Sitting of 11 November 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with their Address of 4th November, was pleased to receive the same very graciously, and to give the following Answer:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  The Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill was, according to Order, read the Second time; and ordered to betaken into consideration tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    Condemned Bridge, Kensington Road, Northolt
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Transport (1) what steps are being taken by his Department, the local authority and other bodies involved, to replace the condemned bridge at Kensington Road in Northolt, Middlesex;
    (2) if he will authorise the construction of a Bailey bridge as a temporary measure at the site of the condemned bridge at Kensington Road, Northolt, Middlesex,
    154
    as proposed to him in representations by the hon. Member for Ealing, North.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): The highway authority for Kensington Road is the London Borough of Ealing.
    I understand that the British Waterways Board has promised to bear the cost of replacing the bridge to its original standards. We are prepared to give loan sanction for the extra cost of rebuilding it to modern standards.
    The provision of a temporary bridge does not need my right hon. Friend's authority.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of great frustration among people who have to use this bridge, and that a large and important area of my constituency is upset industrially, commercially and socially by what appears to be a bureaucratic row with regard to responsibility for the building of a new bridge? Replacement of the bridge may take two years. Will my hon. Friend use his endeavours to see that those who are responsible adopt my idea for a Bailey bridge structure in this area while the new bridge is under construction?.
    Mr. Brown: I cannot go further than to say that the responsibility is that of the local council. I shall see that the local council is made aware of my hon. Friend's views.

    Urban Highway Building (Compensation for Damage)
    Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee set up to consider the problems raised by urban highway building will consider the question of the payment of compensation for damage, injurious affection and serious loss of amenity already suffered by such building, or which will have been suffered before any changes in the law which the Committee may recommend..
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The question of retrospection does not arise unless and until changes in compensation are, in fact, introduced. The problem of injurious affection is being tackled, on the one hand, as part of the general study of the compensation code initiated by

    155
    my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with which my Department is closely associated. The main task of the Urban Motorways Committee, on the other hand, is to tackle this problem at its source by considering how urban roads may be better related to their environment.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases of severe personal hardship occur under the present rule and further cases will occur between now and any change in the law? Does he not think it necessary to give some hope to those who are suffering in this way?
    Mr. Mulley: It was because of the growing public concern that my right hon. Friend set up the study, and that is a factor which will be very much in the Government's mind when they come to determine what action should follow the study.

    Road Vehicles (Size)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the future size of goods vehicles allowed on British roads.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to increase the maximum weight of road vehicles allowed on British roads to 44 tons.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for increasing the maximum weight and length of goods vehicles using the roads.
    Mr. Bob Brown: I would refer hon. Gentlemen to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) on 3rd November. —[Vol. 790, c. 66.]
    Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend realise that there would be widespread dismay if some of the proposals being made by the road hauliers were accepted, and will he tell them that there are more important factors in this world than their profits?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware that there are several considerations to which the Government will have to give careful thought, including, not least, the question
    156
    of road safety, about which, I know, my hon. Friend thinks deeply.
    Mr. Dalyell: What demand has there been from the industry to have 44-ton vehicles on the road, and, if it were accepted, what would be done to designate such roads as could carry these enormous vehicles?
    Mr. Brown: The situation is that we have had the request from the industry, and that the existing roads, given suitable vehicle design, would be capable of accepting the loads requested.
    Mr. Goodhart: If the Minister does contemplate allowing bigger vehicles on the roads, will he seek to ascertain the views of other road users, both pedestrians and drivers, who may well object to having the roads made even less safe?
    Mr. Brown: I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, that all the considerations—and there are certainly very many—will be carefully weighed by the Government before we make any decision.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: In view of the very real public concern about the matter, will the Minister consider publishing all the representations made to him in a Green Paper before the Ministry makes decisions in the matter?
    Mr. Brown: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a Green Paper. It is worth repeating that there are many considerations, and it will take a great deal of time to give them the type of thought they deserve.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has my hon. Friend with him the figures of these vehicles already travelling at 44 tons gross vehicle weight on British roads under special licence?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that without notice.

    Breathalyser Law
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the working of the breathalyser law; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport to what extent the breathalyser laws have reduced fatalitiesand accidents; what amendment to existing

    157
    statutes on the subject he proposes in view of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the present law; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roseasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will introduce an early amending Bill to the Road Safety Act, 1967;
    (2) how many deaths were caused in road accidents during the year before and following the introduction of the Road Safety Act, 1967, and how many in the last six months.
    Mr. Mulley: During the 12 months before the Road Safety Act came into force there were 7,870 deaths in road accidents. During the following 12 months there were 6,727. During the six months to August this year there were 3,413. The Act still appears, therefore, to be having a very substantial effect on accidents.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are examining very closely the effects of recent court decisions on the working of the Act.
    Mr. Price: We all welcome those figures, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing belief that certain gentlemen in the legal profession are determined to sabotage the breathalyser law? If this is proved to be the case, will he take the necessary action?
    Mr. Mulley: It is precisely because recent judicial decisions have suggested that there are deficiencies in the Act that I am conducting the present review. A number of cases are still pending appeal in the other place, and it would be wise to await those decisions as well.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not a party political matter, and that the majority of us support the breathalyser law, but that there are widespread inconsistencies in judgments, notably in Scotland? Would not it be wise to proceed with amending legislation during the current Session?
    Mr. Mulley: Until the review is concluded I am not sure whether changes are required, or what they will be. I cannot comment on judicial decisions, but the benefits in road safety, in people being alive today who would not otherwise be alive, as a result of the Act are
    158
    such that I will not lose those benefits easily.
    Mr. Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the anomalies are caused by our failure to introduce random tests when we had the opportunity to do so? Does he now accept that those of us who sought to introduce those tests when the Act went through the House were quite right?
    Mr. Mulley: Random testing is obviously one of the matters that we shall consider, but there is here a normal conflict between increasing police powers on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other. I am sure that the House will want to see that Road Safety Act works, and works efficiently, and I have to pay attention to this aspect as well.

    MS to MI Motoway Link
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the proposed route, the proposed cost and the proposed commencement and completion dates for the M5 to Ml motorway link, having regard to the effects it will have in South Worcestershire.
    Mr. Bob Brown: A project feasibility study is being carried out to examine traffic movements between the M5 to M50 junction and the proposed Birmingham-Nottingham link. We shall not be in a position to announce any decisions before the middle of next year at the earliest.

    Carriage of Goods (France and Italy)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has made to the French and Italian Governments on the restrictions they have imposed on the carriage of United Kingdom goods in their respective countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): The Anglo-French agreement has not yet come into force. It would be premature to raise the matter with the French Government until we know by practical experience whether the quota is inadequate, and to what extent. When negotiating the Italian agreement, the British delegation represented strongly that the quota was

    159
    inadequate. An Anglo-Italian meeting will be held early next year to review the operation of the agreement.
    Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Italian quota is definitely inadequate? A firm in my constituency has already used up its November quota, and cannot now deliver export orders until December. Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Italian Government with a view to increasing the quota?
    Mr. Murray: There are other methods of taking goods to the Continent, but the mere fact that in the agreement we have ensured that there is a periodical review will enable cases such as my hon. Friend has put to be raised.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: In view of the representations to the hon. Gentleman about the total inadequacy of the quotas, has the Ministry conducted any investigations into the effect on our balance of payments of the loss of revenue the quota would impose on us?
    Mr. Murray: Not as far as I know. But countries can exclude lorries anyway, and the point of the agreement on quotas was to get half a loaf rather than find the bakery closed.

    British Railways (Capital Investment
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport what is the total sum which will be authorised for capital investment for British Railways in 1970; and what were the total sums spent on capital investment by British Railways in 1967 and 1965.
    Mr. Mulley: Up to £76 million in 1970. The board invested —121 million in 1965 and —96 million in 1967.
    Mr. Taylor: Is not it deplorable that, unlike that for all the other industries in the public sector, the capital expenditure allowed to the railways has been reduced in each of the past five years? Does the Minister really think that the figure of £76 million will be adequate to enable British Rail to carry on with modernisation and electrification?
    Mr. Mulley: The earlier figures include some expenditure on activities that have since been transferred to the
    160
    National Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group, but British Rail is getting a fair share of the allocation for public investment in nationalised industries. Whilst in all fields of our endeavour we would like to see more investment, I am satisfied that this is adequate to carry on the modernisation programme and satisfy the requirement that the investment is likely to be profitable in the long run.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say how much of this sum will be invested in modernising the railway between Crewe and Glasgow?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot give a specific sum for a particular section of line. There is considerable new signaling expenditure going on, and there is the question before me, for a decision which I hope to announce shortly, of the proposed electrification from Weaver Junction to Glasgow. But I cannot give the specific figure.

    Trains (Derailment)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport how many derailments of trains occurred in the first 10 months of 1969; and what were the comparable figures in the first 10 months of 1967, 1965 and 1963, respectively.
    Mr. Murray: The provisional figure for reportable derailments on all railways in Great Britain for the first 10 months is 342. The comparable figures for 1967, 1965 and 1963 are 256, 207 and 190 respectively.
    Mr. Taylor: Is it not very disturbing that derailment figures have continued to increase despite a substantial reduction in track mileage? When does the hon. Gentleman expect we shall see the improvement in the figures which was expected earlier this year when the Minister called for special measures?
    Mr. Murray: All sorts of steps are being taken by the British Railways Board on speeds, driver training and route knowledge. All of us want to see a reduction in these figures, but it should be borne in mind that in terms of millions of freight miles the figure is very low.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend give a further breakdown of those figures between passenger and freight?
    Mr. Murray: I think my hon. Friend will find that the passenger train derailments have kept fairly constant. Inthe first ten months of 1963 the figure was 34, in 1965 it was 20, in 1967 it was 23, and in 1969 so far it is 19.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Can the hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to the problem of trains carrying ammunition, asI gather that some concern has been expressed that these trains have been particularly prone to derailments?
    Mr. Murray: Again, the number since 1945 is very low indeed. The Ministry is very much aware of this problem and is taking the necessary steps with British Railways.

    Motorways, Urban Sections (Soundproofing)
    16. Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Transport what study he is making of the provision of sound-proofing on urban sections of motorways; it he will develop sound-proofing on the urban section of the MI motorway running through Luton; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bob Brown: A temporary experimental sound barrier is to be erected shortly on the MI near Markyate but Luton would not be suitable for this initial experiment. We must await the results of the present experiment before deciding whether sound barriers should be provided on other sections of the motorway.
    Mr. Roberts: But would my hon. Friend not agree that it is simple common sense that it is far better to test the sound-proofing system in urban areas than rural areas, as one gets not only meter readings in urban areas but also human reactions? This section in Luton of the M1 is one of the few urban sections outside London.
    Mr. Brown: I would not agree with my hon. Friend. The first task is to determine the acoustic properties of the proposed new barrier. The next stage will be the development of a more permanent type of barrier, suitable not only acoustically but also aesthetically for an urban area. We will be pursuing this experiment, of course, in an urban area later.
    Mr. Galbraith: How much per mile does the hon. Gentleman expect the permanent barrier to cost, and of what sort of material will it be made?
    Mr. Brown: Clearly, the purpose of the experiment is to discover the best types of material. The experiment will cost £15,000.

    Motorway Building, Residential Areas (Night Work)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Transport if he will give further consideration to the question of motorway building with special reference to night work in heavily populated residential areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Yes, Sir. The Department is examining what steps could be taken in future contracts to limit night work in heavily populated areas. I am extremely sorry for any disturbance or inconvenience which motorway construction work may cause but I am afraid that some is inevitable if only because of the magnitude of the task.
    Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is aware that it is not good enough that elderly people, in particular, should be kept awake at night, sometimes for two years or more, while a particular section of road is built. Is he aware that what tends to happen is that the construction companies feel that they can deal with the complaints for a little while, which will be long enough for that section to be built, when they can move on to some other stretch, and some other old people can have the problem? Would he review very seriously the whole question of night work on this sort of work?
    Mr. Brown: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents and everyone else who suffers this inconvenience of night work. I can only repeat that we are examining what steps we can take in future contracts to limit this.

    Cross-Channel Link
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Transport what further examination he has given to a cross-Channel link.
    Mr. Mulley: The final period of technical, commercial and economic studies

    163
    of the Channel Tunnel will begin when the British and French Governments have received from private interests an acceptable scheme for its finance and construction.
    Discussions with the prospective financing groups have continued and their revised proposals are awaited.
    Mr. Sheldon: I understand the obvious reluctance of private industry to come forward with the money required, but when does my right hon. Friend intend to publish the correct and revised figures for the1963 White Paper?
    Mr. MulleyI am not aware that there is any need to publish new statistics. Obviously, the important studies which will bring the thing up to date will not start until an acceptable scheme for financing the construction has been agreed with the interests concerned. When these studies begin, it will of course be desirable and necessary to keep the House fully informed.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the Minister agree that his predecessor continually referred to the changing facts which are available supporting the cross-Channel tunnel, and that it is worth while that these figures should be published before decisions are taken, so that worth-while public examination of those figures can take place before conclusions are drawn?
    Mr. Mulley: It is clear that no final decision can be taken whether or not to build a tunnel until the two-year final study has been concluded. That study has not yet begun, and in any event the approval of Parliament will be required for the necessary legislation.
    Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware how disappointed my constituents will be with that reply? Does he realise the planning blight which is taking place because we cannot get a decision about this important project?
    Mr. Mulley: As was made clear, the position is that both the British and the French Governments confirmed their intention to go ahead with a rail tunnel project subject to acceptable financing terms and, of course, the outcome of these studies, which we agreed would have to take place with the French Government. Unfortunately, all these large and impor-
    164
    tant issues take time and it is more difficult when it has to be done not purely as a national decision but jointly with an other Governement.
    Mr. Paget: Is this not another example of international co-operation which is shaping up to be a money spinner comparable only with the Concorde?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that it is for me to comment on the Concorde. It is some years since I had responsibility in that connection. But certainly it is because of the importance of satisfying ourselves and the House on the financial and economic aspects of the proposed tunnel that we want to have the final studies in the light of the prospective proposals which we hope to get shortly from the groups concerned.

    Motorway, Sheffield—Manchester and Liverpool
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now completed his feasibility study for the construction of an East-West Motorway, joining Sheffield to Manchester and Liverpool; and when he expects to publish its findings.
    Mr. Mulley: I expect to receive the final report on the Sheffield—Manchester project feasibility study at the end of the year. When its recommendations have been fully examined I will announce details of the scheme on which advanced preparation work will continue.
    Mr. Osborn: Sheffield welcomes the fact that the Minister is a Sheffield Member. He knows how disappointed Sheffield is that it is not an intermediate area and that it has been disappointed in a delegation to Whitehall today. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this his urgent consideration, as Sheffield goods must get freely to Manchester and the Liverpool port?
    Mr. Mulley: I am aware of the importance of this proposed road. That is why it is included in the strategic plan in the Green Paper published by my predecessor. Naturally, I am aware of the strong claims for this road, but, equally, as Minister, I have to take into account the strong claims from other parts of the country as well.
    Mr. Hooley: I do not minimise the importance of this road, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it should be designed, if it is going to be carried over its projected route, so that there is no damage at all to the priceless amenity value of the Peak District National Park? Would he carefully study the implications for the National Park before giving any approval to the plans put forward?
    Mr. Mulley: This, of course, is one of the aspects which will be considered in the study, but I cannot pronounce on the study until it is concluded and I have received it. I shall, of course, want a little time to reflect on the points which both hon. Members have put to me.
    Mr. Fortescue: In his original reply, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the special consideration which he was giving to the link between Sheffield and Manchester. Will he assure the House that this does not mean that the link between Manchester and Liverpool will be in any way neglected?
    Mr. Mulley: I thought that I had made it clear that, while I was conscious of the importance of this road, I had also had borne in upon me the great importance of other projects, including the one which the hon. Member mentions.
    Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend take it from me that the people of Liverpool are very pleased with his announcement about road construction and Government support when he was in Liverpool last week? Would he also take note that we are absolutely delighted with his remarks when he agreed that the chips on Liverpool docks are much better than those in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Mulley: Some of my observations may not command universal admiration, but I am sure that all hon. Members, if they could have tested the chips in the docks canteen, would have realised that they are much better served, at least in this respect, than we in this House.

    Incoming Motor Vehicles (Insurance)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is now taking to ensure that motor vehicles entering this country from abroad are adequately insured, particularly against
    166
    third party risks, in view of the fact that the Automobile Association is no longer undertaking this work.
    Mr. Murray: We are arranging with the A.A. and the R.A.C. to resume checks at ports that such vehicles have third-party insurance valid for this country, and, if not, to offer temporary British insurance.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that a number of vehicles come into the country without adequate third-party insurance cover? Is it not vital that checks be carried out, but without preventing the flow of traffic to and from the Continent?
    Mr. Murray: That is why we have asked the A.A. and the R.A.C. to resume the checks. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a statutory offence to drive a car on the road without at least third-party insurance.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: While the A.A. and the R.A.C. do excellent work, they are private clubs and the work costs them money. Does the Treasury or the Ministry make any contribution towards the payment of the enormous costs which are now borne by the contributions of the members of private clubs?
    Mr. Murray: I am not certain about that. The A.A. and the R.A.C. were unwilling to continue these checks because of the expense, and the Ministry will be contributing towards meeting the cost of the checks.

    Inter-urban Road Schemes
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to compile a future preparation list for inter-urban principal road schemes; and when these schemes will be undertaken.
    Mr. Bob Brown: We hope to announce the list of selected schemes early next year; progress on the schemes selected will be a matter for the highway authorities concerned but the present assumption is that their construction will start during the five-eight year period beginning 1971–72.
    Mr. Hastings: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain what a preparation list is? Will the by-pass at Ampthill in Bedfordshire be included? Does he appreciate the wide and mounting concern at the danger in this town and

    167
    his Ministry's apparent lack of interest in it?
    Mr. Brown: The preparation list is precisely that. It is a list of schemes which are put in for preparation prior to their becoming firm proposals. The future of the Ampthill by-pass is another question. If the hon. Gentleman will put one down about it, I will answer it.

    Heathrow Airport (Rail and Underground Links)
    Mr. Berryasked the Minister of Transport when he will make a decision about rail and underground links with Heathrow Airport.
    Mr. Mulley: I hope to be able to announce a decision early in 1970.
    Mr. Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that answer is satisfactory? The last time I asked about this matter I was told that there were still points to be cleared up and that a decision would be taken as soon as possible. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the gateway to Europe for many travellers who bring in much foreign currency and that a decision will affect them and the Londoners who use the roads between Heathrow and Central London? Surely a decision can be made between now and Christmas.
    Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, following studies in 1967 it was impossible to get agreement with the parties concerned and new studies have had to be undertaken. These are in their final stage, but until they are concluded I cannot come to a decision, and a number of other Departments and interests are also affected. However, as a frequent user of the road, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about relieving traffic on the M4 as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In view of the imminence of a decision about the third London airport, at Foulness or some other point, will my right hon. Friend avoid over-developing facilities at Heathrow?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not responsible for the airports themselves. I am concerned only with the question of a rail or underground link to the airport, which is necessary whatever decision may be taken about other airports.
    Mr. Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    London Transport Act, 1969(Concessionary Fares)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to amend the London Transport Act 1969 so as to enable him to control the provision of concessionary fares for the retired and disabled.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory-dominated London Boroughs Association has turned down any scheme for concessionary fares for retired people who want to travel within London, which means that retired people in Greater London are denied the rights of concessionary fares which are enjoyed by many pensioners in many other parts of the country?
    Mr. Mulley: The purpose of the London Transport Act, 1969, was to place the people of London in the same position as people in other parts of the country. It provided that the local authorities concerned would have discretion to grant concessionary fares and about the kind of concessionary arrangements they wanted to make. It was the proper arrangement for London to be on the same footing as the rest of the country. It is open to individual London boroughs to take what action they consider appropriate in this respect.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the London boroughs to persuade them to exercise the powers which at long last they now have and which are similar to those exercised by provincial local authorities? Would it not be ridiculous for one or two of the London boroughs to exercise this power while other boroughs in the immediate vicinity did not allow concessionary fares?
    Mr. Mulley: The point about giving discretion to local authorities is that they decide for themselves, obviously having regard, I hope, to the views of the people in their areas, which is the right course to pursue. I should like concessionary fares schemes to be operated as widely as

    169
    possible, not only in London but in other parts of the country. I understand that the situation in some parts of the country is the same as it is in London at the moment.

    A66, Scotch Corner—Appleby
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Transport what money has been allocated to the improvement of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Appleby in 1970 and 1971; what section of the road will be improved; and when it is planned to by-pass the village of Bowes.
    Mr. Bob Brown: About £lm. has been allocated to improvements of the length between Thorpe Cottages and Smallways, and at Browson Bank and Dunsa Bank, and to a by-pass of Brough. The Bowes by-pass scheme is in preparation but has not yet been included in the firm programme for a particular year.
    Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how many serious and even fatal accidents there have been on this stretch of the road? Will he not try to do a little more than that?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware of the accidents on this road and I naturally regret them. I cannot go further than I have gone in my Answer, but I can say that the consideration we are giving this road is being conducted as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this road constitutes the most important bottleneck on the main road between Glasgow and London and that it should have high priority for that reason?
    Mr. Brown: When the 35-mile length of the M6 from Carnforth to Thrimby is completed in August next year, the motorway will be fully open to traffic as far north as Penrith, with a further extension as far north as Carlisle due to beopen by December, 1970. Undoubtedly this route will be used by heavy and through traffic in preference to the A66. It istoo early to judge the full extent of the effect of the M6 on A66 traffic.

    Driving Test (Eyesight Requirement)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the findings of a mobile unit
    170
    set up by the Optical Information Council, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will introduce regulations to tighten up the present eyesight requirements of the driving test.
    Mr. Murray: No, Sir. We have had no evidence from the Optical Information Council that a change in present arrangements is necessary.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Since between 500,000 and 1 million people driving on our roads cannot pass the basic eyesight test required for the driving test, surely they constitute a considerable road accident hazard? Is not the Minister being too complacent if he feels that nothing should be done?
    Mr. Murray: The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are not quite accurate. The percentage given by the Optical Information Council was 2.44, and this reckons out at about 400,000 drivers. The law is clear. Drivers should have a minimum standard of eyesight, and, of course, it is an offence if they do not. But the point is that so far there is no correlation between bad eyesight and road accidents.

    Road Planning, Brentford and Chiswick (Environmental Effect)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Transport if he will initiate a study into the cumulative effect on the environment of all current road schemes proposed for Brentford and Chiswick.
    Mr. Murray: Environmental factors are taken into account in all road planning. These aspects will be examined with other issues arising from the road proposals in the Greater London Development Plan. A special study of Chiswick and Brentford would not be justified at present.
    Mr. Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that he said that he would take this matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning in view of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for environment? Can my hon. Friend assure me that I shall have an answer on this point?
    Mr. Murray: I think my hon. Friend will find that there is a letter for him in the post on this matter right now.

    27 (Stockbridge Road-Chichester By-pass Junction)
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Minister of Transport whether he will now arrange for the provision of a footbridge or subway at the junction of Stockbridge Road with the Chichester By-pass on the A27.
    Mr. Bob Brown: I wrote to the hon. Member on 27th October explaining that we intend to go ahead with a scheme to provide a roundabout at this junction and hope constructional work will be able to start next summer.
    The question of providing pedestrian facilities is one which must be looked at as part of the overall scheme. Details of pedestrian movements are being studied, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the investigations are complete.
    Mr. Chataway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were two more deaths recently at what is a notorious death trap now? Will be accept that it would be wrong to provide this roundabout before providing either a subway or a pedestrian crossing
    Mr. Brown: I regret very much the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If a footbridge is decided on, the design of the proposed roundabout can be modified to make provision for it. But a footbridge could not be suitably provided in advance of the roundabout scheme.

    Motorists (Blood Sample Procedures)
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Minister of Transport if he will review the requirement that only a doctor may take a blood sample in the case of drivers suspected of driving while under the effects of alcohol.
    Mr. Bob Brown: I understand that the present arrangements are not giving rise to any serious difficulty.

    Motorists (Drugs)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Transport what investigation his Department is making into the use of drugs by drivers; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Bob Brown: The Road Research Laboratory is continuing its investigations
    172
    into the relationship between drugs and road accidents, but the present indications are that the number of accidents attributable to the use of drugs is very small.
    Mr. Goodhart: What investigation is being made by the Ministry into new methods of testing the reactions of those drivers who may have used cannabis or other harmful drugs?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the results of the R.R.L. study will be completed early next year.

    Bus Fares (Outer London)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the proposed increases in bus fares in outer London; and why he has indicated his intention of approving these increases without such reference.
    Mr. Bob Brown: No, Sir. These limited increases did not in the Government's view justify a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. My right hon. Friend's approval of these increases is to facilitate the very necessary reorganisation of public transport in London.
    Mr. Driberg: Although these increases are unwelcome everywhere, can my hon. Friend tell me why is it that people in outer London are considered better able to put up with them than people in other areas?
    Mr. Brown: This is not an across-the-board increase. I know that there is concern regarding the differential in the increases, but the broad answer is that it costs more to provide transport in the central area than in the outer areas.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: Are these increases sufficient to eliminate the proposed estimated loss on the buses to be transferred to the National Bus Company as from 1st January, 1970?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that these increases will make the services viable.

    A19, Easingwold (Lighting)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to improve the street lighting on the A19 trunk road in the town of Easingwold.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Traffic conditions on A19 at Easingwold have been reviewed. Until more dangerous stretches of trunk road have been lit, schemes such as this cannot be included in the programme.
    Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only built-up area on the A19 that is not adequately lit? Is he further aware that there are two important schools on this stretch of road and that the cost of installing street lighting would be less than £2,000? The parents of the children are naturally indignant at the risk the children are having to take because of the parsimony of his Department.
    Mr. Brown: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents but I must reiterate that our funds are limited and that we have to operate a priority system or merit rating based on saving injury and death in accidents. Under that priority system, lighting is installed on the more dangerous stretches of road and unfortunately the A19 is not at the top of the league for merit rating.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

    National Environmental Research
    Mr. Oakesasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will take steps to establish a National Environmental Research Unit to investigate all major cases of environmental imbalance which may be the result of pollution.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what examination he has made of Natural Environmental Research machinery following the recent deaths of sea-birds; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The Government already have the advice of the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the main co-ordinating body for research in this field. But, as the Prime Minister has announced, I am reviewing the whole machinery for dealing with environmental pollution.
    Mr. Oakes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this will be an increasingly urgent and important problem for this country? Would he set up a unit of scientists who could act speedily and promptly with co-ordinated activities when something occurred, such as the disaster to sea-birds a short time ago?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly think that this is a problem of the greatest urgency and importance, but I remind my hon. Friend that in this country we have probably gone further in the successful control of pollution than has any other country. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the result of my review of what kind of organisation is necessary.
    Mr. Chataway: Has the Secretary of State seen the disturbing findings of the Consumer Association about the exhaust from motor cars? Is he satisfied with what appeared to be the rather complacent dismissal of those findings by the Minister of Transport?
    Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is anything but complacent, and I certainly cannotaccept that. I have read the findings with great interest. This is a specific and technical problem, and it is one of thethings to which my right hon. Friend will be paying great attention.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has recently had with the heads of the Commonwealth Governments regarding Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to Questions by several hon. Members on 14th October.—[Vol. 788, c. 206–8.]
    Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend give further information about Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Gallahen, the two latest victims of the police State in Rhodesia? Does not he agree that in the four years since U.D.I. the Leader of the Opposition bears some responsibility in that he has become a sort of pushover for the pro-Rhodesia Front element in his party?
    The Prime Minister: I have no comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. On the first part, I am sorry to say that I have no information about these two gentlemen who have been interned by the regime. Butapologists in this country for the Smith régime will note what is happening to the freedom of the Press in Salisbury.
    Mr. HeathDoes this not illustrate the difficulty which has arisen as a result of the withdrawal of our residual mission from Salisbury? This country is alone in the world in having no one in Rhodesia, of either diplomatic or consular status, able to look after the interests of its citizens or to do so on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Does this not show how unwise the withdrawal of the mission was? Would it not have been better to have kept some sort of organisation in Rhodesia, if only to carry out these functions?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to give that degree of recognition to a regime which has now decided to break with the Crown, despite being in law a British colony, and which hasalso decided to introduce a constitution which has been universally condemned by all parties in this House.
    Mr. Heath: Surely, while Her Majesty's Government had a residual mission in Rhodesia for three and a half yearsthere was no legal recognition of the illegal régime. Why suddenly should it be legal recognition of the illegal régime if a residual mission had been left there to look after these interests?
    The Prime Minister: I said "that degree of recognition". I did not say legal recognition. It has long been clear that British citizens who stay in Rhodesia under the illegal régime do so at their own risk.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider that everything in Rhodesia still depends on the oil sanction? Will he consult other members of the Commonwealth about how to make the oil sanction effective, which can certainly be done if the right measures are taken?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the communiqué issued on 24th September following the last meeting of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee on this and other matters.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that, outside the United Kingdom, only one Commonwealth country has taken proceedings against a firm operating from its territories for evasion of sanctions? This was Malaysia. Will he make representations to the Heads of other Commonwealth Governments that the best way to assist in bringing about the downfall of the Smith régime is to take firm action against evaders?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the attitude of Commonwealth countries in this matter. When facts come to our notice they are brought to the attention of the Government concerned or the United Nations Secretariat dealing with these matters, or both. The problem about the evasion of sanctions arises from the fact that Rhodesia is a landlocked country; otherwise it would never have arisen.

    TILBURY DOCKS (LABOUR RELATIONS)
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he will now receive a deputation to discuss the situation regarding labour relations in the Tilbury Docks.
    The Prime Minister: This would not be appropriate at this particular moment, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: Are we not facing what amounts to a new and much more sinister version of the Mafia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I choose my words with care—in which industrial blackmail is substituted for the gun and in which neither management nor trade unions can exercise their legitimate authority, and is it not now clear that the State alone can take action to do something about it?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman and those with him want to see me approach industrial relations with that extravagance of language, I do not think that they have very much to contribute to what is already quite a difficult situation. He will know that the

    177
    position at Tilbury is at present the subject of a ballot among the union members on the Enclosed Docks Devlin stage 2 pay and productivity offer, a ballot which closes on 19th November. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it would be right to await the result of that ballot before we try to forecast what is likely to happen at Tilbury. The hon. Member had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Employment and Productivity and does not seem to have taken up the suggestion which I made to him in May about a meeting.
    Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up an inquiry to establish the cost to our balance of payments of the diverted traffic from Tilbury and would he ask such an inquiry to consider the long-term implications for the Port of London of the effects of this long and damaging strike?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress that this is an extremely serious position as far as containerisation is concerned and its diversion to continental ports. But he will recognise the acute sensitivity on this issue in the docks, which have been suffering from a generation—in fact, a century—of casual labour. We have carried through decasualisation. This is one of the later stages of it which we hope will now come to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are seeing a new element in political life; namely, that because of reorganisation schemes such as the one at Tilbury and massive mergers in which sometimes thousands of men are involved, people are demanding their say in these matters? If we think about them in terms of the Mafia we really will have trouble.
    The Prime Minister: That is true. As I have said, the great experiment of decasualisation is another new feature. There is also the fear of redundancy and unemployment due to the measures being taken to increase productivity. Hon. Members opposite who have raised this matter today might be surprised to know that in the London docks as a whole productivity on the basis of cargo tons
    178
    per man employed has increased by 17 per cent. over the last two years.

    MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (DUTIES)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will now define the duties of the Minister without Portfolio.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) on 4th November.—[Vol. 790, c. 92.]
    Mr. Marten: As that reply said that the Minister without Portfolio had taken over certain duties from the Paymaster-General, can the Prime Minister say whether he has taken over from the former Paymaster-General two specific duties which the Prime Minister laid down in October last year; namely, first, the participation of the public in the decision-making policies of the Government, and, second, the question of youth? If not, who deals with these questions?
    The Prime Minister: With the redistribution of Government functions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will be intimately concerned with the participation question in relation to the follow-up of Maud. [Laughter.] There are quite serious people in this country who are interested in the futureof local government, which remained untouched by hon. Members opposite after about 70 years of dithering about the question. Responsibility for youth questions, apart from those relating to education, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is also responsible for sporting functions.
    Dame Irene Ward: If the Prime Minister is satisfied with these new arrangements, will he please make a note of the fact that I am not?
    The Prime Minister: In view of the hon. Lady's ability to be so easily satisfied for 13 years, I am not at all impressed.

    MARINE ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will designate overall responsibility for the British effort in developing the marine environment to one particular Department of State.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to paragraph 157 of the White Paper on Marine Science and Technology (Cmnd. 3992.).
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the opinion of many of the officials of the American Marine Sciences Council and of its former chairman, Mr. Hubert Humphrey, that it would be much easier to deal with the British and promote international co-operation in this field if there was one Department of State to deal with it?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the views of American officials on this matter. I am aware that in most matters the American Administration has far more Ministries and agencies dealing with almost any conceivable question than we have. However, since my hon. Friend's Question refers to a matter within the ambit of the Natural Environment Research Council, may I say that it is necessary that regulatory activities like oil pullution at sea, international co-operation on the use of the seabed, exploitation of marine resources, such as fisheries, and defence aspects, should be handled by the Departments responsible for these broad duties.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While the Select Committee on Science and Technology endorsed the paragraph of the White Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, may I ask him if he will look at what the Minister of Technology is at present doing with the Committee on Marine Technology, the chairman of which he has just appointed to serve a purpose quite outside oceanography altogether?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. But the hon. Gentleman, who has given a great deal of thought to these questions, willagree that that committee is doing extremely valuable work. He will also be aware that on many of the aspects on
    180
    which the Select Committee has reported 1 have asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning to present an urgent report. When we have one, there will be a report made to the House.

    ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS, SCOTLAND (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of Ministers responsible for economic affairs in Scotland.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the effects in Scotland of the new arrangements for Ministerial responsibilities for economic and industrial affairs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends work very closely together on these matters.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Prime Minister finds the present situation so satisfactory, can he explain the net loss of 67,000 jobs to Scotland over the last three years for which figures are available?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the jobs which have been created and expected from industrial development certificate approvals under this Government are 84,000 compared with fewer than 55,000 in the previous five years. He will also be aware that we have authorised double the surface area of advance factories which the Opposition authorised and £50 million for R.E.P. and S.E.T., £58 million for investment grants and £16 million for Local Employment Act payments.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot conceal the fact that there has been a most serious loss of jobs in Scotland, that this more than reverses the net gain of 30,000 jobs between 1960 and 1964 and this his Government's pre-election forecast of net gains in Scotland in 1966 was wholly misleading?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I dealt with the oft-quoted figure of 30,000 at

    181
    Question Time on, I think, 1st May—but I would want to check that. I pointed out the great skill of hon. Members opposite in selecting particular years— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, but I had figures on that occasion for 12 years which gave some very different results, if they were properly studied.
    Whenever we have had this from hon. Members opposite, we have heard reference to migration.
    The hon. Gentleman will have been delighted to see—but he has not expressed his delight publicly—that migration, which affects the employment figures, from Scotland this year is the lowest for ten years. He will have seen that net emigration to other countries of the United Kingdom has dropped to 11,000, continuing—[Interruption.]Perhaps the Opposition Chief Whip will listen to these figures; he used to understand them when he was at the Ministry of Labour. Net emigration to other countries of the United Kingdom has dropped to 11,000, continuing the steady downward trend from the peak of 24,000 in 1963 and 1964 when the Chief Whip was at the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Hannan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the rundown in the older industries in Scotland was affecting that area very much more than any other part of the United Kingdom and that, with hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost there, it is to the credit of the Government that unemployment is relatively low?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is a fair comment on the question. The figure for jobs lost—I have given some of the figures for jobs created—represents, to a very considerable extent, the colliery closure programme. I am not aware that hon. Members opposite felt that that programme of closures could have been avoided. We have had to find additional work to deal with the problems of those who have lost their jobs in the coal mining industry. There has been a rundown in other industries also. But hon. Members will be aware of how much the Government have done for the shipbuilding industry, but for which the figures in all these areas would have been very much more serious.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Why is the Prime Minister so complacent about this?
    182
    Will he recognise that the figure of 67,000 net loss of jobs was given to me by the Minister of State for Employment and Productivity on Monday of last week, at HANSARD, column 33, and that the figures to which he should address his attention are those in his own Government's White Paper on Scotland, at page 9, which, shows that in the last four years of Conservative Government 157,000 new jobs were brought to Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am anything but complacent on this question. That is why we have devoted so much of Government resources, money and real resources—this has been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition—in the various Acts, which the Opposition have opposed, in order to get new jobs into Scotland. Had this been done before 1964, the rundown of our basic industries would not have caused the loss of jobs which has occurred.
    But certainly I would not be complacent about the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman for the last two or three years of Conservative rule, because for a whole year, from 1962 to 1963, the unemployment figure in Scotland was higher than it is today, on a proper seasonally-corrected basis. [Interruption.] It was not snowing for a whole year, I would tell the right hon. Gentleman. For a whole year, month by month, snow or no snow, rain or no rain, the figures were higher than they are now.
    Without being complacent, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that when we reach our twelfth year of office, the figures will be a great deal better than when his party were in office.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of his Departments have expressed doubt whether there is a Scottish economy? Can he, therefore, safely leave the co-ordination of Scottish economic affairs in the hands of Departments with views like that? Would he not do better and be electorally wiser to revert to the traditional Labour policy and view that the best place for co-ordinating Scottish economic affairs is a Scottish Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not aware of any statements that there is no Scottish economy. What I am aware of are statements, with which I agree, that the Scottish economy would

    183
    be torn to blazes if we accepted the advice of the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Maclennan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it was the complacency of the Opposition in the Highlands throughout not 13 years but 100 years which led to the rundown of that part of the Scottish economy? Would he also agree that there have been a newly generated spirit of hope and new jobs in new industries in that part of Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I would not blame on individual hon. Members opposite the responsibility for the whole 100 years, but it is certainly the case, as I saw when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency in the far North of Scotland earlier this year, that a great deal of new reinvigoration and regeneration is going on in those areas because of a whole range of Government policy but most of all, I think, because of the creation of the Highlands and Islands Board. Since we were pressing that on right hon. and hon. Members opposite for a great part of their 13 years, since they steadfastly refused to carry out our suggestions and since they must now accept that it has been a great success, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said for at least part of the 100 years.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that he last dealt with this matter on 18th March, when he explained everything except the point about the loss of jobs and undertook to send me a breakdown of the jobs position, which I should still be glad to receive? Will he, therefore, now confirm the figure given by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity that, allowing for the jobs which the Government have created and the jobs loss, there is a net loss of the figure given by the right hon. Lady of 67,000?
    Second, will the Prime Minister also confirm that, allowing for the selective employment tax, which is taken out of Scotland, and the premiums and R.E.P., which go back to it again, there is a net loss to Scotland of £8 million, which in 1971 will become £18 million?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's latter figure, and I would like to check his memory of the date against mine. He has obviously looked it up and I have
    184
    not. He may be right, but I will check that one. I certainly regret that I have not sent the document to the right hon. Gentleman which I had to send. It sounds as though his office has slipped up as much as mine in that respect. [Interruption.] I have never known him fail to follow up within hours anything he has asked for in the past. Certainly, I accept full responsibility for it, and I will see that the right hon. Gentleman gets whatever it was for which he asked on 18th March, I think he said. I will see that he gets it without any further delay.
    With regard to the loss of jobs, I have confirmed these figures before and they have been reconfirmed by my right hon. Friends. I have explained the problems of colliery closures and many other aspects. I have also said what we have done, in sharp contradistinction to the right hon. Gentleman, to create new jobs. Perhaps when looking to the future he will look at the number of jobs now in course of creation by 1970 and 1971, the years he had in mind.
    Mr. Heathrose—
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious failure by the Leader of the Opposition to understand the true position, I give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, that automatically closes the question.

CIVIL LIST
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permisson, Mr. Speaker, I should like, in view of recent public comment about the Civil List, to make a statement.
As the House is aware, shortly after the Queen's accession Parliament fixed the annual amount of the Consolidated Fund grant to the Civil List, in Section 2 of the Civil List Act, 1952, as £475,000.
It was recognised that the value of this provision would, in real terms, be eroded by cost increases over the years ahead. The provision made by Parliament following the Report of the Select Committee presided over by the then Chancellor

185
now the noble Lord, Lord Butler, therefore included a substantial margin, which would mean that in the early years a reserve could be built up and invested, to provide a fund from which any deficits which emerged could be met for a substantial period ahead.
Section 9 and the relevant Schedule of the 1952 Act provided that this supplementary provision should run at a rate of£95,000. Of this, up to £25,000 a year was to be available for provisions by the Sovereign for members of the Royal Family for whom Parliament had not specifically provided. The balance of not less than £70,000 was to provide a surplus for investment to provide for deficits which were expected to accrue later in the reign.
Parliament rejected an amendment by the then Opposition that the adequacy of the Civil List should be kept under review, by a reconsideration every 10 years. Nevertheless, the matter has been kept closely under review.
In the event, from 1952 to 1961 the Civil List as a whole, including the Class V Supplementary Provision, showed a surplus, though with wages and other costs steadily rising in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the saving was very small in the last two years up to 1961. From 1962 onwards deficits were incurred, small at first but increasing steadily each year. Last year it became clear not only that the annual grant, including the Supplementary Provision, was falling far short of the total costs for which it had been provided, but that the substantial reserve which had been built up from 1952 to 1961 was being reduced year by year. Last year it was estimated that the reserve would be exhausted and the Civil List would, therefore, move into deficit by the end of 1970.
Accordingly, detailed discussions took place between Treasury officials and the Queen's advisers, as a result of which the Government informed the Queen's advisers that a new Select Committee would be appointed at the beginning of the next Parliament. There is no need for earlier action.
The House, however, might like to be made aware of two facts. In the first place, there has been over recent years a progressive transfer of expenditure previously carried by the Royal Household out
186
of the Civil List to funds provided by Departmental Votes. This began during the previous reign and, on the Select Committee's recommendation—that is, the Select Committee of 1952—approved by the House, this process was continued in 1952, when the remuneration of industrial staff engaged on the maintenance of the Royal Palaces was taken into the Vote of the Ministry of Works.
Since that time the process has been carried further. For example, over the past 10 years or so the cost to the Civil List of expenditure on royal tours overseas and the cost of rail travel on royal functions in this country have been reimbursed out of Departmental Votes. In addition, Departmental Votes are carrying, to a figure of around £40,000 a year, certain expenses in relation to State entertainment, for example, during State visits, which, in previous reigns, would have been borne on the Civil List.
The second fact I would mention is that during the past six years there have been two investigations of the organisation of the Royal Household, one by the Organisations and Methods Division of the Treasury, and the second by an industrialist specially commissioned by the Queen's advisers. As a result, a number of improvements designed to save costs have been adopted.
I hope that the House will accept that in this important—and I do not need to stress, delicate—matter, the Government have proceeded, in full discussion with the Queen's advisers, on a basis capable of dealing with the problem which is developing, and of dealing with it in time, having regard both to increasing costs and to a proper regard for restraint in public expenditure.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that the House is glad that the Prime Minister has taken this opportunity of putting the facts on record. This matter, which he rightly describes as delicate, is a House of Commons matter and, although right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have their own opinions, it has customarily not been a matter for party dispute.
The Prime Minister has stated that the Civil List will be in deficit by the end of 1970 and that he had told the Queen's advisers that a Select Committee could be set up in the new Parliament which, if this Parliament ran its full length,

187
could be in the spring of 1971; in other words, after he himself has stated that the Civil List would be running into deficit.
Is not it a fact that because of the time which has elapsed since the consultations must have been held between the Treasury and the Queen's advisers, this matter has now become one of widespread discussion in this country and outside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That surely cannot be denied.
As we on this side of the House would support any action which the Prime Minister proposes to take in view of these changed circumstances, would not it now be right to move that a Select Committee should be set up to review this matter? It would then be for the Government of the day to recommend to the House what action should be taken in the light of the review. No one could be expected to commit himself before a Select Committee has examined the matter. It has already been made clear that this side of the House will support the Prime Minister and his colleagues if they move to set up a Select Committee in the light of the existing circumstances.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the opening of his question. I thought it right, in view of the wide degree of public discussion, that this matter should be the subject of a statement in the House which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, carries the full responsibility for these difficult matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the end of 1970, by which time, as I said in my statement, the reserve will have been exhausted and the situation will have moved into deficit. I obviously cannot speculate about the question mark in the right hon. Gentleman's mind here, but, if any delay were caused, for example, by the time required for legislation, and so on, the Government, in their discussions with the Queen's advisers, have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the matter is covered until the legislation is available in the House. So there is no problem there.
Arrangements have been made to cover any Civil List deficit arising after the Civil List reserve is exhausted. If that is the position—and I am not going to
188
forecast dates—this will be done from funds available to Her Majesty from sources other than public funds.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the appointment of a Select Committee now, and also to the new situation. There is, in fact, no new situation. The position is exactly as it was when it was discussed with Her Majesty's advisers a year ago. The figures are developing exactly as was forecast at that time, and the view then tendered by the Government still holds. The fact that there is a great deal of public discussion at this time is not in any sense the responsibility of the House or of Her Majesty's Government. It is natural, right and proper that there should be great public interest in these matters, both in the Press and in public discussion, but nothing has happened to alter our view that the situation will not become urgent until about the end of next year, and that is when action should be taken.
Mr. Thorpe: Although the House as a whole has the responsibility for any amendment or decision in respect of these matters, does not the Prime Minister agree that, in the initial stages of discussion, it is very much better that thediscussions take place in the forum of a Select Committee? We now know that since 1952 the Civil List has been augmented on an ad hoc basis by transferring various matters to Departmental Votes. Since the country is extremely interested in this matter and it is Parliament which has to act, will not the Prime Minister consider the advisability of setting up a Select Committee? If the Government wish to defer action on its recommendations, as, for example, was the case with the remuneration of Members of Parliament dealt with by the Lawrence Committee, he could perhaps also take that into account.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure of the analogy drawn by the right hon. Gentleman; there are many differences between the two situations. I am not sure that the analogy in which a Commission was set up by one Parliament and acted on in another proved to be a very happy one at the end of the day. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree—and as I have said there is no immediate urgency—that Parliament will always attach more importance to the recommendations of a Select Committee appointed from among its own Members

189
than to those of a Select Committee appointed during a previous Parliament.
Most of the facts which I have stated were publicly announced. For example, the transfer to public funds of expenses which were previously borne on the Civil List. No doubt when the right hon. Gentleman goes through the sub-heads of the Votes he will find in each case when it was transferred. I do not think that a Select Committee at this stage would add anything to public discussion or public knowledge. The right thing to do is to have a Select Committee when the fund is exhausted, so that the House may take whatever action is recommended by the Select Committee.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he and the Government have been under considerable pressure from the Opposition to keep public expenditure down, and on that account the course which he has recommended to the House this afternoon should command universal support on both sides of the House? Could he say whether he or the Government were consulted, or even informed, about the remarks made on American television on this matter? Is it usual for a pay claim to be made by a shop steward in the United States?
The Prime Minister: Without commenting on my hon. Friend's choice of language, it will be within the knowledge of the House that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for tendering advice except to Her Majesty the Queen, and for this we take full responsibility.
In the particular case which I think my hon. Friend has in mind, if I have identified it correctly, there was, in any case, no public statement in the sense of a speech. It was an answer to a question on television—[An HON. MEMBER: "A loaded question."]—arising from a certain degree of, on the whole, inaccurate Press speculation in this country. Even the most experienced of us who appear on television programmes sometimes find ourselves a little incommoded by an unexpected question, not least when it is a rather silly question.
Mr. C. Pannell: In view of the manner in which this matter has been raised, and its source, would it not be better, as the Prime Minister suggests, to leave it until after the next election? Should
190
we not bear in mind that any future Select Committee could never have the narrow terms of reference of the last Select Committee, and also the fact that there have been increases from other sources open to Her Majesty, including the Duchy of Lancaster? All these matters will have to be considered when we consider the future of the Royal House, remembering the children who are coming into it and other considerations.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is inquired into must be a matter for the Select Committee. It would not be intended that the Select Committee should be unduly restricted in its terms of reference. There is no reason why it should be restricted.
One of the points my right hon. Friend mentioned—he was not right to select one without others—was the Duchy of Lancaster, the revenues from which have increased substantially, as have revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall. On the other hand, the gains to the Revenue by the surrender of Crown Land revenues were very considerable indeed, on a very much bigger scale than my right hon. Friend is talking about. He will have noted the arrangements made about the surrender of 50 per cent. of Duchy of Cornwall net revenues from next Friday.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the 1952 arrangements involved the surrender into the Exchequer of a substantial part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown? Can the Prime Minister say up to the latest date at what annual rate these are now running?
The Prime Minister: I have the figures. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to select particular items. It would be better for the Select Committee as a whole, when it is set up, to study all the figures and to give the House its general view on the matter.
It is, in fact, 17 years since the decisions were taken. Most of the surrendered revenues have very greatly increased in value to the State, so, on the other hand, have the revenues accruing to the Privy Purse increased, and so, also, has the public provision of Departmental Votes for Royal Household expenditure increased. It will be better when the

191
time comes—and it is not right at this moment—for the Select Committee to look at all these matters and to give the House its considered view.
Mr. English: During the course of discussions mentioned by the Prime Minister, was any assurance made about the benefit derived by Her Majesty in her exemption from taxation? If so, was any estimate made of the increase in that benefit since 1952?
The Prime Minister: All relevant questions were taken into account in the discussion between Treasury officials and the Queen's advisers.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the Prime Minister's statement that a Select Committee will be appointed in the next Parliament a constitutional nullity, since no Parliament can bind its successor and no Prime Minister can bind either himself or any possible successor? Surely all the Prime Minister is saying is that he does not intend to take any action.
The Prime Minister: That is a rather extraordinary view to be expressed by such a great constitutional expert as the hon. Gentleman, who has published volume after volume on Bagehot. But the position is, as I have stated, that in the next Parliament—and this applies to what naturally we expect to be the Government, and I can certainly commit myself to that, or it would apply equally if there were a change of Government—there will be a Motion in the House for a Select Committee. I think that I am on good ground for saying that.
Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be better, in view of my right hon. Friend's considered statement of the facts and the at any rate partial acquiescence in them by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and in the interests of all parties involved, since this is a delicate matter, to postpone further discussion until the appropriate moment?
The Prime Minister: There is something in that, but there has been a very great degree of public discussion outside. Those outside who are concerned about the matter have the right to feel that we in this House, in these exchanges between us, should express various points of view which have been raised in
192
public discussion and in the Press. It may be that what has been said in different parts of the House will help to inform that public discussion.
My right hon. Friend referred—I am sorry that I did not say this in answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and also by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I would be on good ground for taking what they have said this afternoon as indicating that there was no constitutional impropriety or anything misleading in what I said about what is likely to happen in the next Parliament.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that these matters are very complex. It is always possible, by stressing one element in the Civil List or in the revenues or the rest, to get a wrong perspective of the problem as a whole.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he has said is not convincing? Is he further aware that a great many people outside the House will take the view that we should look at this matter sympathetically? Why should it be left for 18 months when it is urgent? It is for Parliament to get on with the job. Has the Prime Minister a soul?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually quite balanced and objective in these matters, has formed that conclusion from what 1 said. What I was trying to tell the House was that the matter was not urgent in the sense that there are still funds in the reserve appropriated by Parliament and paid out of Consolidated Fund from 1952 onwards. It is, therefore, not urgent at this time.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not feel that anything I said, either in my recital of the facts or in my account of the conclusion of the discussions, in any way fails to reflect what he calls a sympathetic attitude or an appreciation of the problem that has to be solved. It is a complex problem which, at the right time, should be solved on the basis of thorough inquiry by a Select Committee.
Mr. George Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I could not disagree more with what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has said,

193
but is he also aware that this is a problem which will not go away? The matter having been started, people will argue about it. The right moment is the moment when people start arguing. Would it not be sensible, therefore, to set up the Select Committee now?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not answer a question.
Mr. George Brown: I am quite used to noise. It has never hitherto disturbed me.
Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, if a serious problem is to be taken out of politics, the right thing to do is to establish a Committee to look into it and discuss it? Is not the right moment now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that people can then discuss its conclusions?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry at any time to disagree with my right hon. Friend—and, of course, he knows that this is very rare—but I cannot accept the view that because there is noise or a big argument about a subject that means that it should be taken out of its proper time; and a proper time has been worked out after very careful discussions and examinations.
It is certainly true, to use my right hon. Friend's words, that the problem will not go away. That was the whole basis of what I was saying. It is a problem which has been increasing since 1962, at which point the current account, if I may use that phrase, of the Household accounts passed from surplus into deficit. It was clear that this would be an increasing deficit up to the point where the reserve was exhausted. It is because the problem will not go away, and because we can identify very closely indeed the date at which the reserve is exhausted, that I have indicated the timetable for dealing with it.
Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Prime Minister aware of an Early Day Motion that was put on the Order Paper last night, supported by many hon. Members on this side and myself, calling for a Select Committee to be set up at once? How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that the position today is the same as it was 12 months ago, to use the words that he employed, with the fact that, for example, all taxation has been changed,
194
including selective employment tax, that all Royal Household costs have risen enormously—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question. He cannot debate the issue.
Sir G. Nabarro: —and that none of these matters may be fully investigated without a full inquiry which only a Select Committee can undertake? Will he reconsider setting up a Select Committee at a very early date in this Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I was aware of the Motion on the Order Paper, because, despite the printing difficulties from which the House is suffering, there seem to be no printing difficulties with the Press, which, with unusual perceptivity, seems to have discovered what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were up to concerning this perfectly proper Motion which, I understand, was tabled last night.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a certain view was taken a year ago and has not changed. This is justifiable, because, when the Select Committee reports, the hon. Gentleman must and will be able to address himself to all the facts; not just those which he has selected for discussion.
There have been changes in taxation, making relatively little difference, may I say, to the Household accounts, compared with a year ago. But at the same time there have been substantial changes in the earning power on revenue account of various aspects of the Household revenue. I suggest that it is better to wait until all these matters can be looked at together. There is a great deal of work to be done before the Select Committee is set up, and this work will continue, because it will be necessary to assemble all the facts and figures for the Select Committee at the relevant time.
Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) or the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown). The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that this matter is not yet urgent. What he has not explained is why it is wise to wait until it becomes urgent. The right hon. Gentleman has said that a great deal of work needs to

195
be done. Surely the sooner the work is done the more likely it is that the solution will be a good one.
The Prime Minister: When I said that a certain amount of work has to be done, I meant that it has to be done before the Select Committee is set up, and this work is continuing.
I find it difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about taking action before it becomes urgent. When he was Chancellor, although the could have forecast almost to the month when this problem would become urgent, I think that it was right not to take action. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to resist the Amendment moved by this side of the House following the suggestion by Lord Attlee that these matters should be subject to a regular 10-year review. Since the account passed into deficit in 1962, Lord Attlee showed very considerable powers of prediction in knowing that that was the right year to suggest. Because there is adequate time for dealing with this matter, it is not necessary to deal with it by a Select Committee now.
Mr. Hynd: Although the Prime Minister says that no special situation has arisen, is he aware that in the country generally there will be an impression, which I share, that the Government have been drummed into making this statement today because of the irresponsible remarks made in America, to which reference has been made—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to criticise a member of the Royal Family, except by a Motion on the Order Paper.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps I might reply to that part of the question which was in order. I should very much regret any thought that we had been pressured at all. The great interest which has been taken in public discussion, in the Press, on television, radio and all the rest, is no justification for changing the decision that the Government took a year ago and discussed at that time with the Queen's advisers.
On the other hand, to go back to the first point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, how-
196
ever this public discussion started, because it is going on it was right that a statement should be made in this House and all relevant facts made available to those concerned with the public discussion.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (SUPPLY)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a further statement about the situation at the Stationery Office.
As the House knows, the difficulties at the St. Stephen's Press of Her Majesty's Stationery Office continue, and accordingly emergency arrangements to meet essential parliamentary requirements are in operation.
The difficulties at this works arise out of the unofficial action on the part of a single chapel following a return to work by the members of all the chapels involved on the basis of an interim wage offer. Although there are unresolved issues, there is no official dispute and no official support for a go-slow. Nevertheless, the output is irregular and has resulted in delay in the production of parliamentary papers.
I repeat my regrets for the inconvenience which has been caused to hon. Members in spite of my every endeavour to avoid it and to obtain a normal level of output at this Press.
These continuing difficulties present new problems to the House through the interruption of its services, and I anticipate that the House would wish its Services Committee to examine the whole matter in greater detail than is possible through question and answer. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is making arrangements immediately for the Committee to be reconstituted for the new Session.
Mr. Maudling: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House regard this as profoundly unsatisfactory. It has been going on far too long. The House is being seriously inconvenienced. For example, I believe that HANSARD is not generally available today. It is intolerable that the Government should keep asking Parliament to

197
conduct its business without adequate preparation of its papers.
Mr. Diamond: I share the right hon. Gentleman's views. It is unsatisfactory and there is inconvenience. I hope that the Services Committee will wish to go into the matter in full detail, in which case, if asked, I should be only too glad to give evidence.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many on this side of the House also feel that this is an extremely serious situation and that the House requires the most urgent action possible to deal with it?
We understand that there are difficult matters with which to deal, but will my right hon. Friend undertake that the Services Committee, which is to be called in to assist in solving the problem. will meet immediately? Sometimes we have a Committee of Privilege appointed which can sit at once and we can get immediate action. I think that the House deserves immediate action to deal with a matter of this kind.
Mr. Diamond: That is a view shared by the Leader of the House and, subject to the co-operation of those concerned, which means both sides of the House, the Committee, when reconstituted, would meet very early indeed.
Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the unresolved issues is the printing of the HANSARD containing the debate in this House on procedure, about which the right hon. Gentleman gave some clear assurances last time it was raised? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that particular HANSARD is printed before the Services Committee meets?
Mr. Diamond: I will certainly look into that point.
Mr. Atkinson: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give us an assurance that the Services Committee will not discuss alternative supplies? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] My right hon. Friend will recognise that if that sort of item is to be on the agenda for the Services Committee this will develop into an official strike and we will have no supplies at all.
Mr. Diamond: With respect to my hon. Friend, I should never attempt to limit the proper discretion of right hon.
198
and hon. Members of the House who have been asked by the House to conduct a certain inquiry. I should be glad to give evidence on any matters which the Services Committee thought appropriate.
Mr. lain Macleod: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance for which it has often asked? Can be give a flat undertaking that no important business will be taken by the House without full documentation before us?
Mr. Diamond: We have never reached a situation where the House has been asked to discuss business without adequate documentation before it. I recognise that there is inconvenience, but the right hon. Gentleman is not on that point, but on the question whether it is proper, or indeed, possible, for the House to discuss business. We have not reached that position, and I hope to avoid it.
Mr. Amery: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are facing something quite different from the ordinary industrial dispute, whether official or unofficial, and that to interrupt the procedure of the House of Commons is quite intolerable, and even more serious than a strike would be in the Armed Forces?
Mr. Diamond: As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that is a different constitutional position. I recognise the serious aspect of this dispute, and that is why I think that it is a matter which has to be gone into and examined in full detail. This process of question and answer is not adequate for that.
Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the course that he is suggesting he is asking the House to dispose of its right to debate the setting up of the Services Committee? This is a serious matter, because the right hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Services Committee will be set up automatically on the Motion of the Leader of the House. This means that Members who wish to express concern about the non-implementation of some past recommendations of the Services Committee will have to forgo their right to use this opportunity once a year to debate it.
Mr. Diamond: I made no such suggestion. I made it clear that my right hon. Friend would be putting down the

199
necessary Motion. It is then for the House to deal with it as it thinks fit.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask whether, in considering this admittedly extremely delicate problem, the right hon. Gentleman will give special attention to the problem which is now likely to concern Standing Committees, especially with regard to Amendments, bearing in mind that there are at least three Bills about to go to Standing Committees, which have to be dealt with next week?
Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words. I assure him that the matter to which he has referred is one to which we have given careful consideration.
Mr. Heffer: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will ask his right hon. Friend why such a long period of time is to elapse before the Services Committee is established? There are other matters that hon. Members have raised with the Leader of the House which necessitate the Services Committee being established at the earliest possible moment. May we have an assurance that this Committee will be set up forthwith so that this and other matters can be dealt with immediately?
Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and he has authorised me to say that so far as it lies in his power he is taking steps for that to be done immediately.

