill creates a dangerous precedent; and on this point I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Listowel said. I am absolutely certain that it could lead to the authorised killing of lunatics, or those who were hopelessly deformed, or, eventually, anybody whom somebody or some wicked Government decided was not wanted and should be done away with. In my view, this Bill is the first step on the road to Auschwitz, and I hope the House will turn back and reject it.
8.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I am sure we are all agreed that this has been a most valuable and interesting debate, and we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for having brought it about. But perhaps the debate has gone on long enough, so I shall confine myself to making just two points: to reiterate one which has been made often
1242
enough, and to make another which has has not been stressed quite so much.
There is no doubt whatever that this Bill for voluntary euthanasia is by legislation out of compassion, and there can be no question but that the compassion which has borne this Bill is utterly genuine and sincere. And yet the principle underlying the Bill is that of admitted assisted suicide, while the overwhelming weight of Christian tradition over centuries is against both suicide and assisted suicide; and not only the tradition of the Christian religion, but, as I understand it, also of the Jewish religion, the Moslem religion and, indeed, of most communities in the human race. This principle of opposition to suicide or assisted suicide rests upon a conviction of the sanctity of human life, respect for human life, the value of human life—call it what you will. So we must be extremely careful and sure of ourselves before we make any breach in that principle.
Breaches have been made, rightly or wrongly, by the Christian churches in the matter of killing in war and in the matter of capital punishment for crime. But I do not think that because of that we ought to make any further inroads into this conviction of the respect and value due to human life. To kill out of compassion is a curious paradox, and the complexities, the problems, the difficulties which we should run into if we were to allow this have been amply demonstrated to your Lordships in the course of this debate, so I shall not recapitulate them. I shall only say again that I believe it to be a matter wherein we should move, with the most extreme caution, when we attempt to make an inroad into a principle which has been upheld by the Christian churches and the Christian religion for centuries and which is also upheld by the greater part of the human race. That is my first point.
My second point is this. While I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the compassion which has brought this Bill on to the Floor of your Lordships' House, I would say that there are many ways in which compassion can show itself. It not infrequently happens that the compassion which seeks to relieve the suffering of a few ends by causing far more suffering than it relieves. I believe that the supporters of the Bill grossly underestimate the fear or anxiety

1243
with which older people, and especially the older, not-so-well-educated people, approach old age and death. Already they are anxious and afraid as the moment draws near when they know they will have to go into an old people's home or a geriatric ward or hospital. They ask: what will they do to me when I go? They are bewildered. Already they have a suspicion that once they get in they will never get out, except to the churchyard, and that earlier, they think, than necessary.
I am quite sure that the effect of this Bill, if it ever reached the Statute Book, would be to be interpreted by those simple people as being an authorisation to the doctors and nurses to put an end to their lives when it was thought right. I quite agree that this fear and anxiety would be entirely unjustified by this Bill, but that is how I think the Bill would be interpreted by ordinary, simple elderly people who feel themselves helpless, in a way unwanted, for one reason or another forced to go into a home or a hospital. This Bill will increase their fear and anxiety, so that they will spend the last years or months of their lives in a really distressing condition of fear, of never knowing, of never trusting those who look after them.
So I think that the compassion which has inspired this Bill would be better replaced by compassion for the millions of elderly people who are already in some fear and anxiety, and that the true compassion is to press for further research into drugs and pain-controlling analgesics, and for more money to be spent to improve both the staffing and the conditions of geriatric homes and hospitals. That is the true expression of the compassion which we all feel for the old and the incurably ill: not to allow them, with the help of a doctor, to kill themselves, but to provide for them the conditions and the circumstances which will make their lives bearable, so that they can die in peace and in dignity. Therefore, my Lords, as I think this Bill is altogether a wrong expression of the compassion which we all feel, I shall vote for the Amendment.
8.10 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, anyone who is at all conscious of the fallability of human judgment, especially in matters
1244
affecting life and death, must feel how difficult it is to vote in favour of this Bill. Especially in this House, where we are used to legislating largely on the basis of known facts, how difficult must it be for us to embark upon legislation into the realms of the unknown. Parliament has already passed an Act abolishing capital punishment, and here we are asked to pass a Bill legalising the capital sentence upon those who are ill or stricken or in pain.
The other curious feature of this debate is that there has been no insistent demand for euthanasia coming from doctors, although this Bill sets out ostensibly to protect their interests. The demand for euthanasia is almost entirely from the one side, on behalf of the patients. Of course doctors must, at some time or other in the course of their experience, have to decide whether or not they are in favour of mercy killing; but they are, so far as I am aware, content to continue to tend their patients under the existing sanctions.
I well remember, as a young assistant some forty years ago, having to decide on my first case of mercy killing. For three days a young mother had been going through her first labour and was desperately longing for her child.Thebaby's head was impacted in her pelvis and it was far too late to perform a caesarean operation. It was a choice between her life and that of the child. The chief obstetrician of a large London hospital was called, and he decided to sacrifice the child. When the operation was over, I was left in charge of a straightforward labour, to deliver what he had made sure would be a dead child. But after a mass of broken cranial and cerebral tissue emerged, the head was born, and to everyone's horror the macerated fœtus began to cry. There were six or seven student nurses all round, and each and every one of us was equally horrified. The mother would soon come out of her anesthetic and demand to see her baby. All I could do was to ask the labour ward sister to supervise the third stage, and to undertake to bathe the baby myself. I asked a nurse to keep on adding a few more extra jugfuls of warm water to the bath, and immersed the baby head first. I suppose they could have laid an accusation against me of wilful murder, or at least of infanticide, but luckily the