"TORREY CANYON" (AGREEMENT ON CLAIMS)
4.14 p.m.
The Attorney General (Sir Elwyn Jones): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that agreement has been reached between the Governments of the United Kingdom and France and the owners and time charterers of the "Torrey Canyon" for the settlement of claims made by the two Governments for the damage, loss and expense incurred as a result of the escape of oil from the vessel after it stranded on the Seven Stones in March, 1967. These claims have been the subject of proceedings instituted in Singa
200
pore by the United Kingdom Government, and in Rotterdam by the French Government.
There has been full co-operation between the United Kingdom and French Governments throughout this matter, and the two Governments have acted at every stage in joint consultation.
The owners and time charterers have agreed to pay the sum of £3 million in full and final settlement of the claims of the two Governments, between whom this sum is to be shared equally. The settlement is also in satisfaction of any liability for damage sustained by the States of Guernsey. The United Kingdom Government have already substantially reimbursed those local authorities and other public and dock authorities in this country who sustained loss and expense as a consequence of the stranding, and the Government's payments to them have formed part of the claim for damages which has now been settled.
The owners denied liability and challenged the quantification of damages which the Governments estimated at about £6 million. The sum of £3 million is thus virtually half of the maximum sum that might have been recovered if we had succeeded on every issue. The owners claimed to be entitled to limit their liability for damages to a sum based on the tonnage of the ship. Had this succeeded, the total amount available for all the claimants would have been only about £3/4 million—and even that sum would have been available only if we had succeeded in establishing liability.
Throughout the negotiations the Government have been anxious to protect the legal rights of private persons who may have suffered damage to their property directly attributable to the pollution. Private claimants would undoubtedly face formidable difficulties, both legal and practical, in trying at their own expense to establish claims against the owners and charterers, almost certainly in foreign courts.
Accordingly, I am pleased to be able to say that the owners have, in addition to settlement of the public claims, agreed to offer ex gratia a measure of compensation to individuals and firms whose property was damaged or who incurred expense in protecting it from damage, where their damage or expenditure has not been the subject of insurance

201
recovery or financial relief from other sources.
Claimants who can establish that they have incurred expense in ridding their property of pollution, or in protecting it from pollution, or who have suffered loss directly attributable to pollution of their property, should, if they wish to take advantage of this offer, get in touch with the owners' solicitors, Messrs. Ince & Co., of 10 and 11 Lime Street, London, E.C.3. They will then be supplied with claim forms which should be completed and returned to those solicitors by, at latest, 11th May next year. These claimants may expect to be offered compensation on a basis comparable to that negotiated by the two Governments.
The owners have agreed to make available a sum up to a total of £25,000 for the purpose of compensating these claimants in both countries. This sum, on the basis of the information available to the two Governments, should be sufficent for that purpose, but if the cost of settling these claims exceeds this sum the two Governments have agreed to indemify the owners against any excess in their respective countries. For this reason the settlement of United Kingdom claims will require the Treasury Solicitor's approval.
Should any legal liability to British residents arise which falls outside the scope of these provisions—which I think is extremely unlikely—the Government and the owners have agreed to share it equally between them.
I am satisfied that, having regard to the uncertainties, inevitable delays, and expense of litigation, which would have had to be conducted abroad, the complex and unique points of law involved in establishing legal liability, and, finally, the difficulties involved in quantifying and proving damages, this settlement is eminently fair and satisfactory to all parties.
Sir P. Rawlinson: I appreciate that in any compromise or settlement the claimant get less than the sum claimed, and presumably this is acceptable only because of doubts and difficulties over liability. Allowing for the owners' settlement, what will be the consequence to public funds? Will it be £3 million, or in excess of £3 million?
202
Secondly, of the £12,750 for private claimants, is the Attorney-General satisfied that that will meet the bulk of them, or will there be a further claim on public funds in respect of them?
Thirdly, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee to obtain an agreed policy on compensation for loss and damage arising from oil spillage, which should then be incorporated into international law and thus in future avoid these difficulties over legal liability which have proven so expensive for the taxpayer?
The Attorney-General: So far as the Government are concerned, in this country public funds will benefit to the tune of £1½ million from this settlement. We do not anticipate any additional expenditure in respect of compensation to private claimants who may be entitled to claim under the scheme. But, as I have said, if it proves to be insufficient, the owners and the Government will share the liability to the extent indicated in the statement that I have mentioned. But we think that £25,000 ought to more than cover the likely claims.
With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question, he will probably know that at this very moment aninternational diplomatic conference is taking place in Brussels, where the creation of a convention to improve greatly the position of coastal States is being considered. A convention to improve the rights and powers of coastal States to takeaction to forestall pollution in the event of a casualty is being considered, together with a further convention on liability for damages arising from oil pollution. The present position is clearly unsatisfactory, and it is because of the unsatisfactory nature of the present law that this matter has had to be dealt with on a compromise basis.
Mr. Pardoe: A very important precedent has clearly been set by the agreement. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the shortfall between what has been won for this country by the agreement and the total cost to public funds of the "Torrey Canyon" episode? Is he satisfied that the law of this country, leaving aside international law for the moment, places sufficient liability for the

203
damages from oil pollution on the polluters? Will he introduce legislation to make sure that pollution does not pay?
The Attorney-General: The last question is essentially one for international settlement and international convention, and that the Government have actively pursued. Within 12 days of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster a special meeting of I.M.C.O.—the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—was summoned to deal with the very problem raised by the hon. Gentleman, who has a great interest in this matter.
The shortfall, as he describes it, is about £1½1/2 million. But, as I have said, if the case had gone to trial in Singapore and in due course, perhaps four, five, six, or seven years from now, had found its way into the Privy Council, there would have been considerable difficulties. I must not exaggerate the matter, otherwise the solicitors acting on the other side may be accused of having sold the pass for their clients. But there would have been real difficulties in the matter, and accordingly, the state of the law being what it is, I, along with counsel and the Treasury Solicitor acting for the Government in this matter, was most ready and willing to commend this settlement to the Government.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement that we made a claim for £6 million and eventually £3 million was the agreed settlement. Then, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), he said that the cost to the Government would be £1½ million. If we requested £ 6 million and are getting only half that amount, how can my right hon. and learned Friend tally up those amounts?
The Attorney-General: Either my hon. Friend's customary speed and clarity of mind have deserted him on this occasion, or perhaps momentarily I did not make myself clear—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is always the latter.
The Attorney-General: That may be, but let us not quarrel, we brothers of West Ham.
204
The position is that, as I said, £3 million is shared between the two Govern. ments. The sum of £6 million was the totality of the claim of the British and French Governments. Half of £3 million, as my hon. Friend will readily recognise, is £½½1/2 million.
Mr. Wingfield Digby: While I recognise that the settlement is probably satisfactory in the somewhat difficult circumstances of this case, and hope that it will not be a precedent and that I.M.C.O. will be able to reach a solution, will the Attorney-General say that the Government, now less inhibited, will take a fresh look at the recommendations of the Select Committee, reached after much thought, and try to give rather straighter answers to some of the recommendations, particularly recommendations (6), (13) and (18)?
The Attorney-General: The House debated the Select Committee's Report, and the Government have published a White Paper. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken a principal role in the international field. Lord Devlin is leading the British delegation in the conference in Brussels. I must emphasise that in this problem international action is absolutely vital. The stranding took place on the high seas, not within our territorial waters, and that gave rise to difficult problems, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine.
Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question of compensation to local authorities, both county and lower bodies? There is still some feeling that they have not been fully compensated, and that certain costs are still falling on the ratepayers. Does the settlement mean that local authorities in the South-West will be able to go to the Government in the hope of having further considered any other claims they may have in the matter?
The Attorney-General: The Government payments from central funds to local authorities amounted to nearly 80 percent. of their total net expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's question should perhaps be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As Chairman of the Select Committee that dealt with the question of coastal pollution in the light

205
of the "Torrey Canyon" wreck, may I say how glad I am that the outcome has been as favourable as it has been. But may Ialso ask this for the future: will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will now seriously reconsider the evidence given to the Select Committee by Captain Dickson and Mr. Holdsworth, of Shell, and Sir Solly Zuckerman and others about the need to amend the law of salvage?
The Attorney-General: We will certainly look at that point. May I reply to the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman by saying how grateful I was for the help he was personally willing to give during the course of this litigation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2
  ENACTMENTS CONTINUED IN FORCE
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (1).
  The Chairman: With this Amendment we may take the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in Clause 3, page 1, line 24, leave out from beginning to "this" in line 25.
  Mr. Carlisle: That Amendment is consequential on the first, Mr. Irving.
  The purpose of the Amendments is to provide an opportunity to debate immigration. There is no intention to vote against the inclusion of either the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, or the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, to continue in force until the end of December next year, and at the appropriate moment we shall seek leave to withdraw the Amendments. They give a chance, which the House should have, to debate the control of immigration into this country and to hear from the Home Secretary the up-to-date figures and how the present system of control is working. They give a chance for both sides of the House to suggest various improvements in the effectiveness of that control, and particularly to suggest strongly to the Home Secretary, as I propose to do, that the present system whereby we have two separate types of control renewed on an annual basis—one, the Act to control aliens—being this year renewed for the fiftieth time on an annual basis—should be replaced by permanent comprehensive legislation. That has been advocated from both sides of the House, but has not yet been tackled.

  207
  There are two principles on which I think we would all agree. The first is that immigration, whether of aliens or of members of the Commonwealth, whether of people who are white or who are coloured, has to be strictly controlled, for the very simple reason that we are not an under-populated country and have a standard of living which is still attractive to many people in other parts of the world. The second principle is that those who are here should be treated as equals before the law and in regard to human rights, from whichever part of the world they come.
  I am sure that there is no dispute with the second of those principles. On the first, the need for control, while it is clear that there is no dispute now, the position has not always been so. This is the first time that I have ever spoken in a debate on immigration, and, as part of my preparation, I looked back at reports of some of the debates on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. Those debates make strange reading, when one knows the feelings expressed on both sides of the House today.
  The then Opposition, of course, voted against that Bill, on Second Reading and Third Reading, and when, in November, 1963, the Bill appeared for the first time among those to be continued under the Expiring Laws Bill, the present Prime Minister initiated a debate and voted against the continuance in existence of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I think that, on reflection, even members of the present Government would be grateful that the Conservative Government of that day did not listen to their advice, but brought in that Act. We are grateful that, while in power, they have continued to renew this Act.
  Everyone must consider extremely unfortunate the tension which from time to time has arisen in recent years about immigration, caused, I believe, mainly by the amount of immigration, tension which is built on fear that the Government had no adequate control over the number of people entering this country, and that at least those parts of the country in which these people live were in danger of being flooded by an entry of excessive numbers. This tension is based on the strain that the presence
  208
  of those people had on housing, schools, employment and health facilities.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a contributory factor to that tension was the extravagant statements by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who is sitting behind him?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am not a right hon. Gentleman and am unlikely ever to be so. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) referred is proposing to take part in this debate. I feel that he should deal with the comments made to him when he speaks. I presume that the hon. Member for Smethwick is hoping to speak, also—
  Mr. Faulds: But was that one of the causes?
  Mr. Carlisle: I will limit myself to saying, as I have already said, that the tension which has from time to time arisen is unfortunate and is based on many causes.
  What I was going to say was that it is a fear which we are right to recognise and to consider seriously. I believe that this tension is absolutely nothing compared to what would have happened if we had not decided to take the steps which we took in 1962 to control further immigration. I believe that it is basically a problem of numbers and that it would have happened, from whatever part of the world the immigrants came.
  I suggest that the unfortunate difference is that the immigrants in this case are clearly identifiable by the colour of their skins, whereas if the immigration had been in similar numbers but from other parts of the world the immigrants would not have been so obviously recognisable as a group in any area.
  We are glad that, in office, the Government have happily changed their mind and have agreed to continue the control of immigration. They have, during their years in office, under pressure—much of it from this side—strengthenedthe controls of that Act. They began by setting a ceiling on the number of A and B vouchers which could be given each year. They did away entirely with the C vouchers. By the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1968, that control has been

  209
  extended to non-resident United Kingdom citizens who hold United Kingdom passports; there, too, we have made a ceiling of 1,500 a year for admission.
  This is the first debate which we have been able to have on this subject since that Act completed its first full year of operation. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some facts about it. For example, what was the final figure of voucher holders who came in during the first year after the passage of the Act? I understand that there were nearly1,400. How does the Home Secretary find that the system of control over those people, who are mainly, of course, the Kenya Asians, is working?
  The Act also brought in for the first time a restriction on children under 16—that they could enter this country only when coming to join both their parents, or coming with both their parents, rather than the previous position, under which they could join merely one parent. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that that alteration was aimed at meeting the abuse of young people just under the age of 16 coming to join all-male households in this country.
  Last year, in our similar debate, he announced the effect that that further control had had on immigration of people of that age. He told us that, within six months, the figure had dropped from 1,032 to 14, mainly, I understand from Pakistan. Could he tell us what has happened since, and whether the number of young people under 16 joining merely their father or mother is still the trickle that it was at that stage?
  This is, of course, also the first time that we have been able to consider a full year of the extension of the period from 24 hours to 28 days within which anyone who has entered illegally could be summarily returned.
  Can the Home Secretary tell the House what is the present position on illegal entries? I appreciate that, by their nature, there will not be full figures, because obviously those who evade the immigration control are unknown to a large extent. However, the Home Office must have some idea of the numbers still entering illegally.
  The final point on the subject to which I wish to draw attention was raised during the debate last year and has occurred in
  210
  the current year. It relates to the necessity for the issue of a current entry certificate in the country of origin of a dependant who is coming to join a voucher-holder. The House will remember that that requirement was introduced by Section20 of the Immigrants Appeal Act and was referred to in a statement by the Home Secretary on 1st May of this year.
  This is another example of an increased control which was pressed on him from this side of the House for a substantial period. The right hon. Gentleman took up some time in his speech last year in dealing with the proposals that, in future, dependants should require certificates of entry obtained in their countries of origin. He conceded that it had been one measure put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at York in September, 1968, as a means of achieving more effective control of immigration.
  In the debate last year, the Home Secretary poured considerable cold water on the idea. I concede that he said there was no matter of principle which would prevent it being considered, but he said that it would
  "… involve substantial administrative difficulties and expense overseas without any reduction in the numbers of people coming here—that is, as long as entitled dependants continued to enjoy their present right of admission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 444.]
  Therefore, it is fair to say that, although he considered the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend, he was somewhat cool in his response to it.
  What has been the effect of the imposition in May of this year of the requirement of entry vouchers for dependants coming here? If my reading of the facts is correct, its immediate effect on dependants has been dramatic. Taking the figure coming from India, for example, it dropped by two-thirds between May and June. In July of this year, 352 dependants came here from India with entry vouchers, as against 1,791 in the same month of the previous year.
  The figures for the three months before the introduction of the requirement for vouchers and the three months afterwards show that, in the short term,

  211
  at any rate, the effect has been startling. In March, April and May respectively, the number of dependants coming in was 4,028, 4,017 and 3,963. In other words, it was running at about 4,000 a month. In the three months for which figures are so far available since the introduction of that control, the number has dropped to 1,954, 2,230 and 2,480, respectively.
  In other words, since the introduction of the entry certificate system, the rate of entry of dependants has very nearly halved.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman announcing those figures with approval of the cut in numbers? May I remind him that it was the express will of the House, when this procedure was instituted, that it would not bring about a reduction in numbers but would represent only a change in form so that the numbers could come in more expeditiously and with less acute resentment at London Airport if they were refused entry?
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: If the figures show that, due to a tighter control, genuine dependants are still coming and that the earlier figures were inflated by those who were not genuine dependants, I welcome the figures. In view of the Home Secretary's firm statement that the introduction of the system would not have any effect on numbers, the fact that the drop has been from an average of 4,000 a month to just over 2,000 is worthy of comment.
  I appreciate that the immediate effect is bound to be greater than the long-term one, and that it may be that the Home Secretary can give us more up to date figures. It is likely that the number of entry certificates being issued is considerably greater than the number of dependants arriving each month. My only comment on that is that the same has continued to happen with A and B vouchers, with nearly 8,000 being issued a year but only about 4,500 people coming. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can also say, since the entry certificate is available only for a limited period, whether it is renewable.
  If it has made more effective the control of abuses of the system of allowing in dependants, and if it has made it easier
  212
  to check on the bona fides of those who wish to come here as dependants, I believe that the result is to be welcomed. It is a further sensible tightening of effective control which was advocated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at York in September, 1968.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It now emerges that the Leader of the Opposition outlined a proposition in his speech at York at which the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has not yet arrived. Does he intend to put forward his party's alternative policy of putting Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as aliens?
  Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do. However, before coming to that, perhaps I might comment onthe figures for the present year.
  As I understand, the overall number coming for settlement under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1968 was 59,112, ofwhom 4,691 were voucher holders and 48,650 were dependants. That compares with a total of 61,377 in 1967 —[Interruption.] I arrived at those figures from the statistics for 1968 for the control of immigration under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. There is a table there which refers to those coming for permanent settlement. I added together the voucher holders, the dependants of voucher holders and others also coming for settlement. If my method of calculation is correct, probably my arithmetic is right as well.
  I understand that up to August of this year the number of voucher holders was 2,686. That figure was obtained from thesame source. I further understand that the number of dependants was 24,255. That is a welcome drop of between 10 and 15 per cent., because in my submission immigration into this country must be strictly controlled. When we are talking in terms of overall figures of between 50,000 and 60,000 a year, we are talking of substantial numbers. About 90 per cent. of those voucher holders in the first eight months of this year were dependants.
  To the extent that they were genuine dependants of those who came here at a time when we permitted voucher holders to enter, or of those who came here before any form of control in 1962

  213
  —and who came here on the clear understanding that their wives and children should be free to join them—I believe that we should continue to honour that commitment. But although we ought to honour the outstanding obligations it does not mean that we should allow the present system of control to continue.
  I now propose to come to the question that I was asked by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), as to the method of control that I would like to see adopted. The very size of the existing obligation towards dependants who are still not here in itself makes it necessary to alter the system of control at the earliest moment. At the moment, every time we allow in an A voucher holder or a B voucher holder we are making an open-ended commitment for the future. We are giving a person with a qualified right of entry a permanent right to stay and bring in his dependants, without even knowing with certainty the size of the commitment that we are undertaking for the future.
  I understand that an estimate has been made that for every 10 voucher holders there are 27 dependants. That means thatfor every 10 dependants we allow in today we are making a commitment for another 27-30 people to come in at a later stage. We shall, therefore, build up future generations to whom countries such as India, Pakistan and the West Indies will be as unknown as they are to the people now living here. The idea of any form of repatriation for them will become steadily less and less feasible. [Interruption.] I accept that. That is what I said. Hon. Members may look surprised, but that is what I said. We shall have born in this country generations of people to whom India and Pakistan will be as foreign as they are to many people living here now, and to suggest repatriation would be unthinkable.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: And unjust.
  Mr. Carlisle: In my opinion we should do what was set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition both at the Brighton Conservative Party conference and in his speech in Walsall in January. This idea has been argued persistenly from these benches by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  214
  St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The suggestion is that we should replace our present system of separate controls for Commonwealth immigrants and aliens respectively with permanent legislation which would bring both laws into line with those now existing for aliens.
  Mr. Bidwellrose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to continue. He asked me whether I would deal with this point and I am just beginning to do so. Surely he will agree to allow me to deal with the point before he asks any more questions.
  We advocate that type of control because we believe that by it we could limit the number of people coming here so that it could be related both to the needs of the country and to the resources available, on an area basis as well as a nationwide basis.
  In 1968, 4,691 voucher holders came here. Of those, slightly more than half were B voucher holders. I assume—the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to deal with this point—that the same ratio applied to those who have come in during this year. They have come in with defined skills, but without definite appointments, and they are free to settle anywhere, and to take any job. Even those A voucher holders who come here having been offered a definite job are not required to go to the job they have been offered; certainly, there is no requirement that they should stay in it.
  I believe that we should move from a system of vouchers to a system of work permits. In that way, individual applicants could be considered on their merits, and people could be allowed into this country to do a specific job at a specific place for a specific time. Only in that way can the immigration problem be shown to be properly controlled. Only in that way can the further overcrowding of certain areas be avoided.
  Last year the Home Secretary made great play of the fact that that system, as such, would not automatically mean a substantial reduction in the number of people coming here. Merely to move from vouchers to permits would not mean an automatic reduction. It all depends on the way in which the system is administered. I submit that there would be a

  215
  substantial reduction in the numbers of those coming here for permanent settlement, because dependants would no longer come as of right, and when they were allowed to come in they would remain only so long as the work permit of the holder continued. It would mean that the permits of those coming to this country would be limited to definite jobs in definite areas. When the work permit expired its holder would cease to have a right to stay here.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: What happens if the job expires? Must the man go back then?
  Mr. Carlisle: The system would apply exactly as it applies to aliens. If a person changes his job he applies for another permit. Every application is considered on its merit. There is nothing new about that.
  Mr. David Weitzman: Let us suppose that a man has worked here for 10 year son a work permit and his job then ceases. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would be other than callous to send him back?
  Mr. Carlisle: Certainly not. I hope that I may be allowed to set out my view in full. The hon. and learned Member knows that, under the aliens system, if a person has been in this country continuously for four years the restrictionscease. I am not suggesting that those who have been here for 10 years could be asked to return. I am saying that the permits would be obtained in the country of origin and issued for a specific time for a specific job with a specific employer. They would be free and open for application for renewal, and if a person had been here for four years consideration would be given to raising the restrictions and allowing him to stay here permanently—as happens at the moment with aliens. It would mean that one could control and limit the amount of immigration into any particular area.
  I believe that it is a just and a humane system; and that it would be an effective system. It is only by maintaining an effective strict control of immigration that we will adequately meet the real problems of race relations. It is the continued flow of people into areas where social
  216
  conditions and community resources are inadequate to cope that creates the tensions which we all wish to avoid. The permits would have to be renewable yearly, and the decision whether to grant permanent residence would be taken, as it now is with aliens, at the end of four years.
  It would not automatically lead to a reduction in the number of voucher holders coming here but, to make the point I want to make to the Home Secretary, let us look at the aliens figures. At the present moment, about 44,000 permits are granted each year for aliens, working here, and that figure has remained at between 40,000 and 50.000 certainly since 1964. But whereas the ratio of dependants to Commonwealth voucher holders is 9 to 1, for anything between 40,000 and 45,000 aliens coming here there are only about 5,000 dependants. In other words, the ratio is 9 to 1 the other way round.
  The real problem, accepting our responsibility to the dependants of those who are already here, is to stop an open-ended commitment to those coming here in future. As I say, although we may talk of 4,000 voucher holders we are really talking in terms of a commitment to 16,000 people, whereas a move to the other system would mean talking in terms of a commitment to 4,000 or 5,000 people.
  The further point is that to find those who stay, as distinct from those who are here on a temporary permit, one has to look at the 1968 figures of foreigners allowed to stay here in permanent residence and compare that with the numbers ofthose who came here as permit holders in 1964. One finds figures of about 9,000 as against over 40,000. About 80 per cent. of those who come also go back. Only about 20 per cent. stay and even of those 20 per cent. the relation of permit holders staying to dependants staying is one dependant to four work permit holders, whereas, at the moment about three dependants to every voucher holder are allowed in. Therefore, the effect of those coming to live here permanently is substantial, as the figures for aliens show.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman—I realise that he has given way quite a lot.

  217
  But I want to get one thing clear so that I may the more adequately reply. What happens after the end of four years to the dependants of the Commonwealth immigrants who stay? In other words, if the Commonwealth immigrant stays after four years, would he be able to bring his dependants in at the end of that time?
  Mr. Carlisle: One would think that the chances are that if he was applying to stay here after four years he would, during that period, have brought his dependants here. I do not want to commit myself without consideration of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I should think that it must follow that such a man is trying to bring his dependants here—
  Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman should have thought it out before he uttered.
  Mr. Carlisle: With respect, I was asking the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman should have thought it out—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will leave questions of order to the Chair.
  Mr. Carlisle: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that if such immigrants were to apply to stay here permanently at the end of four years one would assume that their dependants were probably already here. Presumably, however, if granted permission to stay they would have the right to have their dependants here. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall shakes his head, but this is exactly what happens with aliens now.
  An additional advantage would be that one would not have open-ended commitments, because one thing that one would require to know when deciding whether to grant permanent residence would be whether or not the applicant wished to bring his dependants, and who those dependants were.
  I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I accept that what is suggested is a fundamental change in Commonwealth immigration, but I believe that it is a change that is necessary if we are to restore confidence in the ability of the Government of the day to limit and
  218
  control immigration. To talk, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, in emotive terms of creating second-class citizens does not help the argument. It is not discrimination against Commonwealth citizens that is suggested, but a system that has applied to aliens for the last fifty years. It is similar to the system used in practically every other country, Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth, and I believe that it is accepted as just by those countries.
  I believe that the desire of both sides of the House is to see an end of discrimination based on race; to see a relaxation of the tension that exists between different communities, and to see that adequate opportunities are available to those immigrants who have come here, to their children and, indeed, to their children's children. If we are to achieve those aims, strict and comprehensive control of future immigration is essential. Evidence that there is such control will give confidence to both the white and coloured people here, and I believe that that should be achieved by legislation of a permanent nature.
  In a similar debate two years ago, and again in the debate last year, the hope was expressed that we would be able to replace by permanent legislation Acts that now have to be renewed annually. We believe that the time has come for that to be done, and that the permanent legislation should be on the lines that I have indicated.
  Mr. Callaghan: When the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) opened the debate he was given an encouraging cheer by those behind him. I suppose that it was intended to recognise the fact that he has been added to the Opposition Front Bench team. It is not, however, the first occasion by any means on which he has appeared on the Opposition Front Bench. I would not dare to say in what capacity he must have been there before: I merely content myself by saying that he is now, apparently, legitimised. We welcome him, and I welcome the manner in which he has moved this Amendment.
  I thought that he was unduly pessimistic—or modest, as I know him to be—in saying that he did not think that he was likely to become a right hon. Gentleman. If that were a realistic appraisal of his party's prospects at the next

  219
  General Election I could not, of course, disagree with him, but let him take note that in the past Prime Ministers have been willing to offer Privy Councillorships to leading Members of the Opposition, and I have no doubt, without committing him, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be happy to do that if the hon. Gentleman continues as he has begun this afternoon. So I do not think that he should give up hope: I think that he will become a right hon. Gentleman in due course.
  I appreciate what the hon. Member said, that it was not his intention to press this Amendment to a Division, because to do so, if it were carried, would remove the whole system of control, and that is not his intention. I should like to deal with a number of points he raised. I start by saying, as I am afraid I have said before and as my predecessors and Home Secretaries of the hon. Member's party have said, that ideally we recognise legislation of this importance should be put on a permanent basis. Apart from the absence of parliamentary time, which is a continuing excuse made for this, certainly this has the effect at the moment that we have an annual debate. As I do not think there is any particular uncertainty about the result, there is something to commend it on those grounds.
  What I should like now, as I indicated to the House last year, is an opportunity to see how the immigration appeal system, when introduced, gets on. I think there is every advantage to be gained in seeing our experience of the working of the system before we embark on what would be an extremely thorny task of consolidating the legislation on a permanent basis. I therefore do not hold out any prospect of permanent legislation next year because the appeals system will not have been running long enough to embark on a subject of that sort.
  I was glad that the hon. Member had carried out his reading going back to debates in 1962, which I recall very well, as other hon. Members will. He eventually reached 1965 and stated the twin principles on which this policy was based. I should like to repeat to him, in case it escaped his reading in the midnight hours, the statement of twin principles which were enunciated by the present Government a few months after
  220
  We assumed office. Command Paper 2739
  " sets out the Government's future policy on immigration to Britain from other parts of the Commonwealth and on the problems to which it has given rise. This policy has two aspects: one relating to control on the entry of immigrants so that it does not outrun Britain's capacity to absorb them; the other relating to positive measures designed to secure for the immigrants and their children their rightful place in our society, and to assist local authorities and other bodies in areas of high immigration in dealing with certain problems which have arisen."
  That, as I see it, is the statement of principles which the hon. Member enunciated as his party's policy. In the principles that, as the hon. Member said, have been enunciated, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has never wavered from this description which I have given, although he has phrased it in his own terms. There have been differences from time to time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been under pressure from those who have not studied the problem as deeply as he, but always there has been a consistent approach from the two Front Benches on this particular matter.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member using the past tense in the early part of his speech in describing the fear which had existed that there was no adequate control. I thought he slipped a little in the last paragraph or two when he wound up, but he was using the past tense and he was right to do so. There never has been a time since 1962, certainly not since the present Government took over responsibility for this matter, when there was no adequate control of immigration.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his infamous speech endeavoured to convey the impression that there was not any adequate control, but those who have studied the figures know how far wrong he was. Although there have been marginal differences on how the control should be carried out, it is fair to say that, apart from the right hon. Gentleman's words on that occasion which were so inaccurate as hardly to merit comment, there has never been any substantial complaint that the control is not adequate.
  This afternoon the Committee will be able to see from the figures which I

  221
  shall give that the control of immigration is effective and is working as Parliament intended. I propose to concentrate, as did the hon. Member, on immigration from the Commonwealth. If there are any matters which arise concerning alien immigration apart from the particular relationship between Commonwealth and alien immigration with which I fail to deal, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will pick them up at the end of the debate.
  5.15 p.m.
  The hon. Member asked a number of questions about the detailed working of the control and I am glad to answer them. I came prepared to do so because I think it important that the people of this country should recognise that the controls are adequate, that they are not inhumane but adequate, and are working as Parliament intended they should work. I should like to deal with some of the relatively small groups about which the hon. Member questioned me in particular. There were and have been groups in the past who have caused genuine concern because there seemed to be an evasion of the intentions of Parliament and of the policy of the Government. As these loopholes have appeared it has been my intention and policy to stop them up. Far too much has been made of these comparatively small evasions by propagandists who want to alter the whole system, but there is no doubt that the evasions existed, and in reply to the particular question which the hon. Member asked I can give him some information.
  If we take the evasions by childrens under the age of 16, this, the Committee will remember, was a traffic in unaccompanied youths who arrived in this country shortly after leaving school in their own country—particularly from Pakistan—and immediately joined the labour market without the advantage of learning English or being in our schools. They reached here because there was supposed to be one parent working here. There is little doubt that this was an evasion of the intention of Parliament. The evasion reached what I thought disturbing proportions. The hon. Member asked the figures.
  They run like this: in the three months before the requirement was introduced
  222
  in March, 1968, that children arriving here under 16 years of age must have both parents here, 395 were admitted each to join one parent. In the three months following that had dwindled to six, and in the three months after that to none. That is the latest figure I have. It looks as if that particular evasion has been stopped up. It was never a genuine compassionate case, but always an evasion and it was right that it should be stopped.
  We also had another tiny group of elderly parents or parents who claimed to be elderly. The dyeing of hair is not confined to the female sex. There was a small but irritating evasion by parents who arrived claiming to be over 60 and it was found some months later that they were busy at work and they seemed extremely fecund in their old age. The number arriving in both categories is now negligible. In the three months before the age was raised from 60 to 65 the number was 89, in the three months after it was six and in the next three months it was none. These were only tiny evasions but they gave some credence to those who complained that there was widespread evasion. Even though it was not widespread they could always produce these particular examples to pour scorn on the whole system.
  At the time of the last debate the one remaining category of immigrant which was causing me concern was that of men arriving here to marry women already resident here. I was not ready at that time to deal with the problem because I felt one should not interfere in these cases unless one were sure that one could deal with the situation. I found that nominal marriages were being arranged here for the sole purpose of getting men into the country without employment vouchers. If they could not get employment vouchers they would find a fiancée in this country and marry her. The number of men arriving was out of all proportion to the number of men arriving under the voucher scheme. In 1968 3,828 men were admitted under the voucher scheme and 1,676 came in as fiancés and immediately started work here. The numbers were rising steeply and rapidly. On 30th January of this year I announced that in future male fiancés would have to obtain entry certificates before coming here. That has had a substantial impact.

  223
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary considers all these cases with great sympathy and care as I know that those who deal with him are aware. They are very difficult cases. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does on this.
  In the first nine months of 1968, 1,201 men were admitted under the previous concession. In the first nine months of this year the figure has been 256, of whom only 114 have arrived since the restriction.
  At present there is no other avenue of immigration evasion which is causing me concern. I stress "at present", because there are always people who are attempting to evade controls and I do not know when any new loopholes may be found. None of any significant character has been brought to my notice recently and I believe that the measures we took at the time of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, have clearly, by the figures, demonstrated their effectiveness and have closed most of the irritating loopholes that then existed.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: My right hon. Friend has dealt with an interesting point. Does he have figures for families joining males here? This is the other side of the coin. Does this mean that all young immigrant males at present in Britain have the automatic right to bring what they may or may not accurately describe as a fiancée to join them over here for marriage?
  Mr. Callaghan: That is not an aspect of the matter which has been brought to my notice as being a way in which the controls are evaded. Therefore, I do not have the figures. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard what my hon. Friend has asked and he will perhaps deal with this question when he replies.
  We have acted, I hope humanely and with firmness, whenever events have shown it has been necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the control. As we have the benefit of the presence with us this afternoon of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, may I say that these controls do not owe anything to his "rivers of blood" speech. I must point out to him, so that he shall not go wrong—he often goes wrong on these matters, though he is usually careful about his dates—that all the things I am
  224
  talking about were introduced as decisions or were indicated before he made his "rivers of blood" speech. What he did was to introduce an hysterical note into the discussion at that time, when the decisions had already been taken.
  As regards the East African Asians, in the corresponding debate last year I said that I thought that it was already apparent that the Act was succeeding in its main purpose of bringing back under control the numbers of United Kingdom passport holders of Asian origin who were coming from East Africa. We ended the panic-stricken rush—there can be no doubt about that. I know that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has never agreed, but we have ended the rush. The Act has now been on the Statute Book for 18 months. It has resulted in the numbers of those wanting to come here on British passports returning to the figure which existed before the panic-stricken rush started.
  I shall not disinter the reasons for the rush—I think they are pretty well known—but it existed. It was necessary, in the interests both of a great many of the East African Asians themselves as well as of good race relations in Britain, to halt that rush. I am very glad that we have been able to do so. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who I know has always taken a purist view on this matter.
  Mr. David Steel: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I say that I do not disagree with him at all that the effect of the Act has been to reduce the rush. That is not a matter of dispute. It is a matter of fact. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to some of the other side effects of the consequences of his action.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am very ready to continue to watch the development of the position. I will give the figures. It was my declared intention at the time of the March, 1968, Bill, when I was subjected to a great deal of personal vilification and abuse, to restore the rate of arrivals to the level of 6,000 to 7,000 which we had been able to accommodate inearlier years. This I have succeeded in doing, with the support of the House of Commons. From 1st March, 1968, to

  225
  31st December, 1968, we admitted 6,043. In the first nine months of this year, we admitted a further 4,721. So it is almost exactly on course, as I had hoped it would be in issuing the 1,500 vouchers a year. The position has been stabilised.
  I sent out to Kenya and to Uganda earlier this year a senior official from the Home Office to make an assessment with our High Commissioners in those territories of what is taking place. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall continue to watch this matter in advance of what he has to say so that we can observe that the voucher system is proceeding.
  It is fair to claim, too, that the disbelief that was hurled at me at that time that the Home Office, and myself in particular, would not deal fairly with these people has again been proved false by the tiny number of appeals. Under great pressure from the House of Commons, at 4 o'clock in the morning, in the debates on that Bill I agreed to set up an appeals system, although I thought it was a slight reflection on me. Nevertheless, I appointed two lawyers, because that was the general desire of the House of Commons.
  They went to East Africa. There was practically no work for them to do. They returned after three months. One of them, Sir Derek Hilton, has been kind enough to continue in the work that he has been doing. The plain truth is that the system has been fairly and well administered by Home Office officials here and by our High Commissioners in East Africa. I am very grateful to the lawyers who gave up their time, but I am more than ever reinforced in my view that I was forced to give way to a piece of emotionalism that was not justified by the facts.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is it not a fact that there was never any dispute about the fairness ofthe Home Office, at any rate not by myself? The dispute was about whether legislation was necessary to check a rush or whether it could have been done by other means.
  Mr. Callaghan: I had passed from that point to the question of appeals. The rational atmosphere that exists in the Chamber this afternoon is not my recol
  226
  lection of what I was subjected to during the debates in March, 1968.
  I come now to what the right hon. Member for Runcorn—I mean the hon. Gentleman; it is strange how coming events seem to cast their shadows before them—described as the major event of the year in Commonwealth immigration, namely, the entry certificate requirement. I raised the matter last year. It had not been raised by the Opposition Front Bench, but it had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in another speech. The hon. Gentleman rather twitted me by saying that I was very cool, and that after the Opposition had put pressure on me I eventually succumbed. He quoted what I said, that I would not oppose this in principle. He did not quote what I went on to say—
  " If it can be shown to be administratively sensible, there is every reason why we should do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 441.]
  It is a slight difference of emphasis, but I do not wish to make too much of the debating point.
  If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman in the spirit which animates these debates, it will not be of great help to us if, every time that one side has an idea which is considered and taken up, it is said that we have succumbed to pressure. In the spirit in which we have been approaching these things I will tell him, as I said a year ago when I was already considering the matter, that I have never had a closed mind on this subject. I always thought that, if it was administratively sensible, it should be done, as I said 12 months ago.
  [Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State earns full credit for this. When he came to join me, I asked him to examine the matter, and, after some time and some work with the official, he came to me with his proposals. When I was satisfied that they would work, I adopted them. That is the short, simple, bald and unvarnished narrative of what took place.
  5.30 p.m.
  It was, in substance, an administrative change which did not remove the entitlement of dependants to come here or, in principle, reduce the number who would

  227
  come. It was intended to provide a more humane and efficient method of control. I remind the House of what it was intended to do, and that it was generally welcomed.
  Those hon. Members who dealt with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State over cases of dependants arriving at London Airport before the change in procedure will recall only too clearly the distressing circumstances which arose as immigration officers were confronted with large numbers of dependants, not always speaking English, at the end of a long and tiring journey, not holding entry certificates, bearing little, if any, evidence of their claim to admission, or what was worse—bearing evidence which was obviously suspect. The resolution of those cases took place in an atmosphere of stress. People were detained. The situation created most serious difficulties and was, in our view, inhumane.
  At that time, we were having to refuse admission to one in every 40 of the dependants who were arriving. In the case of Indians, we were refusing one in every 25. There were many other cases which did not result in refusal, but there often had to be prolonged examination, in conditions, on occasion, of detention, before admission could be authorised.
  By contrast, since the new requirement was introduced, the number of refusals has been minimal. From the beginning of June, when the system came into force, in the following four months to the end of September we have admitted 8,168 dependants with entry certificates and refused entry to only one. In addition, we have had to return 35 who managed to get here without entry certificates. These figures are eloquent. They need no burnishing by me. They demonstrate that we were right, and, if I may say so, that the Leader of the Opposition was right, in suggesting that, if this could be worked out properly, it could be done without altering the numbers arriving here but with a great deal more humanity than the earlier system.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the effect on numbers. He said that it was not intended to decrease numbers, but it had done so, and that being so, he welcomed it. He is right in saying that the introduction of the new requirement has led to an initial damping down in the
  228
  rate of arrivals, but what he does not know, and what I do not know yet, is whether this is more than an initial damping down. It is too early to say. In the last four months before the requirement became effective, 13,000 dependants arrived In the following four months, since it became effective, 8,200 have arrived. But these figures need great qualification, and it is not possible to draw a conclusion.
  From the West Indies and the other parts of the Commonwealth where entry certificates have always been widely used —the Committee is aware that people from the West Indies have always used entry certificates—there has been no reduction in numbers at all, and the flow has continued as before. But during these months a large number of entry certificates have been issued to dependants who will, no doubt, travel here during the next few months. I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. In India, for example, about 3,800 entry certificates have been issued to dependants in this period, and 4,600 in Pakistan.
  Taking the Commonwealth as a whole, up to the end of September 14,833 entry certificates had been issued to dependants under the new arrangements.
  Mr. John Lee: How many taken up? I realise that my hon. Friend is making an important point here very sensibly and reasonably, but I should like to know what has been the sort of time-lag between issue and the taking up of certificates.
  Mr. Callaghan: I cannot say at this moment, but I hope that, when we have had longer experience, I shall be able to draw some deductions about what the time-lag is. As the hon. Member for Runcorn rightly pointed out, a certificate lasts for six months and then expires. He asked what happened then. The answer is that the person who made the original application would have to make a fresh application for it if he wished to come in after the end of six months. I hope that people will not, therefore, make application too long before they intend to come here.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly repeat the information which he gave a few moments ago?
  Mr. Callaghan: Certainly. Up to the end of September, taking the Commonwealth as a whole, 14,833 entry certificates had been issued to dependants under the new arrangements, that is, since they came into effect in June. In the same period the number of refusals was 791. I hope that the Committee will not draw too many conclusions from these crude, broad figures. There will be those who take up certificates as a precaution but do not then come. There will be some who take them up and then come. We must have a much longer period than four months before we decide what the impact of the entry certificate is. But what we can certainly say on the credit side is that the new arrangement has reduced the inhumanity of the old system, and we can say also that it will not, obviously, have the effect of increasing the numbers coming under the old system. To what extent there will be a decrease, I am not in a position to say, and I do not believe that anyone else can do so, either.
  Now, the question of appeals. For the benefit of Commonwealth dependants who were affected by the new requirements, wemade immediate extra-statutory arrangements enabling them to appeal against refusal of entry certificates. The appeals are dealt with in the United Kingdom by lawyers who are nominated by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. When an entry certificate is refused, the applicant receives a written explanation of the reasons for refusal and a form on which he may give notice of appeal. The lawyer dealing with the appeal has before him the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant and also a report from the entry certificate officer setting out the facts and the reasons for the decision.
  Of the 110 appeals received up to the end of October, eight have been disallowed; four have been allowed; two have been adjourned; 96 are awaiting hearing. I am anxious that these appeals should be dealt with speedily, but 60 of the 96 were received during the last four weeks, and the speed with which they can be brought to a hearing is not entirely under the control of the Home Office. In each case, the Home Office has to write to the sponsor in this country or to some other nominated representative of the appellant asking whether
  230
  he wants a hearing of the appeal or whether he wishes to put his representations in writing. It often takes some time to receive replies to these letters. However, in the cases which have been heard, the procedure appears so far to have worked satisfactorily.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give one further figure in the series? I gather that there have been 110 appeals in total. What relation does that number bear to the total number of refusals of entry certificates?
  Mr. Callaghan: About one-eighth, a relatively small proportion. The total number of refusals was 791.
  I have already referred to the work of Sir Derek Hilton, to whom I am much obliged for carrying out an independent inquiry into the question of arrangements to be made for advising Commonwealth dependants overseas about the entry certificate procedure and the arrangements for appeal. He has been of invaluable help to all those concerned in the matter. The conclusion which he reached was that facilities for advice should be provided through British High Commissions overseas, the staff of which should be strengthened for this purpose. He thought that any public expenditure on such a service would better be devoted to increasing the staff and improving accommodation at our High Commissions rather than on subsidising voluntary bodies to duplicate the officially provided service. He thought that the proper role for the voluntary bodies was to cooperate in providing an advisory and welfare service for people with immigration problems in this country, in line with recommendations made by the Wilson Committee. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has now invited the voluntary bodies to meet him on 26th November to discuss the immediate establishment of a unified advisory and welfare organisation. If this can be agreed, there will be no difficulty on my part in accepting what is proposed.
  Whilst I am on appeals, the Committee will no doubt wish to know the progress we are making in other directions towards bringing the statutory appeal system into operation. Those interested may have noticed the advertisements that appeared in the newspapers

  231
  a month or so ago inviting applications for adjudicator posts. A selection board is now engaged in interviewing candidates for 21 full-time posts.
  The implementation of the Immigration Appeals Act requires a great deal in the way of subordinate legislation. An Order in Council will be necessary, conferring the right of appeal on aliens, and regulations and rules of procedure must be laid down. I hope to lay these Instruments successively before the House over the coming months, to get the system into operation as soon as we can administratively handle it.
  I have dealt with some of the questions of evasion, the blocking up of the holes and the appeals procedure, to ensure that those who have proper claims but do not put them forward properly are not prevented from coming here, which is an important consideration. I would like now to deal with the total numbers arriving for settlement. Only the figures for the first nine months of this year are available, but comparing them with the same period last year I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said. There is evidence of a continued—I would say "pronounced"—decline in the numbers arriving.
  I shall take the first nine months of this year first, because that is the current figure. The number of Commonwealth immigrants arriving here for settlement in that period was 29,150. In the same period of 1967 the figure was 44,572, and in 1968 it was 40,283. So there has been a substantial decline, although I have taken into account the possibility that some dependants who have obtained entry certificates may have been temporarily put back. We should enter that as an asterisk against the small figure of 29,000.
  The figures for voucher holders are as follows: 3,097 in the first nine months of 1969, 3,700 last year, and 3,703 in the first nine months of 1967. On the same basis, dependants totalled 23,473 this year, 33,374 in 1968, and 38,157 in 1967. So all the series of figures show a substantial decline.
  I emphasise again that I am giving figures for nine months. That seems most sensible as we have the first nine
  232
  months of this year in which to show the full impact of the various administrative and statutory decisions which have been implemented.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: Is the right hon. Gentleman excluding United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa?
  Mr. Callaghan: The figures are exactly comparable. 1 asked that question myself, and the answer was that the East Asians have been left out of these figures because they hold British passports. But they are included in the figures I gave a few minutes ago when I gave the separate figures for East African Asians.
  The figures of immigration for settlement from the Commonwealth, excluding United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, were 53,000 in 1968 compared with 61,000 in 1967, taking the whole year. But this year will show an even bigger decline, if the last quarter matches up to what has taken place in the first three quarters.
  Dependants account for about 90 per cent. of these figures, and the decline in their numbers is even greater. We have consistently stood by a firm commitment to allow dependants to join the men who are here—a policy that is humane, just, and sensible, and which the party opposite is committed to as well, as the hon. Gentleman made clear.
  I have emphasised time and time again that there is no way of reducing numbers substantially except by curtailing the number of dependants arriving. I have repeatedly said that we would not do this, and I understand that the Official Opposition would not do it either. Dependants account for 90 per cent. of the arrivals here at present, so the margin for alteration is not very substantial unless one is ready to attack the dependants, and I understand that that is not the case.
  Mr. Hogg: I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would add that the number of dependants in the pipeline must befalling very rapidly as we approach the time when the only persons whose dependants have not been imported are the very much restricted number of voucher holders that have come since 1962.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have always said, not with universal acceptance, that with the number of voucher holders now only about 4,000 to 5,000 a year, and assuming 2· dependants a voucher holder—or even, for the sake of argument, a larger figure of three or four—we would have an entry, once we get on the new plateau, of 20,000 to 25,000 a year. This country should understand that once the policy that has been followed consistently since 1965 is in operation we are talking about 20,000 to 25,000 a year. It will be very interesting to hear whether this great country is unable to assimilate and absorb that very small number of people from the Commonwealth in any period of 12 months. I do not believe it. It follows from what I have said that the numbers arriving in this country under the present policy are firmly under control.
  There is still the aspect of those who came here before the 1962 Act. Perhaps I may give a figure as an example. In 1961, 136,000 people arrived here. It is obvious that a great many of them still have dependants who may still have some title or claim to come here. I do not know how many there are. We have tried to make an estimate, but I do not pretend that anyone has an exact estimate. When that number runs down—and I think that it is fair to say that a great many of them are already here—we have coming into this country and offering us their skills to work in any period of 12 months a tiny figure of about 4,000 to 5,000 voucher holders, plus any dependants they may have or may acquire. That will be the permanent nature of the problem, if it is a problem, that the country has to face.
  Mr. John Fraserrose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I am giving way rather a lot. I know that we are in Committee. That is why I have been giving way. But I wonder whether I should.
  Mr. Fraser: Has my right hon. Friend any figures for the number of Commonwealth immigrants returning home? I have heard some evidence from Commonwealth countries that quite a number of skilled people have come here and returned. So the net figure is probably even smaller than my right hon. Friend has given.
  Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend has no figures on that. We have figures of the total number who go home, but I do not think that they can be separated out in that way. If my hon. Friend has any information, perhaps he will give it to my hon. Friend who is to wind up.
  I come to the major aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Runcorn, in which I think he sought to create a divide without really wishing to do so. I do not it end to be rude, but it is always the function of the Opposition to pretend that there are greater differences than there are in this matter of the numbers coming in, for reasons that they can no doubt advance. I think that the hon. Gentleman is just muddled in his approach to the problem, and I want to show why.
  The flag he waved as vigorously as his intellectual integrity would allow him is the one which says that what will solve the problem is a single system of control for aliens and Commonwealth citizens. The first thing I must say about that,and it is not startlingly original, is that Commonwealth citizens and aliens are not the same people. If that sounds a truism, it is, and the hon. Gentleman effectively discussed it. They do not come here for the same reasons, and they are not the same people coming here. That invalidates a great deal of the argument the hon. Gentleman tried to make. I am not thinking in terms of law, history or constitutional relationships but just in terms of the facts of the situation with which immigration policy must deal. The right hon. and learned Member for St. MaTylebone has tied himself in some intellectual knots over this in the past. I might remind him that in the past he has seen some difficulty in treating all types of Commonwealth citizens equally. Two years ago, he appeared to be suggesting that the time had come when we should consider extending especially favourable treatment to citizens of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These, to use his own words, were countries with whom we had the warmest ties and besides whom we had fought in the greatest of our wars.
  But a lapse of 12 months brought him to a different conclusion. Last year, he said:
  " I cannot see why we should discriminate as between Frenchmen, Indians, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Ghanaians, and Brazilians; they arc all members of sovereign independent countries, and they all operate

  235
  immigration controls against us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 516.]
  Mr. Hoggrose—
  Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop this point before he answers.
  He went on to say that the policy of unified control did not involve us in doing anything to a Commonwealth citizen which was not already done to a Scandinavian au pair girl. Here, I must say, he went too far. [Laughter.] There is a great difference, to put the point seriously, between a Commonwealth citizen from India or Pakistan or the West Indies who comes here to seek work and wants to bring his wife and family with him, and a Scandinavian au pair girl who comes here for 12 months to improve her English. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees this.
  Mr. Hogg: No, I think that the Home Secretary is making a wholly false point. I should like to reply in detail when I come to answer, but we might as well get this cleared up now. There must be a distinction drawn between the legislation of control, which must apply over the whole field of entry, whether alien or Commonwealth, and the effect which the administrative rules and formal regulations have upon particular categories. A Scandinavian can come in for settlement or can come for a short time. I have never altered my view that, administratively, Australians, New Zealanders and the like should be treated in a sympathetic way. But the legislative framework within which that takes place should be—thishas always been my view—identical and there is no inconsistency between these two propositions.
  Mr. Callaghan: I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I was not dealing with the legal or constitutional end—
  Mr. Hogg: I was.
  Mr. Callaghan: Maybe he was, but let him be careful of the conclusion he draws, because the conclusion which I draw is not the conclusion which his hon. Friend drew from that argument. It will not affect the numbers. A great part of the case is that this is designed to reduce
  236
  numbers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may of course argue for us to have a single citizenship test, although I would argue that out on a different basis. What we are talking about is not the legal or constitutional relationship which exists but the effect that it will have on numbers. That is the case which his hon. Friend was making. What I am going to show the right hon. Gentleman, I hope to his dissatisfaction, is that it will have no impact on numbers at all. This is the case which he will have to answer.
  In dealing with aliens, and Commonwealth citizens, I hinted just now that we are dealing with two different types of migration. So, even on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, it is not altogether a foolish proposition that there should be different methods of control. From the Commonwealth, let me repeat, we are faced with heavy pressure for permanent migration to this country. We have regulated it by fixing numerical limits to the number of people whom we can admit in any one year to enter into permanent residence here. This is through the voucher holder system. From foreign countries, we are faced with a larger temporary migration, but the number of persons wishing to remain here permanently is a tiny proportion of those who come here. That is surely an essential difference between the two groups.
  For aliens, therefore, it is not necessarily an appropriate method of control to fix a numerical ceiling. Successive Governments have allowed market forces to determine the numbers arriving here, plus a number of other social factors. We have said that, broadly speaking, if there is a job, an alien may take it. They come for a particular period, but we admit them in unlimited numbers with work permits for temporary periods only. They are allowed to stay from year to year as long as they conform to our requirements, but they do not wish to stay. The great majority of them go back home to their own countries. But those who remain after a period are allowed to stay here permanently, provided that they satisfy particular tests.
  The object of Conservative policy, as I understand it, is to apply these arrangements for the control of alien workers to Commonwealth citizens. That has been

  237
  the whole case. Their policy statement said so:
  "No one will in future be granted an immediate unconditional right to stay here. Work permits will be issued only for a limited number of specific jobs and for a limited period."
  So far as the limited number of jobs is concerned, let us take that test in the Conservative policy. Do they know what happens at the moment? There is a limited number of jobs—4,500 were taken up this year. The maximum is 8,000-odd and it has not been taken up for some years. That is not what happens under the Alien Employment Control, as I have explained. So is it the intention—I am trying to understand their case and am not making debating points—to apply a numerical limit to alien workers? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us, because that would be the assimilation which he has mentioned before.
  Assimilation can be worked one of two ways. Either we take off any numerical limit from the Commonwealth workers and admit them on a temporary basis, as we admit the aliens, or we can put limitations on the number of foreign workers coming here, as we now have from the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is asking a number of questions and I take it that he would prefer that I answered them at the end of the debate rather than now. However, lest he should think that I was avoiding his questions, I should not like him to think that I was doing that.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I did not at all. I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on these questions, because if he does, he will reach the conclusion that his policy is not altogether free from ambiguity, and because it is not, it is very important that those of us who are concerned with these matters should try to clear it up.
  If it is his intention to apply numerical limits to the number of aliens—I cannot think that it is—I do not know what the justification for doing it would be, nor do I know how he would reconcile it with the problem which would arise after our entry of the E.E.C., which would undoubtedly bring some difficulties in its train, in view of their requirements about labour movement. Therefore, if they
  238
  do not intend to apply a numerical limit to aliens, how do they propose to assimilate these methods of control so that Commonwealth citizens are treated in the same way as aliens?
  But then they say, "All right, a limited number of Commonwealth citizens will be admitted to work for a limited period." The justification for this seems to be that it would then be possible to say that these people are being treated in the same way as alien workers and they would justify this on the hustings by saying, "Look— we are treating them the same". I can see no other justification.
  Consider the facts. We are speaking, I repeat, of something fewer than 5,000 Commonwealth citizens a year coming in with employment vouchers. This is the problem to which the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn was bringing his nutcrackers—[An HON. MEMBER:" Sledgehammer."]—Yes, he is bringing his sledgehammer to crack his nuts. Many of these Commonwealth workers wish to stay here permanently and we would be glad to allow them to do so, because they come to fill jobs which are of value to us and they bring us their skills—5,000 or less a year.
  For this inconsiderable number of people the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition propose to maintain an elaborate system of administrative controls, apparently for the purpose of keeping them on a string from year to year for four years before they are admitted for settlement. They would be able to bring their dependants here during that period of four years, but if at the end of the four years they were not allowed to stay, both they and their dependants would, presumably, have to be shipped back to the countries from which they came, presumably at public expense.
  What would be achieved? There would be no effect on numbers. I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to persecute them. I believe that he is trying to erect some superstructure to try to prove to the country that he has a great policy which will control numbers. Once it is accepted, as he must accept, that we are dealing with about 5,000 people a year who come here to work, he has a responsibility to show why he thinks that the

  239
  erection of this vast bureaucratic administrative superstructure, which in other contexts he is always attacking, is necessary and what gain he will get out of it.
  If the object is dispersal, I do not know whether he has thought of the administrative problems and the cost entailed in trying to ensure that these people stay where they are sent and do not gravitate into the existing areas of concentration. Has he considered whether this cost would be justified by affecting the location of a small number of people arriving in future? Is that the object of the exercise?
  But the real problem of concentration lies in the numbers who in the past have gone to these areas, who went there because that was where they could find work and where they could live alongside their compatriots. Has he considered whether it is worth while trying to divert a small number of people? The wives and children of men who are already here in any event must go where their men folk are already settled. Has he considered trying to distinguish between future immigrants, who may be subjected to these controls, and the very large number who are already here and who must remain exempt from them?
  I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Conservative Party to give some thought to these questions, which are serious questions seriously put. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be erecting a vast administrative machine which would have a serious effect upon many people who are coming here without having any marked effect on the numbers—and the effect on the numbers is the test which hon. Gentleman opposite continue to apply.
  As the hon. Member for Runcorn said, aliens can be deported after up to 10 years. The hon. Gentleman said that this was the solution to the problem. He cannot believe that. I do not see how he can sustain that view after what I have said. He said that this would be a measure which would convince the country that there was control over immigration. Everything that I have said this afternoon about the system being followed and the questions which I have put about the system which hon. Mem-
  240
  bers opposite suggest shows that that argument is utterly destroyed.
  I assume that no one in a responsible position in the House is likely to assume that any policy of voluntary assisted repatriation would make any real impact on the numbers here. That idea has been blown down and completely discredited andI need not take any time to deal with it, for these arguments have already been made. My concern has been to inform the House of the measures which the Government have taken to exercise fair, but effective and humane immigration control.
  This is a difficult and controversial area of policy. It is desirable that our discussion should take place on the basis of realism and with some regard to the facts of the situation with which the policy has to deal. I am putting to the House the Government's policy and the realities of the situation to serve the best interests of the people in the country as well as the immigrant community already here and those who still wish to join it from overseas.
  I have always taken the view that a firm control over numbers, as set out in the 1965 White Paper, was a necessary prelude to taking some of the heat and tension and fears out of the national debate. Because the country is increasingly accepting that there is firm control over the numbers coming here, nationally some of the tension has gone out of the debate and some of the fears, on a national basis, have been destroyed. That is not to say, however, that in particular areas there are not genuine fears and deep tensions; this is true.
  The problem of community relations will not solve itself. No doubt I should be out of order if I went too far into that this afternoon—and I see your nod of agreement, Mr. Jennings, and therefore I shall not do so. But the two things stand together and I am sure that I shall not be out of order if I draw the conclusion that the fact that there is this firm control enables the national debate on the way in which we treat these citizens when they arrive here to be conducted in a way that befits the civilised and humane approach of the people of this country. However, if there are any points on this subject of community relations that hon. Members

  241
  are allowed to raise under your eagle eye, Mr. Jennings, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with them when he winds up the debate.
  I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is to speak this afternoon—not before time in the House. He has had opportunities and he has not taken them. I am sure that he will recall that last year he said that to enact legislation like the Race Relations Act was to risk throwing a match on the gunpowder. There has been no explosion yet.
  He referred in his infamous speech to the constituent who, he said, was convinced—this was the lady who had excreta poked through her door—that she would be imprisoned when the Race Relations Bill was passed. He said that he wanted her to speak for him in that particular matter. She spoke. He gave her the authority of his position and his responsibility.
  Eighteen months have passed since the Race Relations Act was passed. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has kept in touch with this lady, but I can assure him that she is not in prison, if she exists. There is no one in prison as a result of the passing of the Race Relations Act, because in any case it does not provide for criminal penalties. What it does is to provide a legislative framework within which all those concerned for good community relations can work, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to help in that regard.
  I conclude by thanking those who are working in the interests of good community relations, for those who are arriving here by helping them as they arrive and those who are working solidly in this respect. There is much work to be done; there is much tension to be relieved; there is much education to be performed. All that is true and we intend—the Opposition Front Bench and, I believe, the great majority of hon. Members opposite and this side of the House—that those who are here shall be treated as equal citizens with the rest of us, so that we can form what the right hon. Gentleman so dislikes—a multiracial community of which the country will be proud.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful for having
  242
  had the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Jennings, because although this debate takes place every year, this one, with the exception of last year's, is the first since 1963 in which I have been able, under the conventions of the House, to take part.
  It is a debate which does not relate to the immediate events of the 12 months which elapse between successive debates,as everyone who participates recognises. To debate an intake of 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 net in any one year of citizens from the Commonwealth would in itself be meaningless. The debate derives its significance entirely from the background, from the circumstances which exist today as a result of what has happened in the last 15 or 20 years. It is against that background that we judge the validity of the Act which we renew, but also against the background of what is portended for the future by the situation which already exists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—whom, I am sure, those not only on this side of the Committee but on the other as well would like to congratulate on what he said and the place from which he said it—observed that the tensions and fears which exist today are nothing to what they would have been if the 1962 Act had never been passed. Of course he is right. But the fears and tensions which exist today are nothing to the fears and tensions which are portended by the future which we see today arising out of the circumstances that already exist as the result of the last 20 years. It gives a certain unreality to the terms in which this debate is for the most part conducted that the Committee is able to overlook that great background not only of the past and the present but of what is portended for the future.
  There are relatively few official figures forthcoming from the Government on total numbers. There are a few. In 1967 the Government estimated that there were at that time in this country about 1 million coloured immigrants. I remind the Committee of the precise definition which is given to that term and which I will endeavour to maintain throughout the figures I shall use—namely, it signifies persons from the new Commonwealth, less the Mediterranean countries, plus those born here of one or both such

  243
  parents. That is the meaning of the term in which the number of coloured immigrants in this country—one must have a shorthand expression for it, unfortunately—is measured. On that definition, the Government estimated that in 1967 there were approximately 1 million. Again, in the middle of this year they estimated that the figure had risen to a little under 1,250,000. So much for the estimates of the present coloured immigrant population.
  But in 1967, the Government, or the Registrar-General, also offered a projection of future numbers on certain specificassumptions. It was that in 1985 the number would have risen to about 31/2 million, upon two assumptions—first, the continuance of the then rate of net immigration and, second, the continuance of the then rate of natural increase. We know, thanks to replies which have been given to me by members of the Government, what figures were being used in both these assumptions. The assumption was a current net rate of immigration—net immigration, not admissions for settlement but entries minus exits—of 57,000 a year and a current annual natural increase of 30,000 a year.
  Of course, only two years have elapsed since that estimate was put forward and less than three years since the underlying statistics on which it was necessarily based. But we can just glance at the comparison between what has happened and those two factors which were assessed.
  6.15 p.m.
  Net immigration in the last two years, thus including the Kenya immigrants—this, I repeat, is net immigration—ran at the rate of about 75,000 in each year. It will be substantially lower this year. So far it is running about 7,000 below last year, and, therefore, the figure at the end of the year—and I respectfully agree with the caveats which the Home Secretary mentioned as regards the coming months—will probably work out at around the figure of 57,000, which was the underlying figure for the 1985 prediction. So far as the first factor is concerned, then, we have in these two or three years, a very short period, actually exceeded the factor which was fed into that calculation.
  We also know something at last, but not a great deal, about the actual figures
  244
  of natural increase. The net figure of 30,000 a year was obtained by taking a gross figure of 35,000 births and deducting from it 5,000 deaths. That was how the Registrar-General for this purpose arrived at the annual natural increase of 30,000.
  Earlier this year the Department of Health and Social Security conducted a survey of the use of maternity services by immigrants, which did provide for the first time a large number of figures of actual coloured immigrant births, figures which can be almost precisely related to the coloured immigrant definition. It was intended, I gather, that 58 authoritiesin Engand and Wales—actually, in England —should participate in the survey. In fact, owing to a clerical error, only 54 were circulated. But in those 54 authorities it appears that the births will amount on an annual basis to approximately 35,000. In these authorities alone, therefore, we know that the actual number of births is running at a figure equal to the total for the whole of the United Kingdom which the Registrar-General was working on. It is therefore evident that the rate of natural increase is higher, even in the present, than that which was posed in the projection for 1985.
  I say nevertheless that of course this is a very short period. We can only survey two or three years of the 17 or 18 which that projection covered. We still do not know how far the Government will prove to be right in their assessment that the actual figure in 1985 could be as low as 2½1/2 million if the two factors develop favourably.
  But, of course, as the Home Secretary recognised in something he said right at the end of his speech, we grossly misrepresent—indeed, we do not represent at all—the reality of this question if we simply place total numbers as a numerator over the denominator of the entire population of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. The reality is the situation as it exists and as it is portended in certain towns, cities and areas. It is to the numbers there, and to the prospect for the future, that we must look if we are seriously to take into account the background to admissions to this country.
  Here again, the investigation of the Department of Health and Social Security has shed for the first time some light.

  245
  It is a light which has revealed facts that most people would have disbelieved before they were made available.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The right hon. Gentleman is referring to figures published by the Department of Social Services. Would he give the reference so that I might obtain them from the Department?
  Mr. Powell: Certainly. I am sure that they will be in the Department because they were supplied to me by the Secretary of State for Social Services. A number of them have been published separately in HANSARD and have been supplied publicly by the medical officers of health in the relevant boroughs. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a consolidated statement is available in the Department of Social Services because I was supplied with most of the figures from that source.
  The figures show, for example, that in 11 of the 12 boroughs of central London—that is, the 12 boroughs of Inner London less one, namely, Greenwich—an area in which the present population is about 3 million, coloured immigrant births are running at the rate of one in five. The exact figure, I think, is 19½ per cent. One birth in every five in11 boroughs of Inner London is today a coloured immigrant birth. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] It is a common assumption on both sides of the House that total numbers and prospective numbers are of the essence of this question. We may disagree about interpretation, but surely that numbers are of the essence is the one thing, if there is nothing else, which is common to both sides of the House; otherwise we should not be discussing this legislation and it would never have been approved and carried forward by the Government.
  Outside the central area of Inner London there are adjacent areas where the proportion is as high or higher. In Brent and Haringey it is respectively 30 and 26 per cent. I again emphasise that these are not the percentages of immigrant births; those are higher. They are the percentages of coloured immigrant births—the figures we are considering throughout this debate, the definition which runs through all these figures. In
  246
  the east, in Waltham Forest and Newham, the figure again is one birth in five.
  We therefore have this fact disclosed—a fact which probably, had it not been established in this way, would have been greeted with incredulity, had it been asserted; namely, that in this great central area of the metropolis one birth in five—or rather more if one includes the additional areas—is a coloured immigrant birth.
  Yet, of course, this is only an isolated year. This was a test taken over two months, March and April, in a single year. It would be possible to say, "But this may be a peak; this may be a freak. We cannot be guided by a single sample of this kind"—although I should add that there are reasons for thinking that this sample under-estimates rather than over-estimates the actual number of coloured immigrant births, since wherever it is possible to compare these figures with a full year's figures for 1968 they invariably prove to be lower.
  I now address myself to the question—
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: Would the right hon. Gentleman help us to follow his argument? Is he pleading for an increase of family planning facilities in the poorer areas of our cities where the immigrants tend to live?
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady will, if she is good enough to continue to follow me, as she has been doing, soon appreciate the drift of my argument and the conclusion to which I am leading.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings): Order. I allowed the question and a brief reply, but the question was entirely out of order and outside the scope of the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The debate has gone along on a very even keel. I allowed the question out of courtesy and I allowed the brief reply. But in order to stop any subsequent lengthy discussion on this subject I thought it advisable to step in.
  Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Jennings, either a matter is in order or it is out of order. If the question and the reply were in order, surely other matters pertinent to that matter are also in order.
  The Temporary Chairman: It should be within the cognisance of the hon. Gentleman that one must wait until the end of the question to see whether it is in order.
  Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has been making for some considerable time a speech which, if one kept strictly to the terms of the debate, would be entirely out of order. As you, Mr. Jennings, have quite rightly, in my opinion, allowed the right hon. Gentleman to make his speech—and we all welcome the fact that he is making it—surely every subsequent speaker will have the right to answer the points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Temporary Chairman: It is a valid point. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was giving what I thought was a factual survey—
  Mr. Faulds: With which you are sympathetic.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) is insolent.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewingrose—
  The Temporary Chairman: I can deal with only one point of order at a time. The hon. Member for Smethwick, who intervened from a sedentary position, is being insolent and he should withdraw his remark. I have sufficiently lengthy experience in the Chair for no one in this Committee, or in the House, to accuse me of being partial to either one side or the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should be decent and withdraw.
  Mr. Faulds: Since I recall a four o'clock intervention by the hon. Gentleman from the benches opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I find it rather difficult to withdraw my comment on his partiality. Since he is in the chair—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. Unless I misunderstood him, the hon. Gentleman's remarks were directed not to the partiality or impartiality of the
  248
  right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) but to the partiality of the Chair. If that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant, I accept what he has just said. The point of order—
  Mr. Faulds: May I finish what I was saying? Since the hon. Gentleman concerned in that four o'clock in the morning intervention is now in the Chair, I will withdraw my observation.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has his time wrong: it was five o'clock in the morning. But it has nothing to do with the case.
  As I say, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was dealing with the matter factually. The question of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South was leading to a conclusion. I stepped in as I did to stop a lengthy debate.
  Mr. Powell: I was about to address myself to the vital question, whether the situation disclosed for the year 1969 by the specimen figures for London, which show that one-fifth or more of all the births in the inner part of the metropolis are Commonwealth immigrant births, is isolated or whether they fit into a larger picture. As far as I am aware, wedo. not have any figures from London for earlier years. However, we do have total figures for earlier years from other parts of the country.
  6.30 p.m.
  For example, we know that in Leicester the proportion of immigrant births was 12½1/2 per cent. in 1967 and rose to 17 per cent. last year. We know that in Huddersfield it was 19 per cent. in 1965 and rose to 23 per cent. by 1967. We know that in Bradford it rose from 5½1/2 per cent. in 1961 to 23 per cent.—these are the final corrected figures—in 1968.
  Wherever there are full figures available for any two years, they always show an increase, often a steep increase, up to the last known figure. So we have no right to regard the glimpse of the situation in the metropolis which we have been given by the survey of this year as something isolated. It no doubt is in London, as it is in the rest of the country, part of a continuing, sustained and rapid increase in the proportion of births which are Commonwealth immigrant.
  [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
  Mr. John Leerose—
  Mr. Hooleyrose—
  Mr. Powell: I am very anxious to give way to both hon. Members, but I ask to be allowed to do so when I have carried my argument one stage further, as it may meet the point they have in mind. I will in any case give way.
  I want to quote one other of these series before I come to look at their significance. It is the Birmingham series, which shows an increase in the proportion over 11 years from 7 per cent. in 1958 to a little over 21 per cent. in 1968. Thus, wherever we are permitted to see the movement of total numbers, I repeat that we see a rapid and substantial increase in the proportion, continuing right up to the last date we have.
  It is against that background that we are in duty bound to form some conception of the future in these areas, because that is the background against which alone we can rationally consider the continued net immigration into Britain.
  Mr. John Lee: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's psychological obsession with colour, he knows as well as anybody else that this Act is concerned with immigration of all kinds. He might care to tell us, just to put the matter into perspective, what the comparable figures are for non-coloured immigration. It may be more, it may be less, but it is relevant to the debate.
  Mr. Powell: There is in fact a net emigration of white Commonwealth citizens from Britain and has been for several years. I am simply using the categories which the Government themselves have used, and necessarily used, as the background to the administration of the Act and the consideration of this whole question. So I ask: what is portended for the future of these areas by the facts which we already know?
  Mr. Hooley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing whatever sinister in these figures unless she can show that they are inconsistent with the age structure of the immigrant population compared with that of the
  250
  total population in those areas and unless he is prepared to admit that the colour of a baby's skin has some special significance for him?
  Mr. Powell: I will take the first point, because I think that at this stage it may avoid misunderstanding if I make it absolutely clear that at no stage was I talking about birth rate. Indeed, in the argument which I am about to advance I shall assume that the birth rate of the immigrant population is precisely the same as that of the indigenous population. I have so far been talking about births which have actually occurred and the proportion of those actual births to total actual births. I have made no deduction, and I make no deduction, from those figures as to birth rates, or the relative birth rates of the immigrant and the indigenous populations. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention at that point, because it has enabled me to make that clear.
  Now I take these facts of what has actually happened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second point."] I have not forgotten it. I will return to it. I now take these facts of what has actually occurred to see what they mean, could mean, or must mean, for the future. To do so I will adopt in the first place an absurdly favourable model. I will invite the Committee to note that in any given community, if it is a closed community, with no one moving in and no one moving out, the proportion of any particular births—let us say the proportion of coloured immigrant births—which is established over a generation must in due course become the proportion which that element of the population bears to the total population.
  For example, in Wolverhampton over the last six years 25 per cent.—1 in 4—of all the births have been coloured immigrant births. In a community in which that proportion continued for a generation—for the average period between birth and the mean age of a mother at childbirth—this would mean that inexorably that community was destined to be one-quarter coloured.
  I repeat that this is a simplified and, as I shall presently show, a favourably simplified model, but I think that it will be useful for the Committee in using actual figures to project the future.

  251
  The length of a generation for this purpose of 25 years, for 25 years—this is based on the indigenous population—is the mean age of a parent at childbirth. So it is a 25-year period with which we are concerned. The proportion of the population which is established over 25 years is thereafter destined inexorably on this model to perpetuate itself.
  Now let us look at Birmingham. Already we know the facts of 11 years in Birmingham. Over those 11 years births have risen in a parabola such that while the proportion of immigrant births in the population rose from 7 per cent. to over 21 per cent., the average overall was 15 per cent. If from now on that proportion were to begin to diminish, and were to diminish at the same rate as that at which it has risen, to the end of the period of 25 years, then, in that 25-year section of the population, the proportion of coloured to the total would be no less than 15 per cent.
  This simple fact illustrates the extent to which the composition of the future population is already determined. But that is merely an almost geometrical illustration, and, unfortunately, we do not have the profile of the cohorts below the present child-bearing age. However, we do have other figures which, though they are inconclusive and imperfect, are far better than nothing for our purpose. We have the proportion of immigrant children in the schools. We have the count as at 1st January, 1968, and also—I am sorry that the figures have been so long delayed—we shall presently have the count as at January, 1969—although some of the individual figures are available already.
  It is important to grasp that the education figures are on a different basis from the figures of coloured immigrants and the definition of coloured immigrants which we have been using hitherto. For the purpose of the education statistics, a child is counted as an immigrant only if the child or its parents entered this country within the last ten years. It will, therefore, be evident that the total number and the proportion of immigrant children in the schools is higher than that which is shown in the education statistics. For instance, the same child may be counted in one year and cease to be counted in the next year when the ten
  252
  years have elapsed since the date when the child or its parents entered the country. Incidentally, the education statistics exclude also the children of whom only one parent was a Commonwealth immigrant. They also naturally, though this is a factor only of importance in London, include the children of non-Commonwealth immigrants; but in the provinces that factor is of practically no importance.
  May I take the education figure and show its relevance to the projection of the future? The January, 1969, figure for the schools in Wolverhampton was 13·7 per cent. As I have said, this inevitably is an understatement of the immigrant proportion in the schools, since there were large numbers of immigrants in Wolverhampton more than 10 years ago; but I willassume, for ease of calculation, that it understates it only to a slight extent and that the true proportion of immigrantchildren in the schools in Wolverhampton is no greater than 15 per cent. Thus out of the 25 years of a generation, we have five years, nought to five, at 25 per cent.; that we know, that has happened. We also have 11 years at 15 per cent.; that is there, it exists. So there remain only nine years to close up the circle. The proportion of births in the next nine years will irrevocably determine the proportion of the population of that town, still considering it as a closed area.[HON. MEMBERS: "It is nat."] No, I will come to that, but hon. Members may find it a little easier to take it in stages. Only nine years remain until the 25 years are made up. The crucial question, therefore, is: how will the proportion behave in those next nine years?
  Again, I will make an unrealistically favourable assumption. No one who looks at these figures, all going upwards at the point where they are last visible, can seriously suppose that we are on the verge of an immediate downturn; but I will assume that we are, and that in each of the next nine years in Wolverhampton the proportion of coloured births falls by 1 per cent., so that the average over those nine years will be only 20 per cent. On that assumption we have made up a complete generation, in which, if hon. Members care to work out the sum, they will find that the proportion of coloured immigrants will be 19 per cent., one-fifth.

  253
  6.45 p.m.
  As I said, I have there made at least two assumptions which are both unrealistically favourable; but then, of course, I have made another one, and now I will meet the point which hon. Members are making. Of course central London, Bradford, Huddersfield, Leicester, Wolverhampton and Birmingham will not stay put; people will not stay in their places there while this demographic change takes place, inexorably arising out of what has already happened and what is there now. Of course they will not; and no hon. Member imagines that it will be so. The process will be accelerated by what is happening, and by what will happen, and by what everybody knows will happen—
  Mr. Faulds: Open the gas chambers; that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourley): Order. Mr. Powell.
  Mr. Powell: —that is the increasing outward movement of the indigenous population. A city centre, therefore, one-fifth or one-quarter or more coloured is not something which lies a generation away; it is very much nearer than that. These cities, including the central area of the metropolis, are only a few years away from a position in which—and here I insert a self-quote—" there will be whole areas which are entirely occupied by an alien "—Iam using the word not in the legal sense but in the real sense—" population "—[Interruption.].
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Gentlemen may not like what is being said, but it is the custom of the House to listen.
  Mr. Powell: It is implicit in the Commonwealth Relations Act which we are renewing today that there must be a limit, because of the underlying facts of human nature, on numbers and the rate at which they can be accepted in this community. That, I remind the Committee, is, at any rate in principle, common to all of us, and I am inviting the Committee not to be afraid to look. What we see, what has built up already, what is determined by the situation which we already have—and I have not prayed in aid any continuing net immigration in the figures which I have used—are major
  254
  towns and cities of which the central part will be wholly foreign—
  Mr. James Dickens: Wholly?
  Mr. Powell: Yes, whole areas of a central part will be occupied by coloured immigrants—
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman has used the emotive word "alien". In my constituency the figures of coloured immigrants are much higher than in Wolverhampton, and I could give comparable figures; yet there is a higher degree of integration in my area, even with the large numbers involved, than in any other area in the country. How can he project the argument which he is now making?
  Mr. Powell: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are in duty bound to make up their minds what will be the consequences of towns and cities where one-quarter or one-fifth of the whole population are Commonwealth immigrants but where that one-quarter or one-fifth is preponderantly concentrated in certain central areas and is in almost exclusive occupation of those areas.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I intervene on the use of terms? When the right hon. Gentleman says that one-quarter or one-fifth will be Commonwealth immigrants, surely what he means is that they will be coloured children whose parents came to this country as immigrants? Is not that what he is saying?
  Mr. Powell: I am using exactly the Government's definition. I am using the term "coloured" or "Commonwealth immigrants" in exactly the meaning in which it was attached to the estimate of numbers in 1967 and 1969.
  Mr. Callaghanrose—
  Mr. Powell: May I have another sentence? Of course, in a few years relatively more of the total will be children born in this country. I may add that virtually all of those children, who are counted already by the Government in their statistics of coloured or Commonwealth immigrants, will under the laws of the countries from which their parents came be citizens of those countries. That is another fact which is worth bearing

  255
  in mind. I think the right hon. Gentle man wanted to intervence.
  Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West gave me a partial answer. He is, of course, using a term of art in relation to the definition of the word "immigrant". The Bill which we are discussing today, which we shall renew, uses the word "immigrant" in the strict sense; that is to say, one who comes to this country. That is what people usually assume to be talking about when discussing this problem. But when the right hon. Gentleman uses his term of art and defines "immigrant" as a child born of parents who have come to this country—I am sure he does not deny that is what he is doing —will he not now say that he is discussing the important question of colour in this country and how it will be dealt with?
  Mr. Powell: We are here debating the consequences for the future of continued net immigration, which will be coloured Commonwealth immigration. We can only debate that matter against the background of the situation which exists as a result of past immigration and the situation which is projected from that. Of course, as the years go by the composition and history of the coloured population change. But the fact remains —and we have had a good many years now of the first generation—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are a racialist."]—the fact remains—
  Mr. Faulds: You were damaged at your mother's knee—that is the relevant fact.
  The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Chair. The Chair is taking no part in the debate at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would intervene in the normal fashion, not from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Powell: We all have a duty to form our view of the consequences—
  Mr. Faulds: Poor little damaged mummy's darling. He has never recovered.
  Mr. Powell: —and the dangers of the situation which already exist and are visibly arising.
  Mr. Faulds: He should take his problems to a nursing home. He should be certified.
  The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
  Mr. Powell: We can form that judgment partly, though only partly, on the basis of what has happened elsewhere where similar conditions have prevailed. I have to tell the House that in my opinion, for which I take responsibility, such a prospect is fraught with the gravest danger of internecine violence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] it is a prospect which, if we can avoid it, we should prevent from being realised even at this stage.
  I do not believe that the disaster which the facts imply could be averted solely if all net immigration into this country ceased from now onwards. I do not believe that it could be averted unless there is a substantial reduction in the prospective numbers in these towns and cities. Repatriation lies outside the ambit of this debate, but I do not see how that kind of disaster can be avoided unless substantial repatriation occurs.
  However, this evening we are concerned only with net immigration. That net immigration has been running over the last three years—it is diminishing—at between 50,000 and 70,000 a year. The great majority of the continuing intake, as the Home Secretary pointed out, consists of women and children. It is an addition which will accelerate that future increase in the coloured immigrant population which is already implicit in the facts at the present time. I simply do not believe that we can justify the continued net immigration of women and children at the rate at which it is taking place. I do not believe that in the light of the future which the facts portend that rate of immigration, or anything like it, can be justified.
  The Home Secretary on the Third Reading of the Race Relations Bill last year addressed himself to me, as he did again this afternoon. He said that in this matter I had the greatest influence with the people of this country and that I had the ear of the people of this country. On the basis of that he asked me to appeal for understanding, for tolerance, for restraint, for patience. The right hon.

  257
  Gentleman has it exactly wrong. It is not to the people of this country that we in this House should be appealing for tolerance, restraint and understanding. The people of this country have shown tolerance and restraint in a way which could not have been anticipated. There can be no criticism of the people of this country for the way in which this unexpected, even uncomprehended, event has been received by them. It is not from us to them that the appeal goes. The appeal is from the people of this country to this House—and this House has not heard them yet. Let this House do so while there is still time.
  Mrs. Renée Short: It was my hope that if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke in this debate he would use moderate language. I hoped that he would not use the language which he used in his notorious speech in Birmingham—a speech which now precludes him from speaking on this subject at all from any platform, and indeed anywhere, inside or outside the House. But unfortunately, although we have not had grinning piccaninnies, rivers of blood, excrement through white letter boxes, nor any quotations from Themistocles on this occasion, we have had language calculated to stir up emotions on this subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about internecine violence. He spoke of the cohorts below.
  Mr. Powellrose—
  The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is not giving way.
  Mrs. Short: "Cohorts below childbearing age" is what I have written down.
  Mr. Powell: Yes. What is wrong with "cohorts"?
  Mrs. Short: "Cohorts" is an emotive word. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the use of language.
  The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fear and tension which exists today and what is portended for the future. I am now arguing about his choice
  258
  of words. Nobody would deny that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of ability, but if he were to choose his words more carefully he might find on some occasions a rather more sympathetic audience. But the fact that he uses this language—and always when he is talking on the question of immigration—means that he is no longer listened to by people concerned about the problem.
  7.0 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman spent the greater part of his speech discussing figures, and he has tried to say that my right hon. Friend, in presenting the figures that he did earlier, has presented a false position. However, I suggest that it is the right hon. Gentleman who is juggling with the figures. As the Director of the Institute of Race Relations, Mr. Rose, has said, he is really cooking the books. He continues to quote figures of the number of births to immigrant women and, when challenged by one of my hon. Friends, says that he is not talking about the immigrant birth rate. However, I suggest that it is that figure which really matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman never qualifies what he says about the increase in births by saying that they are births to women who have joined their husbands. It is normal and natural for a husband and wife who have been separated to have another child. The right hon. Gentleman never qualifies his statements further by saying that they are births to women who are in their most fertile and fecund period and that therefore they would be expected to have children. After all, they are normal, are they not?
  An Hon. Member: He is not.
  Mrs, Short: When the right hon. Gentleman goes to somewhere like Bradford, which has a high level of immigration, and quotes figures like 3 million of 3¼1/4 million "in a few years' time", he is juggling with figures and ignoring the clear facts of what happens. When they come here, immigrant families find themselves living in a more affluent society. They are able to attain a higher standard of living then they had before they came here.
  The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a very good case for family planning. However, I do not recollect that

  259
  he is one of the protagonists of family planning in this House. If he were to follow through his researches, he would know that not very long ago in Birmingham a survey was carried out amongst West Indian families living in the constituency of Sparkbrook. The results indicated that if they had the opportunity they would be only too delighted to take advantage of family planning facilities, and they showed greater enthusiasm for family planning than the Irish population.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should use his common sense and help those of us on this side who are trying to get an extension of family planning services for all, especially for immigrant families. If he did, he would find in a few years' time that the birth rate among immigrants showed a tendency to fall.
  On the hundreds of occasions which have been available to him, he has never pressed in this House for any alleviation for his constituents in Wolverhampton or for the people of the country as a whole. He has never attempted to relieve the lot of immigrant families. He must be aware that large numbers of immigrant families live in very bad overcrowded conditions of multiple occupation. In the West Midlands, for example, about 80 per cent. of immigrant families have to share lavatories, sinks and kitchen stoves. But he never urges my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to do anything to improve existing houses and increase the number of new houses completed each year.
  The right hon. Gentleman is not interested in social problems. He bandies about figures. But we are discussing human beings, not mere statistics. He has been singularly lacking in any demonstration of human feeling for the thousands of people who have come here at the invitation of many of his friends. His friends and supporters of his party have brought in immigrants from India, Pakistan and the West Indies since the early 1950s, when his Government were in office. What he has said in this Chamber after all this time and what he frequently says on platforms in different parts of the country should be directed to his friends. He ought to address his
  260
  friends before he lectures the Committee in the way that he has today.
  If the right hon. Gentleman would care to press with me for improved facilities—[Interruption.] No, I ambeing serious. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am joking. I am not. I would be delighted to join forces with him if he could be persuaded to follow my path and press for improved conditions for all overcrowded families. However, I do not think that that is likely to happen.
  He said that people will not stay in towns like Leicester, Bradford and Wolverhampton, but will move away. I assume that he was talking of white people. He ought to bear in mind that many coloured immigrant families will want to move out from those areas as their standard of living improves. The Institute of Race Relations has estimated that something like 14,000 coloured immigrants are returning home because they do not find the atmosphere in Britain all that congenial.
  So we come to the right hon. Gentleman's solution, which he floated in his Bradford speech. He believes that there should be a scheme of repatriation. It is a policy which I believe is at variance with that pursued by the official Opposition. To operate such a scheme, this country would have to find between £300 and £400 million. I can think of many ways in which such a sum could be spent to improve the lot of the people about whom the right hon. Gentleman should he concerned, including those in his own constituency.
  He went even further and said that he thought that women and children should not be allowed to come here at the rate at which they are coming, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at pains to point out that the numbers of dependants coming here are falling. That is exactly what we said would happen when a limit was placed on the number of work vouchers to be issued. Inevitably the numbers of dependants coming in will fall after a lapse of four or five years. This is already beginning to be seen. Notwithstanding that, the right hon. Gentleman implied that women and children should no longer be allowed to join heads of families already here.
  Again, I think that that is not the policy of the Official Opposition. On

  261
  several occasions, the Leader of the Opposition has been at pains to point out that the policy of the Official Opposition is not to divide husbands and their wives and children. Their policy is along the same lines as my right hon. Friends are pursuing which, in all Christianity—I hate to use the word, but the right hon. Gentleman professes to be a Christian and I know that he is a regular worshipper at church—must be allowed to continue.
  Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the other side of the coin? If, unfortunately, his ideas gain root, does he see the ills and social consequences which will result from a policy of denying women the right to join their husbands, and of preventing children from joining their fathers? Those of us who want to see an integrated, sensible policy believe that wives and children must continue to be allowed to join heads of households.
  My right hon. Friend is now concerned with the problem of maintaining the controls which have operated in the past. I would like to ask him whether he is entirely happy about the way in which entry vouchers are issued. Is he entirely satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of staff in Commonwealth countries to make sure that investigations and vetting are properly carried out? Above all, is he certain that there are sufficient people there to investigate the applications of those professing to come here as students, in respect of whom a proficient knowledge of the English language is essential?
  There have been cases of persons coming here ostensibly as students who have been turned back because it was found that their knowledge of the English language was not adequate for them to pursue the course which they sought to pursue. My hon. Friend would do well to examine this question and make sure that our offices in India, Pakistan and the West Indies are sufficiently well staffed with people to carry out the extensive and sometimes complicated vetting that is necessary.
  In connection with the entry of fiancés, can my hon. Friend do something to reduce the time lag between the appeal made by fianceés here and the investigation in the country of origin of the fiancés' status and qualifications for entry? It takes all of three months, and
  262
  sometimes longer, before such investigations are carried out. I know that when such investigations and inquiries are carried out in India it takes time, but I suggest that it is wrong to keep people waiting for three or four months. Is there any method of speeding up the procedure? Perhaps my hon. Friend can deal with these queries in his reply.
  All the House is agreed that control is necessary. I do not believe that any hon. Member, on either side, is not in favour of the continuation of control. We should all congratulate the Government on the effect of the legislation which they have introduced since 1964, in terms of the numbers coming into this country. But this is a far cry from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and some of those who support him, namely, that in the end, in order to reduce the numbers of immigrants, we must operate a tough, brutal and utterly inhuman method of separating families.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to take up almost the last point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short), namely, the question of control, and her observation that we all now agree that some form of control is necessary. I want to move straight from that to the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and to ask whether some of the speeches which are now being made on this subject on this occasion would not have been regarded as more outrageous, in 1962, when the Act was being discussed, than some hon. Members now sincerely regard the remarks of my right hon. Friend?
  It engenders a note of caution, a reminder that with the passage of time views and situations change. I do not want to hark back to the debates of 1962, but the hon. Lady will remember them as much as I do. They should cause a cautionary note to be struck in the heart of any hon. Member who is prepared to get up in this House now and say that he or she has delivered a set of outrageous remarks. There I propose to leave what might become a counterproductive argument.
  I want to put in quite a separate enclave a question that I am anxious to be enlightened about before I turn to

  263
  the main part of my remarks. We accept that since our last debate a major change has been the introduction of the entry certificate. This has had one puzzling consequence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) alluded and on which I seek further enlightenment. It would appear that the entry certificate is beginning to follow the pattern of the voucher, in that only a proportion of the entry certificates—about half—are being taken up. This is a new and puzzling development. It may be merely a phase, or it may represent something more permanent. I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate whether we have any idea why there should be this delay in taking up entry certificates introduced since our last debate.
  7.15 p.m.
  A further question arises in connection with the limit of six months which I understand is imposed on entry certificates. Do we propose, if necessary, to extend the validity of an entry certificate from six months to a longer period? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will touch on that point in winding up.
  One large difference between this annual review of immigration and the review confined to aliens policy before 1962 isthat in our earlier debates we not merely counted heads; we rehearsed—much more than we now do, and very critically—the principles on which aliens were admitted. I recall hearing, from the Government benches, some memorable speeches made from the benches opposite by a number of hon. Members, not all of whom are now with us, on the principles that should govern alien control. I do not say that we ever had, or have now, a clear and coherent set of moral and political principles in respect of the control of aliens, but in my view we got closer to it than are our very pragmatic measures designed to control immigration from the Commonwealth. It would help both our own population and populations in the Commonwealth if we could more clearly define than the Home Secretary defined it this afternoon the moral basis of our present policy.
  I want to apply this doctrine to a feature which disturbs me increasingly, namely, the voucher system and the way
  264
  in which it is working out. I am not concerned whether this is regarded as a liberal or a restrictive policy. Admittedly it is infinitely less liberal than it was six or seven years ago, under a Conservative Administration. The figures of those affected today under the system of A and B vouchers are low enough not to provoke much protest from any quarter; indeed, my right hon. Friend barely alluded to them. They are a long way below the ceiling reached in 1963, when 28,000 came in under the voucher system.
  Just why this figure should be about one-eighth of the figure which applies to aliens is not clear to me. On what principle the ceiling of vouchers for Commonwealth immigrants is based, with or without relationship to the aliens figure, is not clear to me. I listened carefully to this passage in the Home Secretary's speech and I could not see that the question was met there. What are the principles behind our voucher policy? For different reasons serious objections can be entered against both the A and the B voucher systems. The Home Secretary said that the number of A and B vouchers amounted to a tiny figure, representing people coming here to offer us their skill.
  Let us look first at the question of A vouchers. I shall take the figures for this year up to and including September.It is common ground that we are talking of the first nine months of the year. In that period, 2,087 A vouchers were issued. Nearly 600 of them were issued to factory workers, 463 to waiters and kitchen staff, and another 787 to "others"—that is how it is put in the return, and I doubt whether that conceals much skill In terms of skill, the A voucher seems to be limited to 140 draughtsmen, engineering and building craftsmen. It is tempting to come to the conclusion that the purpose of the A voucher is to secure unskilled workers for jobs that we ourselves are not willing to do. It is quite clear that there has not been applied to these individuals even that degree of selectivity required for the work permit, although I do not deny that work permits may cover a number of unskilled workers.
  Thus, in terms of the scene, which some of us on a Select Committee have been studying in different cities—the prospects in the future in industry for Commonwealth immigrants—the A voucher policy

  265
  strikes me as being not merely negative but positively dangerous.
  Here I will quote the right hon. Lady the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—and I say at once that I agree with her. She said, just the other day:
  " If we are ever to achieve equality of opportunity in this country, coloured workers must move out into new areas of industry and acquire new skills. We need to avoid industrial ghettoes just as much as we need to avoid housing ghettoes. This is where careers officers have a vital social and economic role to play. I believe you have a special responsibility to the community as a whole to broaden the industrial horizons of both our coloured population and those who are crying out for skilled and intelligent labour."
  That is quite right. But what is the effect of the A voucher policy? It is, at best, to create a huge training and retraining programme when, as we know, we are already short of facilities for our own needs. At worst, we are building up a reservoir of discontent, albeit slowly.
  The B vouchers cause me even more concern. To the end of September of this year we issued, in round figures, about 3,300 of these vouchers. Of those, 1,800 were issued to doctors from India and 345 to doctors from Pakistan. Doctors represent more than half the total of B vouchers issued. Here, indeed, the Home Secretary is justified in saying that they are bringing us their skill. This number compares with 2,300 vouchers issued to doctors from India in 1968, and 636 to doctors from Pakistan.
  Here, clearly, different considerations arise. The degree to which the National Health Service depends on overseas aidis notorious, but, even so, the figures we have reached today are very striking. In 1968, 71 per cent. of all B vouchers went to doctors—most of them from India. I agree that an unknown proportion come here to train and then return: that is acceptable. Even so, it is estimated that there remain here permanently between 500 and 600 doctors a year. If the Home Office knows better than that, I will be glad to have reassurance. In sum, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all our doctors come from overseas. In respect of National Health Service staff, the proportion is one-quarter.
  The figure for nurses and midwives is more difficult to calculate, but our overseas dependence there is estimated to
  266
  range between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. One-quarter, at least, of our 75,000 nurses and midwives in training in hospitals represents the Commonwealth intake. It is further reckoned that of overseas-born midwives who completed four years' training here, 75 per cent. remain in Britain. We could not operate the National Health Service without them.
  So if we are asked to define B voucher policy, one reply might be that it is to provide us with a National Health Service commensurate with our needs. I confess the morality of that policy baffles me. How in the world can we reconcile that policy with current arguments about whether or not we are giving enough overseas aid and, if we are not, should we be giving more? In that context the B voucher policy smacks to me of rank hypocrisy.
  Nor should we conceal from ourselves that B vouchers were not entirely fortuitous. They were administratively adjusted. in early 1968 to secure precisely these results. We altered the arrangements so that we could seclude at the head of the queue the medical services we wanted.
  Do we ever get representations from the Commonwealth countries about the cost to them of this medical exodus? Do they ever press us to put some term on the work done here by their own specialists? I think it very odd if they do not. If they do ever make representations, what is our response? What would our response be if the representations were made? I say it bluntly, in the context of both A and B voucher policy and of what we believe we are doing and what we are actually doing. I would scrap that policy tomorrow. In terms of both A and B vouchers it is unprincipled. For different reasons in respect of A, and in respect of B it is positively disreputable. The A voucher will create further difficulties for us, and the B voucher must inevitably create increasing difficulties for the Commonwealth.
  Do we really deny that the proportion of medical skill coming from India and Pakistan will not create a deprivation to the people of those countries? If so, how can we justify sucking them in for the purpose of the National Health Service?
  Mr. Bidwell: If the right hon. Gentleman would scrap the voucher system, on which he and I have thought a good deal over a long period, what would he propose to put in its place?
  Mr. Deedes: For reasons quite different from those argued from the Front Bench, I would much prefer a more selective system in which we took what we wanted by means of work permits, but made the reasons for what we were doing clear to other people and even clearer to ourselves. What I object to is that we half blind ourselves to what we are doing—in fact, we do not realise what we are doing—first to the Commonwealth countries and then to ourselves. We shelter behind the voucher policy and imagine that it is a generous immigration policy when it is nothing of the kind: it is the embodiment of selfishness. If the A voucher policy is based on economic reasons, which I cannot imagine, if we really want more unskilled workers, the level of A voucher entry is too low to be material. What exactly is the principle behind the A voucher?
  If in respect of B vouchers for social reasons we have to milk the Commonwealth of skills, let us admit it and relate it to a policy, if we have one—and the purpose of my remarks is to show that we do not have one. Failing that, we must conclude that behind a lot of high-falutin language we are operating an important and apparently permanent policy without any coherent moral or political principle as its basis.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Bidwell: I wish to comment briefly on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and particularly on his concluding remarks. I pressed him in an intervention, but I thought his rejoinder was most inconclusive. I could not quite get the hang of what he was trying to put forward. It is precisely under the system of A and B vouchers that a selective system has emerged.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as we have agreed with one another over a long period, that this is not a static situation but a moving scene which should be under constant discussion. I therefore do not close my mind, if he asks my hon. and right hon. Friends on
  268
  the Front Bench to receive new ideas, to considering ideas which may be of mutual advantage to ourselves and to immigrants. I am trying to be fair, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman made the point adequately. Doctors and scientists who come under one of these categories can go anywhere in the world. Their labour is in great demand. That is why they can come to this country and make a contribution here, but we have no measure of the extent to which people come to this country and go away to make a contribution elsewhere. We cannot put a ball and chain on our own doctors. No one suggests that because they have been trained in this country they should be, as it were, imprisoned here and tied as it were to the operating table or to the bedside. We do not propose to do that and other countries would find it very difficult to propose such a system.
  I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has entered our debates. In fairness to him, I understand that he intended to come into this debate before he received a letter from me. I am not sure whether he received that letter, for we have had a quite one-sided correspondence.
  Mr. Powell: I was much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me notice, although I had long intended to intervene in this debate.
  Mr. Bidwell: I said in the letter:
  "I think it would be not unfair if I said that you might even be induced to break your self-imposed silence on this subject."
  Those of us so heavily involved with the problem on a countrywide scale and who because of the nature of our constituencies have struggled to help to build a local harmonious community, have found it very hard indeed through the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's activities. Whereas my reaction to his coming on to television and using a few phrases from his sensation-making speech reflecting perhaps the considerable anxiety which exists in the country and also in my constituency caused me to use a word which suggested that he was born out of wedlock. That was the sort of thought in my mind at that time. My reaction at present, now having seen and heard the right hon. Gentleman

  269
  speaking in this debate to the sombre background on the benches opposite, sensing the acute embarrassment which he causes so many of his hon. and right hon. Friends, is one of considerable pity. I pity the right hon. Gentleman. He is like a bird which has fouled its nest and cannot get its claws out of the muck it has helped to create.
  The London dockers, 200 out of 2,000 normal followers of Jack Dash whom I met here, and the Smithfield meat porters who came here apparently thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had been thrown out of the House of Commons and not simply sacked by the leader of his party, did not march in his support on the second occasion. On the third occasion the national reaction was somewhat different and on the fourth occasion when he attacked the Southern Irish I prayed that there would be a fifth occasion because then he would get round to the Scots and there would be very few people left to attack.
  Of course we are right to concern ourselves with population trends in this country and to concern ourselves about considerable influxes of people with different kinds of culture and different kinds of skin. Of course we are right to assesswhat effect this has had on the Midlands, Wolverhampton and Southall, but although the right hon. Gentleman said in one speech that in the Southall area 60 per cent. of the children are coloured one does not know how to determine colour. Whensometimes I look at the right hon. Gentleman sitting in the gloom of this Chamber, I wonder what would happen if he were really the colour that he seems to look at this distance in the gloom. That would not have the same effect on me but I think he has got this all wrong. I consider myself a son of the British working class. I was a railwayman and I was born in my constituency, but I have seen this kind of thing occur and I know that one can measure the bitterness which often builds up in reaction.
  What the right hon. Gentleman does not understand is that the younger generation have an entirely different attitude. One cannot go to school with coloured youngsters, know them by Christian names and with no barriers of any kind, without having this different attitude. It is no accident that one of the letters of condemnation in The Times
  270
  against the right hon. Gentleman was signed by the more enlightened section of Conservative youth in the universities.
  The right hon. Gentleman must have read in his local paper that the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, of which I am a very keen member, went to Wolverhampton. I looked for all the Enoch Powells round every corner, but I did not find anyone quite like the right hon. Gentleman. We took evidence. I understand the local problem in his constituency because in my constituency we have had to face the problem of the settlement of Indian people, Punjabis, who are almost exclusively under Sikh religious influence. That is a very powerful influence. But in Wolverhampton I found that it was a fifty-fifty situation. I have seen the problem of coloured school-leavers and found a willingness and wish to do the right thing to provide employment opportunities. They agreed with us that that was central to the future development of harmonious relationships. No one belaboured the question of colour.
  I could quote at some length from the excellent evidence given to the Select Committee by the town clerk of Wolverhampton and the chief constable. He speaks in glowing terms about the home pride which many coloured people have. Although he told us honestly that he had a worrying pocket of West Indian juvenile delinquency, he asked that that evidence should begiven in private because he did not wish to make it appear that this tarred all the coloured youngsters with the same brush. I invite the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not read this evidence, to read it closely.
  Earlier in this House my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to what he called an expert dialogue, or an informed dialogue. Subsequently we brought out a unanimous report on this problem of coloured school-leavers. This related to the whole of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has belaboured today.
  The central weakness of the right hon. Gentleman is his thinking that people are like him, obsessed with colour. They are not, particularly in communities where there are so many coloured people, because one gets used to coloured people. If I had followed him in speaking in this debate it was on the tip of my tongue to

  271
  say that many of my best friends are coloured people. It must be impossible with an attitude such as he has still to have coloured friends. I cannot imagine it, because the whole substance of his argument is that this is "an alien wedge in the British community". It is a pity that he has not come into our discussions before for he could have heard a lot about this. He has a brain and he would have learned and would not have made the major mistake which means that he will never get a Front Bench position in his party again. I may be wrong in that prediction but it seems to me that the more the right hon. Gentleman goes on, the worse will be his chances of having his voice listened to on other matters such as economics.
  These things are now brought into the home by television. We saw and heard the right hon. Gentleman debating with Trevor Huddleston. We found that he is not only an advocate of a floating exchange rate for the £: he is also an advocate of the floating conscience. He has a conscience as a Christian and he has another conscience as a politician. That seems a queer kind of Christianity. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has revealed.
  I want to move away from the right hon. Gentleman on to the question of what we are now considering in a deep and thorough-going way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has overcome his shyness and entered the debate—but so far, incidentally, he has brought nothing new to it—will in future take a more active part in the councils of this Chamber, because my mind is not closed about not exactly going towards what the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) put before us today but at least tidying up the method of taking in workers, which has not been sufficiently stressed today.
  This matter is all about workers coming to Britain under several arrangements, about workers coming here to make a contribution to our economy. They make a substantial contribution to it. How will hon. Members opposite, who believe in the free play of market forces, look the employers in the eye when they cannot any longer supply them with this labour force? Although we have worry and unemployment—and I do not take second
  272
  place in getting at my right hon. Friends on the question of regional unemployment, and so on—it is precisely to the full employment areas, such as Wolverhampton, for example, where, I discovered, there is far less than the average rate of unemployment, that immigrant workers inevitably go.
  Both sides of the House, and notably the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), have clung to the concept of the right to have family unity. At the coming General Election, I will fight the Tories very proudly in my constituency because I do not think that the hon. Member for Runcorn has put this question at all clearly. I do not think he is very clear in his mind, because it raises a whole host of questions.
  The Leader of the Opposition went along with that, but if he ever became lucky enough to be Britain's Prime Minister I do not think he would put it away, for various reasons, not only because he would be the British Prime Minister, but alsobecause we are a member of the Commonwealth, which, with ties of imperial preference, trade, and so on, is not an entity to be sneezed at. If right hon. and hon. Members opposite embarked on that road, although I seriously doubt whether they ever would, they would come a cropper in the councils of the world and in their relationships with the Commonwealth.
  Why are they cluttered up with it? It is to pander to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West inside the Tory Party. The television screen is a wonderful teacher. It showed us the Tory Party conference on questions of hanging, the 11-plus and racialism. It laid it all bare for us to see.
  There is a current of reaction. I am proud to say that the mature Labour Party of my constituency sent a turbaned Indian as its delegate to the Labour Party conference two years ago. He was not measured as a man who had a turban and a darkface—and this one has a particularly dark face: Councillor Gill, with his whiskers on his chin and his hairs on his head, which he covers with a neat turban. He was measured as his ability as a delegate, his intellect and his integrity as a Socialist, and I am proud of that. I am even more proud that he went to the rostrum at the Labour Party conference and was acclaimed as

  273
  a conquering hero. When I watched the detestable debate at the Tory Party conference, I wondered what would have happened if he had been a delegate there.
  7.45 p.m.
  I want to conclude by quoting some of the evidence of a trade unionist before our Select Committee at the Oxford investigation. The reference made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about our Race Relations Select Committee's investigations in various parts of the country was quite erroneous when in one speech he said that we were surprised—I do not know where he got that from; he did not get it from the evidence or from anything which appears in the sizeable volumes from the Select Committee—that many immigrant people wanted to go back home.
  We are not surprised. We are not surprised by what teenagers say when they are 15, 16 or 17. We should be very surprised if the things the people say at those ages they actually carry out when they are 25 or 35. Quite a number of them will wish to move out of this country and quite a number will take their skills with them.
  I should like to quote this because I think it is rather good. It is from the evidence of one of the trade union representatives who was being questioned at the Oxford inquiry. He said:
  " I am deputy senior steward of my factory so I get around the complete area, I am also involved in the trades union district committee and trades union council, so I have very varied knowledge of the trade union movement in this area. We have coloured people working in our establishments. We are not worried whether they are coloured or not, we are worried whether they back trade union policy. Of course you have got racialism in any movement in this country. I have only personally met, in my factory with 1,400 people on the floor and 1,600 office staff, one person who is a racialist. I have also met people who have been sent to prison for stealing, and things like that. Of course you have got racialists, you have got idiots like Enoch Powell, and the idiots who march through London. These are people exploiting for political reasons the question of immigrants, members of the Fascist Party in this country, not the average working-class person."
  I made another important discovery, which may lift up your hearts, brothers and sisters. The Select Committee was entertained by the Mayor of Wolver
  274
  hampton, a pleasant chap. In front of us were little cards with our names and bearing the Wolverhampton coat of arms. I am now over 50 and I could not read the tiny print underneath the coat of arms, but I say under the coat of arms on the wall
  " Out of darkness cometh light ".
  That is the borough motto of Wolverhampton. There is hope for us yet.
  The central weakness of the attitude of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is that the vast majority of mankind are coloured people and the British have got to live in the world community. As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone had to lecture the youngsters at the Tory Party conference, we cannot stop people coming in and we cannot stop people going out. I have always believed in regulation and control. We are moving towards that very sensibly. The right hon. Gentleman's position in the country has very little support indeed.
  Mr. David Steel: I am particularly delighted to follow the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), whose work in race relations and immigration I have long admired, as have many hon. Members. His contribution this evening was particularly valuable.
  I wanted to deal with only one topic, but before coming to it I would like to say one other thing. It is significant that very often Members and people in the country seem to think that one is entitled to take part in an immigration debate or have views on immigration only if one represents a constituency with a large immigrant population. While the human and social problems of immigration fall directly on certain parts of the country, which is why we listen with particular respect to Members like the hon. Member for Southall, this is not a local problem. It is a national problem.
  One of the disservices the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has done has been not merely to exacerbate racial feeling in areas where there is a large immigrant population but to create fantasies and fears in parts of the country where there are no immigrants. The crofters in the Highlands of Scotland do not want an alien wedge driving up the glens stuffing excreta through their letter boxes. My

  275
  constituents do not want to see the River Tweed running with blood.
  It is a considerable disservice in many parts of the country where immigration is not an immediate social problem that these fantasies and fears have been created as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, so much so that friends of mine who are would-be Conservative candidates in Scotland tell me that when they go to selection conferences they find it very difficult to obtain the nomination or get sympathy if in answering questions about immigration they align themselves against the views of the right hon. Gentleman. These are in constituencies where there is no immigration problem.
  Therefore, I say that this is a national question which we must face, and it is also an international question. I verymuch agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Southall. In the African countries which I know well, in Jamaica, which I know less well, but which I visited as a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation last month, and in other parts of the world, we find white minorities—some of them citizens of our country, some of them citizens of their adopted countries—working and contributing to the economies and social life of those countries. Every time the right hon. Gentleman makes one of his speeches in this country they shudder, and have reason to do so. If we condone white racialism in this country, we are encouraging black, brown and yellow racialists in other countries to adopt the same logic and follow the same line of argument with regard to our fellow citizens elsewhere.
  Before I leave the right hon. Gentleman, it is worth making a passing reference to his statistical expertise. I have here a copy of a speech he made on 6th June, 1962, when he was Minister of Health. It is in the Library. A medical economist, Dr. Seale, had published figures showing that 400 doctors, equivalent to nearly one-third of all those qualifying, were leaving Britain every year. The right hon. Gentleman, addressing a meeting of doctors at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was present, said:
  … you and I know perfectly well that this is nonsense … I am irked by the
  276
  slander upon your service which is implicit in these grotesque allegations."
  He went on to an elaborate calculation, announcing triumphantly that his figures were
  " … blankly irreconcilable with the allegation of a flight from the Health Service."
  About two years after this speech figures were published by the Overseas Migration Board showing that not 400 but 900 doctors were leaving Britain each year, a fact which is blankly irreconcilable with the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. If he could be more than 200 per cent. out when he was a Minister responsible for the statistics, we are entitled to cast at least a tiny shadow of doubt on some of the prophecies we have heard this evening.
  But I do not wish to take up an undue proportion of the Committee's time or to make any contribution to the general debate on the subject of immigration. I want to deal briefly with the continuing problem of United Kingdom citizens who come under the Bill following our legislation of 1968. It is one of my regrets—I wish that I had said this at the time—that because we amended the 1962 Act in 1968 and did not legislate afresh the particular question of the United Kingdom citizens tends to be smothered in the general question of immigration. It is a distinct question, and one about which I would like to speak exclusively for the rest of my speech. I do so not just on behalf of my party but also as a member of an all-party committee, the United Kingdom Citizenship Committee, which continues to look at this problem.
  When I spoke on this subject last year I suggested that it was time the Government dealt with the problem of the undoubted anomaly of dual nationality and the people throughout the world who enjoy this status. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied:
  " I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the Government should initiate the abolition of dual nationality status, which, I think, is now held chiefly by Chinese in Malaysia. There would be no immediate practical advantage in doing so, because these people have not yet shown a desire to come here. Our nationality law is complicated, and a review would be a major task which must await an appropriate opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 529-530.]
  I question when there will be an appropriate opportunity.

  277
  The remark that:
  " There would be no immediate practical advantage in doing so, because these people have not yet shown a desire to come here."
  is in marked contradiction to observations made during the passage of what is known as the Kenya Asians Act—theCommonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968. The Home Secretary said then:
  " We are dealing with a problem potentially much larger than that of the Kenya Asians. It includes all the Asians in other parts of Africa and this very much larger number of citizens totalling 1 million or more."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,27th February, 1968: Vol. 759, c. 1247.]
  In other words, when the Bill was being promoted it was convenient to call in aid the problem of this large number of citizens. Then when some of us opposed to this legislation say that there is a problem, that we think that dual nationality is an anomaly, and ask what the Government propose to do about it, we are told that they propose to do nothing, because it is not really a problem.
  I beg the Joint Under-Secretary of State to let us know whether anything has been done since we had the debate last year about the question of dual nationality. If we could get out of the way the admitted theoretical problem of the people who are entitled to come here under our legislation and were not covered by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, we would be left with the real problem, and see the real size of the problem, of those who have exclusively our citizenship and for whom we are exclusively responsible.
  I would like to ask a few questions about how the Act has been working in respect of United Kingdom citizens. I appreciate that it may not be possible to have all the answers tonight, in which case I would welcome written answers later. The Home Secretary gave us a little information in his speech. We know that 1,500 voucher applications are allowed each year, but how many have been refused?
  The Home Secretary referred to the very small number of appeals against decisions. I believe that one of the reasons for their small number is that very often the vouchers have not been refused but simply have not yet been granted. There is naturally a long time-
  278
  lag in dealing with the applications when there is a ration of only 1,500.
  8.0 p.m.
  I am told—and I am subject to con, rection—that about 5,000 applications for vouchers have been received in the first nine months of this year, and that delays of six, nine and even 12 months in processing each application are not unknown. This is particularly serious when one is dealing with school-leavers or students who wish to go to an institution of higher education in this country. It is far too long a time lag in dealing with the applications, and I would like to hear comments on this.
  Since the Act was passed, there has been a slight change of policy by the Kenya Government. When the Act was being discussed, notices to leave the country were being issued by the Kenya Government. That is not being done quite so commonly now, but people have their jobs Kenyanised and are not actually required or given notice to leave the country.
  Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, the British Government are saying "You are not actually required to leavethe country, so you cannot be given a priority voucher." I would remind the Home Secretary that he said during the passage of the Act that this 1,500 quota would be flexible and not rigid, depending on human needs. While it was always recognised by the Government that if someone were actually required to leave the country, the authorities would act and that person would be given a voucher, a new situation has been created in which people are not required to leave the country and yet no longer have their jobs.
  This situation will be more and more aggravated. Positions in banking and those of insurance clerks are being Kenyanised in December. The Trade Licensing Act of Kenya comes under review again in January and it is probable that more traderswill be unable to continue trading. However much we may criticise the pace of Kenyanisation and however much we may regret it, it has to be recognised that it is Kenyanisation and not Africanisation. We must recognise that priority is being given in that country as in this to jobs for citizens, regardless of whether they are white, brown or black.