1245
nurses all understood and, after their initial dismay, they acquiesced in what was done. That was over forty years ago, and in the same circumstances I would do the same again to-day.
At the other end of the scale, I remember the case of an old man of 82 with a massive cerebral haemorrhage. He lay in a deep coma for two weeks, and consultants had agreed there was no hope of his recovery. I remember deliberating to myself whether or not to hasten the end, and finally decided to inject twice the lethal dose of a certain drug. It had no effect at all. Then I gave four times, then eight times the lethal dose, but still he went on persisting in a deep coma. I felt as if there was some higher force deciding his fate beyond the power of the drug, and decided there and then to allow him to die without further medical intervention.
So often the greatest of specialists are fallible in their judgments. Even Clause 8 of this Bill, which seeks to lay down an entitlement to drugs, can often be at variance with medical experience. I remember a patient in her early forties in the terminal stages of cancer—a brilliant artist, the beauty of whose features were masked by the lines of her suffering. She knew she was shortly to die, and needed twice-daily injections of a pain-killing drug. One morning, as she lay on her death-bed in her studio, she began to talk of her paintings on the walls, and to my surprise after a while she said, "The pain seems mach easier now; I do not think I shall need my injection after all". So there is also a limit to the patient's entitlement to lethal drugs, which the doctor, if he is wise, will always administer with caution.
As one closely connected with the work of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, I have heard of no insistent demand for euthanasia or mercy killing on the part of any of the parents, who often have to carry the heavy burden of caring for these children for the greater part of their lives. Sometimes, on the contrary, these parents speak of the depths of love and affection which they receive from the children in return. I have often been dubious about those lines of Robert Louis Stevenson:
"Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will".
1246
He was dying of tuberculosis on an island in the Pacific, in his early forties. Had he been alive to-day his tuberculosis would certainly have been cured. He would have been able to complete his unfinished novel, The Weir of Hermiston, perhaps the greatest of all his novels, and would have enriched the world's literature with many more great masterpieces.
So many patients say they welcome death, but next morning the sun comes shining in through the window; they feel that God is still in His Heaven; and there is once more the will to live. No doctor can shirk the duty of sitting at the patient's bedside as he faces death. At times the Angel of Death is hovering so close he can almost hear the beating of his wings. But every doctor, in his mission of mercy, will have to hearken to the patient's plea and then decide the issue for himself. Permissive legislation is not likely to lighten his burden. He must struggle with his own conscience, and will invariably prefer to continue under the existing sanctions.
This Bill is still before its time. It has not been allowed the opportunity to be stillborn. We have had the opportunity to-day of debating it at length. Perhaps in twenty years from now, when artificial insemination and test-tube babies are the accepted thing, this Bill will have earned its place on the Statute Book. But, meanwhile, I must very reluctantly vote against its Second Reading.
8.19 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I rise only to make a suggestion. It is a suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to this effect: that in his closing speech this evening he should say to your Lordships that if the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill he will give an undertaking to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. My Lords, about a year ago, when I was sitting in this House, I was astounded to hear that I was the last person to have moved such a resolution. That was in 1939, and apparently it has not been done since. But I believe that this is essentially the sort of Bill in respect of which it would be appropriate for that sort of resolution to be moved. The machinery of it would be simply that the noble Lord would say, "If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I undertake to move, perhaps in