  279
  The same problem will occur in Uganda, which has about 40,000 United Kingdom citizens, and where discussions are now publicly taking place about the process of transferring jobs from non-Uganda citizens to Uganda citizens. We must rememberalways, in deciding what is to happen to these people, that it was we in this country who allowed them to opt for our citizenship, with all that that meant. Having given the quotation from the Home Secretary about flexibility and not rigidity, and depending on human needs, I want to know what preparation the Government are making for this likely further demand on places for our own citizens to come to this country.
  Is it the Government's intention to increase the 1,500 ceiling? If that is not possible, will they consider taking up the slack between the number of vouchers actually issued last year, which I take to be about 4,000, and the 8,500 which are allowed under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to come here? I understand from the Home Office that this is possible, that it may well be that our own citizens in Kenya can apply for work vouchers as Commonwealth citizens to come to this country.
  Very well, this is a possibility, but is this being publicly declared in Kenya? Are people being encouraged? Are advertisements being inserted in the newspapers inviting applications for these vouchers? I do not think that there is any general knowledge among the Asian community in Kenya that if they are our citizens, even though they may be well down the queue for the 1,500 citizens' vouchers, they may consider applying for one of the general 8,500 vouchers. Publicity of this in Kenya would be a great step forward.
  How is the agreement proceeding with the Government of India? Last year I gave the Committee figures of a survey which have been conducted on behalf of our United Kingdom Citizenship Committee in Kenya, in which we discovered that of the British-Asian community there only about 18 per cent. would want to come to this country if they were required to do so, while67 per cent. said that they would like to go to India. Granted that these figures may not be wholly accurate, there is a clear conclusion to be drawn here that many of the British Asian com-
  280
  munity have no wish to come to this country.
  But an agreement was reached between the British and Indian Governments whereby an endorsement could be placed in a British citizen's passport in Nairobi showing that he was entitled to come to this country and, therefore, should be admitted to India. The Government of India would admit them. How many applications for these endorsements have there been? How readily have they been given? My information is that they are not being given very readily.
  Finally, to repeat what I said at the beginning, no one disputes the right of the State to control the coming in and the going out of people who are not its citizens. We may argue, and may have argued in the past, about the right policy, but no one questions the right. But I believe that the category of United Kingdom citizens against whom we legislated in 1968 is in quite a different position. They are our citizens, no one else is responsible for them, and the situation at the moment, in which we have created virtually stateless and workless persons who may have to stay on in Kenya, living on their capital if they have any or on their relatives if they have not, is an unhealthy and indefensible situation, legally, socially, morally, ethically—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is speaking to his Amendment, which is not in the scope of the Bill. I have allowed a number of incidental references, but now he is persisting too much.
  Mr. Steel: I was not speaking to the Amendment, Mr. Gourlay, but, on the general question, to the Conservative Amendment, on whether this section should be renewed. If it is not renewed, all my fears are removed, because all these people would be allowed to come here. If it is renewed—I understand that the Amendment is to be withdrawn—clearly my argument holds water. I want to know what the Government will do about those people who fall within the Conservative Amendment.
  At the time of this Act's passage, there was great public indignation and a great public debate, but now, two years later, people tend to forget about this minority of our citizens in this situation. That is

  281
  why I have devoted my speech to them. It is important that we do not forget, and if the Labour Party is to claim with justification to be the party of life and soul, it cannot do so until it faces up to the problem of this minority.
  Mr. Hooley: I propose to relate my remarks to the Bill. It is a little odd that, of all the laws in this country which should be renewed by this Parliamentary technique, two relate to immigration. I should have thought that, on a matter of this importance it was high time that we had some permanent legislation which was valid, subject to the normal processes of Parliamentary amending now and again. It is odd that, on so fundamental a matter, which is of such importance to this country, we must go through this technique, and that of the three pieces of legislation to which it applies no fewer than two are concerned with immigration. This reinforces the need for some careful hard thinking about what the permanent basis of our immigration law should be.
  Several people have said, but I think that it needs to be said again, that there is no dispute an the question of controlling immigration, that, throughout the House and, I imagine, the country, it is accepted that we need some proper system of control. In fact, it is the indictment of the party opposite that, for 11 years, they grossly neglected their duty in this respect and that, when they came around to looking at the problem which immigration on a large scale from the Commonwealth was presenting in social and economic terms, their only reaction was the totally negative one of bringing in control without considering the other side of the coin, namely, the need for positive work in this country to deal with the problems which migration was throwing up in our own society.
  It is a great achievement of my party and my Government that not merely have we pursued further the problems of control and refined its techniques, but we have equally pursued, through the Race Relations Act, through the establishment of the Community Relations Commission, through administrative acts like educational priority areas and the urban programme, by an extension of our social welfare and many other means, the problem which migration produces as well as the relatively negative problem of
  282
  exercising direct control over the numbers who come in.
  Although the Home Secretary gave a number of figures, it is worth reinforcing some, because there are so many popular myths and a mystique about this business that the facts cannot be too often given. Over the four years 1964 to 1968 there was a net outflow of 300,000. The idea that people are flooding into this country and so building up the population is complete nonsense. There was a net outflow in those four years of no less than 300,000. There was a population increase, but that is a different problem.
  In 1965, the Government imposed a ceiling of 8,500 vouchers a year for Commonwealth immigrants, but the actual figures were in 1966, 5,141; in 1967, 4,716; in 1968, 4,634; and in the first eight months of 1969, 2,700. There has been a steady decline in the number of Commonwealth immigrants coming here for the specific purpose of working.
  Much play has been made by those with unworthy objectives with the subject of dependants. It is said that it does not matter that there is this relatively small number of workers, for the real trouble is the hordes, and increasing hordes, of women and children, a process which will go on for decades and even centuries. This, too, is quite false. There is control over the admission of dependants. The kinds of dependants permitted to come in are defined. They include wives and children under 16. With the special regulation about the one parent rule, mothers over 60 and fathers over 65 are also permitted. It is worth repeating some of the actual figures. The number of dependants coming in in 1967 was 52,000; in 1968, 48,000; and in the first two-thirds of 1969 it has fallen to as low as 24,000. These figures, too, are declining.
  But control should not be equated only with diminution. Essentially, we are talking not about figures but about people, people who have relatives and personal problems and ordinary emotions and feelings and affections for members of their families. We have to see that we not only exercise control, but exercise it fairly and humanely.
  In this respect, I wonder whether the system of entry certificates being obtained in the country of origin is working as fairly and as humanely as the Home

  283
  Office claims. I am not suggesting that it was the intention of the Home Office to be in any way inhumane, but when administrative techniques of this kind are introduced, they need scrutiny and comment to make sure that the original criticisms were unfounded, or, if they were well founded, to show where the the system may need modification.
  I want to quote one or two comments by the Yorkshire Committee for Community Relations under the chairmanship of Lord Wade when this proposition was introduced. The comments are cogent and we should have some account of this system in trying to assess whether it is working fairly. The Committee said that it deprecated the change. It noted that visas were no longer necessary for substantial numbers of aliens and commented that the proposal for visas for Commonwealth citizens was incompatible with that. It said that the system would be inconvenient and cumbersome in practice and would lead to personal hardship. I have some evidence that it appears to be causing hardship, particularly to people in India and Pakistan.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Committeee made one or two positive recommendations. It would be interesting to hear the Government's comments on them. It suggested that British High Commissions provide mobile offices for the entry certificate officers in those districts where substantial numbers of immigrants originated, for example, in certain areas of Pakistan. It said that the responsibility for providing information about new requirements and conditions should be that of the British High Commission. It suggested that advisory and welfare services should be provided—for those who applied for entry certificates or who were subsequently refused —by voluntary organisations at the expense of the British Government and that similar facilities should be provided in the mobile offices.
  This is a point that I want to take up, because the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has made an accusation against the Home Office of bad faith in this matter. The Council claims that the Government promised funds to voluntary bodies to undertake this advisory work overseas and that
  284
  so far this promise has not been honoured. I understood from my right hon. Friend today that the matter was still under discussion and that there was to be a meeting on 26th November specifically to deal with this point. If there was an explicit promise that public money would be made available to voluntary bodies to do this advisory work overseas, I hope that it will be honoured. In any case, in the light of the nature of the new system I hope that some help will be forthcoming from Government funds to deal with the problem of advising potential immigrants and their dependants exactly of their rights and how to go about acquiring entry certificates if they are legally entitled to them.
  Another curiosity I have come across in looking up the background of this matter is that apparently dependants in India and Pakistan are required to present themselves at High Commission offices together with their children and that the children are subjected to some form of questioning. I find this rather odd if it is so. It would seem a bit grim to expect a mother to trail one, two or three children to a British office in India, perhaps having had to travel many miles and even many hundreds of miles. I find it extremely odd that the children should be interrogated in any way to establish whether the family as a whole has a right to come to this country. That should be inquired into to see what the situation is. Until some of these matters are cleared up, we need to keep a vigilant eye on the new system to make sure that it is not causing more hardship than can reasonably be avoided.
  There is a feeling in this country that we have accepted a totally open-ended commitment in respect of dependants and that thousands will pour into the country willy-nilly year after year. It is therefore important to give some publicity and currency to a special study of this which is being made by responsible people in the Institute of Race Relations. They estimate that the dependants of the mass of people who came here in the late 1950s and early 1960s can be absorbed within five years. They estimate a total of about 236,000, a finite figure, which will be absorbed, with the present rate of flow, in five years. Thereafter, as my right hon. Friend said, it would be a matter of absorbing a much

  285
  more limited number of dependants of those who are now coming here on entry vouchers at the rate of about 5,000 a year.
  I want to pursue one or two points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) becauseI think that we could too easily lose sight of the human and personal problems of the people who are affected by what I candidly regard as the disgraceful Act of 1968, which devalued the British passport and in a sense made practically, although not legally, Stateless a group of people for whom this House, this Government and this country have direct lawful responsibility—the people normally referred to, in reasonable shorthand, as the Kenya Asians, United Kingdom subjects who happen to reside in Kenya.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made great play of the fact that the flow of these people to this country in 1968 and 1969 was roughly the same as it had been before the crisis blew up towards the end of 1967 and the beginning of 1968. But, of course, one has to remember that the situation in Kenya is now different, that these people now suffer disabilities in terms of trading and employment which have been imposed by the Kenya Government within recent years and which have rendered the position of the community particularly difficult and uncertain. Therefore, to say simply that one has restored the status quo is not quite enough.
  Unfortunately, too, the political situation in Kenya is not nearly as stable as it was a short while ago. I do not want to elaborate this point or speculate about it, but, if a condition of serious instability developed in that country, how exactly would we exercise our undoubted responsibility, both legal and moral, to a community of British subjects to whom we clearly cannot give any physical protection in the same way that we can give it to our own citizens in this country?
  Are we saying that, having fixed this limit of 1,500, and while people can come, if, unfortunately, they suffer disabilities imposed by the Kenya Government so as to become exposed to further difficulties on account of political upheaval or further troubles, we wash our hands of them because we have
  286
  made this arrangement, that it must be good enough for next five, 10 or 15 years, and that is all there is to it? Or are we going to exercise, within the controls we have imposed, some genuine generosity?
  Are we, now that the air has been cleared of the rather hysterical atmosphere deliberately worked up by some hon. Members opposite at the end of 1967, going to sit back a little more easily, look at this problem again and say that we over-estimated the problems and acted too harshly, as I believe we did, admitting that perhaps there is now a time when we should be more generous and more humane towards this group of people for whom we have legal responsibility?
  I suggest to the Government that we now need to look very carefully at the question of permanent legislation on immigration. I think also that we want to study carefully some of the consequences of the administrative and statutory measures that we have put into force over the past two or three years in relation to Commonwealth people and make sure that we are not actually disadvantaging them in relation to folk from the rest of the world.
  It is claimed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that we have now put potential Commonwealth immigrants into a possibly disadvantageous situation in certain respects as compared with the laws which we operate in respect of aliens in the broader sense. From my modest reading of the matter, there seems to me to be some substance in that claim and we should examine it.
  I am a shade uneasy that we seem to be getting into the habit of mind where the stopping up of loopholes and the pursuit of tiny groups seems more an objective of policy than looking in a more humane and general personal sense at the problems of groups of potential immigrants and seeing what we can do to meet these problems without departing from the basic principle of control. I urge the Government to look especially at the Kenya Asian problem within the context of our immigration policy as a whole.
  [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
  Mr. Gurden: The Home Secretary made another desperate effort today to

  287
  show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is an isolated figure and that he alone stands out as the bad man in the House of Commons. I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friend is not at all alone in the views he holds. He has many admirers and friends in this House —people who not only admire and support him but believe wholly in all that he has said.
  Furthermore, it is my experience, and, I believe of all hon. Members, in this that the large majority of the public support my right hon. Friend's view on immigration and other matters. There is no doubt that the House of Commons is not representing public opinion in this matter. I admit quite freely that the majority of hon. Members rather lag behind public opinion in this and have, indeed, always done so.
  The story started in about 1960, when legislation was possible but when perhaps nearly all hon. Members would have thought it impossible to have legislation to control immigration. Shortly after that, perhaps half the House felt that immigration control was a must, but it took until 1964 before the Labour Party and the Liberal Party came round to the idea that such control was essential. Of course, we know why that was so—a General Election was in the offing. It only proves the point that all parties and most hon. Members really knew what public opinion was and that that public opinion supported the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
  The result of all this was, as we well know, that control was promised, the legislation was introduced and, as a result, some restriction was imposed. But always there were implied promises from the parties that they would be nearer to the solution of the problem as time went on. Even today we are having the same promises of tightening the control but never do we get the admission of failure really to solve the problem completely; never do we get the admission of neglect. Always it is too late and too little.
  8.30 p.m.
  We are left today, and we are likely to be left for another year, with this problem. We have not solved it. Even my own party's policy would not really
  288
  solve the problem. Although I accept that it would be an improvement and that it is a policy which I support, it could work the other way and relax on the numbers coming it. It would all be in the hands of the Home Secretary. Therefore, we have no guarantee, even under my party's policy, that the problem would be solved. Of course we all believe that there would be a considerable improvement. Unfortunately, the prospect of a General Election does not get us very far since both Front Benches, and even the Liberal Party, seem to have an alliance. But let us be honest and sincere: we all now know that the public realise that politicians have failed to sweep the problem under the carpet, which they have been trying to do ever since I have been a Member.
  I have acknowledged that there is to be a reduction in the numbers coming in, and that there is a reduction, but it is infinitesimal. The numbers do not fall very much. We are talking merely of a reduction of about 1,000 or 2,000 when we include the Kenya Asians. The total figure is very little reduced. This ignores the serious population problem here.
  I have been able to cut out the next part of what I proposed to say because of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said He has proved the point about the population figures and the number of children being admitted with the immigrants. An accelerated immigration population growth in this country is assured.
  I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak and that this debate has been going on for a long time. I shall therefore try to help by shortening what 1 have left to say. The public have in mind such facts as a figure of half a million unemployed in this country. Yet we are still taking in a vast number of immigrants every year, and we shall take them in next year by our very act today. There are perhaps millions without adequate, decent housing accommodation. I accept that this is not entirely due to the immigrants, but we are still taking in immigrants while this housing situation obtains.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman talks all the time about immigrants. He will know that I am of Irish extraction. He comes from Birmingham

  289
  he will know that people like myself who were once immigrants have done all that we can to become good citizens of this country. Does he apply the same strictures to the Irish of Birmingham as it does to the coloured people of Birmingham?
  Mr. Gurden: I am talking about immigrants all the time because that is what this debate is all about. I should be out of order if I discussed Irish immigrants. My point is that we still have half a million unemployed people and yet we are to take in this vast number of immigrants next year. We still have a housing problem. The prospect of overpopulation has been proved conclusively by the figures given today. We still have the social and human problems which are attached to our immigration policy. There are still the risks which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West clearly implied can arise through racialism. Yet we are arranging for a vast number of immigrants to come here.
  The position which we have reached is, in my opinion, so bad that we should stop all immigration. There is no other way out. There has been time. That time has gone by; we have wasted it. Unless we take stronger steps than are proposed even in my party's policy, we shall not do what the public have a right to expect us to do.
  Mr. John Lee: Before I turn to what I think is the main theme of the debate, I want to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about the Kenya immigrants. Like them, I voted against last year's Measure which I thought was a miserable, cowardly and unnecessary piece of legislation. I still hold that view. It created rather than solved a problem. But there it is; the Act is on the Statute Book.
  What I want to know from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a little more about what might be done to alleviate the plight of people for whom we have a very direct constitutional responsibility. One difficulty which he will encounter is that if he is too specific and suggests a way in which we might assist the Kenya immigrants should their
  290
  situation, which is already precarious, become more acute, paradoxically he may make the situation worse. The trouble is that the Kenya Government are a great deal less stable than we would wish them to be. There is the danger that if we spell out too clearly what we can do and what we will do this may act as an incentive to the Kenya Government to go on pursuing the some wrongheaded policy on which they have been bent for some time.
  Therefore, if my hon. Friend is a little vague in his reply I shall not harry him. But there are plenty of us on this side, and, I apprehend, a few on the benches opposite, who will not let the Home Office rest on this subject. We shall certainly harry him in private because some of us who do not have the psychological, racial obsessions of some right hon. Members have these people on our conscience and we shall not let them slip from our conscience merely because of the distractions of an election or anything else.
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has come into the Chamber. I want to refer to his speech as calmly as possible. I do not suppose that I shall ever listen to as disgraceful a speech as that which he delivered. If I felt that he was a man other than one who was obsessed with his power struggle for the Tory Party leadership, I might be inclined to say that there might come a day when he was ashamed of himself. But I do not think that that is possible.
  I will accept for the sake of this argument that all that the right hon. Gentleman said was factually correot and that, although some of us were a little incredulous, his statistical prognostications were valid. What was so disgraceful was the fact that the whole rationale of his speech was directed to the idea that people of a different skin pigmentation are totally unassimilable. There was hardly a word about environmental changes. I cannot recall a single reference to our encouraging experience of the past with other immigrants and the way in which, after initial difficulties, they have not only been assimilated but have enriched our society by their presence. All this went by the board. The whole idea was that anybody who came with a different skin pigmentation was bound

  291
  to remain inevitably in psychological and, for the most part, complete social isolation from his fellows.
  That is about as disgraceful a suggestion as, I imagine, anybody could make. I regard it—and I do not want to be emotive about this—as very much on a par with the kind of remarks that were made by the Nazis about the Jews before the war, very much in the spirit of Rosenberg's "geopolitics". It is the sort of thing which, at any rate—and I give this to the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. St. John-Stevasrose—
  Mr. Lee: I will not give way, because a lot of hon. Members want to speak. [Interruption.] I will not give way to the hon. Member, who has taken no part in the debate.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) knows quite well that if the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Lee: This sort of singling out of a community which is identifiable because of some characteristic, and the choice of this as a whipping-boy for our economic and social evils, was a characteristic of the Nazis. It is the kind of situation which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, if he continues in the way in which he is going at present, is likely to try to create in this country as well.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will waste much time in trying to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, but I remind him of a homely example from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Long before the present wave of immigrants came to this country, there were coloured immigrants of the most exotic kind in South-East Cardiff. When I went there once to help my right hon. Friend in an election campaign in 1955, I asked those who were campaigning with me, "Do you have any immigration problems? Do you have any political problem arising out of them?" I was met with incredulous surprise that anybody should ask the question. The fact is that the people there had come to be accepted.
  Mr. Haffer: The same in Liverpool.
  Mr. Lee: As my hon. Friend says, it is the same in Liverpool. Of course, there is a limit to the degree of digestion—
  Mr. Deedes: Why are we limiting numbers?
  Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman's party did this. I am not saying that one should not limit numbers. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to me, he would realise that I have not said that. What I say is that when we listen to the kind of speech the implication of which is that people should be bundled back to their country of origin, and when we prevent them having their families here, with all the social evils attendant upon that, and this in a country which already has a considerable crime wave, that kind of argument is as scandalous and demagogic as anybody could imagine.
  The question of past communities is worth pursuing. Exactly the same kind of argument used to be advanced against Jews, Balts, Ukranians and others who came here early this century. Not long ago I looked at HANSARD and saw the report of a debate in 1905 in which exactly the same kind of hysterical atmosphere was engendered by people less eloquent and probably less educated, and, therefore, perhaps a little more excusable than the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West. That phase passed, however. Those people have come to be accepted in the community.
  Mr. Powell: What happened?
  Mr. Lee: They have been accepted in this country.
  Mr. Powell: What happened was that, as a result, a law was passed which prevented a dangerous increase in the total numbers. That is what happened.
  Mr. Lee: They were not bundled back, as the right hon. Gentleman would wish the present immigrants to be, nor were they stigmatised in the way that he has stigmatised immigrants, both today and in previous debates, but mostly outside the House of Commons because he has not previously deigned to take part in debates on this subject.
  8.45 p.m.
  When my party was in opposition it believed in the municipalisation of rented property. If one accepts that a genuine

  293
  problem created by exotic persons in our communities is in the use of housing facilities, and that many such people have come from countries where standards of living are lower than our own—a factor for which we largely bear responsibility because we were a supervising colonial Power for so many years —one way to ensure the more effective standards of house usage inherent in the public health and public housing Acts is by the municipalisation of rented property.
  I do not say that that is the only reason for municipalisation. My right hon. and hon. Friends know perfectly well the other reasons why it would help in the better utilisation of our available housing. I realise that, there being so few Labour local authorities, thanks to the Government's credit squeeze this policy is not likely to be implemented very soon, but one way of scotching the genuine difficulties created by communities overseas and of ensuring better house usage standards would be by the municipalisation of rented property.
  When I have discussed with the immigrant community leaders in my constituency, as I am able to do in an atmosphere of frankness because they trust me in a way in which they do not trust many hon. Members opposite—they know where I stand on racial matters—they have accepted that this would be one way in which—
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little too far in his development of the municipalisation of rented property in relation to the Amendment under discussion.
  Mr. Lee: I accept your rebuke, Sir Myer. I think my hon. Friends have taken the point. I do not suppose they want to say much about this, because these days the Labour Government do not like to discuss measures which are too socialistic.
  The appeals procedure has been the subject of discussion this evening, and the Home Secretary sounded as if he were a bit aggrieved that he had been pressed into setting up the procedure and thought that this was a reflection upon his integrity. I do not see why it should be thought so, or why he should not wish to have what is primarily a judicial matter dealt with judicially. I think most of us would say that the procedure
  294
  has worked reasonably well, but in a situation where 110 appeals have been lodged, 96 of which are still pending, there must be something wrong in the working of the machinery.
  Those of us who practise in the courts know that many courts function slowly, and that there are far worse examples than this of the ponderous workings of judicial procedure, but it might not be a bad idea if, when a new judicial tribunal is set up, we set a good example by trying to get appeals dealt with more quickly. I suspect that this would mean the recruitment of more personnel to man the tribunals. I do not know of any difficulty about that, and, if my hon. Friend knows, perhaps he will tell us. After making allowances for the teething troubles of a new system, I think that this should be dealt with as soon as possible.
  I hope the day will come when all this system of immigrant control will no longer be necessary. It is tolerable only as long as there is a measure of unemployment and as long as we have a largely unplanned economy. Both the Act of 1962 and the legislation since are a concession to human weakness. I have an immigrant community in my constituency. It is a marginal constituency, but I do not mind sticking out my neck and saying what I have said. Though it may have been necessary to introduce controls, it was a concession to human weakness, and I hope that one day we shall have the moral courage on both sides of the House of Commons to do away with it.
  Sir George Sinclair: The Home Secretary at the beginning of his speech said that one of the principles on which the inflow of Commonwealth immigrants should be based was the absorptive capacity of this country. Many of us would accept that this is an important principle, though not the only one.
  We in this country have a major task on our hands if we are to succeed in providing a framework within which roughly 1,250,000 immigrants are to make their best contribution to our economy and to our society and if we are to absorb those to whom we are committed in addition—namely, the 200,000 dependants of those who are already in this country, plus a commitment to the Asian passport holders from East Africa.

  295
  Success in this task is as important to our host society, where we are trying to create an open and tolerant community, as it is to the immigrants themselves.
  In addition, we have an inflow of voucher holders who come here to work and settle, and later bring in their families. This in round figures runs at the rate of about 5,000 a year. If one is to allow for families, it brings with it, in each year of immigration running at that rate, a commitment of a total of 18,500.
  The Home Secretary has made an outstanding contribution to relations between those Commonwealth immigrants and the host community in Britain. His 1968 Race Relations Act has provided a civilised legal framework which is already helping towards decent human relations. The Race Relations Board, set up under the Act, is doing a difficult job with growing success. The Chairman of the Race Relations Board would claim no more for it than that. All this helps the process of absorption in this country which the Home Secretary has made one of his guiding principles in his attitude to the inflow of Commonwealth immigrants.
  But one other body, the Community Relations Commission, has failed to take the opportunities open to it. Yet this Commission and its local community relations councils should be one of the most important instruments for helping in the difficult and long-term task of absorption. I fear that these opportunities will not recur. The ground has been lost and relationships in some areas have been soured because of lack of leadership. The Home Secretary appointed to lead this Commission a chairman who could give to it something of the order of one full day's work a week—for a task which demandedfull-time work and outstanding leadership if it was to make the impact it should and to take the opportunities which were open to it. The Commission has failed to gain the confidence of the local community relations councils and to win for itself the respect of the immigrants and others who work for better community relations.
  The Home Secretary must bear the main responsibility for allowing the Community Relations Commission to drift like a ship without a captain, without a helmsman, without a chart and without a
  296
  course. He should have been aware of its weakness. A report was made to him by a Civil Service Department team which looked into the work of the Commission in June and July of this year. Yet the right hon. Gentleman did nothing to reconstitute it and get rid of those who were responsible for its failure. That is the reason why experienced and qualified staff are leaving the Commission and seeking other employment. That is why there is so much dissatisfaction among local communityrelations councils with their relationship with the Commission. I would refer the Joint Under-Secretary of State to only two areas, namely, Newcastle and Birmingham, The hon. Gentleman will know to what I refer.
  I want now to deal with the current rate of 5,000 voucher-holders per year and the consequential number of dependants.To add that sort of figure annually to our current total is wrong. It is an option. We have no obligation. It cannot be right to add that sort of number, plus their dependants, to the total task that we have to face. It is wrong while we still have to absorb a backlog of about 200,000 dependants and still have to honour our commitments to passport holders from East and Central Africa.
  Looking at the make-up of the 5,000, about a third of whom are semi-skilled or unskilled, how can we justify bringing in that number in the face of 500,000 unemployed of our own? It is insupportable. The other two-thirds have good qualifications. Some are skilled technicians, many are professionally qualified, and others have technological degrees. This is inverse colonialism of the worst sort. We are stripping from countries which need skilled people ten or a hundred times more than we do the very people who would help make their development plans work. At the same time we are frustrating our own efforts as a donor country to the plans of the developing countries by taking their skilled personnel.
  Let us take the example of doctors. Some of us have experience of working in rural areas abroad where there is less than one doctor to a million people. The areas which are being denied these doctors are the great rural parts of Pakistan and India, where health services, family planning facilities and the

  297
  rest of it are most important. Yet here are we so fat-bellied and unimaginative that we cannot reorganise our own medical education to supply our hospital services. This is a disgrace.
  Some time ago, I took up the matter with the Secretary of State for Social Services. In the end, I suppose, convinced not by me but by Lord Todd and his Commission's Report on medical education, he said that for at least three years he would have to continue recruiting 700 doctors a year from, roughly, India and Pakistan. We shall never get on with the task of reorganising our medical, education and health services until we take the step of turning off this number and waiting until the bleats come in from hospitals which have to close down wards in Birmingham and Wolverhampton. That is what will happen, and it should happen. That would bring people to their senses and make them take the steps that they should have taken 10 years ago.
  9.0 p.m.
  I hope that we shall continue to provide roughly 10 per cent. of our university places for overseas students. This is a valuable form of technical assistance that we give. But if it is to be technical assistance it must imply that the students concerned go back to serve their countries. I have failed in all my attempts to discover how many students in that category go back to their own countries to serve their people, enriched by whatever training and experience we have been able to give them. I do not believe that we know the number. I suggest that the Government should set up a sample survey to show what happens to the students that come here and for whom we make room in our universities because we believe that it is a valuable part of technical assistance.
  As for dependants, the leaderships of all our parties are firmly agreed that the adjustment of immigrants must be on the basis of families. I go 100 per cent. with that, and utterly reject those programmes and suggestions which, by incentives, harassment or anything else we like to call it, amount to getting rid of our commitments to dependants. That is absolutely wrong. But if we accept this and know that there will be another 200,000 people coming into areas where
  298
  the density of immigrant settlement is already most intense, we have an absolute obligation to cut down on that section of immigration which is at our will.
  I believe that a former Minister said that the criterion for getting people in on vouchers should be based entirely on economic benefit to this country. We owe a duty to the people who are making such a good go of their human relations with the newcomers not to aggravate the situation by accepting this additional commitment of between 5,000 and 18,500 a year.
  I welcome the introduction of entry certificates. I was glad that the Home Secretary paid tribute to the fact that the idea originated with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that some members of the Select Committee, if so permitted by the House, will go out to examine the system on the ground in January.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of what has been said in the Press and in this House, and what the report available to him has said, besides what is known throughout the local community relationship councils, and will take immediate steps to reorganise the Community Relations Commission. 1 also hope that he will now consider where our duty lies to our own people and to the people of the dependent countries in continuing this inflow of 5,000 voucher holders a year, with their attendant families to come.
  I shall be glad if the Minister will deal with those two main points when he sums up.
  Mr. Heffer: The speech just made by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair)should be contrasted with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). On the one side, we have the voice of sanity, recognising that there are problems from which we cannot run and, on the other, the voice of the demagogue who inflames the passions of those who least understand the problem, and arouses in them feelings that are contrary to the best interests of our people.
  The great difficulty in this argument is that we have passed from immigration control to colour. I accept that we cannot let thousands and thousands of people

  299
  enter cities that already have slums, unemployment and bad social conditions without recognising that that in itself will cause an explosion. It has happened before. It has even happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), when there were riots against Irish immigrants. The people were fleeing from the famine conditions in Ireland and seeking employment in Ebbw Vale. The fact that there was no employment there to be had led to the riots.
  I will try not to be emotional, but the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the question of colour. That he made quite clear. He spoke of the immigrants —I hope that this is not the Government's definition, otherwise I am horrorstruck—and then of the children born of immigrants as if they were of a different colour. Apparently that was how one determined coloured immigrants. We have some of the so-called coloured immigrants in my family. Relatives of mine married coloured people. When I see those children in my family I regard them not as aliens but as little children who are part of our community.
  I resent the sort of speech made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon and what he has said on the subject at other times outside the House. If fear and tension have been built up, the right hon. Gentleman has made a great contribution to them. The day after he made his first disgraceful speech I went to buy petrol from my local garage. The chap there, whom I had known for a long time, suddenly said to me, as though referring to something that had come from under a stone, "Yes, it's quite right. We have to get rid of all these coloured people, and push them out of the country." The cloak of respectability was given to such people by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He has done a great disservice to the people of this country.
  I want to refer to areas where there have been immigrants for a long time. I come from the City of Liverpool. It is an immigrant city and not all are coloured immigrants. Those who have come from Northern and Southern Ireland, from Wales and Scotland, we would find, make up almost the whole community. There may be a few from Lancashire; I have never discovered
  300
  them, but there may be a few. We have a coloured community, and a Chinese community of long standing. When the Select Committee on Race Relations went to Liverpool, the building trade district secretary asked, "What have you come to Liverpool for? We have no problems." He got very annoyed, but we explained that we wanted to get evidence from an area where there had been immigration for a long time and prove that it does not lead to the dangers that some hon. Members have described provided that it is dealt with in a sensible fashion.
  Let us look at some of the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave this afternoon. First, there was what he called the immigrant population, which he said will go up to 2½1/2 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "3½1/2 million."] Yes, it will be 31 million or 41/2 million. Of course there will be people in this country with a different colour of skin. So what? If they are born and bred in this country, are we to continue to talk about an immigrant population? Do we then talk about the Irish in Britain as an immigrant population? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Balts and said that there was legislationto prevent a further influx, but those who were here were not considered evermore as aliens.
  Do we consider the sons and daughters of Italians who come in as aliens? Of course not; they are part of our multiracial society. The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in a multi-racial society and does not think that it can be built. I believe in the basic goodness of all people, and I think it can be built provided that we do not have the sort of demagogic inflammatory speech such as he makes which can affect in a fantastic and ridiculous way people who have real problems.
  I wish now to refer to the official Opposition. Hon. Members opposite have got themselves into a muddle. We are no longer arguing about the necessity of control but hon. Members opposite say that, because of pressure in their party, in developing this argument there should be a piece of legislation which would deal with aliens and Commonwealth citizens. They are getting themselves into a very difficult situation because there is a clear distinction. My

  301
  hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who sought leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule some time ago, made the point that most aliens who asked to be allowed to stay here permanently are granted leave to do so, and that roughly 18,000 a year have been granted leave in the last five years. I do not know whether that is correct, but it is a very big number.
  9.15 p.m.
  There is a difference between aliens and Commonwealth citizens. Unless aliens who come here to work become naturalized citizens, they do not have the right to vote. In the type of legislation suggested by hon. Members opposite, if Commonwealth citizens were to be treated the same as aliens, would that mean that the right to vote would be withdrawn from them? We are entitled to an answer to this important question. If that is what hon. Members are saying, I do not think there is any argument for combining the legislation in that way.
  I believe that the argument that we cannot solve our problems for the future unless there is repatriation is a serious and dangerous one, because its logic is this. The argument is that we repatriate on a voluntary basis. But these people have their homes and their families here. They have inter-married here. More and more little immigrant children with Englishfathers have been born. They no longer wish to return. So the next argument is that there must be legislation to force them to return. That logic would lead ultimately to a form of Fascism.
  There have been demagogues in the House before the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Long before my time there was Sir Oswald Mosley. There were many others who because of ambition, because they were fired with the feeling that their attitudes were superior to those of anyone else, were led into paths which ultimately could only mean the end of democratic society. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think now, before it is too late, about the direction in which he is going.
  Sir Edward Boyle: This is the first occasion since 1964 on which I have had the opportunity of taking part in one of these debates. As the Committee knows, it will also be the last opportunity I shall
  302
  have, which explains why I want to make a, fairly short, speech this evening.
  For nearly 20 years I have represented a Birmingham constituency which has been increasingly a multi-racial constituency during the 1960s. I have always realised in my constituency that the question of immigration and race relations is an extremely difficult one. It is one, further, on which public opinion needs to be reassured.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) on one point, though, as I shall show, I disagree with him on some other points. I agree with him that it is wrong to try to sweep this subject under the carpet. At the same time, I must say that I feel that a certain restraint in speeches on the subject is right. In other words, this is a subject on which it is right to be both firm-footed and—if one likes—toughminded as well as idealistic; but, as I say, a certain restraint in dealing with the subject is desirable.
  I have always voted in the House for measures to control immigration. And I look upon myself, as one who was in the Shadow Cabinet in 1966, as entirely committed to the last Conservative Election Manifesto and to the section in it which dealt with immigration. Nevertheless, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), who wrote recently to The Times, I am one who would prefer to lay the greatest emphasis on the fair and equal treatment of those who are already here. I believe that we must do both, but I should personally lay the greatest emphasis on that.
  I do not see how anyone can read the P.E.P. and Street Reports without realising that there is a real problem of discrimination in this country. We need to mobilise all agencies, including the law, to deal with this. There are real problems in housing, too. I mention it only in passing. but there is a great deal of evidence showing the number of immigrants—who mostly come here because their work was wanted—finding themselves paying more money for worse accommodation further away from work.
  There is also a great deal of evidence on the schools side. I am always personally concerned not just about problems in the primary schools, but increasingly about problems in the secondary schools

  303
  also. Far too many children of immigrant families for our comfort are in the least favoured secondary schools, and they and their parents know it perfectly well.
  I am very much against talk of inevitable doom when dealing with this subject. I shall come on to one problem which myright hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) rightly raised, the problem of the centre city areas, but I do not believe that we serve any useful purpose by fanning feeling through talk of inevitable doom. It will bea shocking moment in our country's history if we cannot solve the problem presented today by a coloured immigrant population of about 1 million, and a population which, in the mid-1980s, I believe, on the best evidence, will be something like2 million to 2¼1/4 million. I do not wish to argue about figures tonight with my right hon. Friend, but I find myself persuaded by the chapter on this subject in the survey, "Colour and Citizenship", which appeared earlier this year. Hon. Members will know that in Chapter 30, pages 629-38, there is a careful survey of prospective numbers. I believe that 2 million to 2¼1/4 million is the likely figure by the mid-1980s.
  As regards party policy, I frankly disagree on this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. I do not wish to see the policy of my party still further tightened. I express my warm admiration for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) have resisted pressure and, more than that, have put forward what I regard as sound and constructive arguments on this subject on numerous occasions.
  My right hon. and learned Friend knows my feelings on this matter, and I am glad to have this opportunity to state them publicly in the House of Commons. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has had an extraordinarily difficult task to perform in the past few years, and my admiration for him in the way in which he has fulfilled that task is enormous. Whether the House has always agreed with him or not, he has never been lofty or above the battle. Despite a busy life outside the House—
  304
  and he has been a Member, on and off, for 30 years—my right hon. and learned Friend has never been too busy to play a full part in debates in the House, always answering everyone with his accustomed intellectual clarity and with great good humour, although with some vigour on occasion. I pay the warmest tribute to him for all this.
  Let me now take the two crucial points of policy. I am thankful that we on this side, in our official policy, have remained firm about the right of entry for the dependants of those immigrants already in this country. I cannot believe that it could be right to separate the wives and dependent children of those already here. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made the classic statement on this aspect of policy when he spoke on 15th November, 1967, just two years ago. He said:
  " I have nothing but approval for a man who builds up a home here lawfully, after a lawful entry, and who wishes to take care of either or both of his aged parents or wishes to bring in his wife and young children. I believe that… quite apart from considerations of humanity, considerations of enlightened self-interest would lead to that conclusion since the separation of a family between the male member and the dependants—certainly of the wife and children—might give rise to social problems far more serious than the importation of wife and children." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 448-449.]
  Those words are just as true today.
  This view is held by many people in this country if they are directly challenged on it. I know this from experience in my own constituency. I am thinking of members of the city council who might be described in general as hard-liners on this subject, but who, when pressed on the question of dependants, would agree that it is wrong to separate families. The House of Commons should never think of yielding on this point.
  I also entirely agree with what has been said about repatriation. Here I echo what I think were the key words used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the last Conservative Party conference, when he said:
  " There must be absolutely no harassment of those who are already here in this country."
  "No harassment" is the phrase I have always used. They are words I have also heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), and they exactly express what many of us feel.

  305
  I now come to the point which bothers me most in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, said this evening. I thought that he came uncomfortably close to repeating what I have always regarded as the highly unfortunate phrase of Lord Radcliffe about the "alien wedge", the idea that the coloured immigrant community in this country would remain for ever an alien wedge.
  There are three reasons why I have always deplored that phrase having come into the currency. First, I cannot look on as aliens for ever those who have made a perfectly lawful entry into this country, who have become United Kingdom citizens, and whose children in their education have never known any other country but this. That is a crucial point. We are getting in cities like Birmingham today increasing numbers of children who have had all their education in this country, and who in their home life have known no other country. I believe that young people of whatever party—again I think of experience in my constituency—increasingly feel very strongly on this point.
  This applies to many people who would disagree most strongly with the party opposite on the running of the economy or how much equality we wish to achieve in this country. Those who are Right-wing in politics in terms of economic policy, many younger ones among them, often feel very strongly about not describing as aliens those children of immigrant families who have never known any other country but this.
  Second, the doctrine of the alien seems to me wrong in terms of the life style of many people. To quote from "Colour and Citizenship" again, one of the interesting features of this survey is the evidence it provides of the adaptation of so many members of immigrant communities, in particular many West Indian immigrants:
  " Among the Caribbean immigrants there are very many who are moving away from the ' masses' into the section which is oriented to middle-class forms of behaviour, indeed, to Victorian respectability. The West Indian immigration is now very nearly complete."
  I believe that that is true. There is a great deal of what seems somewhat akin to Victorian respectability in a number of West Indian families in this country.
  306
  Third, I believe that not only to young people but to large numbers of people of all ages in this country the habit of looking on all immigrants as for ever aliens is beginning to change very considerably. I find that if an audience is reminded of the number of children of West Indian families who speak with Birmingham accents on the buses, this is a point they have also begun to notice. Very often if one talks to those who habitually go shopping in areas where there are large numbers of immigrant families they do not think just in terms of the stereotype; they do not think of immigrants just asa collective them "they are beginning to notice them and talk about them as individuals. This seems to me to be happening increasingly. No longer do they simply regard them as a sort of alien collective in the community.
  [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
  Indeed, I should have thought, from the evidence of one's own postbag, that it is very often not in the mixed areas where there is perhaps a proportion of 70 white to 30 coloured that one finds the sharpest intolerance on this question. It is often in those areas furthest away from the problems of the big city centres. If I think of letters which I have received this last year or two, some of the least tolerant and, indeed, those from the minority of correspondents who seemed not so far removed from the threshold of mental illness, come from areas very far indeed from the areas where the real social problems are to be found.
  9.30 p.m.
  That leads me to say something about the real problems which we know exist, the problems of the centre city areas. Of course there are problems there. There are and have been for many decades problems of multi-occupation. This is one of the hardest points to get over. The problems of multi-occupation started before the coloured influx in my constituency. Some started before the Second World War.
  Incidentally, in certain respects, in its analysis of prejudice, the Mark Abrams survey "Colour and Citizenship" was surely too optimistic. Regarding "prejudice" not simply as a term of abuse but in its most literal meaning, I believe that there is a great deal of prejudice about

  307
  in the country, and a great deal of misinformation. The problems of multi-occupation started decades ago. They may have been intensified by immigration they are not just caused by it.
  Again, we all know of the problem of social composition of our big cities. May I say this to my right hon. Friend? There is of course a huge problem here. Many able academics, like Dr. Pahl of the University of Kent, have pointed out rightly how, in the centres of our big cities we may increasingly find a small section of the population living in relatively luxury accommodation and a large number of rather badly-off wage earners but that a growing fraction of the middle element in the population is tending more and more to move out to the suburban areas. That is very true, and it is happening increasingly in cities like Birmingham.
  But to blame all this on, and to regard it as simply associated with, coloured immigration and nothing else would 132 extraordinarily dangerous. It is enormously important, whatever the composition of the next Parliament, than hon. Members on both sides should think hard and constructively about the problem of our centre city areas. We all acknowledge in this House the Plowden concept of positive discrimination in favour of educational priority areas. We must think of this not just in terms of nursery schools and play groups but right up the education ladder.
  I believe that there is also a part for the universities to play. I have often had a vision that in certain parts of our big cities it might be possible for universities to buy up house property not too expensively in some of the areas which are on the verge of being run-down areas yet are still capable of "redefinition upwards", as sociologists would say. That is something which I hope I may be able to put into practice in the years that follow. But, for goodness sake, on this subject, where the big city centres are concerned, let us think constructively for the future.
  My last point is simply the importance of this subject in relation to Britain's position in the world. I can remember very well, when I was first interested in politics, going on a debating tour of the
  308
  United States with the right hon. Member the Minister of Technology and Mr Kenneth Harris. One of the subjects which we used to debate in America, at their request, was that "A Federal World Government should be established". We used to point out some of the difficulties and wonder whether all our American friends would be quite so enthusiastic when they reflected that a truly representative world government might not be Christian, white or liberal-democratic.
  More recently, working as a member of the Pearson Commission, I have been impressed more than ever with the need for a world order which would enable all nations and all peoples to live in peace and dignity. I do not believe that we in this country can keep the relative advantages of our position unless we concern outrselves to the best of our ability with all nations and all peoples.
  We may occasionally go broke as a nation, but we are not poor and we can remain politically first class in terms of our concern for civilised values. Above all, let us give our minds as well as our emotions to this problem of immigration and race relations.
  There seems on this sort of occasion a certain appropriateness in finishing up with one quotation from an ancient Greek philosopher. I will make just one quick quotation, which I dare say my right hon. and learned Friend would recognise in the original, from Democritus which I take from a lecture which Sir Robert Birley gave some years ago:
  " When the powerful in a state, face to face with the weak, are prepared to make financial sacrifices for them and to help them and to satisfy them. that is the time you get, first, compassion and the end of isolation and he appearance of comradeship and mutual defence, and then civic agreement, and then other benefits beyond the capacity of anyone to enumerate in full."
  Those seem to me not only idealistic words but very sensible words, too.
  Mr. Hogg: If I rise at this point in the debate it is not to bring it to an end, but to play my own part in it.
  This is the fourth successive debate that we have held on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in which I have played some part. It has been by far the most interesting. It has drawn forth important speeches from the Home Secretary, from

  309
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). from the Liberal Party and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). I should be less than grateful if I did not begin by saying a word of thanks for the generous words which my right hon. Friend the Member for Handswortn addressed to me.
  My task in the last four years has been hard. If there is one thing that I have found harder to bear than anything else it has been the belief which has somehow grown up that because I have sought not to inflame feeling, I have thereby minimised the problem. It does not follow that because one speaks in carefully, measured language, one does not realise the importance of a problem.
  Technically, we are discussing the continuance for one year of the immigration controls affecting aliens and Commonwealth citizens and anything one has to say must be related to the desirability or otherwise of continuing those controls. I hope that I may stay in order if reflect, with that main restriction in mind, upon the notable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
  I share the welcome which was felt on both sides of the Committee that he had contributed to the subject in the Chamber. I am bound to say that I also share the feeling that I should have welcomed it earlier still, not only last year when the opportunity was available to him. It occurred to me during the course of his remarks that almost everything he said could equally have been brought within the rules of order in our various debates on the Race Relations Bill. After his first speech on this subject, perhaps in some ways it would have been more appropriate to do it then.
  I think that it is important that what I have to say to him should come from this bench and that I should say it. I was left with the almost irresistible feeling that I would draw from his premises almost exactly the opposite conclusion to that which he drew himself. This disturbs me, because he has a reputation for being a man of logic. The first premise, which appears to be incontestable, is that the bulk of the problem as he sees it, and with this the Home Secretary agreed, derives from the influx
  310
  of Commonwealth citizens who came into the country shortly prior to the imposition of the 1962 Act whose continuance we are now discussing, and that anything we can do by continuing the control or increasing it can have only a marginal significance upon the problem with which he was truly concerned.
  My right hon. Friend said that it would not solve the problem. I would go further and say that, on his figures, it would only have a marginal significance upon the problem. I cannot but admit candidly that the period to which he relates is one in which he was Minister of Health and I was Minister for Science. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said in opening—that we were not particularly helped by the Labour Party at that period.
  The second point I drew from my right hon. Friend's premises was that, although he places and has placed this evening a good deal of emphasis upon repatriation, I am bound to tell him that I was unable to see any reason to believe that that would have any numerically significant influence upon the problem. Perhaps, as he said, it was because it was outside the terms of the debate that he was unable to adduce reasons for believing that it would have a numerically significant influence upon the problem. But I doubt whether it would. There are difficulties about repatriation which other right hon. and hon. Members have entered into and which I shall not repeat now
  This leads me to the third point, which is my conclusion. I was unable to derive, apart from the reference to repatriation, any conclusion in my right hon. Friend's speech at all. It was a prophecy of gloom without hope of redemption and I do not believe that that is the right way of approaching the problem. It is no good saying to the population of immigrant origin, like the man in the poem,
  " The other day upon the stair
  I met a man who wasn't there.
  I met him there again today.
  I wish the fellow'd go away.'
  That was what my right hon. Friend was saying, but it does not add up to very much when one says it. My conclusion is that, whether we want it or not, we are fixed with this problem whether it was his fault and mine—particularly hisbecause he was Minister of Health.
  Mr. Powell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend elucidate the point of his reference to my being Minister of Health?
  Mr. Hogg: I was referring to the state of the hospitals. But I am willing to share my full sense of responsibility, whether it was our fault or the Labour Party's which led to our present problems. But I think we might as well face the fact that we have to cope with it rather than hope that it will go away.
  The only way I can see of coping with it is to say that we have got to persuade our own children and the children of immigrant origin to owe loyalty and allegiance to a country which has played no small part in the history of the world and whose enduring philosophy has been one of liberty under the law with human rights and dignity as its dominant theme. If we do not do that, then we shall fail, and it may very well be that we do fail. But if we do not do it, we shall not be trying to succeed and I do not abandon the hope that we shall succeed.
  Although I was vastly impressed by my right hon. Friend's statistics, I am bound to say that I was taking my little dog around the cricket pitch near my home the other day when a very dark coloured little boy came up and produced a ball. I was expecting him to say something in a rather strange language. but he said, "If I throw the ball for him, do you think he'll fetch it?". I could not help thinking that this was part of the foreign element which my right hon. Friend wants to send back to talk Urdu.
  9.45 p.m.
  There is one other thing I want to say to my right hon. Friend. Race and culture are very difficult things to define. But I believe that culture and religion—and when I say "religion I mean it not in its theological sense but in the basic sense of values—are things which can be imparted to people of different genetic origins. If we can persuade people to be British in culture and in their relationship to one another, we shall have succeeded. Unless we succeed in that, we must fail, and my right hon. Friend's worst predictions may prove to be true. But I am on the side of those who are going to try.
  I turn to the speech of the Home Secretary with which I differ a little, too. I
  312
  start the consideration of immigration control from a point which has become generally accepted. We do not want a net addition to the population of this country. It is not manifestly under-populated. It is, as a matter of fact, suffering, migration-wise, a net loss, but we are making up for the net loss as best we can by natural means, and our population is increasing. The burden of proof lies on those who wish to introduce immigrants into this country, and I start from that proposition.
  But what is meant by "immigration"? What is meant is not the person who comes here on a visit or to study on a course and to go back and contribute to his own national culture. It is not the person who comes to stay here while doing a temporary job. It is the person who comes to stay here for permanent settlement. This is the problem which we are discussing. If we can eliminate that problem in immigration control by a better legislative framework, we shall be making, not a major contribution to the numerical problem with which my right hon. Friend was concerned, but a contribution to the sense of confidence which people would have that we are in control of our own affairs.
  We are arguing about the continuation of three Acts containing two different codes. The main differentiation between the people caught by one code, the aliens' code, and the other code, the Commonwealth code, is not a rational one but an historical one.
  As the Home Secretary is not here—and he has explained the reasons for his absence—I asked the Under-Secretary of State honestly to answer this question before he starts criticising my right hon. Friends and myself for our official policy: what justification is there in 1969 for these two extremely complicated codes? Why should not anybody who comes from an independent country abroad come within the same legal framework? I can see no reason why he should not. Secondly, why should not that legal framework be permanent instead of having to be renewed year by year, sometimes with an ad hoc addition thrown in during the course of the 12 months?
  I understand that the Home Secretary agrees, at least in principle, that the code should be permanent. If it is to be

  313
  permanent, can it seriously be contended that it should not be amalgamated into a single body of law?
  As far as I can see, we have heard no reason in the debate today to justify what is to my mind the absurd contention that two rather similar but in detail wholly different codes relating to what is fundamentally the same problem should be either re-enacted year by year or, worse still, embodied in a permanent feature of our legislation. The burden of proof again surely rests on those who wish to advance this, at first sight, paradoxical proposition.
  I want to go further than that in pressing the matter. Although we have explained that, for obvious reasons, we cannot vote, I believe that much of what is misunderstood about Government immigration policy and about Opposition immigration policy derives from the fact that there are two rather complicated codes instead of one to understand.
  I should like to go from there to this proposition. If one grants, as I think one must, that the problem arises only in relation to those who come here for permanent settlement, our first proposition, from which we have always started, is that no one should be entitled at the moment of entry to an unrestricted right to remain permanently or indefinitely in this country: in other words, that everybody at the moment of entry should be allowed to enter only for a definite period of time, which can be renewed as it is now in the case of aliens after a certain number of years in the light of the particular history and merits of the case and then turned into a period of indefinite entry.
  I cannot understand why what is considered good enough for a Frenchman is not also good enough for a Pakistani in that respect. After a number of years of residence for work, it seems to me to be both more rational and equally just that each should be judged in the light of his performance over a period of time.
  Mr. Bidwell: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself now being a little illogical? Does not the existence of the Commonwealth rather fit in with the man he met on the stairs, who was there all the time? Is it not the fact that there are aliens and there are Commonwealth
  314
  citizens who come here for permanent settlement as distinct from those who come here thinking of a temporary stay?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is only making in slightly more confused form the point made rather better by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he claimed in his opening speech that there are two quite different types of people. He said that there are aliens who come for temporary stay and Commonwealth people who come for permanent settlement orindefinite stay. To begin with, this does not correspond with fact because there are in the reverse way Commonwealth people who come for temporary stay and aliens who come for permanent settlement. Secondly, what the hon. Member does not understand is that the pattern, in so far as it follows the pattern postulated by the Home Secretary, is the creation of the legal framework and not vice versa.
  If we have a legal framework which is different for aliens and permits them only a temporary stay, we will get aliens who for the most part come for a temporary stay. If we have a legal framework which allows Commonwealth citizens an indefinite stay immediately after the moment of legal entry, or 28 days even after the moment of illegal entry, we get a type of Commonwealth immigrant who comes for indefinite stay. However, to identify the problem which we have created by the legal framework is not to give a reason why we should perpetuate it. That is why I criticise the Home Secretary and his supporter from the back benches.
  What advantages would accrue if our prescription were to be followed? We would get, first, the advantage of permanenceand coherence. Secondly, we would get the advantage of simplicity. Thirdly, we would get a reversal of the reverse discrimination against aliens which is inherently unacceptable and which will become more unacceptable if the Common Market proposal becomes a reality, on which I am not making any observation. It is unacceptable in itself in that we should have a reverse discrimination against aliens on the ground of their national origin in favour of Commonwealth citizens, equally from independent countries, on the ground of their origin but without any reciprocity in

  315
  favour of our own citizens in either case. This would be got rid of and so, to a large extent, would be the problem of dependants of new entrants.
  I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said about the dependants of old entrants,and, if I have time, I will come back to that. The dependants of new entrants can be immediately dealt with both more humanely and more effectively if from the start they have the same status for temporary entry as those who bring them in. They do not add to the demographic problem, and, incidentally, the number of types of evasion, which I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wholly enumerated in his opening speech, could be greatly reduced—evasion by the misuse of short-term visit permits, which has taken place on a quite substantial scale, and evasion by false identification.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What would be the difference under the new scheme proposed by the Opposition? If at the moment, as is alleged, Commonwealth citizens come in as visitors on short term and evade, under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme they will still come in on short term and still evade.
  Mr. Hogg: Not if they come in on a work permit because, as my hon. and learned Friend said in opening, they will have to go to the particular job to which the work permit relates. If at the moment they come in under a voucher and donot take up the job to which the voucher relates, nothing can be done about it. If they come in under a B voucher, they need not take up any job and can move wherever they like, take whatever employment they like and concentrate in any area they like. But if they come in under a work permit, as the alien comes in, that form of evasion will be to that extent more difficult; they will have to carry their papers and to justify what they do. Moreover, it will help significantly the overcrowded areas and the problems of local authorities if they come in under work permits, and if work permits are limited to places where opportunities for employment and housing exist, none of which is possible under the existing scheme. Incidentally, although I say it in parenthesis in this part
  316
  of my speech, it will enable us to abolish what I regard as the ridiculously short period of 28 days of unrestricted entry which attaches to Commonwealth immigrants.
  The Home Secretary appeared to be under an illusion that when I said two years ago that I would treat Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, because of their association with us and particularly in two world wars, sympathetically, I was saying something which was inconsistent with my general thesis that the legal framework should be exactly the same for all peoples. My answer is perfectly simple. A distinction must be made between three levels of administration.
  The first is the legislative framework which is of necessity the same and will be passed by Parliament. The second is the administrative framework of regulations under which, for instance, the Irish have special privileges under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The third is the discretionary framework in which Ministers under the authority of the Home Secretary exercise discretion in compassionate cases. It does not follow that because one has an absolutely identical—
  It being Ten o'clock,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Dobson.]

  EXPIRING LAWS BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Hogg: I had almost concluded my remarks before the witching hour arrived. I was saying that one must distinguish between the legal or legislative framework of Parliament—the administrative

  317
  framework under regulation—and the discretionary framework which is administered by individual Ministers for compassionate or other reasons. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between claiming that there should be a uniform legislative framework, with the suggestion that there may be administrative regulations such as those which now obtain in favour of the Irish, and, equally, that there should be a compassionate framework based on sentimental considerations in favour of particular peoples. This is what I personally have always thought.
  I should like to say one more thing on the subject of dependants. I adhere as firmly as ever to the belief that nothing but evil could come from a restriction of the statutory right to introduce into this country the dependants of existin immigrants—a wife and young children. But it is not asking too much that they should give a little notice when they are coming so that local authorities may deal with the situation. I believe that this is administratively possible and that it would not infringe their basic statutory right.
  I conclude these few remarks, which largely repeat what I have said on previous occasions, except in so far as they relate to the welcome contribution to the debate by my right hon. Friend, as I began. We must face the fact, whether we like it or not, that this problem will stay with us for a very long time. There is one solution and one clue only. We must reassure our own people that we are in control of the situation, but within that control we must teach people that liberty under the law and a basic respect for the human being are the universal faith for mankind. Like many of the best things in life, it was invented by the British. Why should we not live up to it?
  Mr. Merlyn Reesrose—
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to appear egocentric, but I should like, Mr. Irving, to raise a point of order on which I have some vestigial interest. Many of us have sat in the Committee today for over seven hours hoping to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, and if we retained enough energy we could totter to our feet eventually and catch it. While it is reasonable that
  318
  an Opposition Front Bench spokesman should speak, many of us have points which we wish to put to the Minister and have answered by him. By calling the Minister to intervene at this point in the debate, are we not to be deprived of our opportunity?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The moment when the Minister intervenes is a matter for him. Mr. Merlyn Rees.
  Mr. Rees: I have no wish to cut the debate short. I thought that it was appropriate that when the Opposition Front Bench speaker had just concluded, I should at this point reply. But I have no wish to cut short the debate. Indeed, I could not do so since we are in Committee.
  What I want to do straight away is to get down to some of the practical, technical issues with which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has dealt. Despite the very high level of two recent speeches, ! do not think that it will be wrong to do that. In terms of immigration control, which is what the debate is about, I turn first to the actual procedures.
  However much permanent legislation is required, one of the basic reasons why I am sure that it should not have been brought forward is that the Immigration Appeals Act next year will have a profound effect on procedures. Although it is administrative law, there will be case law arising out of it. Frequently, there will have to be changes in the various rules and regulations, and, whatever else happened, to do it now would be the height of folly.
  Of course, there are other reasons. The Opposition have put forward views about equating aliens with Commonwealth citizens. As yet, I do not think that that has been thought out carefully. There is an aspect which I am surprised has not been raised today; that in making changes and equating aliens with Commonwealth citizens, it is all very well to change the order and the rules and regulations about citizens coming from abroad, but underlying much of our procedures there are the nationality arrangements within the Commonwealth. These cannot be changed overnight, even if one wanted. In my view, a great deal more thought

  319
  should be given to the changes which are suggested.
  The first point which has come out today is that we have heard a great many statistics, and I want in a moment to deal with some of the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I feel sometimes that we spend an enormous amount of time on numbers and too little time on race relations. But, through all the welter of statistics on numbers, this question arises. In terms of Commonwealth citizens, in terms of the present and of the future, the fact that in 1963 there were 30,000 work vouchers and that last year and the year before there were under 5.000 in itself is bound to have a great effect on the numbers of dependants coming here in the future.
  I accept that all the other numbers are relevant to a detailed argument, but the reduction in the number of voucher-holders is the important one when we consider the number of dependants likely to come to this country.
  Soon after being appointed to my present job, I discovered that the Home Office had carried out a survey. It was foundthat, on average, the dependants of Commonwealth citizens come in at any time up to ten years after the husbands have come. The average is five years. Some men bring their dependants with them when they come, others leave it for ten years, but the average is five. It is not surprising, therefore, that the peak of dependants came in 1967 or thereabouts, because that was about five years after the 1963 entry. Therefore, when looking at the effect of compulsory entry certificates, this year the number of dependants is bound to fall in any event. There is bound to he a short-term fallback because of the need for entry certificates. The signs are there now, although it is too early to say what the ultimate effect will be.But the number of dependants is falling.
  Several hon. Members have suggested that matters are being swept under the carpet. However, many of the problems of race relations arise from the past, and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have a responsibility, whether it is the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, as Minister of Science with a responsibility for students, or the
  320
  right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because of his responsibility, which I am sure he would not wish to deny, for bringing in people to serve in our hospitals.
  Mr. Powell: It is not the function of a Minister of Health—certainly it was not when I was Minister of Health—to recruit staff for hospitals. He did not recruit staff for hospitals. He did not and could not interfere with the recruitment of staff by the hospitals. He was not the recruiting authority.
  Mr. Rees: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had a statutory responsibility for hospitals, and,given the strong feeling which he revealed tonight, I find it odd that he sat quiescent while people came in. I am trying to make the point that we all had a responsibility in this matter in the past. The numbers coming in in future will be small. It is important to put this fact over, although the quicker we get away from numbers the better.
  There has been a steady increase in the number of people coming into these islands—immigrants, and people coming in as visitors, however one defines them. From 1st October, 1968, to 30th September, 1969, there were 23,250,000 arrivals, and departures at our ports, and the orders that we have to discuss here, which deal with the method of coming in through the ports, in the face of that number—which is growing—are extremely important. It is inevitable that immigration officers should be faced with a growing problem in dealing with the numbers coming in. This growing number has to be taken into account as the years go on.
  We have tight control at the periphery and practically no control inside. I should be sorry to see us adopt the Continental-type system, under which it is easy to get in, but once in everybody has to carry bits of paper. With this large number there are problems, and there are even more problems arising at the airports with the increase in the size of aircraft. If hon. Members think of four jumbo jets arriving within a period of 15 minutes they will see that practical problemsarise in terms of getting people through the terminals.
  As for aliens, in the year ending 30th September nearly 4,500,000 foreigners

  321
  were given leave to land in this country —750,000 more than in the preceding 12 months. The number refused entry amounted to over 5,000, or one for every 800 admitted. Of those refused entry, 2,206 came here to work.
  That brings me to the point made by my right hon. Friend—a point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept. I do not believe that it is the law, either in the form of an order or of an Act, which determines the way in which aliens and Commonwealth citizens come here. They come here for fundamentally different reasons. In general, the Commonwealth citizen wants to settle, even when he comes here as a visitor, and if he comes here as a student he may ultimately want to settle. That is not the case with aliens.
  It is sometimes said that large numbers of aliens come here to settle, but the number of Commonwealth citizens with vouchers coming here last year was under 5,000 and the number of foreign workers accepted after being here for four years was 9,000. Therefore, there were more aliens settling after four years than Commonwealth citizens. But the total number of Commonwealth citizens accepted for permanent residence was 60,000 compared with 20,000 foreigners.
  Under the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman we would have to take into account the fact that Commonwealth citizens come here under the pressure of a low economic standard of life in their own countries. Even if they have a low wage here, this is the promised land to them. That makes them want to come here. From that point of view alone, to try to deal with aliens in the same way as Commonwealth citizens when in many respects they are totally different types of person would give rise to many problems.
  If a Commonwealth citizen comes here with his family—and I understand that he would be allowed to do so under the suggested system, because aliens are allowed to do so—and after four years in this country we say, "Back to the country you came from, with your family", it will be difficult to deal with the administrative arrangements that will have to be made. That is one reason why dealing with the two categories in
  322
  the same way is fraught with the greatest of difficulties.
  10.15 p.m.
  I believe that the system of entry certificates is right. We have increased staffs overseas to improve the procedures there, and I understand that the Select Committee has at least asked for permission to go there, although, of course, that is not a matter for the Home Office to decide. We have recently started an experimental scheme to try to speed up procedures for the issue of entry certificates in cases where application has been referred to this country. There is nothing sinister about the fact that an application may be referred to this country. At one time the immigration officer had the advantage of being able to interview both the host relative and the immigrant at the port, but now if it is thought necessary to consult the host relative in this country the staff abroad have to refer the case here. Sir Derek Hilton suggested that we should try to cut down the amount of time involved. Therefore, as an experiment, we have made arrangements for immigration officers to interview sponsors, who will be invited to an interview at convenient places throughout the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke of the validity of the entry certificate beyond sixmonths. As he himself was at one time at the Home Office he will recall that the period used to be twelve months. Experience showed that some entry certificate holders were delaying their arrival until the circumstances that justified the issue of the entry certificate no longer obtained. In 1965, therefore, the period was reduced to six months. We think that this is a fair period in which to allow people to take up these certificates.
  Mr. Deedes: Is it not this factor of delay that is now an important consideration?
  Mr. Rees: I accept that if delay were a permanent feature we should have to see whether the procedure could be altered, but I hope that it will not occur.
  My right hon. Friend dealt with the port welfare and advisory services to deal with Commonwealth citizens and aliens. We have in mind not only Commonwealth citizens but the extremely large

  323
  numbers of people coming through the ports who will require help. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has provided advice at London Airport for Commonwealth citizens, but now the scheme will have to be a good deal wider, and I hope that the meeting of 26th November will lead to immediate steps being taken to set up an organisation in this country. The Hilton Report recommended that advice overseas should be given by the High Commissioners' offices, and we are taking steps to ensure that that procedure is greatly improved. The welfare and advisory body of this country will play a part in that procedure, based on the Wilson recommendations.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford referred to doctors, and I have sympathy with his argument. The use of the output of six teaching hospitals in this country, with one of the highest standards of living in the world, and given the problems of rural parts of the Commonwealth, I find slightly offensive economically. But I would remind the Committee that steps were taken to change this situation earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  The total number of overseas doctors entering practice in this country annually is estimated at 3,000. Many of them, of course, come for limited periods, and then return. The annual net gain is not more than 1,000. Elements in the total annual entry of 3,000 are 1,000 Commonwealth doctors with B vouchers—doctors coming to work here, or those coming asstudents who subsequently stay in employment. At 30th September last year, of 11,330 doctors in the junior grades in the hospital service over half were born outside the United Kingdom. We depend a great deal on doctors from outside.
  The Todd Report drew attention to these large numbers and pointed out that most of these doctors came from countries whose needs were far greater than ours. It said that it had become impracticable to continue absorbing more and more overseas doctors, and that, whatever the shortages in general practice and the hospital service, the admission of overseas doctors on the present scale would not solve all the problems. Most of them come only to get a few years' training,
  324
  and are certified initially only for junior posts. Of the 5,000 work vouchers issued, half are for cases of this kind. It is turnover, and not people coming to settle. The number coming to settle is much smaller.
  Mr. Hogg: This is something I have been trying to find out about for some time. Of course, most of those who are doctors in the junior grades in the hospitals are in training, and in the ordinary course they will go back. Do they have to have B vouchers, or do they come as students?
  Mr. Rees: Those who come to work have to have B vouchers, but those who come as students stay in the training grade.
  My right hon. Friend accepted the view of the Todd Commission, and changes have been made in the number of B vouchers issued. My right hon. Friend announced this some months ago. Only 2,000 B vouchers will be issued, and this will yield about 1,000 doctors because, curiously enough, only about half take up the vouchers they obtain. Changes are being made in our own medical service.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Although I thoroughly supported what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services did at the time, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary bear in mind that it is natural that people should want to come, before they have senior medical training, to a country such as the United Kingdom, which is one of the most advanced countries in medical science in the world? Will the Government not go further in putting a stop to that?
  Mr. Rees: I shall take that point up.
  We have decided to make assessment under the scheme compulsory. This is the scheme of atachment. It used to be voluntary. Many doctors coming in are attached to hospitals. This is a form of training which avoids some of the problems that have arisen.
  Large numbers of people come in as visitors from the Commonwealth. There is a problem, because people want to settle, and it raises the difference in

  325
  approach to the question of aliens and Commonwealth citizens. It would be so much better if those coming here had entry certificates. There is no question of making these compulsory for this purpose, but the question of visitors is a very real problem at the moment. The more details which can be dealt with beforehand the better.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) raised the question of fiancees. Men who are resident here can bring in fiancees whereas women cannot bring in fiances. This rests on the idea that immigrants should live in the men's country, not the women's. [Interruption.] I am sure I have offended at least one hon. Member in the Chamber. My right hon. Friend explained the motivation behind this change.
  Mr. Deedes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the important point about visitors, will he confirm or otherwise whether we have the same system for checking visitors in and out in respect of Commonwealth people as for aliens? That is a very important matter.
  Mr. Rees: I should like notice of that question because of the complicated system that we have at Princeton House. I think the answer is "yes", but I should like to check it because some changes have been made since the right hon. Member for Ashford had responsibility at the Home Office. Whatever is done in that respect, there is the same control of visitors, wherever they come from, who seek to evade the conditions on their passports. It is more difficult in the case of some who come in than with others. That is another point which I recommend to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone.
  As to students, who were referred to by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), 13,000 students a year come from the Commonwealth with little or no problem. It is an excellent thing that there is little or no problem in arranging this, but there have been prolems recently.
  Under present legislation immigration officers have to take two things into account. First, they have to take into account whether the man is suitable for
  326
  the course. I shall return to this question later. The other question is whether the sponsorship is right. There are a number of cases of people returning because the sponsorship is wrong. With the few marginal cases that arise, we shall be arranging for an educationist to make inquiries about the calibre of the man or woman who is coming in and not just an immigration officer.
  Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Under-Secretary deal with the point whether we knew in any way how many of those students who come here eventually returned to work in their own countries? He has not answered this point.
  Mr. Rees: I have not. Our figures on that at the ports would not be of the best as to where they went to work. It may be that the colleges which they attended would have some figures. There is a problem. The other day I had a case of two students who came here on scholarships from a very under-developed African country. When they had been here for a period they decided not to return to their country of origin but to stay here. I presume that in the course of time this can happen to a high degree. This is on the point of doctors. One has to strike a balance here as to how far one forces people to return. I concede that there is a difficulty. It would be much better for them to go back, but forcing people to return is a different matter.
  Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Under-Secretary, then, consider doing a simple survey to take at least a measure of the problem? We ought at any rate to know what is happening.
  Mr. Rees: That is a very fair suggestion. I would like to make one point clear. Students who come here under conditions to study and who at the end of the set period stay on—say, to the end of five years—eventually return, of course. I am talking about people who stay for a longer period.
  There is much detailed information which perhaps it would be better if I let the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) have rather than that I should read it out now.

  327
  "The one point I want to deal with now is the question of work vouchers. For the Kenyan Asians there are two sorts of entry. I find it surprising that only four work vouchers were issued. It it not easy to accept that there is a difficultyon one side if only four vouchers are issued on the other side to enable people to come here to work. If it is possible for Commonwealth citizens in general—because all are Commonwealth citizens who come from India, Pakistan or the West Indies—to use the work voucher system, I have not yet heard an argument to convince me why citizens from the United Kingdom and colonies cannot use a work voucher. I will make inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's point on publicity.
  Mr. David Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to press him on this point. As one who was outin Kenya after this Act was passed and has studied it closely, I can assure the Committee that I am completely unaware of this, and so is the British Asian population there. It is very important that publicity be given to this possibility.
  Mr. Rees: I take that point.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of dual citizenship and seemed to suggest that the Government were trying to have it both ways—that is, by referring to the existence of a large number of dual citizens as a justification for the 1968 Act and then saying that dual citizens are not really the problem. That seems to stand the argument on its head. There are a large number of dual citizens in Malaysia, and it is right to acknowledge their existence in the discussions of any person to whom control was extended in the 1968 Act. No one tried to pretend that the 1968 Act was introduced because of dual citizens. Many people are writing at the moment about changes in the British Nationality Act, 1948, and suggesting what should happen. The question of dual citizenship and what it means seems to defeat most people. I am in a position to say that because I get high technical advice on it. However, it should be looked at.
  On the question of changes in the existing system, there is one other matter which I want to put before the Committee. Many arguments have gone on
  328
  in the last few years—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has done this it is one of his nonsenses—to the effect that the British Nationality Act, 1948, is the root cause of all our troubles. There was an articleby Louis Heren in The Times not long ago which said that it was the 1948 Act and only that which had caused largenumbers of people to pour into this country.
  10.30 p.m.
  I commend to the Committee an article in the July issue of Race by Nicholas Deakin which, in my view, sums up the argument that the 1948 Act neither accelerated nor delayed the introduction of control over immigration. There is a great deal of cogent argument to prove that point. What it did determine was the form of immigration control, which is a different matter. Before one could take much further the observations and suggestions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the question of citizenship—which was discussed in "Colour and Citizenship"—would have to be looked at much more carefully.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is not doing the point justice. In fact, the result of the 1948 Act was to give anunrestricted right of entry to all independent Commonwealth citizens, without qualification. That subsisted until 1962. If they had been declared to be in the same position as regards immigration control as other members of other independent countries, that unrestricted right of entry would never have existed from the start.
  Mr. Rees: Though it is with some trepidation that I cross legal swords with him, I disagree with the right hon.and learned Gentleman. In my view—perhaps he will look at the article—it would be wrong to say that the previous situation is one in which immigration could be controlled and then turn to a situation in which control either could not be exercised or could be introduced only with difficulty. Mr. Deakin calls in aid Lord Simon, when he argued in the other place that the change made control easier. Indeed, that was the burden of the argument in the other place at that time. [Interruption.] Far be it from me to criticise learned lawyers of high stature. All I am saying is that it is another argument why one should not rush into

  329
  amalgamating two forms of control when, at least, someone of that authority could make that assertion.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West talked statistics. All I can say to him is that in demographic matters there is not the same certainty about future figures as there might be, for example, in the declensionof a noun or the conjugation of a verb. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a survey, and he will recall that I asked whether it had been published. He gave a perfectly proper answer, and I did not know that he had been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The Department of Health and Social Security carried out a survey in about 50 towns with large immigrant communities into the use by immigrants of certain health and welfare services. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to. The report of the survey has not been published.
  The point I make is this. I checked this evening, and I find that this is what my right hon. Friend wrote to the right hon. Gentleman:
  " I enclose the figures for which you asked. The reason for including a question about births in our survey was to get some information on the proportion of domiciliary and hospital confinements among different sections of the community. The figures were not directed to ascertaining the birth rate among immigrants, and could be misleading if used in this way, because the age structure of the immigrant and native populations in these areas is likely to be different ".
  Mr. Powell: I made that clear.
  Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman made the point; he was careful all the way along to say what he was referring to, and he was not using the birth rate figures. But, in terms of these statistics, the message will have gone out from here, whether intentionally or not. It will be in terms of birth rate, which was not the reason why these figures were used.
  Mr. John Mendelson: That is why the right hon. Gentleman used them.
  Mr. Rees: The problem about the future population illustrates the point I make about the uncertainty the further one goes. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting an estimate which was made by the General Register Office a few
  330
  years ago, based on certain assumptions. I reminded the Committee—I think that the point was made by one of my hon. Friends—that the Institute of Race Relations put forward an estimate which made the figure 2 million—2¼1/4; million in 1985, not 3½1/2 million. I offer this figure only to show that in time changed circumstances can be taken into account.
  With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman argued about the number of births in a town, I would call in aid an article by Eversley and Sukdeo, "The Dependants of the Coloured Commonwealth Population of England and Wales". The argument there was that the immigrants are restricting their family size, that their family size is smaller than in their country of origin, and that the trend is to the English pattern. This fits in with everything one would expect, because fertilityrate is not a biological function but a social function. People pick up the ideas in the areas in which they live, and these will slowly permeate through.
  Because the right hon. Gentleman has used statistics in the House, as he has used them outside, I felt it right, despite the shortage of time, to deal with the question of the future projections. What matters is the fertility rate. When people use the birth rate figures they are bound to get the wrong answer. Fertility rate is the totality of births in relation to the population of immigrant women; the birth rate is the number of births in relation to the total population.
  There are two factors in fertility rate that the right hon. Gentleman ignored. The first is the age structure of the female population. When comparisons are made directly in an older part of the town, one is referring to a coloured population with a large number of young people with perhaps an ageing population around them. One must take into account the agestructure of the female population. The right hon. Gentleman would find that in some of the new towns the fertility rate is higher than in the country as a whole, because it is the age structure and the factor of earlier marriage in this country which raise the fertility rate. As to the age at which women marry, such evidence as we have —I say "such evidence as we have",

  331
  because this is not case work but projecting forward on assumptions—certainly agrees with the survey that I mentioned earlier.
  Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at no stage in my argument did I invoke birth rate? If what I said is related to the birth rates, that is as a result of a misunderstanding which I did my utmost to oppose. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I was concerned with actual births. As he has referred to the survey, will he confirm that the proportion of births which I quoted as being shown by that survey was correct.
  Mr. Rees: I could not confirm that, because I have not checked the article tonight. It did gives births, I agree.
  What I am saying is that these are not the factors on which to base a projection of the future population, that one must look at the fertility rate, and that birth rate in any form or numbers is not the way of doing it.
  The question of work vouchers has been mentioned. May I give some figures. In 1968 in the whole of the Midlands—that is the West Midlands, East Midlands and any other Midlands that there are—194 work vouchers were issued. My point is that the new people going there, the prime movers, numbered only 194 in a year. It is not worth while talking about direction of people when they come in, because their numbers are so small.
  I have talked to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, and I understand that at certain times there is a movement of Commonwealth citizens into the town of Slough. They are not prime movers who have just arrived but move in later on. If we are to deal with this by dispersal we are coming dangerously close to discussing something like the pass laws in South Africa. The numbers of those who are coming in on work vouchers are very small. How else then is one to stop someone moving from Wolverhampton to Slough, or from Smethwick to another part? The figure for the Midlands is 194. For the whole of Wales, there were only 13 work vouchers. Coming from Wales, I find it very surprising that so few people go there. In
  332
  the North-West it was 157. The figures are very small. In terms of using work vouchers as a means of directing labour, the figures are much too small. The right hon. Gentleman made his view clear—
  Mr. Carlisle: May we be clear exactly what figures the hon. Gentleman is referring to? Are these the figures of A voucher holders? I presume that they must be. But the majority of people who come in are B voucher holders and one does not know to what part of the country they go. Secondly, however, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the A voucher holder gets a voucher for a particular area, that has no relationship to where he goes when he comes in?
  Mr. Rees: I should have said that I was referring to A voucher holders, what one might call the "manufacturing" class. The problems in race relations do not arise with the professional men, like doctors who come here to work in hospitals. The whole problem which the right hon. Gentleman gets so worked up about is the problem of peasants, coming mainly from Asia now and settling in the centres of our big cities. This is why I gave the figure in that way.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made clear his views. Even if immigration stopped there would still be a problem, so there is another simple answer—repatriation; and this has not been thought out. One small thing which would have to be considered, and which would mean another change in the laws which we are talking about putting together, is that the person who had received the £2,000 to return to his country of origin would, I presume, have to have stamped in his passport, "Never admit this man again to the United Kingdom." Otherwise, he would be on a pretty good wicket. He could come back for another £2,000.
  Indeed, after the right hon. Gentleman's last speech, three letters were received in the Home Office. There used to be more. One was for, one was again, and the other was from a white chap asking for £2,000. This question of giving money is fraught with difficulty, let alone the necessary administrative arrangements.
  The right hon. Gentleman stopped short at the point of the problem and said, "Send them back. No question." I

  333
  accept the rules of order about talking about Section 11. As has been made clear tonight, these problem areas of city centres have been problem areas for a long time, and in some cities they were caused by the immigrants of 50 years ago. There is no simple answer in saying, "Send them back."
  The Government and most hon. Members want to work for good race relations, for fair and equal treatment. There is a positive story to tell. There is the great work which is done in our schools by our teachers. It is not my responsibility, but in my job I go around schools, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire and other parts a very important job is being done by our teachers.
  There is the work of the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations Board, which was not as catastrophic as the right hon. Gentleman thought. There is the work of the Community Relations Commission. Some of the problems which have arisen have been mentioned, but this commission is just a year old. It has not failed. My right hon. Friend has the greatest confidence in Mr. Frank Cousins and also in the work of Miss Nadine Peppard, who works there. From all I know of race relations, and judging from her work in Northern Ireland recently and from reasonable opinion in race relations, I would say that the work which this lady has done over the years should command everyone's praise.
  There is a problem in this field. It is different from the Race Relations Board. One is dealing with voluntary workersin different parts of the country. Race relations workers tend to be heavily committed people. There are bound to be problems from time to time, but I want to make it clear that they are confident. Most people in race relations are motivated to help. I sometimes feel that those of us who are working in race relations are sometimes busy reading our own pamphletsand forget the problems which go on outside, but there are precious few people in that category. There is a different atmosphere in race relations, despite all the efforts, which has come about in the last few years. It may be that the early shock of facing up to the problems of race is passing. Undoubtedly, the good work of many is giving results. The policy
  334
  of the Government, of relating entry to ability to absorb, has played a large part.
  10.45 p.m.
  However, there are stronger feelings in areas where social needs are higher. Prejudice exists. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Hands-worth that it lies deeper than was suggested by Mark Abrams. It cannot be exorcised overnight, for its channels run deep and may come from the attitude of Empire "on which many of us were brought up. Even more important are the psychological feelings which exist among many and which lie deep seated inside most of us. The going will not be easy. There will be a storm from time to time and we had a storm tonight.
  Working for good relationships does not mean ignoring problems. There are problems in the older parts of our towns, and I do not ignore them by saying that we are overcoming the problem; but it needs leadership.
  I should like to pay my tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I will not say more than that; he does not want pomposity from a junior Minister. And I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), who is leaving us. We in Leeds are fortunate that he is to take over the university and he will have plently of opportunity to see the problems of race that arise there.
  It is easy to be pompous from on high, but in these areas the working class, in the old sense of the term, do not take kindly to it and it will not be easy for those who have to work with the people who have the problems which arise because of the mixing of cultures.
  Recently, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West finished a speech by quoting Themistocles—" Strike me if you must, but hear me.". We have listened; he is wrong. Our reply is not to strike, and those who endeavour to counter his views with violence are wrong. The best way of dealing with this problem is to work positively for good race relations in a problem that in this country is so small compared with that which faces most people in most parts of the world. God help us if we cannot deal with the very small problem we have here.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: It seems a long time ago, and it is, since the debate was so skilfully opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) who was intermittently placed on the Privy Council by the Home Secretary. Right at the beginning of the discussion he outlined the basic consensus which has carried our debate along—the acceptance by both sides of the Committee of the principle of strict control of immigration and equal treatment for all before the law.
  Although we state these as two aspects, they are intrinsic parts of the same policy, because public confidence and public liberality can be created only if the public has confidence in the system of immigration control. It will have that confidence in the system only if there is, both in theory and in practice, a strict system which is adequately enforced. That is why these incidents of evasion are of such importance, out of proportion to their actual impact—because they undermine public confidence in the system.
  If we are realistic and look at the question of numbers in relation to vouchers, there is little scope for a reductionand such reduction as there is would really make only the most marginal difference to the number of people entering the country. So, although I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), he is perfectly logical when he attacks the question of dependants, because if one wants to make a substantial reduction in the present entry into Britain of immigrants, it is that category that one has to attack.
  Fortunately, the leaders of all parties are agreed that the rights of dependants shall not be defeated. I think that it is fitting for me to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he has stood firm on this principle when he has been under severe pressure to make inroads into that category and when all the electoral arguments were on one side. But we base our policy on two principles—first, that the family should be preserved as a basic institution of our society—and we must confer equal family rights on all or the whole concept of equality before the law is mere hypocrisy—and, secondly, that
  336
  undertakings given should be kept. It is these two principles which have dictated our attitude towards dependants.
  To get the question of dependants into perspective, it is necessary to recognise that this is a declining liability. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) mentioned a backlog of 200,000. I would put it lower—at about 175,000. But that is the measure of the backlog. It is not a figure which is beyond the power and the resources of the country to cope with, and it is steadily declining. Fifty per cent. of the dependants that remain to come in date back to those who came to the country before 1965 and 16 per cent. before 1962.
  What we are concerned about is not so much the past as the future. We must look to the future and judge our actions at this moment in the light of what we are likely to produce for our society in the decades ahead. This is the point my right hon. Friend was concentrating upon, in a very remarkable speech. I do not agree with his tone or his conclusions, but I think I recognise a powerful and architectonic piece of oratory when I hear it, and I am alarmed by a growing intolerance that comes from the Left.
  There are intolerances of the Right and there are many people who condemn them. But I see with dismay, not only in the House but outside, a growing intolerance of the Left, in the universities and elsewhere, when it will not tolerate hearing views with which it disagrees. We have seen some of that spirit displayed in the Committee tonight from hon. Members on the benches opposite below the Gangway. Yet, if tolerance is to have any meaning as a concept, it must mean that one tolerates and respects views which one may oneself completely abhor. This is the meaning of tolerance, otherwise it is again a form of hypocrisy.
  The arguments of my right hon. Friend must be met upon the level at which they are presented and not by the mere childish and puerile invective which we have heard too much of today. It was the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee)—who has now evaporated —who said he was not going to be emotive and then accused my right hon. Friend of being a Nazi. He then gave a reasonable example of

  337
  authoritarianism by refusing to give way for an intervention which I wished to make merely to ask what he would have said had he decided to be emotive. Arguments must be met on the level at which they are presented. That is the purpose of the House of Commons.
  My right hon. Friend made much of figures in this context. I was not sure whether, when he used net immigration figures, he was referring to the net immigration figures overall which come out every year as the net number of those who leaveover or under those who have come in, or whether he was referring to the net settlement figures. These are different statistical concepts.
  Mr. Powell: I was referring to the first of those two. Although, in any one year, the net immigration figure is not significant, in a series of years it must be the significant figure. That was why, in the projection which has been so many times referred to in debate, it was that figure which was used by the Registrar-General.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which is a significant point of clarification. I do not agree with him that the net immigration figures are the significant figures. They are highly misleading because they include people coming in for a temporary purpose; they include students, and they will fluctuate wildly from year to year. If they are not reliable for one year, how can they be reliable for a series of years? I am not a philosopher, but I know that one cannot have a universal without a particular.
  Mr. Powell: The point is that if in a series of years they constantly show a large plus, that must mean that there is a true increase in the population with which we are concerned.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would naturally depend on the length of the series that one took. One would have to take a very long series—say, about 10 years—to be able to make that kind of conclusion. The most revealing figures here are the net settlement figures, which are considerably less than the figures put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
  338
  I do not, however, wish to get mired in an argument about statistics. Even if one questioned some of the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, what he is doing in giving us those figures is drawing attention to the urgency of the problem which we face, particularly the urban problem in our great cities. That is a problem which we cannot ignore.
  Where I differ altogether from my right hon. Friend is on the action that we should take as a result of looking at the problem and looking at those figures. I detect a great difference of philosophic approach to the problem in the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and in the approach of most of his colleagues to his question.
  What impresses me about the right hon. Gentleman's approach is the element of fatalism in it and the static view he takes of society in which the scope for change is very limited. It is significant that he should have chosen a static model on which to base his figures. The picture which he paints of our society is of a helpless indigenous mass of people being confronted by an equally static mass of immigrants coming together in an inevitable collision which will cause violence and bloodshed.
  I do not believe that particular analysis of society is true. There is a much greater flexibility in the situation. There is a great possibility of cultural assimilation; there is the possibility that, instead of arousing reactions of violence and hostility, we shall be able to arouse reactions of goodwill and peace. However dark the picture may be painted, our fate remains in our own hands. It is determined not by forces outside ourselves, but by the decisions which we take both in our personal lives and in the House of Commons.
  11.0 p.m.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) speculated on the oddity that, starting from the same premise, he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West should reach completely opposite conclusions. There is an explanation of that in the view of human nature which they both take. We are all Conservatives, and, therefore, we all believe in original sin. It may be said that this is so because we have a

  339
  greater opportunity to observe it at work from looking at the benches opposite. But, although we are united on that, there are varieties of interpretation of original sin and, if I may put it in theological terms, it comes down to this: that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West takes an Augustinian view of the complete corruption of human nature and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone takes a Thomist view, that human nature is flawed by original sin but is not totally corrupted by it. One view gives some scope for hope; the other leads only to despair, and despair was the dominant note in my right hon. Friend's speech.
  I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend wishes to push people into gas ovens, as has been so ludicrously and offensively suggested from the other side of the Committee, but I believe that he cannot prescribe a remedy for the disease which he has purported to diagnose. That is the tragic dilemma in which he finds himself.
  Looking to the future, we must have an overhaul of our whole legal framework governing the admission into this country of aliens and Commonwealth immigrants. This has been argued for not only by myself in other debates and by my right hon. and learned Friend but by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who was here a few moments ago, and whose fashionable dress sense is such an embellishment to the Government Front Bench, even though she is not allowed to sit down and take a mouthful of broth in the Connaught Hotel, has pressed in previous debates for a review of the law and an amalgamation and codification.
  The Opposition have at least put forward some proposals; the Leader of the Opposition has proposed a new deal. The suggestions which he put forward may be open to objection, and the details have not been worked out, as has been revealed in debate, but this is not necessarily a fault. We are at the stage of floating ideas rather than of drafting legislation, but, for better or worse, these are the only proposals that have been put forward, and they are worthy of serious consideration.
  340
  The point of the proposals is not necessarily that they will reduce the number of people coming into the country, although that may be their effect; their point is that they are an essential preliminary if we are to have a population policy that is both planned and voluntary and that seeks to utilise such matters as immigration, social policies, and so on, to move the country voluntarily towards the sort of population that is best for its development. It is a matter to which serious thought must be given and involves questions of family planning and other matters. This cannot happen unless the immigration laws are first overhauled.
  Although I detected some lacunae in my right hon. Friend's argument from the Front Bench, it seemed to make good sense to say that there should be created a new legal framework of equality within which there would be scope for administrative discretion so that the number of people entering the country could be altered to meet whatever happened to be the current social and economic needs.
  Who is to say that the fate of the second proposal of the Leader of the Opposition may not be similar to another proposal put forward in that speech, namely, vouchers at the point of departure rather than at the point of entry? That was resisted by the Home Secretary last year and we have had talk of second-class citizens—not perhaps from the Home Secretary, but certainly from others.
  This has turned out to be a most humane and sensible reform. Nothing has been more upsetting to anyone who has studied the problem than to see the distress that is caused to people who have flown thousands of miles only to find that they are excluded from this country and sent back to where they have come from. That is a terrible thing to happen to any human being.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I make one point to put the matter right? It was not just a matter of an alteration in an Order. An insertion would have had to have been made in the Immigration Appeals Act, which could have been done only in the House of Lords since one could not have broadened the effect of the Bill. Whenever one had wanted to do it, it was not possible to do it until that point of time.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I fully appreciate that point. I was merely making the point that there is good evidence that the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition are being put forward with constructive intention and should be given serious consideration.
  I pass to a separate point, the question of the Irish, who have appeared in this debate very briefly in the form of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and who have been the subject of some discussion at earlier stages in this whole debate outside the House. The position of Ireland is anomalous under this legislation. There is nothing new about that. There has been an anomaly in the situation of Ireland in relation to England over the centuries and we have only inherited it.
  Perhaps the basic anomaly of the situation is the separation of the small islands of Ireland and England into separatenational sovereignties. Surely it is good sense for the Legislature to see that the worst results of that division of sovereignty are avoided, even if it is at the cost of creating yet another anomaly.
  The policy of the law has been that there should be the greatest possible freedom of movement between our two countries, countries which are indissolubly linked together for good or evil, in peace or in war, in charity or in strife, and whose ultimate reconciliation lies, we must hope, in the future.
  This has been an intelligent debate. That itself is a contribution to the problems which we face. Moderation breeds moderation, just as extremes breed extremes. An ultra-liberal attitude to this problem inevitably will bring not a solution but a backlash and reaction.
  Ours is a tolerant country. It is still our greatest glory that the country displays to an extent unparalleled elsewhere a social peace and cohesion which cannot be created out of nothing and which can only be evolved. The problems which are raised for our society by race could destroy that most precious of our possessions. It could, but it need not. All will depend upon our attitudes to those who are different in colour from ourselves but who live here and to whom we are joined by ties of different orders.
  342
  The tie which I put first is a personal choice. It is one which exists under the aspect of what I can call the heavenly city. We share the burden and the glory of our common humanity, facing, as we do, the same mysterious destiny of which we can catch only intermittent glimpses by the light of faith.
  We are tied together, too, in the earthly city by a common citizenship, by a shared home and by a common culture which, despite differences in externals, has a basic unity in respect for the rights and dignity of the human person.
  Our task is not easy. It is to live together within the city, not in a spirit of barbarous rancour and sporadic violence and hostility, but in liberty and fraternity, and in peace. Given moderate and sensible leadership on this problem from those who are our leaders in public life, to whom we have a right to look and on whom a heavy duty rests, I believe that the moral resources of the country will be able to meet the problem, will prove adequate to the task, just as those resources have proved adequate to other tasks in earlier times.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger(Ilford, North): I know that hon. Members who have been sitting here without break for 71/2 hours waiting to speak will not wish me to allow the debate to peter out too fast. I promise not to disappoint them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is always very difficult to follow, because he touches right at the heart and root of these matters. However, I will just draw attention to the policy of the Opposition, which is to bring the legislation governing the entry of Commonwealth citizens into line with that governing the entry of non-Commonwealth citizens. This is then supposed to ensure that the Home Secretary has complete control over the entry of individuals into Britain.
  If there is justification in the British interests for a citizen to come to this country, that person will be given a work permit issued for a specific period in the first instance, say, 12 months, limited to a specific job, a specific employer in a specific place, and the result will be to prevent any further overcrowding and burden on our already over-burdened social services. We shall take measures

  343
  in the country of origin as well as here to prevent the evasion of the law. We shall make funds available to assist immigrants who wish to return to their country of origin, but we shall not harass them. We shall help those local authorities which have special problems. This, above all, is important: immigrants now here will be treated in all respects as equal, without discrimination, and dependants are to be allowed in to join those already here.
  11.15 p.m.
  That is a good policy, as it naturally would be, because it was enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. But with the greatest deference and diffidence, it is to my mind not quite good enough. It would be very much better to put a total stop to all immigration, in terms of permanent settlement. The only limitation should be a reciprocal arrangement with other countries to allow citizens of this country to settle abroad to the same extent that citizens from abroad could settle here.
  I would also make an exception for students overseas studying here. But, with great regret, I would not make the exception, which has been eloquently argued for, to let in dependants who have not already been brought here by immigrants already here. That is not the breaking of a pledge; it is merely a disappointment of an anticipation. If we have to disappoint those people they should be generously provided with means to return to their own countries.
  This possibly rather hard-line policy would have negligible effects on humanity as a whole, and in some respects wouldbe beneficial to the Commonwealth countries concerned. It would undoubtedly be attacked as shocking world opinion, but I have regretfully come to the conclusion that world opinion is organised humbug, to such an extent that it is not worth bothering about to any great degree. It would on the other hand have an effect on national morale. It would restore confidence in the British people. It would act as a tonic for them, except for the professional Pharisees, who would undoubtedly find it highly obnoxious.
  I want to explain why I think this would have a good effect on the British public. The British nation has lost its
  344
  nerve on immigration. It has succumbed w a degree of panic from which it should be rescued by every effort of this Committee. I am afraid that this applies to sections of the community whom one would describe as ordinary, decent people, and not only the old and middle-aged but to large sections of young people, especially those who have just left school and started to work. Those who think otherwise are quite out of touch with reality. They do not understand the thoughts and feelings of the people we are supposed to represent.
  If the Minister thinks that it will be easy, in the words of the Home Secretary, to assimilate and absorb up to 16,000people per year, however small this number may be in absolute terms, he is deluding himself, because morally it will be an impossible task for the country in the state of panic and lost nerve in which it is at the moment. I want to explain what I mean by loss of nerve and panic. In the first place, there are simple and easily understood fears and tensions which have been discussed in our debates for some years—fears about housing, especially by those who own houses in areas in which other houses are bought by immigrants, and where the value of their houses falls as a consequence—
  Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member is talking a load of rubbish. His experience of London must be that where immigrants move in to buy houses the value of other houses in the area goes up.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman speaks, I am sure, with just as much authority and knowledge of his constituency as I speak of mine. We must speak of what we know and find and these are the fears and anxieties of the people I represent. They may be rubbish. The hon. Gentleman can express the feelings of his constituents. He is entitled to say that the feelings of my constituents are rubbish, but that is how they are conveyed to me and I would be doing less than my duty if I did not say frankly how I found them. Part of the failure of our democratic institutions comes from the fact that too few have listened to what is said to them, that too few have lent an ear to their constituents and have expressed views which sound fine to the professionals of the race relations industry, but fill their constituents with disgust and anxiety.
  Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member must distinguish between disgust and fact. A politician has to distinguish between facts and legitimate anxieties. The danger of the things he has been saying is to exacerbate anxieties which bear no relation to facts or reality.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself. He can put this view to the Committee. I say again, at the risk of tedious repetition, that it is my duty to represent the views of my constituents and the facts as they represent themselves to me. My constituents engaged in the buying and selling of houses give me information which is likely to be based on fact as much as on opinion.
  There are anxieties felt by people who find that the standard of teaching in the schools to which they send their children is seriously limited by the fact that a large number of children have to be there who have not got the rudiments of English language and the background of their culture. They are afraid and take their children away and move to other districts. The whole climate of their life and of their children's lives will suffer.
  There are anxieties, largely exaggerated, about abuse of the Health Service and other social services by immigrants; there are serious anxieties about the effect on the health of the community and the use of the Health Service by immigrants.
  A large proportion of these fears and anxieties are justified. Some of them tend to be a little hysterical. Rightly orwrongly, they are things which this Committee cannot afford to ignore and they spring from a deep instinct which more sophisticated people find it easy to overlook. I was impressed to see an article in The Times a year or so ago by an anthropologist, Mr. Ardrey, in which he expounded a thesis of his about one of the deepest instincts of man—his territorial instinct. One of the deepest anxieties which can be aroused in man is a sense of challenge to the integrity of his tribe and country. There is an instinctive revulsion taking place in the minds of the British people that the culture and identity of this country is being threatened, and when this happens it is an expression of the real and not altogether unrespectable sense of people's
  346
  history and identity which we should not lightly ignore.
  It is not for nothing that if one looks into the history of our country and observes which of the national heroes have been selected by the people for immortality, they have been those who have frustrated a foreign invader. Drake, Nelson, Marlborough and Wellington are household names. They live in the minds of the people to a greater extent than other figures whom more erudite people know about because they were successful in resisting invasion and subjugation of the country and the nation.
  I am afraid that there is in the generality of the population a sense that the level which immigration has now reached is a threat to our national identity and existence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a prognostication about the result of this of which I remind the Committee. He said that he saw the future as being fraught with danger of internecine violence. I understand his line of thought there—I think that it is based on very sound historical and social observation, if I may say so—but I have to differ from him, both because I want to and because I think there are sound historical reasons for doing so.
  If we look at divided societies elsewhere, and I think particularly of the United States which, in some senses, has the same kind of problem as we have, the situation is very different. The heritage of slavery and generations of injustice as between black and white in the United States of America has created a situation which is, in the words used by my right hon. Friend, fraught with danger of internecine violence. But it is a situation which it is open to us to prevent being created here. So I do not look at the future with quite the gloom that my right hon. Friend does.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is: how is the future to be affected? What will cause the internecine violence to be avoided, if it can be avoided? Obviously, the Committee has come to the conclusion and has expressed it eloquently through the mouths of many hon. Members, that the future will depend upon the way in which we treat those who are here, and who will stay here whatever we do about letting in

  347
  others or even about assisting those who want to be repatriated. It is entirely up to the people of the country, in their present state of panic and loss of nerve, whether we bring about the violence, or achieve the harmony we want.
  It would be very much better to stop all immigration totally from now on, for the reason that it will be possible to steady the nerve of the country to face its overwhelming duty to come to terms with the new section of the community that is thrust upon it provided it knows that immigration has new come to an end and that there will be no more increase in numbers. The sense of numbers, of increasing numbers, however much it may be played down by Government spokesmen, is responsible for the panic that makes people far too reluctant to face their duty of coming to terms with a community that will be with us for the rest of our history. The object of the treatment which we shall have to ensure for the immigrant community is to achieve what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) describes as harmonious relationships.
  The question is how the immigrant community is to be treated by the rest of the country. Provided the panic can be halted, and provided that more immigrants can be stopped from coming in, but not otherwise, it should be possible for us to behave ourselves, if not like gentlemen at any rate like men. When I speak of behaving ourselves like gentlemen, which isobviously the way in which we should behave, I mean that we should behave like people who really do believe that other people's feelings are more important than their own. If that were our criterion of behaviour to immigrant communities and to immigrant individuals, there would be no possibility of difficulty. But if that high standard cannot be reached, at least a minimal standard would be reached compatible with out history and tradition, which is to make quite sure that every condition of social and legal equality is afforded the immigrant community.
  11.30 p.m.
  I have never objected to either of the race relations Acts, although I thought that the second one went too far in respect of employment and housing. I thought it a sound thing that we should
  348
  give statutory effect to the existing legal prohibition against racial incitement to hatred. It is just as well that that is the case in view of successful prosecutions of those who have agitated against white people through the mouths of the black community.
  The essence of the problem and every hope and fear for the future centres not so much on the present generation of the indigenous population, not so much on the present generation of the immigrant population, but upon the generation now going through the primary and secondary schools. It will be their attitude and the impression of the welcome they receive in our community which will condition their attitude.
  I am not, and never have been impressed by the doctrine of repatriation. I always thought it was a red herring and a somewhat hypocritical way of saying, "Blacks get out" and "Send them home." The sickening apogee of hypocrisy is reached in talk of repatriation as "humane", which carries the sinister implication that if there is any real difficulty the next stage will be less humane.
  Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West): I hope that my hon. Friend does not get the wrong impression. Recently I had the case of a Commonwealth citizen who wished to be repatriated and eventually he was sent home to his country. No fewer than 20 people have been repatriated by Government agencies in a year.
  Mr. Iremonger: That is fine. It would be hypocritical of this Committee to pretend that, if we suddenly woke up tomorrow morning to find that the immigrant problem had gone away, we wanted to have it back again. But to put forward repatriation as a realistic and constructive policy, as if it would help, is just a hypocritical way of saying. "Blacks get out". People who feel in that way would do better to say so than to advocate repatriation. Whatever is done to repatriate and help those who want to go back, we shall be left with the problems that hundreds of thousands, or upwards of a million staying here. The problem is how to behave towards them. Fiddling around in the meantime with repatriating hundreds of thousands is avoiding the main issue. Those who have gone will not be a problem, but those who are left will be a problem.

  349
  I now ask the Under-Secretary to bring his mind to bear on a particular point that worries me a lot. I have in my constituency the principal village home of Dr. Barnardo's Homes. I noticed when going round it recently that whereas 10 yearsago one saw as one would expect, little houses with families of adopted children looked after by Dr. Barnardo's organisation, perfectly normal families of ordinary English children, on that visit 75 per cent. of the children were black. There is a crippling handicap on any black child who is being brought up in this community at the moment. Such children have very difficult problems of adjustment in which they need every possible help. There is also a very difficult problem of adjustment for any child who has been deprived of ordinary family life for any reason whatever—because it has no mother, because it has no father, or because it has neither father nor mother. Such a child will have to go out into the world and face the most difficult periods of tension and crisis, those which come with his changing from the shelter of a home and going out into the world and working, without the support of those in whose love he has confidence. A child who has the cumulative effect of both those stresses coming together has an almost insupportable burden for any human being.
  I cannot help wondering whether we shall be lucky enough to have the many thousands of deprived coloured children whom there must be in establishments throughout the country growing into manhood and womanhood without producing in some of them seeds of bitterness which they may vent upon society in a way which we shall regret.
  I have not much sympathy with the fundamental attitudes of Black Power people, and so on—all these fashionable gentlemen who write their autobiographies and make dramatic and lurid appearances on television. However, when I empathise with them, which I think is the fashionable word, and try genuinely to understand what they are and have been through and what their attitudes are, I cannot help feeling that, if I had been put in their position, I should not have been ashamed of myself if I had adopted their attitude of defiance.
  The Minister should bring his mind to bear upon the whole problem pre-
  350
  sented by deprived children from coloured families who for one reason or another are not being brought up even with the support of an immigrant family which may itself be under very great stress, but which at any rate is a family.
  I want to say a few words about the racialists, as they are called—the extremist organisations. I have one which is rather active in and around my constituency. They attract a very low type of person. One of the principal organisers achieved the peak of his public career in being convicted of stealing from the mails and then continued in his office in this organisation, whatever it was. I do not say this in any uncharitable way. I merely say it to illustrate the point that these people are not, in fact, patriotic pillars of society.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) said that people should be very careful to use no demagogic or inflammatory language, not to make speeches that incite racial hatred—even within the law, which it is quite possible to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) made the same point and said that it wouldbe a very good thing if people were restrained in their public utterances. This is obviously true. However, in connection with members of these racialist organisations, I am not sure that it is wise or helpful to try to restrain them or to say that they should not do these things. What they should do is to put up candidates for Parliament. We shall be having a General Election in the fairly near future, and I sincerely hope that I have a racialist candidate standing against me in my constituency, because I think that these things should be said and people should use their democratic privilege to vote on them. Then we should know where we stand.
  Not long ago my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) fought a by-election. There was a racialist candidate against him; he polled 6 per cent. of the poll. Those votes probably came in about equal proportions from people who would otherwise have voted Conservative and from those who would have voted Labour. I do not think that we can cast aspersions across the floor of the House at one another in this matter. These instincts manifest

  351
  themselves on both sides of the political spectrum. It is better that they should be expressed publicly and be voted upon, because if they attract a lot of support we should realise that there is something wrong with us and that we are not getting our message across. If they do not attract any support, it is a healthy reminder to those who give expression to them that they do not command the support of the people.
  I want to make one final point to the Minister about local community relations committees. In the end, it is local and personal relationships that matter. The Minister, his predecessors and successors have been and always will be nice, well-meaning people. I am sure that everyone is very grateful for everything they do and for the race relations industry. But in the end it all comes down to the way people think and behave in the boroughs and in the wards—in short, in our constituencies. There is a great danger of these local community relations committees going wrong. The whole business of race is a happy hunting ground for cranks and mischief makers on both anti-black platforms and antianti-black platforms. It is a happy hunting ground for cranks and mischief makers and a marvellous vehicle for aggression. Next to cruelty to animals and the fluoridation of water, I know of no better vehicle for inner aggression than to be either against the blacks or against people who are against the blacks. People get a marvellous feeling of being on the side of righteousness, whichever it may be.
  The danger is that community relations committees will be dominated by people of that sort. They usually end up with all the half-baked Left, with two or three crypto-Communists and one or two real Communists—and there will always be a couple of parsons to come along, too. I always say to the parsons that this is where their Christianity will be put to the test, and they will have to choose between Karl Marx and their own Saviour. It is a rather difficult furrow for them to plough.
  It would be much better if a little more guidance and stimulation could be given to the real grass-roots which count in local communities. I believe in local government and in popular democracy
  352
  through the ballot box. Winston Churchill once said that it was the worst possible form of government ever evolved, with the possible exception of every other form of government. But it does at least involve people. In any community, there is only one way of being certain, if one makes any pretence of addresssing oneself to the people, that one is getting one's point of view across, and that is through the electoral process.
  The local councils are the people to whom Parliament has given power as well as responsibility for really affecting the lives of immigrants in the places where it hurts. All the things about which they are concerned—housing, education, health and welfare—are controlled by local councils. So it seems quite futile to have any local community relations committee which does not have serving on it ex officio the chairmen of these committees of the council, evenif they have to send their deputies or officials to attend meetings. I am thinking of the chairman of the education committee, the chairman of the housing committee, the chairman of the health committee and the chairman of the welfare committee. Otherwise, what one has is a community relations committee which is always stirring up mischief, putting the council on the defensive, with its back to the wall, as being a bad agency against a righteous cause, instead of having as the activists those who really have the power and the responsibility to settle common problems which may arise among the local community.
  I conclude in that connection with a quotation from a book which was sent to me for review a little while ago—I think that it has been published now—by Terence O'Neill, former Prime Minister of Ulster. It consists of his speeches, as the expression of his political philosophy, but there is an introduction by a wise and perceptive sort of fellow who describes the agonies which the unfortunate former Prime Minister went through. I was struck by one observation which he made. He said that O'Neill's failure did not come about through the extreme Protestants.
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty in relating his remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he will address himself to that.
  Mr. lremonger: Yes, Mr. Gourlay, I shall. We are debating the hypothetical desirability or not of continuing the existing control over Commonwealth immigrants, which raises the whole question —surely, legitimately and within order —of the kind of society in which they are to be introduced or from which they are to be excluded, and the kind of society in which they will have to live depends on what we do about it. What we do about it depends very largely on the part we take in community relations committees. That was described very precisely in connection with a failure in community relations in Ulster in the introduction to this book, which says that the Prime Minister's failure was not caused by the extreme Right or the extreme Left but by the
  "…pusillanimousness of the middle classes, the lack of a lead from business and professional men and the ordinary well-educated inhabitants of suburbia."
  11.45 p.m.
  If the kind of people who could give a good lead and the right example will not take part in this sort of activity, the worst kind of people will do so. The great trouble is, turning once more to Ireland for illustration, what W. B. Yeats said in his terrifyingly appropriate and relevant little poem:
  "The best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity."
  He added:
  " And who knows what rough beast, his hour come round at last, shuffles his way to Bethlehem to be born? "
  The point he was making was that unless the people who can achieve the kind of society we want take the initiative there are plenty willing to come forward who will do so at the cost of everything that we have succeeded so far in building up in this country, which has been a reasonably harmonious community.
  I am sorry to have kept the Committee so long, but I think this is the most important issue that the Committee and the House have to face. I am not at all sure that we are playing fair by the people we represent. They are badly frightened by the huge, swelling number of Commonwealth immigrants that they see. They are so frightened that they are not prepared to behave in the way they would behave if only their nerves could be steadied slightly. Therefore, I am
  354
  sorry we are continuing the present rate of immigration instead of making a complete change and having a total shutdown on it.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: I shall try not to go over ground that has been well trodden this evening but to make one or two points that have not been covered.
  But first I should like to discuss two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger). He spoke of those who thought our culture and national identity have been threatened by immigration. There are those who have that feeling, but there is another side of the coin. One cannot mix with young people today without being aware that a growing number of them take pleasure and satisfaction from living in an increasingly diverse society, one in which those of different cultural background and different colours are making their lives.
  My hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, and again at the end, that people in this country have been frightened by the size of immigration and the coloured population. This must in part be due to the widespread ignorance among the population about the actual scale of immigration and the size of the coloured population. One of the most interesting parts of "Colour and Citizenship" was the sample survey in which the sample was asked to assess the size of the coloured population in this country. At that point it was 1,100.000. No less than 23 per cent. of the sample believed the coloured population to be in the range 2 million to 5 million. Twenty-four per cent. assumed it to he already in excess of 5 million, and 26 per cent. could make no attempt to assess its size. In these circumstances, some fear is understandable, but it places a special responsibility on politicians and national leaders to communicate the facts of the situation to the electorate.
  I was particularly glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) reminded the Committee that while we have talked of immigration in a national context, questions of immigration have worldwide connotations. Britain, which was for decades the head of a multi-racial

  355
  Empire and Commonwealth, has a special responsibility. At a time when technology and communications are making a nonsense of the barriers which loomed large not many years ago, it seems ludicrous that we should be erecting new barriers within our community and between the races in the world.
  How unrealistic it is! I frequently wonder how coincidental it is that, at a time when military power has become virtually meaningless in the world, when the world's greatest military Power cannot impose its will on a tiny nation on the other side of the world, Britain, no longer able to exercise power in that way, may have a role to play in exercising moral authority in the world, and in particular showing the world how it can solve the problems created by races living together. Certainly it is absolutely in accordance with the traditions of this country for humanity, decency and tolerance that we should seek to solve this problem rather than run away from it now that we are faced with it.
  On the subject of the precise form of immigration controls that we should have in future I think that we on this side of the Committee may have made a mistake in talking of the new policies simply in terms of reducing Commonwealth citizens to the level of Italian waiters, as it were. We should think instead of a completely new system of immigration control common to both Commonwealth citizens and aliens, but having as its foundation not the country of origin and still less the traditions of that country, but the purpose for which people come to this country.
  The authors of "Colour and Citizenship" went into a similar scheme in considerable detail. Those who came here would be broken down into categories according to whether they came as students or as visitors, for temporary skilled employment or for short-term or seasonal unskilled employment, or for permanent settlement. This would be a much more realistic basis for a new approach to immigration control than writing the present dual system into any sort of permanent legislation.
  But I hope that in any such system there will be a category, however small the numbers may have to be in the
  356
  immediate future, for permanent settlement, subject to good behaviour over the initial years of residence in this country.
  If we are to be able to talk rationally and sensibly about immigration to this country, we must have a rational and sensible race relations policy in Britain, as has been frequently said today. I do not want to go over the same ground again—repatriation and its irrelevance—because the argument for repatriation has been repeatedly demolished this afternoon. Much of the answer, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, rests with the work of the local community relations councils.
  I hope that these councils will increasingly turn away from working as advice and welfare organisations for immigrants, because those duties should properly be done by local authorities, and instead seek to bring the host and immigrant communities together to solve the social problems of the big city from which both black and white suffer. If they can be brought together in a mutual effort to overcome these difficulties, they will forget their differences.
  In addition to this local work, which needs encouraging by local leaders, there is a need for a much more positive national lead from the political, religious, business, trade union and other leadership of the nation. We are all involved in this. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in his prophecies of doom. spelled out one alternative which faces the nation. There is another, but, as "Colour and Citizenship" repeatedly emphasised, time is not on our side. Unless we can begin, within the next two or three years, to take positive steps towards an alternative solution, the right hon. Member's prophecies may come true.
  This presents us with a challenge Lo many of the beliefs we have propounded to the world in the past about democracy, decency and tolerance. I believe that it is a challenge to which we can and Mil rise. Since it is fashionable in debates on race relations to end with quotations, perhaps Milton may be allowed to give us some small guide. I for one hope that
  ".. England will not forget her precedents of teaching other nations how to live."
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: It is now 8 ½1/2 hours since I entered the Chamber to take part in this debate. While I praise the garrulousness of some hon. Members, I cannot but feel that when they stand up to speak some of them forget to sit down again.
  I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who has made his debut from the Front Bench in this debate. We hope that he will be on the Front Bench for many years to come.
  I cannot help contrasting the attitude of the party opposite today to immigration control to that which they took in 1961-62. This was glossed over by the Home Secretary. He talked glibly about the agreement which existed between the two Front Benches—since 1964, he hastily added. Certainly he could not say that there was agreement in 1961 and 1962. How much more fortunate he has been as Home Secretary in having an Opposition who are realistic than Lord Butler was as Home Secretary in 1962 facing an Opposition who refused to face the facts. If only we had had a bi-partisan policy on this very vexed issue in 1962, perhaps a good deal of the sting could have been taken out of it.
  There has been a good deal of immigration since the end of the war. Because of the onrush of the late 1950s, the then Conservative Government decided to introduce the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The problem has been aggravated by the fact that the immigrants tend to concentrate in certain areas of London, the West Midlands and Yorkshire. I do not blame them for that: it is a natural tendency. The first immigrants moved to areas of high employment and those who followed moved where they had friends or relatives. This is what any of us would do if we emigrated. But the fact that they have tended to concentrate in certain areas has created great social problems there in housing, education and health facilities.
  12 p.m.
  For five years I represented a Newcastle-upon-Tyne constituency. I had some 300 Pakistanis in a total electorate of 48,000 and there was no problem in the constituency. There were never any
  358
  grievances; I never had any complaints either from the white population or from the Pakistanis. But 300 people in an electorate of 48,000 are easily assimilated. I have noticed the difference since I returned to this House as Member for a West Midlands constituency. I have noticed particularly the lack of public confidence there in the ability of the Government to control immigration.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn said, it is a question of numbers. This, I believe, was the purpose of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last year. I believe that he is completely sincere in his views and that he has every right to state them. After he made his speech, he was reviled by a lot of the do-gooders. He performed a great public service, however, because he brought the subject into the open. Before then it was a subject which people often only talked about in whispers. I believe that there was, under the surface, simmering a great row and that he, as a top-ranking politician, standing up and saying what he did, at least brought the subject out into the open.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who attacked the intolerance of the Left,of which we have seen an example in this Chamber today while my right hon. Friend was speaking. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) seemed to take delight in the fact that my right hon. Friend is not allowed to be heard in some of ourunversities or that attempts are made to stop him putting his views. There are many hon. Members I disagree with profoundly but I would not take part in any action to stifle their views, because if they hold them sincerely they have every right to put them forward.
  Whatever we feel, not one of us can deny that we have a problem and that we must decide how best to tackle it. I believe that the central Government have to find more money to pour into the areas of high immigration to help them get rid of the causes of tension, and provide more houses, teachers, school places and hospital beds, while at the same time trying to prevent more immigrants from concentrating into these already overcrowded areas.