1247
a week's time, that it go to a Select Committee." It would then go to a Select Committee who would hear all the experts from inside and outside the House at leisure and report on it in writing, perhaps with Amendments, perhaps not. Then it would be considered again and, finally, there would be nothing to prevent its going to a Committee of the Whole House in addition to being referred to the Select Committee. Both could be done. I venture in all humility to make this suggestion.
8.20 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for making this suggestion, with which I am in complete agreement, though I should not have had his temerity to propose it; nor have I his experience. His action has given me a moment's breath before following the noble Lord, Lord Segal, whose moving, compassionate and practical speech impressed me greatly. I am moved to speak because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, when he said he believed that public opinion has moved forward in this matter over the last few years. While I sat here I had thrust into my hands a letter from my sister in the North of Scotland. It contains a poem of hers, a verse of which I will read. It is called, "Thoughts on a Geriatric Case":
"If to abort birth is to thwart God's plan
"is not aborting death as grave a treason?
"There is a time for going as well as for arrival.
"This is nor life, nor death;
"it has no rhyme or reason, but 'medicated survival'!"
I quote that, my Lords, because I feel very much with the writer.
I have two points to raise which have not been mentioned in the debate. One is that, except for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I heard no disputation on the ethical and moral subject, which worries me and which is connected with the fact that not only surgery but also pharmacology has produced a measure of death control. I should have liked to hear perhaps from the Bishops' Benches a disputation on: Where do we stand? Is it right that we should vaccinate or use antibiotics? Is it right that we should contemplate euthanasia?
My Lords, my second point, other than supporting what the noble Lord,
1248
Lord Merthyr, said and suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, carefully consider it, is that we have heard no mention of the life assurance industry. I am a director of an insurance company and it seems to me that a Select Committee such as has been suggested would be able to take into consideration the problems which are obviously connected as between life insurance and a Bill of this nature. Those are the two points which I have picked up from the debate. I would again reinforce my support of what Lord Merthyr has said.
8.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I should very much like to ask my noble friend Lord Raglan to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in his suggestion. It seemed to me an excellent one. I came to this House slightly against this Bill and throughout the debate have become more against it. There are a great many arguments which I think the House ought to consider, and I think it would be a very good thing for this country if we could have a Select Committee go thoroughly into this matter so that any future mover of such a Bill would know just where right and wrong stands in this matter. I believe that a Select Committee would do valuable duty to this House and to this country. Therefore, if my noble friend will agree to the suggestion that has been put forward, I shall vote for the Second Reading. Otherwise, I shall vote against it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, may I ask whether such a Select Committee would be restricted to concerning itself with the Bill or with the issues which the Bill embraces? I ask, for information, whether the Committee would have wide terms of reference or would be restricted to examining the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the question is directed at the Table, the Select Committee can consider only the Bill.
8.24 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I have listened to nearly every speech with the greatest attention and I think this has been a very valuable debate. I was going to attempt to answer at any rate some of the points raised in the speeches of noble Lords, but as the debate went on

1249
I decided that I could not. In any case, your Lordships have been here for a long time and probably would rather that I did not do so. With respect, I think that several noble Lords have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and have beaten both me and the Bill with it. I was rather struck with the noble Lord, Lord Brock, who said that the Devil can quote the Scriptures for his own use; and who then went on to quote a great many of Scriptures. There was one remark that I rather resented. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, taunted me, I think, on the barbarous penalties (so he called them) for forging or falsifying the declaration; but I think I should point out that if lesser penalties had been inserted in the Bill I should have stood the risk of more than one noble Lord jumping on me and saying that such penalties were not enough. Of course, these are just the sort of matters which could be threshed out and decided in Committee.
There has been much criticism of the wording of the Bill. It has been suggested that there are many loopholes. My noble friend Lady Serota, speaking for the Department of Health, said that there were formidable practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. I have to accept what she says about those difficulties although I do not accept everything else that she said. However, I do not think that it would be in the least impossible to find either a form of words or a code of regulations which would satisfy your Lordships and the Ministry of Health.
My Lords, I have two courses. One is to withdraw the Bill and to come back, in time, with another. The other course is either to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that we may try to perfect it in Committee or to take the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and to ask your Lordships, having given it a Second Reading, to allow me to move that it be sent to a Select Committee which can call expert evidence and get the whole subject thoroughly probed and discussed upstairs. Or, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggested, we could do both. I think that would be a most useful thing to do. I do not know whether on those latter terms the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, would be prepared to with-
1250
draw his Amendment or whether his objections are so rooted and fixed that he finds he cannot do so. I hope very much that he can. But if he cannot, I would say to those noble Lords who support the principles of the Bill and to those who think that we ought to send it to a Select Committee, even though they disagree with the present terms and are not very fond of the Bill, that their aims and those of the noble Lords who support the Bill in its present imperfect form are much the same. Many noble Lords think that some form of voluntary euthanasia is most desirable and others would like to find out more about it.
My Lords, nothing that has been said to-day against the Bill has persuaded me to think differently from when we started the debate. I appreciate the reservations of many noble Lords, but I think there must be some way of giving people this freedom and therefore, if it comes to a vote, I hope that those noble Lords who are in favour of the principle of the Bill will go into the Lobby against the Amendment.
8.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it is practically impossible now to make a winding-up speech of any length, in the sense of commenting on what noble Lords have said, and I shall make no attempt to do so. We have heard great argument, and my impression is that most if it has been in favour of the Amendment and against the Bill. But I take no stand on any statistical facts or calculations of that kind. My own feeling about the Bill has not been changed; indeed it has been fortified by the speeches of many noble Lords.
I am particularly inclined to pay attention, as I expected to find myself doing before the debate began, not so much to the speakers from among the Lords Spiritual or those on other Benches who speak from religious or moral grounds (these I sympathise with in many eases) as to the views of the doctors. That is my personal standpoint because, as noble Lords may remember, I said at the beginning that I was speaking not for or against the principle of euthanasia but against the Bill, and the people who would have to operate the provisions in the Bill are doctors. We have had five doctors of great distinction speaking in