  359
  I do not believe that the present legislation helps in this respect. I suggest that the Government look at the proposals put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at Walsall earlier this year, because these would abolish the system of a fixed number of vouchers being made available for immigrants. Under that scheme the Home Secretary would decide how many, if any, and under what conditions immigrants would be admitted into the country. It would also ensure that entry would be refused to any who proposed to settle in those areas already congested. This is tremendously important, because if we are really interested in the indigenous population and the immigrants who have already settled here, we have to try to see that the problems which exist in these areas are not more and more aggravated.
  I hope that the Government can tell us what the total immigrant population is. Various figures are bandied about but no one seems to know exactly. I have asked the town clerks of Dudley and Wolverhampton, parts of which boroughs come into my constituency. All they can give me are estimates based on the number of children in our schools. I believe that it would be in the interests of all if we could have accurate figures of the total immigrant population.
  I believe that it is essential to have a form of effective control of immigration. I believe that there has been a big reduction in the numbers admitted. I believe this to be fair to the indigenous population and to the immigrants already here. I therefore urge the Government to look at the proposals put forward by the Opposition and to take bolder steps to ensure that the intake of immigrants is drastically reduced.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I will not detain the Committee long, but following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) when he mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I feel that I must say a word. Many people believe that this is an overwhelming problem because of the sheer force of numbers of the human beings involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North dismissed with a rather lordly wave
  360
  of the hand the suggestion which my right hon. Friend has made on a number of occasions about what he regards as the significant part that assisted repatriation could play in this problem. I would not wish to over-emphasise the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend but I believe that it could be a major factor, even if not quite as significant a factor as my right hon. Friend would suggest.
  One has only to mention the thought of assisted repatriation to be attacked violently by those of these extreme Left. I remember discussing this problem with otherwise reasonable people shortly after the Government came to office. As I left the meeting, having suggested that assisted repatriation could play its part, I was called "a Fascist beast" by someone whom I had hitherto respected as a balanced man.
  My right hon. Friend has been violently attacked for almost everything he has said in a helpful spirit on this difficult problem. There is surely no more humane and human man in the House of Commons if one can get to understand my right hon. Friend. The fact is, however, that he has a somewhat dour exterior and he sometimes uses classical language which is not understood by all the people. Those who wish to misunderstand him sometimes make use of this fact.
  I feel that my right hon. Friend's suggestion about helping in every way those who wish to return home would make a significant contribution to the problem. During a General Election—I cannot remember whether it was the last or the one before—I remember meeting a young child, I thought from Africa, playing on his own in a school playground. The football which he was kicking came over in my direction. I picked it up and, as if by magic, a rather older gentleman appeared who turned out to be the boy's father. He rushed forward, shook me by the hand and said, "Mr. Cooke, I have been longing to meet you. I am going to vote for you."
  I said that I was pleased to hear that, and I asked why. He said, "You are in favour of restricting the number of immigrants." I said, "That is putting it rather simply, but I certainly think that it would be better for those who are here if not too many more came, at least for the present." He went on to explain why he

  361
  supported my point of view and that he had come from Nigeria and made a success in life but realised that an acute problem would result from a swamping of the situation.
  I have another case which I must quote and which I tried to put in my intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, but I obviously did not get my point of view across to him because he thought that I was taking a quite different line. It is the case of a Nigerian who said to me, "I want to go home. I have come here, and I have excellent qualifications as an engineer, but I have not been able to find the right job. I want to go to my own country, where I can get a good job and am wanted, but I cannot find the money. Will you get it for me?"
  It was a classic case of a gentleman who could be most useful in his own country but who, if he stayed here and brought over his family, would end up by being a burden on the State with a great number of dependants. He said frankly, "It would be easy to get the rest of the family over here, but I am not like that. I am not anxious to cause trouble. I have benefited greatly from my stay and am thankful for what has happened, but I want to go home now and make use of my life there."
  I wrote first to the Home Office, which said that it was no concern of theirs, and that I should apply to the then Ministry of Social Security. I said point blank to the Secretary of State that if he meant business about helping people to go home here was a case which he should do something about. I received a reply in indefinite terms. I said that this man, if he stayed, would be a burden on society, he wanted to go home to make a contribution after all he had learned here, and that something should be done. Eventually something was done and he went home. In the course of these investigations I discovered that up to that time in the year—well over half the year—fewer than 20 people had been repatriated.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West should not be attacked for saying that nothing like enough is done to help those who benefit from what they learn here and want to go home to succeed in the country from which they came. I hope that those who attacked my right hon. Friend for making this suggestion will think again.
  Mr. Carlisle: Those who have taken part in the debate will, I hope, agree that it has been extremely interesting and that the speeches have been of a high standard. The purpose of moving the Amendment was to give an opportunity to the Committee to debate the whole question, and I now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Cooke: I beg to move, in page 1. line 18, leave out subsection (2).
  This must be something of an anticlimax after our long debate on a most serious subject. It is purely fortuitous that I am able to raise this matter, because the Bill is so drafted that licensing planning is usually discussed before immigration, and it would be inconvenient for the Committee to waste time on this subject before getting on to the main subject. But this year the Bill is drafted around the other way and we have unlimited time, at least until tomorrow's sitting, to deal with it. I have no intention of delaying the Committee for that long, and I note the sigh of relief which has issued from hon. Members.
  I have raised this matter many times, and have the support of hon. Members on both sides, so that I do not need to make the case again. If the Minister has done his homework, he will have the references in the OFFICIAL REPORT and will have beside him a stack of volumes going back for many years.
  Licensing planning originated after the last war to enable areas which were heavily damaged by bombs to share out on a fair basis the new licences for public houses and other places supplying alcoholic refreshment. It was thought that a brewery that had lost a great many public houses should have the lion's share of the new licences. A system was worked out by which each public house that had been destroyed had, as a yardstick, a notional number of barrels of beer that it consumed in a week.
  In Bristol, which I have the honour to represent, many public houses were destroyed, and some brewery interests had a great number of barrels per week at stake. I can remember as a small boy being driven through the streets of Bristol—not through Clifton but on the other side of the city—where almost

  363
  every other house was a public house, and many of them were destroyed. It was fair that the representation of those interests should take place when it was decided who should get a new licence and where. But it is now a quarter of a century since the war ended and a great deal of redevelopment has taken place.
  12.15 a.m.
  Persistently I myself since I came into the House in 1957 and other hon. Members have endeavoured to get rid of licensing planning, this cumbrous piece of legislation, so that there should be a completely free market and so that anybody with the right site, the right plans and of good character should be able to own a public house. The public house today is more than a drinking den. It is a focal point of the community, which is badly needed in some of those characterless estates which are being developed at present. We sought to get freedom and have not yet achieved it.
  The Government, true to form, set up a committee to look at the matter, the Willis Committee, which reported in July 1965. It cost something like £450 to produce the report. Several hon. Members sat on the committee and it produced a summary of recommendations. Recommendation 84(i) said:
  "… there is no longer a continuing need for the existing licensing planning machinery provided by Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964 in respect of the war-damaged areas and this Part of the Act should not be renewed ".
  There is the answer. That is my case. That committee, at great expense and with tremendous expertise, said that the machinery should be scrapped. But it has not been scrapped. We have heard various helpful noises from various Ministers. I want to know why it has not been scrapped and why the Government are not prepared to accept my Amendment.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill has the effect of continuing in force until the end of March 1971 Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964. The provisions of this part originated in the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts of 1945 and 1946 which
  364
  were consolidated in the Licensing Act 1953, itself consolidated in the Act of 1964. Unless further extended, Part VII of the Act of 1964 will expire on 31st March, 1970.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) referred to the departmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. Ramsay Willis, Q.C. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government, true to form, had set up that committee. He will note from the report that the committee was appointed on 15th April, 1964, which, of course, was during the term of a Conservative Administration. But I make no political point whatever on that. I am merely quoting that to show the inaccurate statement made by the hon. Gentleman. I was surprised that he sought to draw any political lesson from it.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I desired to make no political point. I said "the Government"—I mentioned no political party. Perhaps this Government have a guilty conscience.
  Mr. Morgan: It is much too late to try to bandy politics in this connection. It was the words "true to form" that led me into that byway.
  That departmental committee was set up by the then Home Secretary to consider whether there was a continuing need for licensing planning. As we have heard, the committee's report was published as a White Paper, Command 2709, in July 1965. Its main recommendation was for a continuation of licensing planning in a modified form. Implementation must, of course, await the introduction of comprehensive licensing legislation. There is little chance of this happening in the near future. Meanwhile, the existing system, which still serves a useful purpose, should not be allowed to lapse, leaving nothing in its place.
  Licensing planning committees are of use, principally in providing machinery whereby magistrates and representatives of local authorities are enabled to consider together the problems of redistributing licensed premises in war damaged areas where extensive redevelopment is still taking place. These problems involve a number of social issues, and, as with a similar procedure which exists for

  365
  new towns under Part VI, it is right that the different interests involved should consider these on a formal basis, rather than that they should be left to haphazard and ad hoc consultation, if any such consultation takes place.
  The hon. Gentleman has challenged me to justify why more than a quarter of a century after the end of the war we are still continuing with what was basically war time or immediately post-war time legislation. I am sure that he, as one who has read the Ramsay Willis Report carefully, will remember what is said in paragraph 32:
  " We believe that in a licensing planning area it is not now possible to differentiate between redevelopment by reason of war damage and development initiated by other factors."
  Therefore, I merely draw his attention to this factor of redevelopment caused by enemy action merging with redevelopment that is founded on an agglomeration of wider factors. That is a matter which no doubt was very much in the mind of the committee in arriving at the conclusions set out in its report.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned barrel-age. I was not sure whether he took specific exception to it. I draw his attention to paragraph 25 of the report, which reads:
  " We believe that in those few areas where the equation of barrelage was practised and the committees were faced with the necessity for a drastic overall reduction in the number of licences, the system was not unreasonable in relation to on-licences."
  I remind the Committee that, whereas the Acts of 1945 and 1946, later consolidated, refer both to on-licences and off-licences, under the Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1967, which was a Private Member's Measure, off-licences have been removed from the jurisdiction of licensing planning committees. Off-licences have represented a large part of the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman in these debates on previous occasions.
  Under Section 120 (4) of the Act of 1964, the Home Secretary is required to consult the licensing planning committee for an area before making any revocation order. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent any of the licensing planning committees, of which there are 18 in England and Wales, making representations to my right hon. Friend asking
  366
  him to consider withdrawing the operation of Part VII of the Act of 1964 from its area. Apart from those which did so some four years ago and were withdrawn from the system—Dover, Great Yarmouth and Liverpool—no representations have been received from the licensing planning committees with the exception of that for Sheffield. That committee made representations with regard to some parts of its area, and those were deleted from the operation of the Act.
  The passing of the Amendment would mean the creation of a hiatus in the operation of licensing planning committees in the area in which it now operates. It would be an act of imprudence for the House to allow this planning procedure to lapse at the end of March, 1970, as would be the case if the Amendment were carried. For that reason I ask the hon. Member not to press it.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The hour is late, and it would probably bring many Members from distant parts if I were to divide the House on the Amendment. But I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister has said. He has done his best toassimilate a long and tricky brief on the subject. He has said what his predecessors on both sides have said—because this went on under the previous Government, just as under this one. It is not good enough to quote paragraph 32 and say that there are considerations of development initiated by other factors. If development initiated by other factors is to he taken into account, why not have licensing planning committees in every part of the United Kingdom? This is something left over from the war, where there can be a little excuse for keeping it going on a year-by-year basis, because all Governments have consolidated it in some licensing Act.
  It is not good enough for the Minister to say all this again. We have heard it all before. I do not believe that we could not rely upon the ordinary machinery of planning and licensing justices and local interests to get together and make the right decisions. The present system of licensing planning can even prevent a new neighbourhood or housing estate from getting a public house because there is a wrangle about where it should be situated and how many barrels it should have.

  367
  There was a case in the West Country where a public house was provided on the other side of the frontier, in a free area outside the licensing planning jurisdiction, because it took so many years to get anywhere under the existing cumbersome procedure. I see the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) here. Owing to his position as a Whip he cannot speak, but if he looks into it he will find that it was his constituency that was involved. It was only because I fought long and hard—and I am sure that he was also there, in the background—that he benefited. We fought hard to get rid of this bureaucracy.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I protest and hope that it will not be necessary to put it down again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to review policies but not individual cases, in relation to—
  (a) the operation of the Race Relations Act 1968 with particular reference to the work of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission; and
  (b) the admission into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals for settlement;
  Ordered,
  That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. S. Bidwell, Mr. A Bottomley, Mr. W. Deedes, Mr. P. Grieve, Mr. E. Heller, Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mrs. J.
  368
  Knight, Mr. W. Lawler, Mr. K. Lomas, Mr. E. Lyons, Mr. R. Moyle, Mr. G. Oakes, Mr. N. St. John-Stevas, Sir George Sinclair and Mr. D. Winnick be Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in the last Session of Parliament as was reported to the House on the 16th day of October last, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint Three Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.—[Mr. Dobson.]

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [4th November] as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that in the present Session, the following classes of Bills shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:
  (1) All Consolidation Bills, whether public or private;
  (2) Statute Law Revision Bills;
  (3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid

  369
  pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;
  (4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any Report containing such recommendations;
  (5) Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with the Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bills;
  be now considered.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  That this House cloth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  RABIES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  12.30 a.m.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter of considerable public interest and of dragging facts into the open, some of which have been systematically concealed from the press and, thereby, from the public for a surprising number of years.
  I have no personal interest in this matter whatever and I have never attempted to bring a dog into this country. On the contrary, in the days when I bred and exhibited dogs, I regularly exported them to many parts of the world. I visited dog shows in European countries, sometimes as a judge and sometimes as a spectator, and I discovered that many nations had different, and in some cases better, methods of guarding against rabies than the system used for so long in this country, which has recently broken down.
  Tonight I speak purely as a private individual and not as an official of the Kennel Club or of any other body. The Kennel Club is not concerned with the import of dogs or with the quarantine regulations.
  Like other people with a working knowledge of rabies prevention, I was astonished when in his statement of 29th October the Minister of Agriculture ventured to claim that Britain's quarantine regulations were the most progressive in the world. That statement alone was sufficient to reveal his lack of knowledge of the more progressive methods which have protected other countries for longer and much more effectively than has the outmoded and unreliable system in use here, which was first introduced in 1897.
  The Minister's tendency to cling to this out-dated method through thick and thin is rather like a frightened non-swimmer clinging to a lifebuoy.
  The system has not been improved in any way in the last 72 years. I would be wrong to say that the system has not changed, because in 1914 the six months' quarantine was reduced to four months and a few years later it was restored to six months. In spite of warning after

  371
  warning, quarantine was never extended to other rabies-carrying animals. It has affected only dogs and cats, nor has it been limited to animals coming from countries where rabies had existed in the previous 12 months.
  On this matter, the Expert Committee of the World Health Organisation, speaking of countries free from rabies, said:
  " There can be no objection to the importation of dogs from countries free of rabies, provided they have been isolated en route."
  The Ministry here has been no more willing to extend our quarantine system to animals other than dogs and cats than it has been to exempt from it animals coming direct from rabies-free countries, as has been done with perfect success for many years in other places.
  The truth is that the Minister and his advisers have, with their heads well buried in the sands, been keeping their fingers crossed and hoping that nothing would go wrong while refusing to study the far more progressive and effective methods tested over very long periods elsewhere.
  The Minister may say that he has no official knowledge of what happens outside Britain, but a simple inquiry at the Swedish Embassy would reveal that a simpler and far less onerous system based on blood tests, with quarantine required only for animals coming from areas where rabies has been diagnosed recently, has kept Sweden free from rabies ever since 1871. It has been free of rabies during 98 years, during which period Great Britain has suffered at least five outbreaks of rabies and over 100 people in this country have lost their lives from that disease.
  Many other examples could be given, but in the short time available tonight I wish to concentrate principally on three main issues: first, the Minister's neglect in failing to alter our outmoded regulations long before this; second, his failure to have any effective emergency procedure ready to meet an outbreak which any prudent person must realise must eventually occur; and, third, to the Minister's repeated refusal even to test vaccines which have proved so invaluable in other countries.
  First, the Minister has had ample warning that animals other than dogs and cats can infect humans with rabies. This fact has been made known by the World Health Organisation on many
  372
  occasions. Rabies outbreaks in other countries have been due to monkeys, camels, goats, horses and many other warm-blooded animals. It is said that there is nothing so alarming as a rabid sheep.
  Moreover, the Minister must have been aware that there have been several cases of rabies among imported animals other than dogs here in Britain within recent years. For example, I have reason to believe that about four years ago a female leopard developed rabies in a British zoo. What happened? It appears that the matter was hushed up. Certainly the public never became aware of this incident, although the fact was spoken of in veterinary circles. What was done to give better protection to the British public? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
  I give another example. It is said that about three years ago a monkey in North London was found to have developed rabies. The Minister knows that the monkeys imported into Britain since that time run into tens of thousands, mostly for research—a fact which I regret—but many go straight into pet shops where they are sold immediately without any quarantine or health check whatsoever.
  The Minister must be aware that in other countries humans have contracted rabies due to bites from rabid monkeys, but here, again, the matter seems to have been hushed up, and the Press and public heard very little about it. What did the Minister do to change the quarantine regulations to protect the British public against rabid monkeys? Absolutely nothing.
  How many other cases of this nature have been hushed up? We may never know, but we do know for certain that up to now absolutely nothing has been done to change the regulations so as to protect the public from this very real danger of rabies introduced by animals other than dogs and cats.
  On the second point, the Minister is well aware that before the recent incident at Camberley a number of dogs had developed rabies after spending six months in quarantine. These cases also were hushed up. Some veterinary surgeons say that there were two cases; others say that there were three cases. Perhaps we shall be told tonight how

  373
  many there were before the recent incident. It is said that these dogs had all been left in quarantine for more than the statutory six months, for reasons not made clear. Well, one can only say that it is somewhat remarkable that those that developed rabies over six months were those which had been left in quarantine kennels for longer than the statutory period. These must have been a very small minority of dogs quarantined.
  This raises the important question of cross infection. Could all these dogs have been infected with rabies while in quarantine? This is a question to which I think the Minister must give the most serious attention. No one but he can ever ascertain the answer, and I hope that not only the latest case but the two or three previous cases will be fully investigated.
  In any event it was clear that it could be only a matter of time before a dog would develop rabies outside a quarantine kennel and it was the Minister's plain duty to have emergency procedure ready to take effect immediately it was needed.Nothing of the sort was done. It was a matter of the utmost good fortune that the recent case occurred in an area where many of the residents had lived abroad —mostly in the Services—and were familiar with the symptoms of rabies. Otherwise the disaster might have been much worse. In the event, two people. one of whom discussed the matter with me personally and who wishes to remain anonymous, realised that the dog was rabid and with almost unbelievable gallantry they secured it at great risk to themselves. One pinned it to the ground while the other secured its jaws, foaming with saliva, with a piece of string as an improvised muzzle, and they took it to a vet.
  In this way the outbreak was limited through the action of gallant citizens who recognised rabies and knew what to do and took action, as it were, by private enterprise. What a contrast with the Ministry! When at last the Ministry was convinced that the dog was actually rabid, it had no idea what to do next. The Ministry felt the need for some official instrument to constrain the dog and borrowed what has been described as an apparatus from Heathrow Airport, apparently with the help of the
  374
  R.S.P.C.A. With this apparatus, the dog already held locked in, was secured. Later the apparatus was returned without mentioning that it was covered with rabid saliva, with the result that two men who handled it are now receiving anti-rabies injections.
  Had this happened in Hyde Park or any part of London or any big city where people had not seen rabies before and did not recognise it, the Minister's negligence in failing to provide adequate, or, indeed, any, emergency arrangements might have led to far more people being bitten and a far more serious outbreak.
  Thirdly, there is the question of vaccination. The Minister appears to shrink from this although other nations have proved its worth, and not only where rabies is endemic. For example, Switzerland, although surrounded by countries where rabies continually occurs, kept free of the disease for many years by a simple policy of vaccination. Switzerland has rabies today, not because any vaccinated animal developed it but because unvaccinated animals found their way into the country.
  The Minister is well aware of the success achieved in Malaya, as it then was, by the use of Flurry vaccine, whose systematic use eradicated rabies completely. Thereafter every dog within a cordon sanitaire of 20 or 30 miles adjacent to the frontier was systematically vaccinated, which prevented the disease being reintroduced except for one solitary case of a dog smuggled in. Less good results were reported from Rhodesia, where vaccinated dogs were identified only by an earmark. Some native dog owners are said to have thought it better to dispense with vaccination and to fake the earmark. Later, some earmarked dogs were found to have rabies, but had they really been vaccinated?
  Malayan health authorities proved that vaccination brings out rabies in an infected dog within three weeks, and on their advice the period of quarantine for Malaya was reduced to 30 days after vaccination had been carried out in the quarantine kennels by an official vet. This procedure worked well and was approved by the Expert Committee of the World Health Organisation. Vaccination would be a godsend to the owners of

  375
  dogs now in "house arrest" in Camberley. The ordeal of watching one's muzzled pet for six months fearing every hour that symptoms of rabies may occur must be a ghastly experience for any dog lover.
  Our present quarantine regulations are outmoded and inadequate. They admit without quarantine performing dogs—of an indefinite category—even when these come from areas teeming with rabies. They also admit many other species of animal known to carry rabies, and this without quarantine. The truth is that they are about as watertight as the average shrimping net. Our immunity from rabies, which has existed for a much shorter period than that enjoyed by more enlightened nations, has been due to good luck and not to good management.
  The Minister has refused a public inquiry. He relies on his own inquiry behind closed doors. If the report when we see it takes no account of increased medical and veterinary knowledge acquired since 1897, it will be clear to the world that, with regard to progressive ideas, the minds of the Minister and his advisers are as firmly closed as the doors behind which his private inquiry is doing its work.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Cranky Onslow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) for choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate this evening. I am also grateful to the Minister for allowing me a moment or two to speak. He will know my constituency interest.
  Perhaps I can reinforce that by saying that anybody who has lived in a country where rabies is prevalent and been confronted by a rabid dog on his own doorstep, as I have, will well know the importance of keeping the threat of this diseaseout of this country. We must admit that we have been—I hope I can say this without being misunderstood—fortunate in this case, fortunate, as my hon. Friend said, in the prompt and courageous action of Mrs. Hemsley and her neighbour in tracking down and pursuing the dog when they recognised that it was in all probability infected with rabies; fortunate in that a swift diagnosis by a qualified vet was available; and fortunate since that time in the patient
  376
  and disciplined co-operation of the local residents, for which we shall have cause to be grateful. There is a good deal of time to go yet before all causes of anxiety can finally be removed. We must understand that the strain and the need for awareness will remain.
  Like my hon. Friend, I am not convinced that the Ministry was ready for this outbreak. I believe that it was taken by surprise by it as much as the public at large were. What the Minister himself described as the special drive against susceptible wild life in the area had value only as a public relations exercise. I do not think that anybody imagines that it was relevant to the problem of control.
  All that I say now—and to an extent this applies to many of my hon. Friend's remarks—is anticipatory of the review which we expect the Minister to produce fairly soon, and to some extent this may be a premature debate. There are some statistics which I hope the Minister will he able to produce in answer to Questions I have down for tomorrow. Most of all, I hope that we can have a firm assurance tonight that when the Minister's report is available the House will be given time —by that, I mean Government time—so that we can have a proper debate on all the issues involved, because this is a matter of considerable interest and needs to be gone into thoroughly.
  There is one respect in which there is a case for immediate action, either by the Minister or by another Department. This concerns the problem of the officers of the Staff College owning dogs who are due for posting either elsewhere within the United Kingdom or overseas within the next two months. They are faced with considerable problems of expense and difficulty in maintaining the quarantine of their dogs. This is a matter which I have already raised with the Ministry. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something constructive about this point tonight.
  12.48 p.m
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) in this matter, and I know that it is not easy to get an Adjournment debate exactly when one wants one, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has chosen an

  377
  entirely inappropriate time to raise this subject. My right hon. Friend has commissioned a special inquiry into the recent case at Camberley where a dog developed rabies after completing the quarantine period, and although the hon. Gentleman would like a public inquiry, it is only right that we should wait for the report of this inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has expressed the hope that we can have a debate in the House on the report. I myself cannot promise any debates, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The report will be available in about a fortnight. Until it is received I do not propose to be drawn by some of the points which the hon. Member for Dorset, North has raised into anything that might be taken as prejudging the findings of this inquiry, nor can I foreshadow any decisions that my right hon. Friend may reach.
  I come now to one or two of the points that the hon. Member for Dorset, North made. As long as my two right hon. Friends and myself have been Ministers, we have not to my knowledge concealed anything from the Press about an outbreak of rabies or anything else. I remember the case of the leopard, and I think there was also a lion cub and a monkey which took the disease. In none of these cases did we hide anything from anyone.
  I am happy to review past experience with our traditional safeguards. There is a world of difference between this country and Sweden, if I may say so. There are very few dogs in Sweden, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we have about 4,750,000 dogs in this country. It does not help to make comparisons with countries where conditions are so different. In the light of worldwide experience of rabies control generally, this country, bearing in mind the size of our dog population, has a record second to none. We want to maintain that record.
  The hon. Gentleman's views on vaccination and blood tests as a means for protecting this country against rabies are well known. I agree that modern vaccines have great virtues in certain circumstances. No one denies that. The question is simply whether they have a
  378
  place in our island where the disease is not endemic. Although he referred to the opinions of experts, the hon. Gentlemanseems to be in conflict with the overwhelming majority of veterinary and medical opinion in this country and, despite the fact that he has called them in aid, the World Health Organisation's experts
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the risks to which he would expose our citizens, our domestic animals and our wild life. First, as my right hon. Friend has already told the House, no vaccine will give absolute protection in the field. Indeed, a dog twice vaccinated against rabies with the Flurry vaccine nevertheless succumbed to the disease while in quarantine in this country. There is ample veterinary evidence that the vaccine will not give protection in every case. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that, since he has put down some Questions for tomorrow asking for details of such cases.
  Second, there is a risk—I do not overstate it—that a vaccinated dog can excrete the virus, if only for a short time; our quarantine requirements protect us from this hazard. We cannot open the door to symptomless carriers, however rare they may be.
  The hon. Gentleman may he willing to take a chance on the effectiveness of the vaccine, or on the presence of symptomless carriers, but would he be content that animal and human health in this country would be safeguarded so long as we had a piece of paper, from any country of the world, certifying the fact of vaccination? Would it always be worth more than the paper it was written on? Or is he seriously suggesting that we should revaccinate every dog brought into the country? That would not get us anywhere. He must know that if a dog incubating rabies enters this country no vaccine will prevent onset of the disease.
  The hon. Gentleman persistently refuses to distinguish between vaccination as a control measure in those countries where rabies is prevalent, or where there is a constant risk of its being introduced, and its preventive use against the introduction of the disease into countries where it is not endemic. He implies that ours is a reactionary approach at a time

  379
  when many other countries perforce rely on certificates of vaccination and do not impose quarantine restrictions.
  I say "perforce" because most of these countries have land frontiers, which easily undermine any quarantine arrangements, especially with a disease to which wild life are susceptible. Other island countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica, which share our freedom from rabies, apply safeguards similar to, if not much more stringent than, ours. They will not accept dogs from other countries unless they are free from rabies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Switzerland being free for a certain time, but it now has rabies in spite of its preventive measures.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we had closed minds on the subject. We have, in fact, taken the advice of the World Health Organisation on all the latest aspects and developments in the treatment and control of rabies. The hon. Gentleman dwelt on the experience in Malaysia with vaccination, but he is simply not comparing like with like. He did not mention that in the Malaysian campaign against rabies, of which mass vaccination was an important feature, it was preceded by the slaughter of 30,000 dogs. If we had a situation of that nature and magnitude in this country, we might well need to turn to vaccination for salvation, but, happily, the measures successive Government have pursued throughout this century, and which the hon. Gentleman now wishes us to abandon. spare us anything of that kind.
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that the World Health Organisation recommended that where quarantine measures are practicable countries should continue
  " either to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats or to subject them to a prolonged period of quarantine."
  We are not prepared to ignore such authoritative advice. Quarantine gives a greater measure of protection than vaccination, and the country is entitled to this security.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the added advantage vaccination gave in that
  380
  it brought on the development of rabies more quickly. There is no evidence to support this.
  I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's references to gaps in our defences over other imported animals. We have always kept a close watch on this, even where the risk is remote, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's recent statements on this subject. As I have said, I cannot anticipate the results of my right hon. Friend's inquiry.
  So I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what he is advocating, and to ask himself whether he is right and the medical profession, veterinary profession and the World Health Organisation are wrong. Even amongst members of the National Dog Owners Association, who one would have thought were most aware of the distress of separation from their dogs, a recent poll showed very strong support for quarantine. The price of forgoing quarantine for imported animals might be at best to impose upon a larger number of people and animals the kind of unpleasant measures that we were reluctantly forced to take at Camberley. I would pay tribute here to the people there who handled the situation so well and to the very brave lady who captured the rabid dog. We will look into the hon. Gentleman's point about subsequent action.
  The hon. Member for Woking raised the question of wild life. We are accused, on the one hand, of not taking enough precautions and, on the other, of taking too many. The dog was free for the best part of an hour, and we do not know exactly where it went, in an area on the common at Camberley containing a lot of wild life. Although we all deeply regretted the killing of wild life there, it was a precaution that had to be taken.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, North will not immediately press these matters. As I said earlier, it is a pity he could not await the report of my right hon. Friend's inquiry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute before One o'clock, a.m.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Test Certificates)
  Vehicles (Test Certificates)
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance)
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance)
  London Primary Road Network
  London Primary Road Network
  Disused Railway Properties and Sites
  Disused Railway Properties and Sites
  Bus (Concessionary Fares)
  Bus (Concessionary Fares)
  Bordon (Pedestrians Safety)
  Bordon (Pedestrians Safety)
  Motorway Construction Programme(Steel Supplies)
  Motorway Construction Programme(Steel Supplies)
  A38 (Cambridge Junction)
  A38 (Cambridge Junction)
  Railway Services (Blackpool South Station)
  Railway Services (Blackpool South Station)
  New Road Schemes (Closed Railways and Canals)
  New Road Schemes (Closed Railways and Canals)
  Frimley Park Hospital(Surplus Land)
  Frimley Park Hospital(Surplus Land)
  Weaver Junction—Glasgow Line(Electrification)
  Weaver Junction—Glasgow Line(Electrification)
  Ashford, Hastings and New Romney (Rail Closure)
  Ashford, Hastings and New Romney (Rail Closure)
  Preston-Kirkham Line
  Preston-Kirkham Line
  Roads (Snow Clearance)
  Roads (Snow Clearance)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  London Ringway 2 Project
  London Ringway 2 Project
  Shoreham-Newhaven Harbours Through-Road
  Shoreham-Newhaven Harbours Through-Road
  A62 (Standedge Pass)
  A62 (Standedge Pass)
  6 Diversion (Hazel Grove)
  6 Diversion (Hazel Grove)
  River and Harbour Ferries
  River and Harbour Ferries
  G.L.C. Motorway Projects
  G.L.C. Motorway Projects
  Motorways (Outside Lane)
  Motorways (Outside Lane)
  Moore Railway Bridge, Cheshire
  Moore Railway Bridge, Cheshire
  Vehicles (Travel Overseas)
  Vehicles (Travel Overseas)
  Hounsdown Roundabout
  Hounsdown Roundabout
  Reporting of Vehicles Accidents
  Reporting of Vehicles Accidents
  Motorways (Night Working)
  Motorways (Night Working)
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Vehicles from Abroad
  Vehicles from Abroad
  Double Parking
  Double Parking
  British Railways Employees (Pensions)
  British Railways Employees (Pensions)
  River Thames (Driftwood)
  River Thames (Driftwood)
  West Cumberland—M6 Link (Cost)
  West Cumberland—M6 Link (Cost)
  Scotland (Concessionary Fares)
  Scotland (Concessionary Fares)
  Motor Vehicles(Insurance)
  Motor Vehicles(Insurance)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing, Oldham
  Housing, Oldham
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Council House Rent Increases
  Council House Rent Increases
  Wash Barrage
  Wash Barrage
  Local Government Employees (Pensions)
  Local Government Employees (Pensions)
  Expanding Towns(Braintree and Bocking)
  Expanding Towns(Braintree and Bocking)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Railway Undertakers (Road Charges)
  Railway Undertakers (Road Charges)
  Rate Relief Claims (Bolton)
  Rate Relief Claims (Bolton)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Economic Planning Councils
  Economic Planning Councils
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
WALES
  Rural Development Board(Draft Order)
  Rural Development Board(Draft Order)
  Motorways
  Motorways
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Private and Public School Education (Tax Allowance)
  Private and Public School Education (Tax Allowance)
  New Construction (Public Investment)
  New Construction (Public Investment)
  Income Tax (Codings)
  Income Tax (Codings)
  50p Coins
  50p Coins
  Family Allowance
  Family Allowance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Exchange Control Regulations
  Exchange Control Regulations
TECHNOLOGY
  Stainless Steel Production (Nickel)
  Stainless Steel Production (Nickel)
  Industrial Development (Skye)
  Industrial Development (Skye)
  Industrial Development (Sedgefield)
  Industrial Development (Sedgefield)
  Wool Textiles (Export)
  Wool Textiles (Export)
  Seaton Carew Power Station
  Seaton Carew Power Station
  Motor Car Industry (Output)
  Motor Car Industry (Output)
  Mechanical, Instrument and Electrical Engineering Industries
  Mechanical, Instrument and Electrical Engineering Industries
  Prepayment Electricity Charges
  Prepayment Electricity Charges
  Standard Industrial Classification
  Standard Industrial Classification
  Industrial Stocks
  Industrial Stocks
  Concessionary Electricity Rates
  Concessionary Electricity Rates
  PRIME MINISTER OF REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER OF REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (TALKS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE
  EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE
  MEMBER'S LETTER
  MEMBER'S LETTER
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animal Husbandry (Antibiotics)
  Animal Husbandry (Antibiotics)
  Cyclamates
  Cyclamates
DEFENCE
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Nickel)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Nickel)
  National Service
  National Service
  Northern Ireland (Security Force)
  Northern Ireland (Security Force)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Administrative Officers
  Administrative Officers
SCOTLAND
  Medical Services
  Medical Services
  Health Centres (Glasgow)
  Health Centres (Glasgow)
  Fines (Payment by Instalments)
  Fines (Payment by Instalments)
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Central Lanarkshire (National Park)
  Central Lanarkshire (National Park)
  Skye-Kyle Bridge
  Skye-Kyle Bridge
  Skye (Mineral Extraction)
  Skye (Mineral Extraction)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Tayside Study
  Tayside Study
  Litter Bins and Lavatories
  Litter Bins and Lavatories
  Multi-Storey Flats
  Multi-Storey Flats
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Continental Shelf (Extraction of Sand and Gravel)
  Continental Shelf (Extraction of Sand and Gravel)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Companies (Northern Ireland)
  Companies (Northern Ireland)
  Atlantic (Air Safety)
  Atlantic (Air Safety)

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

SHEEP PRODUCTION
LORD ROYLE: 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 explain the apparent contradiction between the announcement, on the one hand, that the Meat and Livestock Commission are to hold a Conference on November 17 to promote intensive sheep production in this country; and, on the other hand, the reported statement of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in New Zealand, in September, that "Britain has no intention to expand lamb and mutton production".]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is no contradiction between the two statements. The Permanent Secretary was repeating the Statement made last November by the Minister of Agriculture, that under the Selective Expansion Programme the Government were not aiming to increase mutton and lamb production, but to encourage expansion in the hills and uplands in the longer term to offset the decline in the lowlands. Since the Minister's Statement, the flock has fallen
520
and the aim is to check and offset the decline.
The Meat and Livestock Commission are, of course, responsible for their own programme of work, but their proposed conference, by stimulating discussion and interest in ways of increasing productivity, should be valuable to the industry and entirely in accord with the objectives of the Selective Expansion Programme.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer may I say that he appears to be trying to blind me with science? Will he explain how the reported statement of the Permanent Secretary while in New Zealand, that
"Britain has no intention to expand lamb and mutton production"
accords with the Selective Expansion Programme?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to blind my noble friend and I suggest that he looks at what I have read. I suspect that he was not listening very intently when I was speaking, because there is no contradiction at all in the light of the explanation that I have given.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can now effect an introduction beween the Chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will try to spell it out in rather simpler language. There was no intended expansion of sheep production in this country as at the date when the Selective Expansion Programme was announced. Since that announcement there has been some decline in the lowlands production, which it is hoped the conference of the Meat and Livestock Commission will help to offset by increased intensive production in the uplands.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if I correctly understood the noble Lord's earlier reply, he foreshadowed some possibility of Government measures to arrest the regrettable rapid decrease of the sheep population in the hill centres. Is he in a position to indicate in what way relief or help will be given to arrest this deplorable decline?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said, the conference organised by the Meat and Livestock Commission is intended to help the intensive production in the uplands.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any evidence that the reduction in the number of sheep on our hills is due in any way to the increase in forestry there, as is sometimes claimed?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. Nor do I think there is any appreciable reduction in the uplands. The difficulty arises in the lowlands where, with the pressure of production of beef, the sheep have been rather squeezed out.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the widely held belief that there is a great reduction in the number of sheep on the uplands of Scotland?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will certainly look at that point, but I do not think is arises on this Question.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, by "intensive sheep production" is it meant to put three sheep in a cage?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can the noble Lord let the House know the number of sheep on the uplands now, compared with a year ago and with five years ago? The impression is that there has certainly been a substantial reduction, and I think it would be interesting to know the figures.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I can certainly give the total sheep population over the last four or five years, but not broken down as between the lowlands and the uplands. If the noble Duke wants to put down a Question, I shall be glad to give him the information.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, can the noble Lord suggest any way of improving the numbers of sheep on the lowland farms, because without sheep the fertility goes down?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know of the great interest which the noble Lord shows in this subject, but I really do not think this is the moment to go into our policy in this matter.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS AND TAX REVENUES
2.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will permit those who have a conscientious objection to war to allocate the proportion of their income tax devoted to defence to education, health, the social services and other civilian purposes.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand the conscientious feelings to which my noble friend refers, but I can hold out no hope that the Government will be able to make arrangements on the lines he suggests. Tax revenues arc paid into a common pool, and it is not possible to retain the identity of individual payments, much less to direct them to specific ends. Even if it were possible there would be powerful objections of principle to such an arrangement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I say that I do not endorse that attitude—indeed, I think it is illogical. Is my noble friend aware that persons dedicated to public service are taking, this view and does he think it desirable to penalise them, particularly when there would be no loss to the Revenue if this proposal were carried out?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of penalising anyone. If anyone accepts the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship in this country I think he must do so on an unqualified basis. It is impossible to have citizenship on a limited liability basis.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government would permit me to re-allocate that proportion of my income tax allocated to answering Lord Brockway's Questions to defence.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I should be delighted? But may I ask him—and I put it seriously—whether he is aware that there is now a growing feeling of

523
personal non-commitment to war, particularly as the young are growing up? Would it not be desirable to try to find some arrangement to meet these convictions which would avoid a recurrence to-day of the Nonconformist refusal in 1908 to pay taxes for Anglican teaching?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not take the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as not being intended seriously. There is a serious point here. At any given time there are always people who have conscientious objections to pretty nearly everything that any Government ever do. My noble friend talks about the feeling at the present time, but I would put this thought to him. This year seems to me an odd moment to press this point, at a time when the British Army in Northern Ireland, by sheer leadership, are leading civilians into a non-violent way of life.

THE CIVIL LIST
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past-three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Civil List.

LORDS SPIRITUAL: WRITS OF SUMMONS
2.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, as I hope to escape the fate of Mr. Cammell. I have, with your Lordships' permission, to refer the following matter to the House. The House will have noted that there has recently been laid before Parliament the Crown Office (Writs of Summons) Rules, which prescribe a new form of writ of summons to the House to be issued to Lords Spiritual on the summoning of a new Parliament. This means that someone has instigated some change in the form of the writ of summons, and, as all students of your Lordships' Standing Orders will at once recognise, this immediately activates Standing Order No. 6, which is in the following terms:
"If there be any difference in the form or style of the writs from the ancient, it is to be examined how it came to pass".
I have always been curious as to the history which might lie behind the making of this Standing Order, and owing
524
to the learning and industry of the learned Clerks at the Table I am in a position to tell your Lordships that in 1620 Lord North found that his writ of summons was not in the usual form. An appalling thing had happened: the words, "right trusty and well-beloved" had been omitted. Your Lordships' House, seized with the importance of the occasion, at once referred the claim to the Committee for Privileges, and after an investigation of the matter it was discovered that the miscreant was Mr. Richard Cammell, a clerk in the Office of the Petty Bag. He was at once brought before the House and, in spite of an abject confession of guilt and expression of remorse made when he threw himself on his knees before your Lordships' House to beg for indulgence, it was not to be, and he was at once removed to the Fleet Prison. Fortunately for him, on a subsequent petition to your Lordships' House your Lordships were indulgent, and he was released. However, it was clearly a sensitive subject, because in the Roll of Standing Orders 1664–1715 what is now Standing Order No. 6 appears in a rather longer form; namely:
"If there be any difference in the form or style of the writs from the ancient, it is to be examined how it came to pass and a strict course for punishing the time past, and future amendment".
The responsibility for issuing writs of summons is mine, and I do not wish either to incur strict punishment or to have to mend my ways. So I will, if I may, briefly explain to the House what the change in the Bishops' writs is, and why it has been made.
The change consists solely in the omission of the traditional "Praemunientes clause", which commands the Bishop to "forewarn" the Dean and Chapter of his Cathedral and the Archdeacons and clergy of his diocese that they are to be present (either in person or by their elected representatives) at the place appointed for the meeting of the new Parliament. This command has not been acted on for over 600 years. Those more familiar than I am with mediæval constitutional history will be aware that in the very early days of Parliament the King wished to summon the clergy to Parliament through the Bishops as something like a separate estate for the purpose of making them vote taxes. The clergy resisted, and in the end a compromise was reached whereby, on the

525
King's authority, the Archbishops summoned the clergy to the Convocations, where the necessary business was transacted. But the old form persisted in the Parliamentary writ issued to Bishops.
Those who have gone into the matter thoroughly and are entitled to speak with authority are all satisfied that the authority for summoning the clergy to Convocation does not stem from the Parliamentary writ. Indeed, it could not do so now that many diocesan Bishops receive no such writ. The Praemunientes clause has therefore long been obsolete, but its anachronistic nature was obscured as long as the Convocations were invariably summoned at the same time as a new Parliament. With the passing of the Church of England Convocations Act 1966, that is no longer the case; and when the Bill for that Act was before this House my noble friend Lord Stonham adverted to the possibility of its involving some amendment to Bishops' writs, which, in their current form, can do nothing but cause confusion. The Rules recently laid before the House make the necessary amendment. I should perhaps add that I have had the benefit of the advice of the most reverend Primates, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, both of whom have agreed that the time has now come to make this change. I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with this explanation and that I may escape the fate of Mr. Cammell.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall be grateful if, as one of the Lords Spiritual, I may be allowed to express a welcome to this Order in Council, first because it seems to me to remove for all time any lingering fear that the clergy might have of a separate summons to Parliament for the purpose of voting taxes. At any time that has rather a nasty ring to it, but particularly so at this moment. On a somewhat more serious note, I am grateful for this Order in Council because writs in their old form rather tended to obscure the real purpose that lies behind Convocation and the real purpose of its existence. It is now clearly rooted and expressed in the Church of England Convocation Act 1966.
I felt that as a representative of the Lords Spiritual I should thank the
526
noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for making possible this valuable and long overdue change.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, it was with a sense of relief, if slightly stunned, that we listened to the Statement of my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. If there is anyone who doubts the spirit of red hot technical revolution in this Government he is now aware that my noble and learned friend is active at all times. We are very relieved that he will not suffer the fate of the unfortunate Mr. Cammell.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Gage,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Grantchester,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Silkin:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord

527
Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Airedale,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I am conscious that it is a Bill which will affect a large number of people and that it is controversial in the sense that it affects them in different ways. The question is: what should be the legal relations between those who keep animals and those who may be killed or injured or damaged by those animals? Therefore, while many people are interested in and concerned with such a subject they are concerned in different ways because, manifestly, the interests of those who keep the animals are different from, and indeed opposed to, the interests of those who may be killed or injured or damaged by them.
Nearly all our law in this field is common law; hardly any of it is statutory. It can only be found in the decisions of the judges going back over the centuries. In this law there are many anomalies and matters of doubt and it is, I submit, no longer appropriate to have our law in this form. Much of it was decided in days when the social and economic conditions were entirely different from what they are now, and it is one of the inevitable disadvantages of a law which is based on precedents that precedents may so harden that the judges are themselves unable, although they might wish to do so, to alter previous decisions. So I submit that the time has come for us to state this law in a modern form and by Statute.
528
It is very well known to all lawyers what an unsatisfactory branch of the law this is. In paragraph 1 of their Report, the Law Commission remind us that in their very first Programme they said this:
"CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS
It is widely recognised that this branch of the law is in an unsatisfactory state and that it continues to apply rules and draw distictions which make little sense in modern conditions.
Following the Report of the Committee on the Law of Civil Liability for Damage done by Animals, the Goddard Committee, there has been repeated public discussion of the matter, but none of the proposals of the Committee has yet been implemented.
Realising that reform in this field is controversial, the Commission nevertheless takes the view that modernisation and simplification are necessary."
They recommended that a study of this subject should be made.
The subject is one which conveniently divides itself into what are four separate branches of the law. It is part of our general law that in ordinary circumstances people whose conduct may affect others owe them a duty to go about their business with reasonable care. If you are a surgeon, you are under an obligation at common law to operate with reasonable skill and care; if you are a motorist, you have a duty to drive your car with reasonable care—or, for that matter, if you are a pedestrian putting up an umbrella on a rainy day on the pavement. If you leave your car with a garage to be repaired they are under a duty at common law—it is not written down anywhere—to carry out the repair with reasonable care.
This is a wide branch of the law which lawyers call negligence. Negligence consists in breach of that duty to use reasonable care which obtains in most walks of life. There is a well-known passage by Lord Atkin in his speech in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson in which he spoke in this way:
"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I

529
am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
Apart from our general law, exceptions have been made in four specific fields which are really quite different and which I think I should take separately. First, the question affecting general liability for injuries and damage done by animals. Our law at the moment divides animals into animals ferae naturae, which I suppose one may translate as "wild"; and animals mansuetae naturae which one may call "tame" or "domesticated". The law is this. If you keep an animal which is ferae naturae you do so at your peril. This is what the law calls strict liability. It does not matter whether you took care or not, you are liable for the injury and damage that it does. However, in the case of a species which is mansuetae naturae you are not liable, in strict liability, unless, while the species is a tame one, the particular animal that you have you know to be vicious, in which case there is also strict liability.
This may be a sensible division, but it has given rise to a great many difficulties. In the first place, is the categorisation the best that can be made? In this country, most rabbits and pigeons are living in the wild state but they are not dangerous. Under our law, elephants and monkeys belong to animals ferae naturae. though whether they are particularly dangerous or not I do not know. But camels and bulls are said to be domesticated and therefore not dangerous. It is open to question how far in deciding whether a particular species comes within the class of wild animals you pay attention to its conditions abroad or look only at the position in this country. When you say that a particular animal is dangerous, do you mean dangerous from the point of view of injuring human beings or also as one liable to cause damage? And difficulties have arisen as to exactly who is liable, the owner or the person who has it in possession.
Then this question has arisen: suppose this species is not dangerous in an ordinary sense but this particular animal is known to its owner to have a dangerous infectious disease; in what category ought that to count? Questions have arisen as to what defences to an action there should be. Should it be a defence if what happened is entirely or
530
partly the plaintiff's own fault or if there was what the lawyers call an "Act of God"? Ordinarily, a man may voluntarily undertake a risk and therefore disable himself from having a legal claim. What, for example, should be the position of the ordinary farm hand who is gored by a bull? Ought we to say that he has voluntarily undertaken the risk, or ought we to say that it was for the employer to decide in what conditions the bull had been kept and that was a thing in which the farm worker had no say? What should be the position if what happened was really the fault of some third party? And suppose the person injured is a trespasser on the land of the person who has the animal?
There being all these difficulties, it has been thought right to reform and, in a sense, codify this branch of the law, and that is what the Bill does. Clause 1(1)(a) says:
"The provisions of sections 2 to 5 of this Act replace the rules of the common law imposing a strict liability in tort for damage done by an animal on the ground that the animal is regarded as ferae naturae or that its vicious or mischievous propensities are known or presumed to be known."
So that gets rid of the existing law. Clause 2(1) says—I am hoping that your Lordships will think that this is a Bill which is written in English so that ordinary educated people can perfectly well understand it:
"Where any damage is caused by an animal which belongs to a dangerous species, any person who is a keeper of the animal is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act."
Subsection (2) states:
"Where damage of any kind is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, and—

(a) the animal has such characteristics that it is likely, unless restrained, to cause damage of that kind or that any damage of that kind that it may cause is likely to be severe; and

(b) those characteristics are known or treated as known to a person who is a keeper of the animal; that person is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act."

Your Lordships may say, "That sounds all right, but, of course, we want to know what you mean by 'keeper', and what you mean by 'dangerous species', and what you mean by known'—and, for that matter, what you mean by 'damage'". Clause 11 provides that:
"'damage' includes the death of, or injury to, any person (including any disease and

531
any impairment of physical or mental condition)"
As to "keeper", Clause 6(3) provides:
"Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person is a keeper of an animal if—

(a) he owns the animal or has it in his possession; or

(b) a member of his household under the age of sixteen owns the animal or has it in his possession"—

so we shall be responsible in law for our children's animals—
"and if at any time an animal ceases to be owned by or to be in the possession of a person, any person who immediately before that time was a keeper thereof by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection continues to be a keeper of the animal until another person becomes a keeper thereof by virtue of those provisions."
So if a dangerous animal escapes you are liable until somebody else becomes keeper. Then as to dangerous species:
"A dangerous species is a species—

(a) which is not generally domesticated in the British Islands; and

(b) whose fully grown animals normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe."

What defences there may be are provided by Clause 5(1) which says:
"A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it."
Subsection (2) says:
"A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage suffered by a person who has voluntarily accepted the risk thereof."
But this has to be read with Clause 6(6) which says:
"Where a person employed as a servant by a keeper of an animal accepts a risk incidental to his employment he is not treated as accepting it voluntarily."
Then Clause 5(3) states:
"A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there, if it is proved—

(a) where the animal belongs to a dangerous species, that it was not kept there to deter or cause damage to trespassers;

(b) where the animal does not belong to a dangerous species, that it was not kept there to cause damage to trespassers."

My Lords, this is a simplification and modernisation of the law, so that instead of having to search through innumerable
532
reported cases going back over decades, and, indeed centuries, anyone who wants can read it, and I hope that that part of the Bill may commend itself to your Lordships.
The next question is: what ought to be the law about dogs killing or injuring livestock? There has always been a liability on the owners of dogs who do this, and laws by which, if it is necessary, farmers can shoot the dogs; but there are doubts as to who is liable and doubts as to the circumstances in which farmers can shoot. My Lords, none of us likes the idea of dogs being shot, particularly, perhaps, if we are not countrymen, but no one with a knowledge of this subject thinks that any other course can be taken, mainly for three reasons: first, because experience shows that once dogs develop a liking for killing and injuring sheep or poultry they are vitually impossible to cure and will go on doing it; secondly, because if there is a stray dog—I mean an unaccompanied dog—facing a farmer and his flock, it is no good the farmer saying, "Excuse me, sir, but would you mind telling me who you belong to?", because if he does not know who is the owner of the dog he cannot deal with that; and, thirdly, because of the extent of the mischief. In 1961–66, in England and Wales there were over 54,000 sheep killed or injured by dogs, and in the same period over 71,000 head of poultry. Here again, the object of this Bill is to simplify and clarify the law.
Clause 11 defines livestock as follows:
"livestock' means any animal of the bovine species, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state;
'poultry' means domestic fowls, turkey, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls and pigeons …"
Once again, Clause 1 begins by clearing away the present law, part of which is statute law. It says that:
"The provisions of sections 2 to 5 of this Act replace …
(b) subsections (1) and (2) of the Dogs Act 1906 as amended by the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 (injury to cattle or poultry) …"
Clause 3 of the Bill provides that:
"Where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is a keeper of the dog is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act."

533
Clause 5(1) creates the same defence, if the matter is entirely the fault of the owner of the animal, and Clause 5(4) says:
"A person is not liable under section 3 of this Act if the livestock was killed or injured on land on to which it had strayed and either the dog belonged to the occupier or its presence on the land was authorised by the occupier."
In other words, it is no good complaining if you allow your sheep to stray on to the dog's land, because you cannot blame the dog for defending its own land. Anyway, you have no business to be shooting on somebody else's land.
Clause 9 deals with what farmers may do in any civil proceedings against them. It says:
"In any civil proceedings against a person (in this section referred to as the defendant) for killing or causing injury to a dog it shall be a defence to prove—

(a) that the defendant acted for the protection of any livestock and was a person entitled to act for the protection of that livestock; and

(b) that within forty-eight hours of the killing or injury notice thereof was given by the defendant to the officer in charge of a police station."

Subsection (2) says:
"For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if—

(a) the livestock or the land on which it is belongs to him or to any person under whose express or implied authority he is acting; and

(b) the circumstances are not such that liability for killing or causing injury to the livestock would be excluded by section 5(4) of this Act."

That is the one about sheep straying on to the dog's land.
Subsections (3), (4) and (5) say:
"Subject to subsection (4) of this section, a person killing or causing injury to a dog shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to act for the protection of any livestock if, and only if, either—

(a) the dog is worrying or is about to worry the livestock and there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying; or

(b) the dog has been worrying livestock and is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs;

but shall be so deemed by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection only while the dog remains in the vicinity or is making off.
534
(4) for the purposes of this section the condition stated in either of the paragraphs of the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the defendant believed that it was satisfied and had reasonable ground for that belief.
(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) an animal belongs to any person if he owns it or has it in his possession; and

(b) land belong to any person if he is the occupier thereof."

Again this is a re-statement of the law, clarifying various doubts which have arisen in the course of the years in this branch of the law and, I hope your Lordships will agree, putting it in ordinary English words that ordinary people can understand.
The third branch is the subject of cattle trespass. Anyone who owns cattle has always been liable for any damage which the cattle do when they trespass, but here again there are a number of difficulties about the existing law. It is all case law and lawyers have to rummage about among the decided cases to see which case fits their own action and there is some doubt as to what may be done. For example, if cattle invade your farm or garden and you have asked Aunt Maud to lunch and she has come over in her car and the cattle make rather a mess of Aunt Maud's car, has she got a claim? Then there is still some doubt whether, apart from the claim for damage to land, there is a claim in respect of any personal injury the cattle have done. Up to recent times, owners have thought that the law applied only to damage to property but it seems from a more recent case, that this also extends to personal injury, though it is not very clear.
If cattle stray on to land, the existing law provides a remedy by a special action called distress damage feasant. Under this law you can impound the cattle or take them to the nearest public pound, and the virtue of possession is that you are not going to give up possession until you get paid for the damage that has been done. But as the result of difficulties about this law it is virtually obsolete. At the time that law was made, there were public pounds all over the country for straying cattle, a common occurrence. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will know better than I do whether there are any public pounds left, and no doubt he will be able to tell us. But I have never seen one myself.
The next difficulty is that the law did not give the person who impounded cattle any right to sell; and of course all animals in pounds have to be fed and watered. This is a continuing expense. If nobody turns up, what can the impounder do, because he cannot sell? The Bill clears away all these difficulties. Clause 1(c) says:
"The provisions of sections 2 to 5 of this Act replace …
(c) the rules of the common law imposing a liability for cattle trespass."
Then Clause 4 provides:

"(1) Where livestock belonging to any person strays on to land in the ownership or occupation of another and—

(a) damage is done by the livestock to the land or to any property on it which is in the ownership or possession of the other person; or

(b) any expenses are reasonably incurred by that other person in keeping the livestock while it cannot be restored to the person to whom it belongs or while it is detained in pursuance of section 7 of this Act, or in ascertaining to whom it belongs;

the person to whom the livestock belongs is liable for the damage or expenses, except as otherwise provided by this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section any livestock belongs to the person in whose possession it is."

Clause 7 is a modern equivalent of the obsolete law on distress damage feasant. It says this:

"(1) The right to seize and detain any animal by way of distress damage feasant is hereby abolished.

(2) Where any livestock strays on to any land and is not then under the control of any person the occupier of the land may detain it, subject to subsection (3) of this section, unless ordered to return it by a court.

(3) Where any livestock is detained in pursuance of this section the right to detain it ceases—

(a) at the end of a period of forty-eight hours, unless within that period notice of the detention has been given to the officer in charge of a police station and also, if the person detaining the livestock knows to whom it belongs, to that person; or"
secondly,
"when such amount is tendered to the person detaining the livestock as is sufficient to satisfy any claim he may have under section 4 of this Act in respect of the livestock; or"
thirdly,
"if he has no such claim, when the livestock is claimed by a person entitled to its possession."
536
Then, subsection (4):
"Where livestock has been detained in pursuance of this section for a period of not less than twenty-one days"—
and here is a point where the Government have ventured to differ from the draft Bill of the Law Commission. It was represented to us by many interests affected that the period of 14 days contained in the draft clause of the Royal Commission was too short, and we have made that 21 days.
"Where livestock has been detained in pursuance of this section for a period of not less than twenty-one days the person detaining it may sell it at a market or by public auction, unless proceedings are then pending, for the return of the livestock or for any claim under section 4 of this Act in respect of it."
Subsection (5) lays down:
"Where any livestock is sold in the exercise of the right conferred by this section and the proceeds of sale, less the costs thereof and any costs incurred in connection with it, exceed the amount of any claim under section 4 of this Act which the vendor had in respect of the livestock, the excess shall be recoverable from him by the person who would be entitled to the possession of the livestock but for the sale."
That is common sense. You may deduct from the net proceeds of sale the amount of your claim, and the balance is due to the original owner. Then subsection (6) says:
"A person detaining any livestock in pursuance of this section is liable for any damage caused to it by a failure to treat it with reasonable care and supply it with adequate food and water while it is so detained."
Then, under subsection (7):
"References in this section to a claim under section 4 of this Act in respect of any livestock do not include any claim under that section for damage done by or expenses incurred in respect of the livestock before the straying in connection with which it is detained under this section."
That, too, is only common sense. Here, again, I hope the House will agree that this is a clear and sensible amendment of the law, so far as the law needed amendment, and otherwise a re-statement in a clear form.
I do not believe, so far, that any of these three Parts of the Bill are controversial. But the fourth Part to which I am now coming, undoubtedly is: that is, the question of animals straying on to a highway. This relates only to animals straying; it is perfectly lawful for anybody to take his animal on to a highway. Obviously, sheep have to be driven along

537
the highway, and people take dogs along the highway, but, in those circumstances, the law now is that you have to exercise reasonable care. The man who has a flock of sheep in his charge has to exercise reasonable care; the person who takes a dog along a pavement has to exercise reasonable care: whether not putting the dog on a lead is a breach of that duty or not no doubt depends on the dog and the facts of the case.
The existing law in this field—and it is very peculiar—is that there is no liability whatever on those who own animals to take the slightest step or exercise the slightest care to stop them from straying on to the highway. If this seems extraordinary, one should perhaps remember that originally we were an agricultural country. Before the days of the internal combusion engine and before the days of the railway train all goods had to go by road in carts or in wagons; passengers travelled in coaches and men rode horses: and if you came across a horse or any kind of animal, there was no reason why this should cause a danger. So a great many years ago the decisions of the judges were to the effect that one who owned animals, even on land adjoining a highway, was under no obligation of any kind to take the slightest step to stop his animals from getting on to the highway. Of course, conditions to-day are entirely different.
Unfortunately, no modem statistics on this subject are kept by the Home Office or by anyone else, so the Law Commission have had to make their own inquiries. They have only been able to find some from the county police authorities —though, of course, any lawyer knows that these things do occur. We have all in our time had to advise in tragic cases: some animal crossing the highway has resulted, perhaps, in a coach overturning and there are 20 dead and 30 injured; and some of those injured may be injured for life so badly that they can never work again and will be condemned to living on public assistance for the rest of their lives. One has to tell them, and the widows, that English law provides no remedy for this; that in law nobody is responsible, and they are not entitled to a penny.
The inquiries made (this covers the years 1961 to 1965) show that in Car-
538
marthen and Cardigan the total number of highway accidents was 12,534 and the number of accidents in which animals were involved, 2,048: that is, about one in six. In Cornwall accidents were 40,277, and cases where animals were involved 4,792: that is, about 10 per cent. In Devon and Exeter, the accidents were 47,214, and cases where animals were involved 4,870: that is, about 11 to 12 per cent. The statistics for cities, of course, are different, and one would expect smaller proportions. In the city of Portsmouth, the total number of accidents was 18,592, and those where animals were involved 1,474: that is, about one in 15, or something of that kind.
All these cases are tragedies, and the judges have been pointing this out for half a century. About a quarter of a century ago Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls, said in the Court of Appeal:
"In my opinion this court is bound by a rule of law which I dislike, but which has been stated or assumed to exist in several pronouncements of this court. The rule appears to be ill-adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land where it consumes a few cauliflowers is liable in damages to the neighbour, but if through a similar gap in the hedge it strays oil to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs in the twentieth century."
This was so well known that a Committee was appointed some 18 years ago under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, to review the subject. They reported that the law on this point obviously needed amendment. But nothing was done. The reason why nothing has ever been done is, as I understand it, the difficulty of any Government in getting the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture to agree what exactly the liability should be.
There are obviously powerful vested interests in the matter, and particularly, of course, the National Farmers' Union. In paragraph 40 of their Report the Law Commission say on this point:
"We have reached the conclusion that the case for changing the principle behind Searle v. Wallbank"—
that was a case in your Lordships' House where, somewhat reluctantly I think, it was found that this old law of there being no obligation to take the slightest care to stop your animals from getting on the

539
road was so old that it could not now be changed by the judges—
"is overwhelming. The expanding needs of society as a whole must from time to time require some adjustment of the rights and duties of particular interests within that society; in the present context this means that the balance between the interests of the keepers of animals and users of the highway which was struck in the past under very different conditions cannot be wholly maintained in the twentieth century. We recognise however that any such readjustment must take account of the economic and social importance of the keeping of animals and of the burden and practical difficulties which may be involved in ensuring that they do not cause damage on the highway; but against these considerations must be weighed the danger to life, limb and property of those who use the highway. We turn therefore to the nature of the change which should be made to the law as laid down in Searle v. Wallbank. Almost all whom we have consulted would seem prepared at least to accept as a general rule a duty to take such care as may be reasonable in the circumstances."
Scotland has not followed us. There there is a duty on those who keep animals to take reasonable care to see that they do not escape to the highway. What is reasonable care must depend on all the facts of the case. The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to follow us in our law, and so has the United States. In most of the civil law countries the whole of the subject is very much simplified because there is strict liability for everything animals do. If you keep animals, and any injury or damage happens to anyone or anything it is your fault, and they deal with it in that way.
I confess that I should have been happy to see a simple statement that those who keep animals owe a duty to take reasonable care to see that they do not escape to a highway. I remember a time when the common law as to the liability of occupiers towards people who come on their premises was extremely complicated. The law said that it depends, first of all, whether such people are invitees or licensees or trespassers. Although you might think that if you asked somebody to dinner he would be an invitee, the answer is "No": the invitee is a person in whom the owner of the land has a financial interest in having him there. So the dinner guest is only a licensee. To the invitee you owed a duty to take reasonable care to see that he suffered no injury. To the licensee you owed only a duty to warn
540
him of any dangers of which you knew but he did not. To the trespasser you owed only a duty not to set a trap.
The law books are littered with cases on this subject, many of them being cases to decide whether a particular man in the circumstances of a particular case is an invitee or a licensee. There was always some difficulty, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds will remember, in stating with precision exactly what was the duty owed to a licensee. A good many years ago now, when I was a member of the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee, we were asked to consider this matter, and we said that the law with regard to trespassers was sound but that, as to the rest, there ought to be a simple duty to take reasonable care towards those who come on your premises, and that whether there is a breach of that duty or not must depend on all the circumstances of the case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock (as he now is), made a dissenting Report. He said that that is so vague that people will not really know where they are, and that too many cases will have to be brought to decide how a judge is to say whether or not, in all the circumstances of the case, the defenddant was taking reasonable care. In point of fact that has been implemented in the Occupiers' Liability Act which, if I may say so, is a model of clear draftsmanship by our present First Parliamentary Counsel, and I think there have not been more than two or three cases in all the years that have followed which have had to be brought to construe that Act.
Clause 8 of the Bill, which deals comprehensively with this subject, says:
"(1) So much of the rules of the common law relating to liability for negligence as excludes or restricts the duty which a person might owe to others to take such care as is reasonable to see that damage is not caused by animals straying on to a highway is hereby abolished."
So that gets rid of the existing law. The matter might have been left there, that it depends on all the circumstances of the case, but the National Farmers' Union were very anxious that some guideline should be given to a judge, although every case differs in its facts. So the advice of the Law Commission was to include the following—and I quote now from subsection (2):
"The following matters shall be included among those to which regard must be had in

541
determining whether any damage caused by animals straying from any land on to a highway was wholly or partly due to a breach of the duty to take care:—

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

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

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

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

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

and a person shall not be regarded as committing a breach of the duty to take care by reason only of placing anmials on any common land or town or village green in any case where it is lawful for him to do so."
The reference to common land is built on a simple fact that while commoners may have a right to graze their cattle on common land, they have no right to put up a fence. With this provision, in the form in which it left the Law Commission, the National Farmers' Union were still dissatisfied. They said: "How can we be sure that a judge will, for instance, say, where there is a road going over a farm in Cumberland, that the farmer ought to have fenced the whole thing?". Well, my Lords, many of the decisions which our judges have to make every day are very much more a matter of common sense than anything else. I do not think it was really ever necessary to tell them to take any particular things into account. Circumstances vary, and the question was: "What would a reasonable man do in the circumstances of the case?"
Having had further representations made to me by the National Farmers' Union, I have, to please them, added on some words in paragraph (e) of subsection (2), so that it will now read:
"the seriousness of any such risk and the steps that would have been necessary to avoid or reduce it, and, where it could have been avoided or reduced by fencing, the extent (if any) to which fencing is the normal practice in the area in which the land is situate;"
That, I hope, has met their point.
My Lords, this is a serious question for many people. It is only right to make it plain that it affects dogs as much as it affects cattle or other animals coming from farms. Every year 500 people are
542
killed or seriously injured in accidents in which dogs are involved; that is to say, every week there are about 10 people dead who would have been alive or who are seriously injured when they would not have been injured. There is a common general liability policy for third-party risks. It covers one against miscellaneous matters of this kind, and the last time I looked at mine I think the premium was 10s. a year. I think that the fear of the National Farmers' Union that a great deal of money is going to be involved is probably erroneous. It is, of course, a question of insurance, but I understand that all farmers have a policy of insurance which covers them against third party risks. If an additional third-party risk arises the question really is: What will be the additional premium to be paid? I will express no opinion about that, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will give us his opinion about it. However, in Scotland. where the law is as the Bill proposes, there is, as I understand it, no higher level of farmers' insurance premiums than obtains in England.
Clause 10 refers to how far contributory negligence will be relevant and periods of limitation; that is to say, the periods within which actions under the Bill must be brought. Clause 12 provides:

"(1) This Act binds the Crown, but nothing in this section shall authorise proceedings to be brought against Her Majesty in her private capacity.

(2) Section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (interpretation of references to Her Majesty in her private capacity) shall apply as if this section were contained in that Act."

Clause 13 provides that the Bill, if your Lordships think fit, should come into force on January 1, 1971; and it does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. The reason why it does not apply to Scotland is that there was a Scottish Committee, which was the equivalent of the Goddard Committee in England. Nothing followed from that Committee, either, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wants the Scottish Law Commission to consider the whole matter in the light of the Report of that Committee and of the Report of the English Law Commission. I understand that the Scottish Law Commission, who are already reviewing the law of obligations,

543
as the law of tort is called in Scotland, will be doing that.
My Lords, this is, for the reasons which I have ventured to give, a contentious matter, but it cannot be right—can it?—that every year, every month and every week, people should be killed or injured or suffer damage, not because some unreasonable burden has been put upon those who own animals but because, quite exceptionally to the whole of the rest of our law, those who own animals need not pay the slightest attention or do anything at all to stop their animals from crossing on the highway. I hope, for the reasons which I have ventured to give, that your Lordships will approve the principle of the Bill, and pass it into law. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE CIVIL LIST: ROYAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE
3.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made by the Prime Minister in another place about the Civil List. This is a matter, because it raises questions of Supply, that primarily concerns another place, but I think it would be your Lordships' wish that I should repeat the Statement here. It reads as follows:
"Shortly after the Queen's accession, Parliament fixed the annual amount of the Consolidated Fund Grant to the Civil List, in Section 2 of the Civil List Act 1952, as £475,000.
"It was recognised that the value of this provision would, in real terms, be eroded by cost increases over the years ahead. The provision made by Parliament, following the Report of the Select Committee presided over by the then Chancellor therefore included a substantial margin, which would mean that in the early years a reserve could be built up and invested, to provide a fund from which any deficits which emerged could be met for a substantial period ahead. Section 9 and the relevant Schedule of the 1952 Act pro-
544
vided that this Supplementary Provision should run at a rate of £95,000. Of this up to £25,000 a year was to be available for provisions by the Sovereign to members of the Royal Family for whom Parliament had not specifically provided. The balance of not less than £70,000 was to provide a surplus for investment to provide for deficits which were expected to accrue later in the reign.
"Parliament rejected an Amendment by the then Opposition that the adequacy of the Civil List should be kept under review, by a reconsideration every ten years. Nevertheless, the matter has been kept closely under review.
"In the event, from 1952 to 1961 the Civil List as a whole, including the Class V Supplementary Provision, showed a surplus, though with wages and other costs steadily rising in the late 1950s and early 1960s the saving was very small in the last two years up to 1961. From 1962 onwards deficits were incurred, small at first but increasing steadily each year. Last year it became clear, not only that the Annual Grant including the Supplementary Provision was falling far short of the total costs for which it had been provided, but that the substantial reserve which had been built up from 1952 to 1961 was being reduced year by year. Last year it was estimated that the Reserve would be exhausted and the Civil List would therefore move into deficit by the end of 1970.
"Detailed discussions took place between Treasury officials and the Queen's advisers, as a result of which the Government informed the Queen's advisers that a new Select Committee would be appointed at the beginning of the next Parliament.
"There is no need for earlier action.
"The House, however, might like to be made aware of two facts. In the first place, there has been over recent years a progressive transfer of expenditure previously carried by the Royal Household out of the Civil List to funds provided by Departmental Votes. This began during the previous reign and, on the Select Committee's recommendation, approved by the House, this process was continued in 1952 when the remuneration of indus-

545
trial staff engaged on the maintenance of the Royal Palaces was taken into the Vote of the Ministry of Works. Since that time the process has been carried further. For example, over the past ten years or so the cost to the Civil List of expenditure on Royal Tours overseas and the cost of rail travel on royal functions in this country have been reimbursed out of Departmental Votes. In addition, Departmental Votes are carrying, to a figure of around £40,000 a year, certain expenses in relation to State entertainment, for example during State visits, which in previous reigns would have been borne on the Civil List.
"The second fact I would mention is that in the last six years there have been two investigations of the organisation of the Royal Household, one by the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury, and the second by an industrialist specially commissioned by the Queen's advisers. As a result, a number of improvements designed to save costs have been adopted.
"I hope the House will accept that in this important and, I do not need to stress, delicate matter, the Government have proceeded, in full discussion with the Queen's advisers, on a basis capable of dealing with the problem which is developing and of dealing with it in time, having regard both Ito increasing costs and to a proper regard for restraint in public expenditure."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. In doing so, the noble Lord has said that the Civil List would move into deficit by the end of 1970. In view of that, and the fact that this Parliament could last until 1971, and also in view of the fact that, as I understand it, both the Conservative and the Liberal Parties would support the appointment of a Select Committee, would it not, in the light of the publicity given to this matter, be wiser to appoint such a Committee straight away?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. May I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in what he said about the appointment of a Committee imme-
546
diately or in the very near future. May I also ask this question? Can we not devise a better system than one which builds up reserves at the beginning of a reign and runs into deficit at the end? Surely this is a matter on which an immediate professional study should be undertaken, to see whether we cannot find something better.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the last point, this was the purpose of the over-provision in 1952. Happily, some reigns are longer than others; and we all hope that this reign will be a very long one. But no doubt the Select Committee, if appointed, in due course will go into this matter. I was asked the crucial question as to what is going to happen in 1970; and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was quite right in saying that it is not possible to say when this Parliament will end. The Annual Grant will, of course, continue at its existing level until new legislation is passed. Arrangements have been made to cover any Civil List deficits arising after the Civil List reserve is exhausted from funds available to Her Majesty from other sources than public funds. Although I can see the force in what both noble Lords have said, I think there is much to be said for leaving this matter to a Select Committee after the next General Election.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Debate on the Second Reading resumed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his authoritative and, indeed, fascinating exposition of the contents of this Bill, and for including in his review an analysis of the defects in the present position of the law, based as it is on Common Law precedents. I would agree immediately that he has made out a compelling case for the modernisation of the law and for putting it on to a statutory basis. Although this Bill has important practical effects, I am sure all noble Lords would agree with me that it is primarily a legal Bill to reform a highly complicated technical section of the law, and noble Lords may understand my regret that I do not have with me here on

547
the Front Bench, to assist me, my noble and learned friend Lord Colville of Culross, who would have been able to deal with this subject so much better than I can.
May I begin by congratulating the Law Commission on their admirable Report, Civil Liability for Animals, on which the Bill is based; and may I then congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on having the Bill written in English, as he attractively put it, and perhaps also the Parliamentary draftsmen, who must have had quite a struggle to get it into such an unfamiliar shape. To me, complex and technical though the issues are, I am bound to say that the Bill really reads like common sense. It is intelligible to the layman, and that is rare with any Bill. I only hope that its simplicity is not deceptive. The philosophy of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us, is to replace by Statute Law the Common Law precedents which at the moment determine the liability for damage done by animals, and in the process to give the law a greater certainty and precision. Certainly so far as I am concerned, the first Part—that is, Clauses 2 to 7 and including also Clause 9—is a very successful attempt to do this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained most lucidly what these clauses do. I would confirm that in my experience people living in the countryside, both landowners and farmers, have generally understood the law to be something like this, but there have been areas of uncertainty which have sometimes led to disputes and sometimes—in fact rather too often—led to litigation. I dare say there will be some even in the future. I hope they will be less.
It has always been thought that a farmer has a right to protect his livestock from the attack of a dog, if necessary by shooting it, and Clauses 3 and 9 now give statutory definition to this position. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the thought of a pet dog being shot is most offensive, but the figures quoted by the noble and learned Lord of the losses from the attack of dogs of 54,000 sheep and 71,00 poultry in six years emphasise that in the last resort a farmer must have the right to do this. I entirely confirm the
548
noble and learned Lord's observation that once a dog has started on this tack almost inevitably he is incurable.
Similarly, it has been thought that trespassing cattle could be impounded against a payment for the damage they had caused, but this has always been a rather hazy area of the law. I can recollect that in my part of the world, particularly in pre-war days, we used to have frequent skirmishes with horses belonging to the gipsies. The damage done in the fields was not too serious, but when the horses got into a garden they really caused havoc. Unless the horse was caught and impounded there was no hope whatsoever of getting any satisfaction out of the gipsies. They all swore that it did not belong to them, and of course the horse disappeared over the horizon. If the horse could be caught and shut up in a stable, it was surprising how soon someone came along and claimed ownership; but when a demand was made for some token payment towards the damage caused, more by way of a deterrent to the horse from coming again than as real compensation, a flow of language would follow, casting doubts both on the legality of my action—and, I may say, among other things, on the legality of my heredity. This Bill will at least remove the first doubt and will go a long way towards curing a great deal of the uncertainty in this area.
I may say that these colourful folk, the gipsies, no longer drive about with horses. They now drive about in rickety vans and are a far greater danger than ever they were before with their horses. I would confirm the noble and learned Lord's suspicions that public pounds no longer exist as such. The ruins of them are sometimes to be seen, but there is nobody to operate them, even if the animals were brought along. However, as I understand it as a practical man, the Bill deals effectively in the right balance with the various conflicting interests.
I now turn to Clause 8 of the Bill, and, as the noble and learned Lord anticipated, this is an area, I am afraid, of controversy. Clause 8, as we have been told, defines the duty of the owner of an animal to take care to prevent the causing of damage through the straying of animals on the highway. The noble and learned Lord has explained that this is a new departure in Statute Law and directly

549
changes the law as understood from the Common Law precedents in the leading case of Searle v. Wallbank. I think the noble and learned Lord has deployed the arguments for this change most persuasively. I would myself accept the logic of the change, and the extract from the Law Commission's Report which the noble and learned Lord quoted of Lord Greene's observation, seems to me to be very logical.
I can remember a case a few years ago that rather caught my imagination. It occurred on a farm in Cornwall, where the country lanes are sunken. A horse was feeling skittish one morning and decided to jump out of his field. Unfortunately, he chose the hedge on the side bounding the sunken road, and like the man on the flying trapeze he sailed through the air with the greatest of ease, sailed over the fence and landed slap on the roof of a passing car. It must have been a most unpleasant experience for the people in the car and I must say my sympathy was with them. So I accept the logic of this in principle. But there are some worrying practical implications about which I should like to say a word, and I am afraid I have to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, despite the great efforts that have been made to meet the case put forward by the farmers and the landowners, the N.F.U. and the C.L.A., they are still not completely happy with Clause 8. As the noble and learned Lord has told as, Clause 8(2) takes great pains to try to define various defences which the livestock owner may have; and let me acknowledge the efforts that have been made to meet this range of cases. But there are still two major hazards that I think are not sufficiently met, and I would briefly refer to them; we can return to them on Committee.
The first hazard which the farmer cannot completely guard against is the odd occasion when the cattle are determined to get out of the field: for instance, when heifers are on heat and trying to get to a bull; or, in the summer, when cattle are driven mad by flies. In those circumstances no ordinary cattle-proof fence or hedge will hold them; they will either go through it or over it. It is quite astonishing how they can jump when they want to, as, indeed, will my horse when being schooled for the White City horse show. There are occasions when cattle
550
will break out of anything. I suggest that it would not be fair to make farmers responsible for something which, in the nature of things, they cannot completely guard against. Clause 8(2)(c) goes some way to meet this point, but I would suggest (and this is a point we can look at in Committee) that it should be a good defence for the farmer to prove that his fencing was sound for all normal purposes—some such clear defences that, so that the farmer may know where he is.
The second hazard to which I should like to refer and which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned, against which farmers cannot guard, arises in livestock rearing areas, particularly hill land not fenced on the road sides although they are private property. The agricultural value of this land is low; it is no more than marginal. Thus, the cost of fencing it would be totally uneconomic. If we want it to continue to be farmed as a matter of national policy, and I believe we all do, it can be so farmed only for grazing purposes, and we shall have to accept that it will not be fenced on the road side. Again, Clause 8(2)(d) and (e) move to try to meet this point, but I do not think that they go far enough; the liability still left on the farmer is too heavy. I believe that the only practical solution with this type of land is to treat it in the same way as common land. This is dealt with in the last sentences of Clause 8, and I understand it to mean that cattle grazed on common land will not be subjected to this liability if they stray on to the highway and an accident occurs.
I should like to say a word about the question of insurance, to which the noble and learned Lord referred to-day. In his speech in the debate on the gracious Speech a short time ago, the noble and learned Lord referred to the farmer's facility to insure. He indicated then that he thought the additional premium to cover the risks inherent in these proposed changes in the law might be nothing, or, if it was something, it would be small. I acknowledge the good arguing point he made to-day about experience in Scotland; I agree that it is relevant. But I have pursued some inquiries with the National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Society to ask what their experience has been in this

551
field. They conducted a study into it this year, following the report of the Law Commission, and they concluded that it was impossible to be certain of the effect of the new liabilities until there is experience of how the courts interpret the new Act. But they have expressed the view that it is certain to involve them in higher claims costs than they now have, and it would therefore seem inevitable that on this account farmers will eventually have to pay higher premiums. They also express doubt whether most of the farmers in the livestock areas in these outlying districts have insurance policies at all at present to cover this particular liability.
The N.F.U. Mutual Insurance Society were also asked to express a view about the specific insurable risk of cattle grazing on unfenced land, and they expressed a similarly cautious view: that they could not tell until they had experience. May I suggest that we try to strike a fair balance in determining what liability falls on the stock farmer, and that we give rather better defences than does the Bill as now drafted? I accept that the noble Lord has moved in the spirit in which I should wish and expect him to move, but I hope that he will be willing to move just a little further. Perhaps we can pursue this most important aspect on Committee stage. Finally, with regard to Clause 8 I should be grateful if, when he replies to the debate, the noble and learned Lord would say a word on liability for dogs straying on the highway. It is not completely clear to me whether dogs straying on the highway will be caught by the Bill as now drafted. In conclusion, despite the difficulties which I see in Clause 8 and those particular points to which I have referred, I should like to give a warm welcome to the Bill, which I feel is a most valuable advance in an extremely difficult field and one which will be of great benefit to the whole community.
4.6 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I accept, and indeed welcome, at least three of the four quarters of this Bill, but I think that Clause 8, about which he spoke and which deals with animals straying on the highway, effects so great
552
a change that it presents certain difficulties of which not all your Lordships may be aware. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain and discuss some of them. I think this is a good example of socially desirable change but that the wrong people are being asked to pay for it. It is not unreasonable that damage, however caused, should be the subject of compensation; and of course liability for compensation can be taken care of by insurance. But who is going to meet the extra cost of the premiums? The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has already said that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was perhaps a little optimistic about this matter. As Lord Nugent pointed out, even if the cost is relatively small it is going to be a substantial change in what farmers have had to meet up to now. It is not altogether unreasonable, when you make an entirely new imposition upon a section of the community, to ask yourself to what extent it is fair that they should meet it.
I have been slightly surprised by the calm assumption, even among my own friends, that the agricultural industry should pay for a situation which is not of its own making. The situation is, after all, one which has been created by the motorist. It has not been caused by farmers keeping more livestock than they ever kept before; nor has it been caused by farmers keeping an inordinate amount of stock. It has been caused for no other reason than that motorists use roads which they never used before. That is in fact why the law is what it is. The motorist has created the situation, and in so far as the motorist is a member of the public it is not unreasonable to expect that some part of that extra burden should be shared at least by people other than the farmer.
In the case of third party insurance the motorist is compelled to insure against accident and not the third party against the motorist. Why in this case should the agricultural industry meet the bill for compensation in a situation which has been created by somebody else? One might look at the matter in another way, from the point of view of liability for dangerous animals. We have an Alice in Wonderland situation here. Normally under the old law the owner

553
of a dangerous animal, or of anything dangerous, was under strict liability for the damage it did. But here we have the Gilbertian situation that the motorist, who is, after all, the dangerous animal, is expecting his victim to insure against the damage done. So much for what I feel is an inequitable state of affairs.
Now may I turn to one or two actual details, some of which have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. First of all, may I refer to the question of unenclosed land which is not common land? Most of that land —and there are many hundreds of thousands of acres of it in the British Isles—is of very low agricultural value indeed. The going rent for the kind of land which will support, shall we say, one ewe per three acres, is between 2s. 6d. and 5s. At the moment, the cost of fencing, that is, posts and wire, is about £750 a mile. That fence will last for about 25 years, and if you calculate the additional cost per acre of fencing that unenclosed land you will find that it comes to something like 20 times the value of the land itself. Therefore, it is a totally impracticable proposition that if that sort of land is to be used for agriculture, it should be fenced. So somehow or other somebody has to accept the liability that accidents may occur. Who is to bear the cost of that? I do not think all of it should fall on the farmer.
The noble and learned Lord suggests that possibly paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 8(2) go some way towards answering a charge of liability. I hope that paragraph (a), which says,
"the nature of the land and its situation in relation to the highway;"
may also be included. I think possibly that that goes some way towards explaining the unfenced nature of unfenced land, but again it does not go far enough. I think that somehow or other one has to exempt unenclosed land altogether in the same way that one exempts common land. May I point out that some common land is fenced—not enclosed in a technical sense—and a great deal of unenclosed land is not.
Then there are other difficulties. What about snow? Occasionally a fence is completely buried in snow. Sheep will get over the fence and may cause a
554
serious accident. Is Clause 8(2)(c) helpful in this case? It says:
"the obstacles, if any, to be overcome by animals …"
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would say something about that.
Then we come on to the most difficult question of all, the question of trespassers. Trespassers leave gates open, animals escape and cause accidents. And not only trespassers; the public, after all, have rights on land to look at, shall we say, the Roman Wall, and they, too, leave gates open. What about the tipand-run motorist who knocks down a wall on an extensive farm and the farmer does not know about it for days? What about the people visiting the Cotswolds who are a menace to the landowners because they steal bits of the dry stone walls for making crazy paving and other things in their gardens? All these prolems are not really covered. Clause 8(2)(c) dealing with
"the obstacles, if any, to be overcome …"
or lack of obstacles is the nearest I could find. These are circumstances in which accidents are going to happen; they are circumstances which have to be guarded against by insurance, and they will create a burden where a burden did not exist before.
There is the question of footpaths and bridleways. I hope that Clause 8(2)(6), which says,
"the use likely to be made of the highway at the time the damage was caused;"
covers that question. Some of the paragraphs in Clause 8(2) may be useful, and may be used in such a way as to make the onerous nature of what is suggested should be put on the agricultural community less onerous than it looks.
There was one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, touched upon, that is, the question of fences which are ordinarily sufficient for their purpose. The noble Lord quoted the case of heifers in use, or of cattle under the influence of flies. Both heifers in use, looking for a bull, and cattle irritated by flies will jump over any fence that is normally sufficient to hold them in. What is going to be the position in that case? These, and matters like them, are difficulties which I think will have to be looked at before the agricultural industry

555
can be entirely happy about this complete change in the law.
There is one small point that I think your Lordships ought to remember. Although I do not know the exact percentage, over 95 per cent. of all accidents on the highway caused by animals are caused not by agricultural animals but by pet dogs. The weight of what I have been trying to suggest is that if the public wants to be compensated against accidents—and it should be—then I do not think it is unreasonable that, in the case of accidents which are caused by other agencies than farmers, some of the expenses of that liability should be borne either by the motorists, who have created this situation, or by trespassers who have aggravated it. In so far as motorists and trespassers are members of the public, it is by the members of the public that some measure of this liability should be borne. Having said that, I welcome what is a very sensible piece of legislation.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because I was not here to hear his exposition of this Bill. I was detained by quite unforeseen circumstances.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would explain Clause 5, "Exceptions from liability". Of course, I am sure the noble and learned Lord has explained it already, but I do not quite understand Clause 5(3)(a) and (b). Supposing you keep guard dogs, and somebody breaks into your premises and your guard dog bites them, apparently under this clause you are liable for the damage done to the intruder. That seems very odd to me, because if anyone who keeps dogs to protect their property, or any other animal—if people do keep other animals to protect their property; I rather doubt it, I think they are always dogs—it seems extraordinary that they should be "had up" for damage if their dog hurts the intending burglar, or if it hurts a man who has already committed a burglary and is going away. I should like the noble and learned Lord, if he could, to explain to me why owners of dogs guarding their premises are not exempt under this clause from damage to the trespasser.
556
I should also like to say two or three words about Clause 8. Of course, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said—and also, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—that there are many thousands of acres in England and Wales of unenclosed land, which it will be extremely expensive to enclose. I quite agree that there is some protection under subsection (2) of Clause 8, because paragraph (e) refers to,
"… the extent … to which fencing is the normal practice in the area in which the land is situate."
But I should like to see a clear-cut definition of unenclosed land. Could we not say that, for the purposes of this Bill, any land which has not been ploughed for, say, 50 years, or even 100 years, shall be regarded as unenclosed land and need not be fenced? Apart from the great expense of fencing in hill areas, there is also the question of amenity. It is very unsightly to have extensive fences over beautiful hill country. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a very good point when he spoke of snow. A farmer's animals can get over a fence and on to the highway if snow drifts against a fence, but you cannot expect a farmer to go along miles of fencing shovelling the snow away. As I did not arrive for the explanation of the Bill I will say no more, except that I wholeheartedly support the Bill and consider that it is a great improvement on the existing law.
4.22 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lords who have so far intervened in the debate have spoken largely as agriculturists. May I, as a lawyer, give the Bill a very warm welcome? In general, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not be entirely astonished if I say that I have much more admiration for the common law than I have for a great many modern statutes. But this is a sphere in which both academic and practical lawyers have long recognised the need for a statute. The learned editor of the Law Quarterly Review has had notes on numerous occasions, pointing to the urgent need of reform in the light of cases decided in the courts. A modern statute is necessary to deal with the complications, doubts and even absurdities of the present law. In fact, one of the few compensations for the present law is that it

557
occasionally gives rise to hilariously funny cases, and I think the only case which can be made against the noble and learned Lord on the Woodsack is that perhaps he is being a little bit of a killjoy in stopping such cases in future. Nevertheless, I think he has a very good defence and this is, on the whole, an admirable Bill.
Some question has been raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and others about Clause 8, and I have no doubt that that will be further considered very carefully when the Committee stage is reached. Nevertheless, I think they are under some misapprehension about the effect of Clause 8 as it stands. Clause 8 takes away the immunity from actions for negligence that has hitherto existed if the negligence consisted in allowing animals to stray on the highway. But before a farmer can be caught under Clause 8, he must be found to have been negligent. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford seemed to think that, in the case of an accident, the farmer would be, under Clause 8, virtually an insurer against accident, and that he would be virtually under a strict liability. That is not the case.
I feel quite certain that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Bill are right in doing away with complete immunity for allowing animals to stray on the highway. I think the case made in the Report of the Law Commission on this point is quite overwhelming. But, of course, I do not wish to minimise any of the points made by my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with their great experience of the difficulties of farmers, and I am certain that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage the clause will be most carefully considered.
Two leading cases, which are frequently mentioned in the Law Commission's Report now before us, particularly interested me and revived my memories of the only occasion when I was professionally involved in this branch of the law. The two cases are, first, the important leading case of Searle v. Wallbank, reported in [1947] Appeal Cases, and, secondly, McQuaker v. Goddard, reported in [1940] I King's Bench. Professor Goodhart, the learned editor of the Law Quarterly Review, has stated that Searle v. Wallbank must form the
558
starting point for any modern study of the existing law, and the speech in that case which is most quoted is the speech of Lord du Parcq, who was my master in the law, since I was his pupil when I went to the Bar and subsequently was in Chambers with him for many years. That case therefore has a particular interest for me. The second case has an interest for a different reason. The case of McQuaker v. Goddard is generally referred to as "the camel case." It was there that the Court of Appeal held that a camel is not a wild animal in any part of the world, and that the camel is a domestic animal. Professor Glanville Williams, in a learned and critical article about that case, contrasted that decision of the Court of Appeal with the rather charming words on the camel that appear in the Encyclopædia Britannica, which are as follows:
"He is from first to last an undomesticated and savage animal, rendered serviceable by stupidity alone … never tame, though not wide awake enough to be exactly wild."
Although that is known as the camel case, I can never think of it as the camel case, for this reason. I remember a much earlier camel case which, alas! never reached the courts. I had been Herbert du Parcq's pupil and had remained in his Chambers and was helping him, and the camel in the case was a camel that the older noble Lords may remember because you may have seen it. It had a walking-on part in Chu Chin Chow, which was being performed at His Majesty's Theatre, in the Haymarket. This camel came along the highway daily to take its part in the performance of Chu Chin Chow. On one occasion, by a concatination of circumstances which I cannot precisely recall, it caused an accident in the Strand. One of the parties affected by that accident took legal advice, and Herbert du Parcq was consulted. I spent a considerable time studying the decided cases, and in my note prepared for du Parcq I dealt with the effect of Rylands v. Fletcher, Act of God, and the many other legal matters involved in this branch of the law which are discussed in this Report of the Law Commission. The advice given by du Parcq, after he had read my note, led to the deplorable result that the action was settled out of court. Now, thanks to the Bill that is before us, I shall never know to what

559
extent my speculations were correct. Nevertheless, I do not hold that against the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. On the contrary, I feel great gratitude to the Law Commission for their Report. which is I think quite fascinating, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for introducing this Bill.
4.32 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a a very short time this evening in dealing with a case for which, so far as I can see, no provision has been made and which yet may have disastrous consequences. Perhaps I can best illustrate it by a cautionary tale. My farm lies on a private road. Cattle from a neighbouring farm came down and trespassed, by them entering on one of my fields. Fortunately, the field was empty at the time, but because I was fully accredited against brucellosis and the trespassing cattle were from a non-accredited herd, that field of eight acres was completely sterilised for 60 days: no cattle were allowed to be grazed on it because of the danger of transmitting brucellosis. That was a real danger, and it was a proper precaution to take; but. at the same time, in present circumstances, as one can realise, not only were cattle prevented from grazing on that field but, as rotational paddock grazing was in operation, the loss of that field for 60 days disorganised the whole of the grazing plan for the summer.
Circumstances may arise whereby stray cattle get into a milking herd. Is the whole of that milking herd to be prevented from entering any of the grazings, and to be isolated for the whole of 60 days? If such cattle get into a field and no steps are taken to protect the owners of that field, the cost may run into many thousands of pounds. I do not know the solution, but I think that we have somehow to find a solution; otherwise, there will be some tricky law cases concerned with consequential damages. My Lords, I hope that before the Bill is finally passed this matter will receive careful consideration, and that the necessary steps will be taken to protect the victim.
4.34 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot improve upon the camel stories told by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but I think they show, as do the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that this Bill will have to get over quite a few humps before it passes into law. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack wondered whether there was still a public pound in existence. There is one within 100 yards of my house, but it is not used except by men who take their grandchildren there to climb up the railings.
I think this is a fine Bill. It puts right a number of things which have been uncertain for many years; and, what is more, everything is clearly explained from beginning to end. I think that almost anybody—whether lie be a farmer, a motorist or an ordinary resident—is capable of understanding it. I have only one criticism to make. This concerns Clause 8(2), which says:
'… a person shall not be regarded as committing a breach of the duty to take care by reason only of placing animals on any common land or town or village green in any case where it is lawful for him to do so".
My Lords, I live on the border of Epping Forest, and every day of the week, and during night-time as well, herds of cattle wander from the trees and grass on to the roads, many of which, in that vicinity, are main roads. Time after time, long queues of cars are held up, the drivers having to get out and act as amateur cowboys, trying to shoo these cows back into the forest. I myself know that many accidents have occurred there, a cow having suddenly walked into the very busy Epping New Road and a motor car colliding with it.
It is a difficult problem, I know. We in the locality have discussed it with the City of London authorities, who own Epping Forest, which is in the nature of a town, or village green or a stretch of common land. It is a place where many farmers have from time immemorial enjoyed the privilege of grazing their cattle. But something will have to be done to prevent cattle from wandering from these common lands on to the busy highways. Within the vicinity of Epping Forest there are at least 40 or 50 roads upon which these cattle stray. Some of them are within the Metropolitan area—the Borough of Waltham Forest and the

561
Borough of Redbridge. Surely, in one of the biggest metropolitan cities of the world, one would hardly expect that there should be cows wandering about the streets, causing damage not only to motor cars but to motorists as well.
My Lords, I do not know the remedy for this problem. As I have said, we have discussed it with the City of London Corporation. I certainly do not want to see such beautiful expanses of parkland enclosed, to the exclusion of city dwellers. This would destroy the whole nature of Epping Forest, which is a beautiful place. Nevertheless, I wonder whether some restriction could be placed upon farmers to hobble their cattle when they allow them to graze at large within the confines of the forest. That is my only criticism of the Bill. Otherwise, I think it is a grand measure.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the House for the reception they have given to this Bill. Indeed, apart from Clause 8, except on one point raised by the noble Viscount. Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the Bill has been accepted and no objection has been taken to any of it. The noble Viscount is right in saying that the effect of Clause 5(3) is that while one may keep a dog to bark, even in the case of a trespasser one should not have a dog which is trained to bite. With that exception, the only questions which have been raised have been on Clause 8—and all, quite naturally, have been in the interests of the farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that he accepted the logic of the case made in principle, but he is, I think, unduly fearful of what judges will decide. He instanced, for example, as also did the noble Lord, Lord Henley, circumstances in which cattle are determined to get out and nothing will hold them. But judges are men of good sense. No farmer is going to he liable unless he has failed to exercise reasonable care—that is to say, he has omitted to do what an ordinary, reasonable farmer would do. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, or other noble Lords, know how many judges have farms themselves. They are not unacquainted with these things. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that they should not make the farmers responsible for what they
562
cannot themselves prevent. I agree with that. There is nothing in this Bill to place that burden upon them.
The only other point he raised was whether a complete exemption should not be made—and for all time—for all land which is not fenced now. But there are difficulties in doing that. The Law Commission refer to this in paragraph 42 of their Report. They say:
"As far as the nature of the adjoining land is concerned, we appreciate there are considerable areas in England and Wales which are more or less unfenced. where traffic is relatively slight, where the risk of accidents is small and where it would be unreasonable to impose an obligation in the circumstances to fence in or otherwise to keep animals off the highway, apart from the sthetic objections to fencing in many beautiful areas of open countryside."
In paragraph 43 they say:
"Moreover, apart from the question of definition"—
they had said that it would be difficult to define "unenclosed land"—
"it would be extremely arbitrary to fix an exemption from liability for negligence only by reference to whether land was enclosed or unenclosed, irrespective of other considerations, such as fencing on the road concerned. Such an exception might also discourage fencing or other preventing measures where it would be reasonable to undertake them and perhaps even encourage the removal of existing barriers."
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is right when he says that there is nothing in the Bill to make anybody do anything unreasonable. The only obligation put upon farmers in the Bill is to do that which is reasonable, taking all the circumstances into account. I think, therefore, that the fears of the farming interests are really quite unreasonable. I confirm that the provisions of Clause 8 apply to dogs straying as much as to other animals. This is important; for, as he said. a high proportion of the accidents in which animals are involved are accidents involving dogs.
Really, the farmers have been very lucky. The historical truth of the matter is that, whereas in nearly every walk of life we are all under a duty to take care to see that we do not injure our neighbours, their position has always been a complete exception. Farmers have been lucky to be in this exceptional position from the start; the dead and the injured have been unlucky. I hope that before the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord

563
Nugent, will be good enough to consider the insurance position as between Scotland and England; because if my information is right it is true to say that in Scotland, where everybody who has animals is liable to exercise reasonable care to see that they do not stray on the road, insurance premiums for farmers are just about the same as they are in England. This again shows that the farming interests are unduly apprehensive about what the effects of the Bill will be.
I will certainly take into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. As to the observations of my noble friend, Lord Leatherland, that was a point to which the Bill is not really addressed. My noble friend's point really is: ought not something to be done to stop commoners from pasturing cattle on commons, and particularly on Epping Forest? There may be something to be said for that; but, of course, if a motorist goes past a common he knows the position. He knows it will not he fenced. As I have said, in the ordinary way there is no power to put up a fence round a common. Epping Forest, so far as I know—I remember being engaged in some Private Parliamentary Bill about Epping Forest—is mainly under the control of the City of London and it would be primarily a matter for them to consider. I believe that Clause 8 is right. I believe it is right to put on those who own animals the same burden which applies to everybody in most walks of life—that of taking reasonable care, which only means the degree of care which other people in this position would ordinarily take. It is no more than that. That obligation I think they ought at least to assume.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
4.47 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise these two authorities, the Welland and Nene Water Authority and the Mid. Northamptonshire Water Board,
564
to construct a reservoir at a place called Empingham, in the County of Rutland. The Bill will also authorise these two authorities to take water from the rivers Welland and Nene. Water which is abstracted from the rivers by these two authorities will be pumped to the reservoir which the authorities propose to construct.
This reservoir will be a storage reservoir. Water will be pumped from the rivers during the period of high flow in the rivers. In the periods when the flow in the rivers is low, water will be discharged from the reservoir into the rivers to maintain their normal flow and to enable those undertakers who depend on these two rivers for their supplies to pump during periods of low flow in the river at their normal rate to meet the demands made upon them. Under this arrangement the abstraction of water from the rivers can in no way do the rivers any harm. Indeed, it will make it possible to regulate the flow of the rivers and eliminate the periods of less than normal flow. There is no question about these proposals having any adverse effects upon the rivers. Nobody has suggested that there is anything which is likely to interfere with, or do injury to, them.
These two authorities desire this reservoir to enable them to meet the very substantially increased demands which they anticipate will be made upon them during the next ten or twenty years. The area served by the Welland and Nene authorities and the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board will change very considerably during the next ten or twenty years. Almost every urban centre in the area is anticipating expansion—not the normal expansion, what I might call the normal natural expansion. but the planned expansion of New Towns; expansion for the accommodation of overspill and matters of that nature. At each of the urban centres in their area there is a prospect of considerable expansion. Peterborough is to become a New Town; Daventry is to take in overspill population from Birmingham; Northampton is to become a New Town; Wellingborough is to take overspill population from London; Corby New Town is to be expanded. In all these areas there is substantial planned expansion; and all this expansion will vastly increase the population in the urban areas which

565
look for their supplies to the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board and the other authorities who will be served by the river and by the reservoir.
It is not only in the urban areas that the demand is increasing. There arc substantial urban areas in the district of the river authority, but in the rural areas also the demand for water is increasing. All over the rural parts of the country changes are taking place which will increase the demand for water. There is a higher standard of amenities in the dwelling-houses. Water is laid on, instead of being brought in from wells. Agriculture is consuming very much more water than it used to do. Piped water is being brought into the rural areas, and water-borne sewage is taking the place of the older forms of sewage disposal. All these things combine to increase the demand which these authorities will have to meet in the coming years, and the need for additional supplies is evident.
My Lords, I am a little tempted, although I do not wish to overburden your Lordships with figures, to refer to the estimated expansion of population in this area. In the area of the Welland and Nene River Authority which will be served by the reservoir the present estimated population is 636,000. By 1981 it will have increased to 973,000, and in some 30 years' time, in the year 2001, it will have increased to 1,282,000. When one looks at the towns in the district one sees the same thing. To-day, Northampton has a population of 130,000. It is expected that in 1981 the population will have increased to 230,000 and in 2001 to 300,000. Corby has a present population of 45,000 In 1981 it will have increased to 75,000, and in 2001 to 100,000. Perhaps that is the most striking increase of all. Wellingborough has a present population of 34,000 which will increase in ten years to 86,000, and by 2001 to 110,000. Daventry, which is to take Birmingham overspill, has a present population of 7,000 which will increase to 37,000 in ten years, and to 50,000 by 2001. It is really not surprising that the water authorities are asking for this very substantial increase in their resources.
My Lords, the Water Resources Board, which your Lordships will recall was created by the Act of 1963, and which
566
is charged with the conservation of water in all parts of the country, recently carried out a survey in an area which they describe as a "deficiency zone". The area extended from Northampton to the London Basin. The Board have recommended that the increased demand in that area shall be met by a succession of pumped reservoirs operating very much like the reservoir which this Bill proposes. It is recognised by the Board that the necessary surveys and preliminary investigations which the construction of these new reservoirs will involve cannot be completed in time to meet the increased demand which is known to be coming. They accordingly selected this reservoir at Empingham, and. alternatively, an adjoining site at Manton, as a site where the construction of a reservoir should be carried out at once, to be available for use in ten years' time. They made that recommendation because this area was remote in some ways from the deficiency zone between Northampton and the London Basin. It was accordingly selected because this was the only part of the area where it would be possible to complete the reservoirs as early as 1974.
I am tempted to read to your Lordships a passage from the Water Resources Board's Report. This is what they say:
"Increasing demands in the area of the Welland and Nene River Authority, particularly those of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board, indicate that a reservoir should be completed and available for supply by 197475. The River Authority have accordingly decided to seek powers during the coming session of Parliament to construct a reservoir at Empingham. Although the Empingharn site will submerge more land than the Manton site—"
they were considering these two adjoining sites—
"we support the decision of the River Authority and urge that the necessary powers should be granted without delay."
My Lords, those are the powers for which we are asking to-day. I ought perhaps to say a word about Manton although, so far as I know, nobody is now advocating that the Manton site should be used. Manton is quite close to Empingham. It would give a very much smaller yield than the Empingham reservoir. The yield from the Empingham reservoir would be 50 million gallons per day; the yield from the Manton reservoir would be only 40 million. The

567
Manton reservoir would cost about £2½ million more than the reservoir at Empingham. There is the further advantage in taking the Empingham reservoir first, that it might never be necessary to use the Manton site, but if it did become necessary Manton could easily be filled from Empingham at a much lower cost than the cost of constructing the necessary pipe lines and appliances to feed it from the rivers. Accordingly, the Water Resources Board came down on the side of Empingham. So far as I know, nobody has revived the proposal that Manton should be used.
There are one or two matters of more minor consequence about which I should say something. One of the proposals made was that the size of the reservoir should be reduced by constructing what are called "truncated dams" across two points at what is now the centre of the reservoir. I do not know whether your Lordships have had an opportunity of looking at the model in the Royal Gallery, but there you will see that the Western end of the reservoir is divided into two arms by the village. If that were done, it would mean that the upper part of the area, which at present would be included in the reservoir, would not be flooded and would be protected by another dam.
That proposal would substantially reduce the yield from the Empingham reservoir. The Southern dam would reduce the yield to 38 million gallons; and if both arms were truncated the yield would be reduced to 34 million gallons, as against a yield from Empingham of 50 million gallons. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Molson is going to say about these two dams. On each of the truncated arms of the reservoir there would be a dam that has two faces, one upstream and the other downstream. I have never seen a dam of this sort. One of my noble friends says, "Neither have I". Certainly it would be a remarkable creature, and noble Lords who are concerned with the amenity aspect of the matter and with the general appearance of the countryside, when the work has been done may think that two or three dams would be a great deal more unsightly than one. But, of course, it would mean that an area at the upper part of the proposed
568
reservoir of about 1,500 acres would remain agricultural land for the present.
I am told that this proposal can be adopted only on a temporary basis and that later these truncated dams will have to be removed. In these circumstances, it seems to me that this scheme is not one which is likely to appeal very strongly to your Lordships. Indeed, it has almost every disadvantage, except that for a short time, but only for a short time, it retains the land in part of the area as agricultural land. It is not high grade agricultural land; I am told that it is graded III by the Ministry of Agriculture. I think that I ought to say that if it had been possible to avoid submerging agricultural land, these authorities would have been very ready to do it; but, in fact, there is no practical way of doing it, and the loss of this land is almost inevitable. This loss has to be measured and balanced against the loss of water. The Board would certainly have regarded with a very favourable eye any proposal that would have saved agricultural land from flooding. I am told that 13 members of the Board are farmers, or have to do with agricultural matters, and I think that your Lordships can be assured that that aspect of the case has been examined with careful consideration.
I do not think that there is anything further I need put to your Lordships. This is a major scheme. This reservoir will be a very large one, but no larger than the need calls for, because this is one of the areas where a large increase in population is taking place, and this means that the public services, including water services, must expand at the same time. This scheme has the good will of the Water Resources Board and other authorities. It has been selected as the only scheme which could be completed in time to serve this new neighbourhood as it grows up. I hope your Lordships will consider that this is a proper Bill to receive a Second Reading, to be sent upstairs and to be examined by a Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ilford.)
5.7 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think it might be of advantage to the House, when considering a controversial

569
Private Bill such as the Bill that we have before us this afternoon, it I were to set out some of the procedural considerations affecting the Bill. First of all, may I say something about the Parliamentary career of this Bill? It started in another place last Session and was considered by a Select Committee in that House in proceedings which lasted nine days. It then had a Third reading, and at the end of the Session was carried over.
It has now been through its preliminary stages in this House. The position here is that there are two Petitions against the Bill, which is therefore at this stage an Opposed Bill. The Petitions have been deposited by the Peterborough Corporation and jointly by the Rutland County Council and the Oakham Rural District Council. Unless they are withdrawn, the Bill will be referred in the usual way to a Select Committee of this House. The Select Committee will hear argument and evidence from the Promoters and the Petitioners to enable them to decide whether or not to recommend to the House that the Bill should proceed. If the Petitions against the Bill are withdrawn, and the Bill becomes unopposed, I will undertake to inform immediately any noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon in opposition to the Bill. This will give them an opportunity, if they so wish, to put down a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, with an appropriate Instruction. May I add that I myself will study carefully the speeches made by noble Lords in the course of the debate this afternoon in order to ascertain whether or not it is the wish of the House that this Bill, in the event of the Petitions being withdrawn, should be referred to a Select Committee.
I should like to end these. I hope, fairly brief remarks by emphasising that in giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill, the House does not, as in the case of a Public Bill, endorse the principle of the Bill. The normal practice in the present century is that the House contents itself with giving a formal Second Reading to a Private Bill. There are indeed few issues in Private Bills which the House can properly decide without the benefit of having heard parties and witnesses—that is to say, the Promoters, the Petitioners and any witnesses whom they may wish to call to give evidence on their behalf. It is therefore accepted prac-
570
tice by your Lordships to leave the consideration of opposed Private Bills to Select Committees set up for the purpose. For these procedural reasons, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for the explanation he has given to the House. I should like to ask him this question. Assuming that the Petitions are withdrawn and the Bill becomes an unopposed Bill, I understand that the House may still send it to a Select Committee for examination and report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. I have the power under our Standing Orders to refer a Bill to a Select Committee even if it is not an opposed Bill. But of course, 1 should not do so unless I was satisfied that this was the wish of the House.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, may I say that if, in fact, the situation should arise in which this Bill becomes an unopposed Bill, then it would be the wish of the Promoters that it should be referred to a Select Committee. We realise that this is a Bill (if I may say so) of major importance. It is the first of a number of Bills which will be promoted for the construction of reservoirs in this area. The Promoters recognise that, and they recognise also that in the circumstances it is probably right that if the Bill is an unopposed Bill it should, nevertheless, be referred to a Select Committee for examination and report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am afraid this is rather irregular. I would prefer, if the noble Lord will excuse me, not to ask again for the permission of the House to reply a second time, which I am afraid I failed to do the first time when the noble Lord asked me a question.
5.12 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it had not been my purpose to go into the details of this Bill, which can only with advantage be studied by a committee in detail. My noble friend Lord Ilford confirmed my wish to deal with this question on broad matters of principle, raising certain important matters of procedure, especially the new methods of procedure

571
introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, when he said (and he gave your Lordships a warning) that this is only the first of a number of Bills which will be introduced in order to authorise the creation of a large number of reservoirs. He said that this is a matter of major importance. I entirely agree, and in what I am going to say to your Lordships this afternoon I shall be referring not to the details of this particular reservoir, not to the provisions of this highly technical and complicated Bill, but, first of all, to the whole question of the supply of water of this country over the next thirty years, and then the procedure which should be followed in Parliament by those who wish to promote Bills of this kind. Only on Thursday next your Lordships will be asked to give approval to another Bill, submerging another part of the English countryside in order to provide water by means of reservoirs.
This Bill was introduced in another place, and it did not receive there any very cordial welcome. It was referred in the usual way to a Select Committee upstairs, who sat for no less than nine days studying it. They then did not merely refer it back to the House with their endorsement, but they presented a special Report, which I venture to read to your Lordships. They said:
"Your Committee have sat for nine days and have heard evidence adduced by the Promoters of the Bill and by the Petitioners against the Bill. Your Committee have passed the Bill, with Amendments, but consider it their duty to bring to the attention of the House their view that there is an urgent necessity to study alternative supplies of water. They therefore strongly recommend that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately."
It is not surprising, in view of this special Report of the Committee, that a number of honourable Members on both sides of the House took the unusual course of dividing the other place against the Third Reading of the Bill. It was carried only by a narrow majority of 75 to 65. The debate was of great interest. I know that I should be out of order if I actually quoted from the speeches, but at paragraph 331 of Hansard of July 1 it will be found that Mr. Hazell, the Labour Member for Norfolk, North, expressed the fear that not sufficient attention would be paid to the recommendation
572
for a full feasibility study being made of the Wash Barrage and he therefore recommended the House to divide against the Bill. He thought that if the Bill were thrown out a feasibility study would be undertaken, and he was fearful that if it were passed it would not be done.
I am entitled, I think, to quote from the subsequent speech of the then Minister for Planning and Land, when he said:
"A Wash Barrage is, in the Government's view, a most interesting idea." (col. 336).
When the spokesman for the Government dismissed a matter of this kind as "an interesting idea", there was clearly justification for Mr. Hazell when he feared that if the Bill were passed it would not be treated with sufficient seriousness by the Government and by all those who are concerned with the provision of water in large quantities.
I think this is an opportunity, after the Government have had all the time since July 1 to consider this matter, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in this House how the desk study of the Wash Barrage is progressing, and when it is likely to be published. I would ask him, in view of the time that has elapsed since the Report of the Committee of another place, to give an assurance that if the desk study is reasonably favourable to the project a full feasibility study will follow.
Reservoirs are not only immensely costly, but, in the view of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which I am the Chairman, and also of the National Farmers' Union, of which I am a member, the unending building of additional reservoirs for water, if not a wasting of good agricultural land, is at any rate a submergence of it. The Committee were told (and this was no doubt what my noble friend Lord Ilford had in mind) that eight more reservoirs are planned, and the Water Resources Board have said that by the year 2000 they consider that it will be necessary to double the whole of the resorvoir resources of this country. This is an appalling prospect. It is an appalling prospect from the point of view of those who are anxious to preserve the English countryside—and which of us is not?—and it must also be a serious problem for the Treasury when they consider what is going to be involved in this tremendous increase in the provision of water.