1251
the debate, and only one spoke in favour of the Bill.
Perhaps the most moving speech of all from the doctors, and the most recent, was that of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, who managed to combine experience, knowledge, compassion and practical common sense all in one deeply moving, short speech, for which I think we may all be grateful, however we feel upon the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, whom we must regard as a particular authority in that he operates (by which I mean that he functions) in the world of the geriatrician, has declared himself against the Bill. He made, as I see it, a particularly important point: that in his experience the demand, or request, for euthanasia came not from patients but from their relations. And this, I think, underlines one of the dangers.
The noble Lord, Lord Brock, put a point in a particularly graphic way, I think, when he said that to sign a declaration in early life which would entitle one to euthanasia in later life was like joining a club. And here I am sure that he touched on a danger, as indeed I did myself; and it is one that has been referred to over and over again: the danger of a declaration which might have been in force for years and might take effect even after a patient had changed his mind. That is a very real danger, and I see no escape from it.
Then I think we should be on our guard against a particular type of argument, one that was not greatly represented in the debate, but it has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords—one in particular; and that is what, if I may use the word without any sense of disparagement, I might call the sentimental argument; that which describes what one sees in a ward full of old people. Probably we have all seen this. The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, described a scene and said one felt stifled by a feeling of the all-pervading lethargy and the pathetic sadness. My Lords, lethargy is not inappropriate in the old. It is not particulary inappropriate, I hope, even in those approaching old age. If it is stifling it is not stifling to the person who is lethargic; it is stifling to the spectator. As for the pathetic sadness, can one be sure that the pathetic sadness one experiences is not one's own, and not that of the patient? I
1252
think it a fallacy to suppose that all people who are old and at the point of death are immersed in sadness and despair.
My Lords, I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that people who are a burden need the protection of society, not the benison of being put out of the way by society. I take also the plea made by many noble Lords, and perhaps first by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham (I cannot quote it exactly), for a new thinking towards the old; not leading to euthanasia to put them out of their troubles, but towards a new education, and for a great growth of institutions such as that represented by my noble friend Lord Thurlow in the hospice of which he spoke, which I think—though I am not sure—is called the Hospice of St. Christopher. There are alternative lines of thinking to the thinking that leads to euthanasia, and I beg noble Lords to devote their attention to them rather than to the idea of simply getting rid of people.
My Lords, I have taken my stand, and I continue to take it, on the fact that this is a bad Bill. It is full of dangers, as has been pointed out by one and all, from beginning to end of the debate. There have been very few speakers who have denied this and none, I submit to your Lordships, who has disposed of any single argument of that kind. There remains the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the Bill should be withdrawn (though as a matter of fact, the Bill cannot be withdrawn, because there is no Motion before your Lordships' House in favour of the Bill), or that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the Bill referred to a Select Committee.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I did not make any suggestion about the Bill being withdrawn. I suggested merely that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, should undertake that if your Lordships gave it a Second Reading he would move—that is, after the Second Reading and before the Committee stage—that it be referred to a Select Committee. I did not mention withdrawal.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I apologise, my Lords, and withdraw unreservedly. I perfectly understand the

1253
situation and the proposal. But if a Select Committee were to be set up, it would, as I understand it, be a Committee to consider this Bill. My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, is right in supposing (though I do not know whether he put it in precisely these words) that my objection to the Bill is too rooted and too fixed to agree to this proposal. I am not being bigoted about this, but I do not see why, if a Select Committee were set up, it should have to discuss merely this Bill. The issue before your Lordships' House, and before Parliament and the country,
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
is the issue of euthanasia. By all means let us set up a Select Committee, or any other inquiry to investigate that. But in the meantime let us forget this Bill, which I believe to be ill-drafted beyond repair; and, as I said in the first place, let us commit it quickly and quietly to a painless knock on the head.
8.40 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Gainsborough, E.

Perth, E.

Auckland, L.

Gray, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Piercy, L.

Beswick, L.

Grenfell, L.

Poltimore, L.

Brock, L.

Hall, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Headfort, M.

Redesdale, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Champion, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Segal, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Summerskill, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cromartie, E.

Longford, E.

Terrington, L.

Denham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Lytton, E.

Thurlow, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vivian, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Waverley, V.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Wise, L.

Furness, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Popplewell, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Raglan, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balerno, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L.

Lambert, V.

Stonham, L.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strathclyde, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Merthyr, L.

Swansea, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Foot, L.

Platt, L.

Wade, L.

Goodman, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wellington, D.

Gridley, L.

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
WITHAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
LANDS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY'S AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SALISBURY RAILWAY AND MARKET HOUSE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
FARMER AND COMPANY, LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL LUTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
  HOUSE OF LORDS SITTINGS
  HOUSE OF LORDS SITTINGS
  DRUGS AND POISONS CONVICTIONS
  DRUGS AND POISONS CONVICTIONS