573
The Wash Barrage is not the only alternative method of providing water. I am not convinced that the Government have taken sufficiently seriously the possibilities of desalination in connection with the building of new atomic power stations. In order to generate electricity it is necessary to use cooling water. It is possible at the same time to produce pure and potable water. This is not a new, hairbrained scheme; it is already in operation in certain parts of the world where conditions are particularly favourable, such as Bahrein and, I think, Kuwait. Incidentally, it is pleasant to reflect that it is British inventors and engineers who are the successful builders of these plants.
There is at the present time a great gap between the cost of providing water from reservoirs and producing it by desalination. All experience, however, shows that with the gaining of additional experience and technical knowledge the cost of a process of that kind is brought down, particularly when it is done on a large scale. I hope that the Government will not be alarmed at the gap—which I admit at the present time is a serious one—and will look forward in the way that this technologically minded Government are surely disposed to do, to the time when desalination in this country may be as economic as the storage of water in costly reservoirs.
I want this evening to raise a matter which I hope I may have the opportunity of raising in a full debate later this Session—I refer to the purification of our northern rivers. It is a most extraordinary anomaly that the greater part of the water which is used in London, and which is of highly acceptable quality, is derived from the River Thames. The water of the Trent, and of most other rivers in the North, is so polluted that it is virtually of no value at all as a water supply. In the case of the Trent, most of the pollution comes from the little River Tame, which flows from Castle Bromwich. Rivers like the Dove and the Cherwell, which have very pure water, are useless for towns lower down the Trent because of the pollution which has been created by Castle Bromwich, and other industrial areas further up the river.
I saw a most extraordinary circular issued by the noble Lord's Department on December 4, 1968, on industrial
574
effluents. It is Circular No. 64/68. It is not a model of English—in fact, I have seldom seen worse official jargon. Its whole tendency is to reiterate the need for river authorities to be economic in borrowing money. Indeed, they are warned that they will not be granted authority to borrow money in order to carry out any purification of the water in their rivers unless such water is likely to be almost immediately available for use. In the case of the Thames there is less industrial development, and the record of the Thames Conservancy Board is a long and honourable one. At the present time they are trying the extraordinarily interesting experiment of recharging the aquifers in the Lambourn Valley. It is not as difficult to produce water of reasonable quality as it would be in the case of the industrial rivers of the North, but it will take time and money. I am quite confident, however, that if an efficiency cost study is carried out it will be found to be more economic to use nature's ordinary sources of water supply than to build a large number of artificial reservoirs. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would to-day deal with the point of this circular. It would be extremely encouraging if he would indicate that the Government are now prepared to favour efforts made by river authorities to purify the rivers of Britain. As I have said, I hope to have an opportunity of raising this matter more fully later in the year, and I hope the noble Lords who are interested, whether from the point of view of general social interest or of fishing, or whatever it may be, will take part in that debate. Surely there is nothing more shameful than that a majority of our English rivers in the North can no longer be inhabited by the fish that were there 100 years ago.
I do riot intend to take too long, but I should like to turn from alternative sources of water and raise a certain matter of considerable importance in respect of procedure. It is not unimportant because it is a matter of procedure. Down to the present time, an authority seeking powers such as are contained in this Bill had the alternative of proceeding either by Private Bill or by an Order under the Water Act 1963. In either case there was an inquiry, but the inquiry was narrowly limited to what

575
was contained in the Bill or in the Order. It was not competent for Petitioners against the Bill to say, "All right; we agree that water is needed, but you will do very much better to go elsewhere for it. There is a site we would recommend that would be very much better." That was not competent because it was outside the Rules of Order. That is the technical reason for it. The reason in equity was that a proposal that somebody else's land should be taken away could not be made unless full notice and opportunity had been given for anyone else to object.
Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Town and County Planning Act 1968, which came into operation only this spring, provide for a new procedure, the Planning Inquiry Commission. That procedure, I take it, was included in the Bill by the Minister of Housing and Local Government because he realised that there were cases where the inquiry was required to be of a very much wider scope than was possible under the existing legislation. It was intended only to apply to important matters, considerations of national or regional importance, which are relevant to the determination of that question, and which require evaluation. I need hardly argue that the building of the Empingham reservoir, which is going to submerge a large proportion of the county of Rutland, is certainly of provincial and regional importance. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ilford said that this was a matter of very great importance.
This new procedure, of which we have not yet had any experience under legislation, although it is very analogous to what has been done in the case of the third London Airport and the Roskill Inquiry, clearly raises an important matter for the future. I am advised that it would be quite reasonable to move the rejection of a Water Bill of this kind in future because a Planning Inquiry Commission had not been set up to go into the whole matter. We have been handicapped in dealing with one Bill after another because in each particular case it was possible for the Promoters to show that the Preamble, which did little more than say that water was required, had been proved; and we were precluded
576
from saying that some other place was less objectionable.
This new procedure, which, as I say, although passed last year came into operation only this spring, should surely be the planning procedure adopted in the case of Water Bills in the future. It has of course been possible in the past for an authority to promote a Bill without going through the normal planning procedure; and that had the great advantage of obtaining for them, when they got their Bill, deemed planning permission under Class 13 (I think it was) of the General Development Order 1952. It is wrong that in a matter of this kind, when we are doing all we can to encourage planning authorities to take a broad and enlightened view of their planning responsibilities, Promoters of Bills should evade the normal procedure by coming direct to Parliament. They have not always done so. In the case of the River Mersey Act 1964 they went through the whole procedure; and in another matter which is perhaps more readily in the recollection of your Lordships, the Brighton Marina project, exactly the same thing was done, I think with great propriety, by the Promoters. There was a planning inquiry, and the Minister had given his consent on planning grounds several years before the Promoters came to this House.
My Lords, I make no apology for referring to these matters. We have had warning. We have had warning from my noble friend Lord Ilford; we have had warning from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and we have had warning from the Water Resources Board that, as things are at the present time, it is intended that this should be only one of a large number of Bills authorising the submerging of the English countryside in order to provide water in this way. For the future I maintain that we must avail ourselves of the new procedure, in order that the whole matter may be properly probed. I am taking this opportunity of giving notice that we shall try out this new procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and will argue that it is appropriate for use in the case of these large reservoirs. What is even more fundamental is that we feel that there are other ways of providing the water that is required; and that we have gone on too long having one local Bill after

577
another, and that there is not yet a real national plan for dealing with the requirements of the future. If any of my noble friends decide to divide against this Bill I shall certainly follow them into the Lobby, and I hope that the small majority of 10–75 to 65—by which this Bill was carried in another place may vanish when it comes before your Lordships.
5.35 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this part of the world used to be largely my own constituency. It included Corby; it went to the boundaries of Peterborough, Wellingborough and Northampton; and I know well how sore the need for water there is. Hilaire Belloc came from Sussex, but he made the mistake of his life when he said that the Midlands were "sodden and unkind". They are to my knowledge not unkind and they are certainly not sodden. There is something in the geological formation there that prevents the water from accumulating sufficiently, and the need really is an urgent one on a large scale.
I am not going into the very interesting speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Molson. There were moments when he reminded me of the garage that kept up constantly a notice which said "Free petrol tomorrow". However that may be, the question we have to consider at the moment is whether or not this particular Bill goes to a Committee of the House. I was rather disappointed to hear him say at the end of his speech what I had not quite understood from the beginning of it, that he would vote against that proposition if there was a Division on it. I entreat your Lordships not to oppose sending this Bill to a Committee. If ever there was a Bill that ought to go to a Committee in order to be considered far more fully than this House is in a position to do, and with evidence of a kind that we cannot have here and one cannot always have even in a law court—evidence of water experts among others—this is that Bill. I have never seen a clearer case. I read through all the literature, and have deliberately kept it behind me lest I might be tempted to say something about it. Private Bills are not thrilling, and this is no exception. To read it more than once argues, I hope your
578
Lordships will allow me to say, a certain devotion to the subject.
I am quite certain that for the people who are living in that part of the country this Bill ought to be carefully examined. I say no more than that; but it really needs to be examined carefully. One has to remember on procedural points that, after all, it has had a fairly full examination in another House and they have come to a decision on it. I make no comment beyond that, except to say that it shows that a full examination is proper for this particular Bill. One gets up and speaks about such things as the Wash Barrage, the possibilities of desalination and so on. All I am thinking about at this moment (and I hope your Lordships will take this from me) is the people who live in this part of the world who really suffer from a shortage of water. The ways they suffer and the extent to which they suffer will differ in different cases. It is a part of the world which has, among other things, very considerable industrial possibilities. Industry, of course, is a very large user of water indeed. I should think that Stewarts and Lloyds are about the largest users in this part of the world. In the long run, we are an industrial country and we must have water, we must have an increasing amount of water, and we must have it all over the country. That problem is one for the Water Resources Development Board in the long run; and, so far as this Bill is concerned, one for the Committee to which I earnestly hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to proceed. It would be a very great pity if it did not go and receive full examination there.
5.40 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is sufficiently well known to your Lordships for you to have realised that he was not Lord Woolley, but so that there may be no confusion, perhaps I may make it clear that this happens to be Lord Woolley who is speaking now.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment to make a very humble apology to the House? I did not know that there was a list of speakers. I have never seen it. There was not one when I was outside and I apologise to noble Lords who were on the list and to the House as a

579
whole fur "chipping in" in that unforgiveable way. It was only due to ignorance.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, I am sure that we accept the noble Lord's apology. I am opposed to this Bill for several reasons. First, because it proposes to drown an area of good farm land almost as big as Lake Windermere- -indeed, I think the total area of land that would be sterilised would probably be considerably greater than the area of Lake Windermere. First, I should like to say a few words about the farming aspect. Mr. Roland Murray of Oakham, who is a Fellow of the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute, and who is reputed to have acquired a unique knowledge of the land and the farming in this area over the past thirty years, prepared a very full report for the Select Committee in the other place, which so far as I know has not been challenged in any particular. In the time available I can do no more than try to give a brief résumé of that report.
The production pattern is arable crops and fat cattle and sheep. On the free draining friable red loam in the eastern part, the crops are barley, including a high quality malting barley, sugar beet under contract, and seeds hay for the winter feeding of cattle and sheep. On this free draining soil the lambs can be winter fattened on the arable ground, producing high quality mutton in the scarce period between January and March, and at that period there is a large influx of buyers from the Midlands. Beef, too, is winter produced and comes to the market at a time when it is most needed. Further West the land is a heavier loam, and wheat and feeding barley with grass are the main crops. This area integrates admirably with the eastern area which draws cattle and sheep from it for its winter feeding requirements.
I will not detain your Lordships by going into all the detail of Mr. Murray's report, but I would draw attention to his figures of crop yields, which show that for wheat and barley this area produces yields approximately 25 per cent. above the national average, For sugar beet the figure is 16 tons an acre, which is about the same as the national average, and crops of seeds hay of about 35 cwts. per acre, for which no national average figure is available but which I think many of
580
your Lordships with farming experience and knowledge would regard as a satisfactory yield.
I think those of your Lordships who know this area will agree that the report from which I have just quoted confirms the impression that an inspection of the area makes on the mind of a farmer. At least this is the sort of impression that I got from going over this area, and certainly Mr. Murray's report brings out quite clearly that if this area of good land is drowned it will mean the loss of a valuable supply of bread grain, beef and lamb and sugar for the urban dwellers of the Midlands. Water is important, and I should like to make it quite clear that in my mind no question of antagonism arises. I am quite sure that we are all fully aware of the basic responsibility to provide an ample water supply, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has said. This is not in question. We are also, I hope, aware of the importance of ensuring that the good land of this country, which is a very small fraction and a very scarce commodity in this small island with its increasing population, is preserved, and so far as is humanly possible that these two basic human requirements go hand in hand and are not treated in such a way that one heedlessly destroys the other in order to obtain its particular objective.
My second objection to this Bill, my Lords, is that it would seriously and, in my view, unwarrantably, dislocate the lives of the people who live and work in that area. I am informed that while only a small number of farm houses and buildings would be inundated, over fifty farms would be injuriously affected as farming units, in varying degrees. Many of them would become completely unbalanced units with quite excessive capital sunk in fixed equipment and machinery and plant. In addition, Mr. Hazell, the President of the N.U.A.W. has stated that about twenty farm workers would have their livelihoods affected. As he points out, it is no light matter, even though it is only a small number of people, for them to find fresh employment, fresh homes, fresh schools for their children, and for them to be uprooted from the place where most of them have spent the whole of their lives.
There are many land use developments in which the loss of good land and hardship to good people cannot be avoided.

581
Constantly and remorselessly this erosion eats into our scarce resources of good fertile land, but I submit that that is all the more reason why we should look hard and critically at such proposals as these. I am sure there are many noble Lords who are much more expert on water conservation matters than I am, but I think it is obvious to anyone reading the various papers connected with this proposal that there is considerable doubt as to real need for a scheme of this size and as to whether this is the best site.
Noble Lords who have inspected the model in the Royal Gallery may well think that it looks a most peculiar reservoir. It is indeed a very fine model and obviously this is an extremely extravagant project in terms of land area to water capacity. It is remote, both from its source of supply and from the majority of its potential customers. The rate of population growth and the amount of water they will consume appears to have been calculated at the top point of the possible variables and no thought is apparent as regards the possible changes in population growth trends that are beginning to appear.
Above all, my Lords, this scheme represents a bland continuation of antique water conservation methods that I submit cannot be justified in this day and age. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has already informed us, a Select Committee in the other place made the strong recommendation that a feasibility study of the Wash Barrage be undertaken immediately, and the then Minister for Planning and Land said that this must await the outcome of a desk study which he expected to be completed by the end of the year. We are now 4½ months nearer to the end of the year, and I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in being interested to hear fom the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary as to the present position. I believe everyone, including the River Authority and the Water Board, and those of us who have to come to a conclusion about these applications, would be in a better position to come to conclusions when the prospect regarding the Wash Barrage is clarified, as to whether it is a likely or an unlikely development in the future. We would know better what we are talking about. And it would be helpful to know the Government's views regarding
582
the resources that the Water Resources Board might require to tackle desalination on a practical scale. I do not propose to go into that question; the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has already dealt with it very adequately, as indeed he has with the other outstanding question, the recharging of the underground strata which appear to have a great potential and of which we do not hear very much, though I understand this work is going on in the Thames Conservancy area.
There is a prevalent feeling, which I must admit I share, that we are shuffling along, one might say, in old soft shoes as regards water policy, drowning a few thousand acres here and a few thousand there, and on and on, with expressions of regret about inescapable necessity. Empingham is not only important as a project in itself; it is probably even more important as regards its significance for the future against the background of these projected eight or nine further reservoirs that will be needed. I believe that the time has come, and is indeed overdue, when we should put pressure on the Government to deal with water conservation policy as an urgent matter and within the context of modern technology. I believe that if we were to reject this Bill to-day we might well not only prevent a scheme going forward that is in itself unsatisfactory—and here I would make it clear that I am not casting any reflection upon the Welland and Nene River Authority; I think they have been charged with a very difficult task, to try to find an area in which this amount of water can be conserved; I think they have been virtually asked to do an impossible job within what I would consider to be inefficient technology—but one which may well prove, in the light of subsequent developments, to have been cast on lines that are too extravagant. Perhaps even more important, we may hope to invigorate the climate of thinking regarding new methods of water conservation that cannot be indefinitely ignored.
5.53 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I must begin, I am afraid, by declaring my interest, in that I am and have been for over twenty years connected with a statutory water undertaking in the West Country; but I would assure your Lordships that that interest does not lead

583
me invariably or unquestioningly to support any proposal that may emanate from or be recommended by another fellow water undertaking or recommended by an association such as the British Waterworks Association or the Water Companies Association, for both of which bodies have a very healthy respect.
I confess that when I saw this Bill, the original scheme seemed to me at first sight to be inordinately expensive in terms of actual estimated cost for what it set out to do, as well as being open to the serious objections to which my noble friend Lord Woolley has referred as regards the submersion of so large an area of good agricultural land—large, I mean, in relation to the increase in supply thereby achieved. No one can lightly accept a scheme which requires the taking away of 3,000 to 4,000 acres of good agricultural land in order to provide an additional supply of 50 million gallons a day. And such experience as I have alerts me to the danger of attempting to draw straight comparisons between one area and another in terms of the best way to secure a requisite supply that a particular area may need. But, having looked at this thing very carefully, I must admit that so far as I can judge, the idea of a storage reservoir which in fact in this case becomes a regulating reservoir for the rivers Welland and Nene, to harness for the purposes required the periodic surplus flows of those two rivers, is a very sound idea.
As regards the estimates of requirements of the area, again from my own experience in the South-West and some knowledge of what is happening else-where, I should not regard the estimates of population growth and increasing consumption per head, including industrial consumption, which have been given in relation to this Bill as being in any way extravagantly stated. And I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison said as to the very real need in existing and prospective circumstances for a substantial increase in the supply in this area.
As a result of the detailed examination in another place which has already been referred to—nine days in Committee—the Bill has come to your Lordships' House (or the two Bills, to be strictly accurate) materially altered from the
584
original proposition, in so far as the proposal now is to truncate one or both. but preferably both, of two arms, as my noble friend, Lord Ilford, has described, by the addition of two separate additional dams. This is clearly a reflection of the very understandable desire to avoid two things: first, the taking of more agricultural land than is really necessary, for the truncation of two arms will in fact save nearly half the total quantity of agricultural land taken—1,500 acres out of a total of 3,400; and secondly the spending of more money at this stage than is needed. It was to my mind very convincingly demonstrated in debate in another place that the cost of truncation is too high a price to pay; the cost, I mean, in terms of yield.
I realise that it would not be appropriate this afternoon to argue this matter in close detail on Second Reading, but perhaps I may be permitted to give a few of the salient figures which lead me to this conclusion. In twenty years' time the requirements will be, for the mid-Northampton area 57 million gallons a day, including Leicester, 4 million; in the South Lincolnshire Water Board area 14 million gallons a day—a total, that is. of rather over 70 million gallons a day. or an increase over the existing supply of some 46 million gallons a day. The yield of the truncated reservoirs falls short of that by about 25 per cent., and therefore, on the face it it, it must seem likely that the risk involved in terms of supply by the saving of these 1,500 acres of agricultural land is a risk which unfortunately is too great to be taken. The cost of the yield as reduced by truncation is estimated at roughly one-third more per thousand gallons than for the yield of the full scheme, and so I cannot see that the truncation proposal is justified.
Lastly, I would hesitate to dogmatise on the subject of economic desalination. I am. I need hardly say, wholly in favour of doing everything we can to encourage the research and effort that is being put into that subject; but, unfortunately, to be realistic, we cannot at this time count on economic desalination in this country within the period of twenty years. We certainly cannot count on effective aid in this context from the Wash Barrage scheme, in regard to which there may he. as my noble friend Lord Molson said,

585
every argument for pressing on with the inquiry. But within the time scale of the needs that this Bill is designed to meet, one cannot see that this is going to be any solution, and, with all respect to my noble friend, I think a subsequent statement by the then Minister for Planning and Land, Mr. Robinson—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would confirm this—made it very clear that that was his firm conclusion on the evidence he had.
For all these reasons, recognising the complications and difficulties of this proposal, I would most strongly support that this Bill be given a Second Reading and, so far as may be appropriate in the light of the statement by the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, that it be referred to a Select Committee for the detailed examination that I think it most certainly needs.
6.3 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before passing this Water Bill much more research should be made into the production of water for domestic and industrial use. There are three sources of supply: above ground, with the use of big reservoirs; below ground sources of supply; and thirdly, desalination. In the first, I include the Wash Barrage scheme; but the Wash scheme has the advantage that it will also bring into use much land for agriculture from the sea bed. We have been promised the desk investigation of the Wash scheme by the end of this year: then we have to get a detailed report that will most likely take a further two years, so it is not unreasonable to contemplate seven to ten years before any completion of a Wash scheme. Even so, I still think the Wash Barrage scheme is the most feasible. It is high time water supplies were considered on a national scale. It is no good relying on reservoir puddles: in drought they dry up; industry is brought to a standstill; domestically we go dirty: and good agricultural land is lost for food production. Economically every acre of land lost to agriculture increases our foreign adverse balance of payments by £50. This reservoir would cost us £200,000 per annum in loss of food.
Personally I am opposed to this Bill. though not all my Party is. They think that if they pass this Bill we might get a
586
Wash scheme. I call this unsound in principle. If a Bill is good, pass it; if not, throw it out. What. I would recommend is that the desalination part should be installed to replace the Empingham scheme, and then a national water committee to be set up to explore the Wash scheme and further desalination schemes. I should like that committee also to go very thoroughly into reclaiming the Wash for agricultural purposes, even if we do not use the Wash as a reservoir for South-Eastern England. The cost of desalination is bound to come down. Cheap power can be obtained from North Sea gas. If the water supply pipes go parallel to the gas pipes, the power for boosting the flow of water in the pipes can be applied very cheaply by pumping. The beauty of this country should be preserved. Moreover, for 4,000 acres of the best of the Cottesmore Hunt to be lost forever seems to me a tragedy.
6.7 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, when the noble Lord. the Chairman of Committees, intervened earlier in this debate on the procedural point, I understood him to say that if in fact the Petitions against the Bill were withdrawn the Bill could go, at his discretion, to a Committee. He did not say 'that it would go to Committee, and I should like to be perfectly clear on what I am dividing to-night. I am not, I think as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison said, dividing on the question of whether the Bill should go to a Committee; I am dividing straightly on the Second Reading of a Private Bill. I think that is the right interpretation of the situation.
On that procedural point again, it is, of course, an open secret that the Petitions are going to be withdrawn. That was stated in another place, and I do not doubt that it is true. Therefore I would ask—and I am shamefully ignorant of the procedures of your Lordships' House—whether a Committee of this House set up without Petitions is, in fact, as thoroughgoing a procedure as a Committee which is considering the Petitions in opposition to a Bill. I would ask whether such a Committee would review all the evidence given in another place and whether it has power to do so. I would also ask whether it has a duty to do so. Is it bound to consider all the

587
evidence, as I think that it should? I would also ask whether that Committee, if it were set up without Petitions being in existence, could in fact call for further evidence—whether, for example, it could call for a report on the desk study of the Wash Barrage scheme. Frankly, I think that unless such a Committee can do these things, we are deluding ourselves that it would provide any useful service to those who oppose this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred to the small Division in another place, and I also observed that. To me it said that the Government were not on very sure ground about this Bill. I know that it is too easily said that Governments do not interfere with Private Bill legislation; I happen to know, because I have reason to know, that that is not necessarily true, and it seemed to me that the very small figures of that Division (not just the small majority) were indicative of the fact that the Government were uneasy whether in fact the Bill should go through. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said it was notably a Division not on Party lines; it was also notably a Division which was not on the lines which sometimes appear on issues of this sort of town versus country. One often sees that. There were a number of Members of another place with strongly urban interests, who voted against the Bill. That again seemed to me to indicate that that House was by no means convinced that the Promoters of the Bill had made their case.
The Private Bill procedure in both Houses may be tedious; it is certainly tedious to those outside who take part in it. It is, however, more thorough than any other legislative proceeding of Parliament. I would say, therefore—and I say this in support of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley—that if we in this House observe that those in another place have seen fit in examining a Bill to make a Special Report upon it to their House, we should take very careful note of it. I have heard it said that this is the only time that such a Special Report has been made. I am not sure whether or not that is true, but it is certainly very rare and I should have thought it showed that the Committee were most reluctant in the circumstances to see the Bill passed.
588
Unfortunately, also, the Private Bill procedure is very expensive, and on those grounds alone we know—although it has not been stated in public—that the Petitioners to the Bill are unable to pursue their objections. In those circumstances, also, I think we should be much more careful about our attitude to the Bill.
I happen to know this part of the country very well. It would be a mistake to weary your Lordships with local patriotism, but the truth of the matter is that a piece of country less suited to building dams and reservoirs would be hard to imagine. That is proved by the open admission that the shallow nature of the reservoir will quite frequently leave as much as 1,000 acres, a third of the whole area, empty and exposed as a sea of mud. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said that it is a very peculiar reservoir; it is certainly a peculiar reservoir if a third of it is mud rather than water. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, seemed to imply—and I do not want to quarrel with him on this point—that the Bill has come to this House with the truncation propositions accepted. That is not so. Of course it is true that if those truncating dams were built the mud feature would disappear, but, as I understand it, they are not going to be built and no one is really proposing that they should be. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, showed a strange horror of a double-faced dam—I thought all dams were double-faced—but I am perfectly certain that the inhabitants of that part of Rutland would happily accept a double-faced dam as some amendment of the proposition.
There has been a lot of discussion about the eight further reservoirs. Members of another place were told—a little smoothly, I think—that they may never be required, or that they will not be required if schemes for the Wash Barrage, for desalination and for the replenishment of underground stores of water go forward. On that point I only want to say that there will be enormous benefits to the trade balance if we pursue desalination a great deal more fervently than we are at present, and if our opposition to this Bill happened to force a Government into seeing that progress was made more swiftly in that field, then we should be doing a most considerable national service. There is enormous money to be

589
made out of desalination, in which we are already leaders of development.
I am perfectly certain that this is all going to happen again in regard to these eight further reservoirs. Every time these propositions are brought forward we shall be told that there are unavoidable reasons why we should accept them in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that the Manton plan might never be used. I am perfectly certain that when Empingham is well in hand we shall then be told that Manton is inevitable. The noble Lord further said that if the truncating dams were put in position they would sooner or later have to be removed. If ever there was an admission by a Promoter of a Bill that the reservoir policy was going to go on and on, it was, with respect, contained in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and I find it a very dim outlook indeed. All this will happen because this Government and successive Governments will be too slow to tackle the problem on a sufficiently grand scale; and any noble Lord opposite is free to make the point that past Governments also ought to have been more forthcoming in this matter.
We are always faced with the comparative costs of this reservoir, of the Wash Barrage, of desalination and so forth, but, to my mind, such arguments are penny wise and pound foolish, in the sense that the capital value of our ever-decreasing stock of good farm land cannot really be assessed in terms of to-day's pounds, to-morrow's pounds or the pounds of the day after. When farm land has gone, it has gone completely and it can never be replaced. Therefore I feel strongly, for all the procedural arguments which have been put and for all the technical arguments in support of the Bill, which, after all, are very marginal, that your Lordships should oppose this Bill not simply on the short-term merits or demerits but as a sign to this Government and to all Governments that the water resources of this country have to be planned and provided on the grand scale that the size of the problem demands. We have been spared the detail of the arguments and we know that they are narrow enough. No one is going to go thirsty or unclean if this Bill is not passed. But if we do not pass it then alternative policies will be
590
pursued with better persistence, and I shall therefore vote against it.
6.18 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must begin by declaring a personal interest in this matter, because I am President of the Association of River Authorities. Therefore I have some knowledge and interest in the development of our water resources. Perhaps I should say that I also have interests in the farming world, as noble Lords who were present during the last debate, when I was developing the views of the National Farmers' Union about the Animals Bill, will recollect. Like many other noble Lords, I feel a conflict of interests, and indeed of feelings, when I come to look at the very difficult issues that we have before us in this Bill.
My noble friends who are opposing the Bill have advanced very powerful arguments, and I quite accept them. To take over 3,000 acres of farmland and change it into a huge reservoir is a gigantic change and is alarming, and I have great sympathy with the feelings of my noble friends who have expressed themselves on the matter. But, as has already been said, this is not a conflict between those who care about the farmland and about the amenity of our countryside; this is a conflict over the technicalities. The need for this water has already been established. I do not propose to go over the technical details, which my noble friend Lord Ilford developed and on which my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve touched in his very authoritative speech, and which another place, especially during the long Committee stage, found substantially proved.
I think it is germane to say a word about the composition of the Welland and Nene River Authority. No fewer than 13 of their 27 members are farmers, and I am sure they care very much indeed about the farmland in this area. Their dilemma must have been agonising. But it is fair to remind your Lordships—and especially I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Redmayne, who was a member of the Government at the time—that when Parliament put the 1963 Act on the Statute Book it was putting the responsibility on the shoulders of the river authorities—just such a responsibility as this. The river authorities have the responsibility to make a survey of

591
their area, to make a forecast of future demand and then to make plans to meet it—and that is just what this river authority have done. They have had all the difficulty, the agony, of trying to reconcile their interest in the locality with their need to fulfil what they understand to be their national duty, as laid upon them by Parliament here—and this is the scheme they have produced.
Perhaps I may say just a word about the alternatives that have been referred to, and about desalination in particular. Naturally, having some expert interest in the world of water resources I have followed very closely just what the prospects are. The most up-to-date report that we have is the report from the Water Resources Board which came out this year, based on an investigation by the Water Research Association following a three-year study. So it is a very exhaustive study; and whether or no people will regard the Water Resources Board as partisan, they will certainly not regard the Water Research Association as partisan. The results of this study, my Lords, are that, on average, the cost of fresh water from natural sources at the point of supply is something like 2s. per 1,000 gallons, occasionally rising to as much as 3s. In this particular scheme, which is in the nature of things an expensive scheme, the cost will rise to something of the order of 2s. 6d. or 2s. 9d. per 1,000 gallons. From desalination, for an all-the-year-round supply, including pipelines to the service reservoirs, the cost is about 6s. per 1,000 gallons. This, of course, is by the best process that we have in commercial use at present; that is to say, by distillation. In exceptionally favourable circumstances, which have been referred to in the course of the debate (there is a Middle East plant where, of course, evaporation is very high), the cost is as low as 4s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons, but normally in this country at the present time 6s. is about the average.
My Lords, I attended an international water supply conference in Vienna last month at which some 60 nations were represented, and a very interesting paper on desalination was presented. That paper summed up the progress which has been made in the world as a whole and, broadly speaking, it confirmed the results of this survey to which I have
592
just referred. The only bright spot on the horizon is the development of this alternative process, of which some noble Lords may have heard, called reverse-osmosis. This holds out the prospect of a cheaper process; but unfortunately it is very far from being fully developed for commercial purposes: it is barely out of the experimental stage. Small plants are being sold in America, but it certainly cannot he regarded as having been developed on a commercial scale.
When I was studying hydrological matters in California a couple of years ago I naturally asked them very closely about this. They have a project in hand there to build a vast nuclear power station outside Los Angeles, and to combine that with a by-product plant for distillation using the reverse-osmosis process. They hoped, and I emphasise the word "hoped") to get the cost down to 26 cents per 1,000 gallons. That would be 26 pence, and of course, this would be a very attractive figure. But, my Lords, in order to see the perspective of this, which means the timescale before this may happen, I should say that they were at the same time developing the biggest over-ground water scheme that I imagine has ever been conceived in the whole history of the world; that is, the Oroville Dam Scheme. It involved damming up the biggest reservoir which has ever been seen in the North of California and building an artificial river some 450 miles long—the distance from here to Edinburgh—from the North of California down to the South of California, about three times as big as the Thames, in order to provide themselves with natural water. So one might say that they were backing it both ways.
But the fact is that at present this new process is still some way off. I feel not much doubt that the engineers and scientists here and in America will perfect it, that it will then be put into commercial operation and that it will in due course become cheaper than natural water. The costs of getting natural water are bound to rise and the costs of getting fresh water by desalination will undoubtedly fall. But we are talking here, if we are realistic, of a time-scale of 10 years-plus, I should think, before we can hope to see large-scale commercial plants being built; and then I should hope to see them as a by-product of a nuclear power station.

593
The second alternative that we have talked about is the Wash Barrage. This, I believe, is a hopeful scheme, and I hope that when Lord Kennet joins in the debate he will be able to tell us that if the desk study which is to be completed by the end of this year is favourable the Government will be willing to authorise the feasibility study which we hope will come forth. But this again will inevitably be a fairly long time-scale affair, and again we cannot hope to see any fresh water coming from there in the 1970s; it will he the 1980s before we get it. But I hope that this scheme will go ahead and that in due course it will produce large quantities of fresh water.
I am sure that it will not help the debate to go over any of the logistics of this matter. The figures for the population increase and the increase in demand have, I think, already been established. The only point I should like to deal with is the procedural question that my noble friend Lord Redmayne asked, as to what would happen if the two Petitions now down were withdrawn. He said that it was common knowledge that they were both going to be withdrawn. I think his knowledge is probably incorrect. One of them, the Rutland Petition, probably will be withdrawn but I think it is quite likely that the Peterborough Petition will remain. Be that as it may, as I understand the procedural position—indeed, as we have been told it by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees; and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford has told us—if both Petitions were withdrawn the Promoters would willingly accept the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
The Lord Chairman has also told us that he would consider informing those noble Lords who have spoken against this Bill so that they could put down an Instruction to the Committee to give a certain examination to this Bill. It would then be up to my noble friends who wish to oppose the Bill and who have specific points that they want the Committee to look at to put them in
the terms of their Instruction. This would ensure that when the Bill went to the Committee, if there were no Petitioners, it would be very fully examined. But, my Lords, I suggest that here is a Bill of great complexity, one with enormous issues hanging on it. It is physically impossible for a Government
594
—this Government or any other Government—to get water from any other source for many years to come. It really would make a travesty of debate in this House if we voted this Bill down on Second Reading. The right thing for us to do is to send it to a Committee and to ask them to examine it on any points that we think are relevant.
6.30 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—especially when one is more or less in complete agreement with them. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, put forward a number of points which I had wished to raise but he put them with an eloquence and capability which, though I aspire to achieve, I fear I never shall. I shall not bore your Lordships with reiteration, but there are one or two points that I should like to re-emphasise. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has given us figures of the increasing water consumption per head of population and also the enormous growth rate of population within the area which the proposed reservoir will serve. I think that the growth rate of population must be a matter of conjecture at the moment. I understand that some of the New Town development schemes are now a little behind schedule. Nevertheless, I think we must accept that the future demand for water will be greater than the authorities can possibly meet under existing conditions. However, provided that alternative sources of supply for water can he provided in time—and I think they can—the provisions under this Bill are not the real answer.
If this Bill is passed, this reservoir will obviously be the first of eight or nine similarly constructed throughout South-East England, involving the loss of some 35,000 acres of good agricultural land. This must surely be wrong. We are already losing far too much land for widely differing purposes and we cannot afford to continue to do this. Like Mr. Hazell, I am concerned that if this Bill goes forward the Wash Barrage scheme will be shelved indefinitely. I have been looking at the report of the Wash Barrage Conference that I attended in which Mr. Teggin stated that something like 1,000 million or 1,300 million gallons of water flow into the sea daily from the Wash catchment area. This must be the water

595
that we must harness for our purposes. I understand that a question has been put to the Minister of Housing and Local Government by an honourable Member of the other place asking when he expects to receive a report from the Water Resources Board of the nature, extent, and cost of the feasibility study. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, also put a similar question to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
It was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that any benefit derived from the Wash Barrage will be too late to be of any use. This was also stated by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I understand that 15 years is about the minimum estimated time by this Water Resources Board that the feasibility study and subsequent construction would take. But assuming that it is a viable proposition, I am confident—although I appreciate the immensity of the task—in the skill and ingenuity of British engineers that they could complete it in rather less time than that. It is a tragedy that the preliminary studies were not commenced years ago. We should not now be contemplating swamping thousands of acres of good farming land. I would suggest humbly th0at even though the estimated cost is between £300 million and £400 million, we cannot afford not to press on with the Wash Barrage scheme; for, irrespective of all the attendant long-term advantages for the country, it would surely solve our water supply problem for a very large area for all time. For this reason, I hope that even if the Bill is given a Second Reading much further consideration will be given by the Select Committee.
6.35 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the first debate that I heard in this House on a Water Bill I listened to either from behind the Bar or seated in the Gallery. It was seven years ago when the late Lord Birkett rejected the arguments which we have had to-day from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and again from my noble friend Lord Nugent, that it is our duty to see that a Bill like this is sent to a Select Committee. Your Lordships went into the Lobbies and deleted the water clauses from a Bill which Manchester Corporation had submitted to
596
this House. That day was both a triumph and a tragedy, because it was the last time Lord Birkett spoke in this House, but I think that we all felt, after that debate, that we had justified hopes that it would be the start of entirely new national policies and thinking and of new procedures by water undertakers. That debate was followed quickly by the Jellicoe Committee. Then the Water Resources Act reached the Statute Book and we had the setting up of the Water Resources Board, which I think has proved a disappointment in more ways than one—not least because its writ does not run in Scotland where the bulk of unexploited water resources in the United Kingdom are to be found. We had new river authorities with additional duties of conservation.
Now, seven years later, in 1969, where are we? We are in exactly the same position as we were on the morning of that day before the late Lord Birkett urged your Lordships to reject those water clauses. We have spent seven years and have advanced not one step. We have the same succession of Private Bills coming before us. One must admit that they provide a good living for Parliamentary agents and the Parliamentary Bar; but beyond that it is an intolerable expense that we are perpetuating because objectors frequently cannot afford the costs of seeing that their representations are properly made before Select Committees. Where are the Orders that we expected to see under the special provisions inserted in the 1963 Act in order to simplify procedures? We do not see them—I believe because it is thought that the appropriate clauses are defective. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can confirm that when he speaks and perhaps he can tell us when the Government propose to introduce an amending Bill so that this whole procedure can be made simpler and cheaper. We hear the same old arguments to justify the flooding of good land as we heard then. I have not heard the word "urgency" so often; something to do with "time-scale" appears to have taken its place. But it is all designed to the same end. They are the same old arguments to justify flooding good land or to turn other lakes (generally in a National Park) into reservoirs with a summer rim of unattractive mud which appears inevitable.

597
To-day we are considering a Bill to flood the area round the village of Empingham. Other noble Lords have mentioned eight or nine other Bills which are likely to be introduced affecting South-East England. It may not be generally known, but before this month is out there will be yet another Bill introduced in Parliament to convert Bassenthwaite, one of the few lakes in the Lake District which has not yet been interfered with by man, into a reservoir. When are we going to stop this process? If the late Lord Birkett were here with us he would say "To-day!". I hope that your Lordships will agree with that feeling.
I am going to ask several pertinent questions. I do not wish to make a long speech. What I want to ask the Government is this. Can the noble Lord tell us what has been gained by delaying the Wash feasibility study?—unlike Morecambe Bay, where no desk study was, I think, undertaken as a first stage. Does the Wash desk study include also any work on the bunded reservoirs to be constructed near the shore? If so, what would he the capacity and what would he the construction time?—for this is one of the features of the Morecambe Bay study which promises perhaps more for the future than any other part of that study. I should like to hear whether those who are concerned with the Wash are working on the same lines.
My next question is: is any provision included in the present plan for the demands for water in the areas to be served by the Empingham scheme, or just over the boundary from it, should the third London airport come to be sited in that area, which I am told is a possibility—somewhere in the area between Northampton or Huntingdon? If it is not, where is the water for the new town which will grow up near such an airport to come from? Then on what grounds—I gave notice of this question to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford; I hope he will be able to give me an answer because I feel that this is a technical point—have the pits created by working brickearth and clay near Fletton, which is near Peterborough, been considered as a possible alternative to Empingham? As I said, I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, notice of this question. I can clearly remember that their use as
598
a water storage reservoir was considered as an alternative to the reservoir in Huntingdonshire, which was then called Diddington and I believe is now called Grafham, when it was constructed not so long ago. I think I am right in saying that it was turned down on the grounds of distance from the centres of consumption and because without actual extension of those pits the yield would have been barely sufficient for the then need. The urgency argument was no doubt brought into play then as it has been brought into play again this afternoon; but I should like to know what is the position regarding this very large and very unsightly series of pits to the south and the south-west of Peterborough.
Whether or not I vote against this Bill this evening will depend on the answers I may be given to those questions, which I think are very relevant. But even if the answers from the Government spokesman and from the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, convince me that at least I should abstain (I think that unlikely, but I should like to give them the benefit of the doubt) I would ask that the Third Reading of this Bill—if in fact the Bill is given a Second Reading this evening—should be deferred until after we have the report on the Wash desk study, which cannot be very many weeks ahead. Then we shall see the position much more clearly and there would be a delay of only a few weeks.
My Lords, the United Kingdom has immense resources of water, mainly, it must be admitted, in the West and the North. I should think that the greater part of the unexploited resources are to be found North of the Solway where, unfortunately, the writ of the Water Resources Board does not run, so in our debate here to-day, although several noble Lords have tried to widen it and to bring in general principles as well as the details of this scheme, we are in fact hindered from doing so as fully as we should like to do. The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, said—I think I quote him correctly—that the water resources in this country should be planned on a grand scale; and we all agree with that. That means, I should hope, more imaginative planning than just accepting the flooding of one valley after another while leaving too many of our rivers, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, subject

599
to serious chemical pollution and giving, it would seem, little thought to enonomy at the consumption end.
6.44 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY or HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, obviously the House will want to know the Government's attitude to this Bill. It is one of regretful favour. It appears necessary to the Government that there should be this very large reservoir—and the Government very much regret the fact that there has to be this very large reservoir—because, at the time when the water is needed, there is not going to be any other way of getting it which makes remote economic sense. Let me take one or two of the points which have been brought out in the debate and answer as best I can, remembering always that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has another opportunity to speak and to answer many of the questions which were raised which it would be more appropriate for him to answer when he winds up the debate.
My Lords, the figure of eight Bills in the pipe-line has often been quoted, and I have to confess that it is not clear to me what eight Bills, or what eight projects, are being bandied around. If it is not clear to me, it seems very likely that it is not clear to other noble Lords; and this in itself seems to me a sufficient reason for getting it into Committee. I am sure that the Committee will, within its own rules of procedure, go as far as it can in establishing the surrounding framework for this Empingham proposal, and look at other places which have been rejected by the Promoters to see why—I repeat, always within its rules. This seems to me a good reason for putting it into Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, read the special Report of the Commons Committee and raised the question of the Wash Barrage which has figured largely in the debate since his intervention.
The desk study on the Wash Barrage is nearing completion. The component parts of it—because it is not all being done in the same place—will be available to the Water Resources Board for assembly, if I may put it that way, into a coherent study and report at about the
600
turn of the year; and so far as I can make out the Water Resources Board hope to publish the study in the early summer. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who asked why there was not a desk study on the Morecambe affair as there has been on the Wash. In effect, the first part of the Morecambe study, I am informed, was a desk study. They did the paperwork first and then proceeded to the physical work.
I have been asked to give an assurance—in fact various different sorts of assurance—about what the Government will do about the full feasibility study on the Wash if the desk study recommends that it would be a good thing. The assurance I can give (I am afraid this will be the sort of assurance that all Governments always give) is that if the report concludes that a full feasibility study is a good thing; and if the Government are convinced by its reasons; and if the Government are convinced that the report has taken into account all the factors that it ought—I lay some emphasis on the last part—and if the Government are further convinced that there are no factors which the report was incapable of taking into account and which yet affect the matter, then the Government will proceed to the full feasibility study. But, obviously, we have to wait for the desk study before seeing what decision to take.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put the matter very fairly about the present economics of de-salting. He gave certain figures. What stood out from the report produced by the Water Research Association for the Water Resources Board was that it costs three times as much to de-salt water as to get it from a reservoir if you set out to de-salt it alone; and it costs twice as much if you couple it with the generation of electricity. I do not know what noble Lords would be willing to go into business on a factor of three times as much, or even on a factor of twice as much, but it seems to me that it would be unjustifiable for the Government to set a day now when one would go into business on that factor, or anything like that factor.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, who said, "Throw out this Bill now on Second Reading"; to take that almost unparalleled step in order to force the Government to take research and de-salting seriously. I assure the

601
noble Lord that it is not necessary to force the Government to do that. We are taking it very seriously indeed on the research side. We know all too well how it can be done and what it will cost to do it. I fully take the point that once you get into production prices come down and that one may budget and allow for it; but I think that it would be an irresponsible Government who were prepared to go into production on a process which cost three times as much as the other way of doing it at the present moment in our industrial recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said how much better it was to use nature's sources of water, and it is for this very reason that the Government are pursuing—or rather, the Government have caused to be pursued—research into the possibility of using underground water supplies in the Thames and the Great Ouse basins. That study is going hard and the Wash desk study is going hard. I mention both those studies together in order to assure the House that the horizon is not black as regards an eternity of reservoirs in this part of England for the whole of the rest of time, though we must have this one. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked about procedures and complained about these Private Bills—
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with my point about the purifying of the rivers of the North. The Welland is very much polluted at the present time, and I should be glad of an assurance that the circular of December 4, 1968, is not going to inhibit river authorities from purifying their rivers.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that shortly by saying that it does not apply to local authorities. The circular was giving advice to sewage treatment authorities and to industry on what they could do.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I intervene to tell the noble Lord (I am afraid that it will not be helpful to him) that this circular was sent to river authorities, guiding them in setting the standards they would require for the effluents being discharged into their rivers, and that the river authorities were very concerned with its terms.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should have felt rather humiliated if the Minister's reply had been fully justified. But paragraph 2 of the circular begins:
"The Minister commends the Memorandum to the study of river authorities, sewage disposal authorities and their technical officers …".
and paragraph 3 begins:
"River authorities will be aware from Circular"—
and so on. It is strange, when a circular refers to the river authorities, that it was not intended for them.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, both noble Lords are perfectly correct in picking me up. I should have said that it does not apply to river authorities' own expenditure but to standards that river authorities may or may not be expected to impose upon other authorities who are spending money. That circular is a reflection of the economic condition of the nation at the time it was sent out.
The House will be well aware that the whole matter of environmental pollution—and the pollution of rivers is very much part of this—is at the moment the subject of intense study, both inside and outside the Government; that the new Secretary of State for Regional Planning and Local Government, Mr. Crosland, has had a specific remit from the Prime Minister to concern himself and make recommendations for the protection of environment, which of course includes pollution; that he will shortly be doing so, and that, to put not too fine a point on it, I should say no more at the moment.
If the noble Lord, Lord Molson, wishes to proceed with the suggestion for a debate on this matter during this Session of Parliament, I should be entirely with him. I should welcome such a general debate, but I think that perhaps the question of river pollution is a little outside the question of whether or not we should give a Second Reading to this Reservoir Bill and, if he would agree, I should like to leave it to the time of the general debate.
On the question of planning procedures, it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, that a Private Bill is not the most satisfactory method of promoting measures of this sort. It is not an ideal planning implement but it is a long

603
standing one, and as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, correctly reminded the House, there is a defect in the Water Resources Act 1963. The river authorities have been advised (and the Government, in so far as it is proper for them to have a view, concurs in this advice) that an order cannot protect them against possible action by riparian owners downstream to prevent them discharging waters from a reservoir into the stream; a Bill can. An Order cannot take common land; a Bill can. An Order cannot provide a faculty to flood a church, as is sadly the case at Normanton; a Bill can. That is why the Promoters have turned to a Bill in this case. The Government have already said that they hope to take an early opportunity to correct this defect and have under continuous study the appropriateness of the Private Bill as a means of achieving these ends throughout the country in the future. On the particular question of the Planning Inquiry Commission, we could not have a planning inquiry into a Bill. That was not the noble Lord's point I know.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it can only apply in the case where either the Minister has called it in from a local planning authority or where a decision from an appeal is made to him. Therefore, the way in which the Minister could meet my point is to call in any planning application of that kind.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, generally speaking, a Bill gives planning permission to do whatever might have to be done. But a marriage between a Planning Inquiry Commission and a Bill is virtually impossible. Between a Planning Inquiry Commission and a Water Order, it is difficult but not entirely impossible, but of course at the moment we are not discussing a Water Order.
I think I have covered most of the points worrying noble Lords and should come to my conclusion, which is to remind the House that if it votes against the Second Reading of this Bill, it will be voting not against a measure which it has considered and does not like, but against the opportunity of considering the measure to see whether it does like it or not. I was very much impressed by the detailed questions of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He asked
604
whether the third London Airport study had been reflected in this reservoir proposal. I would say: Let us send it to the Committee and find out. He asked whether the Fletton brickpits had been considered in relation to the proposal. I would say: Let us send it to the Committee and find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, asked procedural questions about what the committee would or would not be free to do. I understand that he is receiving, or will shortly be receiving, advice from the Clerks of the formalities of that. I do not know whether my noble friend the Chairman of Committees intends to speak again. Broadly speaking, for the information of the House, the Committee can do the same without Petitions as it can do with Petitions, but we have been assured by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that it is unlikely that one at least of the Petitions will be withdrawn.
I would put it to the House in these terms. Those who divide the House and vote against this Bill will be voting out a proposal which takes a great deal of farm land and is bad for amenity and farming but on which, on the other hand, the development of the East Midlands depends during the next 15 years. The Government know of no better way of doing it. Whereas, if the House allows the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope it will and as the House has always done on every occasion in the last seven years on such Bills, then they will be able to study the report of our Committee and, as it always does, our Committee will look into those points which it knows have been troubling the House, because they have the Record before them. Therefore, I urgently invite the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether one of the difficulties of a Select Committee inquiry into an unopposed Bill is that there are no funds available to the Select Committee out of which to pay fees to expert witnesses whom it might wish to call before it?
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I put a second point to the noble Lord? Can I be assured that if Petitioners are forced to withdraw their Petitions through shortage of public funds, the Committee can be empowered to look properly into

605
the points which those Petitioners raised in another place?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, the House has been extremely indulgent and given me leave to speak three times already. I apologise for having to ask permission to speak a fourth time, but this is an important question addressed to me. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, that if an Instruction is given to the Committee to consider the points that were raised in either or both of the Petitions, the Committee would be obliged to do so and the Chairman of the Committee could call any witnesses whom he wished to call in order to give evidence on the matters referred to the Committee by the House, who had not been already called by the Promoters.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question for clarification? We have just been urged to give this Bill a Second Reading, and we were given various reasons why. But we were not told that we were possibly depriving those people who livelihood is being taken away from them, and whose property is being submerged, of the chance of representing their case fairly before the Committee—because everybody knows the immense cost of petitioning and making recommendations to such a Committee. Can the noble Earl assure us that no citizen of this Kingdom will be at financial disadvantage?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is correct in saying that no Committee of this House is able to cover the cost of, for instance, a barrister whom a witness might wish to employ. But the Committee is able to call anyone. No doubt noble Lords will remember cases in which witnesses have been called—for instance, Lord Holford was called to speak against the Brighton Marina Bill. Witnesses of that kind could be called by any Select Committee appointed.
7.1 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, as I live on the Leicester-Rutland border it may be thought that I have some interest to declare. My only connection is that a corner of one of my fields comprising four acres lies in Rutland; other than that, I
606
have no interest at all. But, living where I do, I know that this Bill is wildly unpopular locally. It is therefore with some regret that I rise to say a few words in support of the Bill. The reasons for my regret are not only my regard for local knowledge (not that I think it is a particularly bad Bill), but also because I am in sympathy with the farmers who are about to lose their land, and who will have to make a fresh start in order to continue to earn their living in the way in which they have been brought up to earn it, and in an industry in which they have spent their lives. In these days it is extremely difficult to make a fresh start in agriculture. So I would ask for an assurance that the compensation which the farmers will receive will be adequate; and I trust that this compensation will not be based on some academic calculation of x years' rent given for so many acres lost. The psychological, human and practical problems go very much deeper than that, and they should be taken fully into account.
I support the Bill, my Lords, because I do not believe that there is any alternative. A competent and industrious Select Committee sat for nine days and reached this conclusion, and after studying the matter as closely as I am able I am convinced that their finding is correct. However, I would say that I am strongly in favour of its being re-examined by a Select Committee, although I have no reason to suppose that the Committee's findings will be any different. The necessity for this Bill, in my view, stems from faulty planning at an earlier stage. A decision has been taken to build an industrial belt diagonally across the middle of England. Very large towns are being developed from Buckinghamshire to Daventry, via Northampton, Welling-borough, Kettering and Corby to Peter-borough—indeed, it will not be long before these towns become contiguous. The planners obviously considered that this decision was a wise one, but I can find no reason why this expansion was in one area. Would it not have been better to separate this development, and to bring some of it to localities where development is more important and necessary? This area includes some o fthe best agricultural land in the country, and the fact that it happens to be an area with a comparatively low rainfall seems to have been

607
overlooked. Water is more readily obtainable where the annual rainfall is high, and these districts are not normally the best agricultural land; they are the areas best suited to, and in most need of, industrial development.
If urban development on this scale is to take place—which assuredly it is—water has to come from somewhere; and in this case it is from Empingham. Although most of us would admit that both water and aerodromes are necessary, no one ever wants reservoirs or aerodromes close at home. But they must go somewhere. If one happens to live where either is to be constructed, it is sheer misfortune, and the only hope is that generous compensation will be provided. The need for water and other services must have been given consideration by the planners, even if it was not so readily apparent or acceptable to the farmers of Empingham, with whom I have every sympathy. But the grumbles of the farmers would, in my opinion, be more rightly directed towards the planners rather than towards the Promoters of this Bill: and so would the grumbles of those in the more depressed areas where any expansion would have been welcome.
There is a great deal of talk, locally and elsewhere, about the loss of amenity which this proposed reservoir would create. In my view, reservoirs are not unsightly, and if used properly can give a great deal to many people. Provided that they are not turned into funfairs or amusement parks, which will not be done in this case, they do much to enhance the beauty of the countryside. Quite close to Empingham lies the Eye Brook Reservoir. I well remember this land before the reservoir was constructed. It is now, in my opinion, infinitely more beautiful than it was previously, and the reservoir provides magnificent sport for many anglers and much interest to many bird watchers. Nor do I believe that it is in any way resented now by the local inhabitants. It is probable that in due course the same may be said of Empingham.
Much has already been said about the Wash Barrage and the desalination of sea water. I can only hope that further investigation will he pressed on with all speed in both of these directions. It is clear that this particular scheme is not going to he the last. In my view, the only
608
hope for the future, if the whole country is not to become flooded, lies in schemes like the Wash Barrage and the desalination of sea water. In my view, the promoters of the Bill have done everything possible to meet the obligation which this scheme imposes on them. There is a need for this additional water, and there is no other suitable source of supply. Moreover, if the development of these towns is to continue, time is short.
7.10 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, I share Lord Allerton's utmost sympathy in the wound which these proposals will inflict on Rutland. I also appreciate the significance of the farming land which is going to be submerged and the local disruption which is being caused. Unfortunately, on the evidence, which has been taken in the greatest detail, a reservoir at this moment in time seems an absolutely unavoidable necessity in that area. I feel, from what has been said to-day, that it would now be least damaging to Rutland that this Bill should go through all its stages with its major provisions intact, for only Empingham, as now proposed, is entirely satisfactory. All the figures are on the record, and most have been agreed. The noble Lords who have already spoken have reminded us of those which are pertinent.
To my mind the nub of the whole argument is contained in the agreed deficit in this area in 1986 of 35 million gallons of water per day. For want of alternatives before this date, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord. Lord Molson, land storage at this moment is indicated; and that, on technical evidence from both sides, suggests either Manton or Empingham. It was, I think, conceded that a reservoir is required in the area by 1975, that being the date when the local deficiency first becomes material. With 35 million gallons per day deficiency in 1986, rising on figures which have already been agreed to 48 million in 1991 and steeply thereafter, a modified Empingham is out of the question. Even the life of Manton, with a yield of 40 million gallons per day, would be too short to he economic. We are therefore thrown hack on the whole project as it is proposed to-day.

609
My Lords, if further proof is required, we have had such to-day. On the wireless there was a proposal about the new town at Milton Keynes. This, admittedly, is not in the area which we are discussing, yet it could well affect the figures already given. In a matter of national importance, where figures are shuffled around like cards, we learn that Milton Keynes will draw 5 million gallons per day from the Great Ouse. That could well involve the Mid-Northants Water Board itself. It is drawing 16 million gallons of water per day from that Great Ouse basin, and 4 million gallons of these are tentative. If this deficiency were to be passed back to Empingham, the 1986 deficiency would be 40 million instead of 35 million gallons per day. The inference is obvious. However sympathetic we may feel to the case against this Bill, we cannot let that cloud our judgment to-day.
7.14 p.m.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like very briefly to add my voice to those who are unhappy about this Bill. I will only talk about leading impressions and not technical details. I must say first that I am involved in agriculture and declare my interest there. I also feel inclined to declare another interest, and that is the interest of being a form filler. The Water Resources Act has inevitably led to plenty of this particular activity, and in that connection I have always felt that form filling is not conducive to the dignity of man if it does not produce constructive results. I am not entirely happy that our efforts so far are producing results which are as constructive as they should be. That is one of the reasons why we are unhappy at being confronted with this particular situation to-day.
I still tend to ask the question: are the Water Resources Board really being allowed sufficient latitude—probably financial latitude—to produce the result they wish? We have seen the straws in the wind to-day. They wanted a Wash feasibility study, and they said so, I think, in 1964. They received permission for the desk study, but it was belated. It is this consistent tendency of holding back that gives cause for concern. I think the narrow votes in another place were brought about partly by the somewhat unsatisfactory Ministerial replies—al-
610
though they have been improving—that have been forthcoming. What people want is a particular assurance that Empingham will not be used as an excuse for further postponement of such things as the Wash Barrage.
Obviously, that is not the only thing with which we have to deal. This is a complex matter; there are many lines of research which must be indulged in. One is worried at the lack of progress. How near we are now to the completion of the desk study has already been mentioned. My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked what chances there were of delaying the Third Reading of this Bill until after the production of the desk study, the idea being, I think—as I am sure many of us do—that if it were known that a feasibility study was going to be carried out, it would soften the blow of Empingham. I do not know how long it is thought it would take from the time the desk study is produced to conclude whether to go ahead with the feasibility study, and whether the decision on the one rests directly upon the result of the desk study alone, or whether there are many other considerations. In this connection I should like to put another question. Is it appropriate to commence the full scale Wash study until the results of the underground water pilot scheme in Lambourn and in Norfolk are known? I do not know whether it is intended to delay a feasibility study, supposing for other reasons that it is worth doing, because of factors of this kind.
I am quite sure that if a delay could be made, and the Third Reading were delayed shortly so that we really knew more of what was happening over the Wash proposals, more content would be noticed. I have strong sympathy with the Promoters of this Bill: they are in the position of being pawns in this unfortunate game, involving great problems, many acres of land, many reservoirs, and so forth. Nevertheless, I remain extremely dubious whether we should not throw it out, however much I see the difficulties and regret the situation that we are in.
7.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to detain the House for only a very short time, but perhaps as I come from Rutland your Lordships may grant me the indulgence of a few

611
minutes. I must declare an interest in that some of my land is affected, but I do not mind that particularly because, of course, compensation will be paid. It is really only the loss of the amenity which one minds. But that is not my objection to the Bill. My objection to the Bill is that it will dispossess a large number of comparatively small farmers, and they have no course open to them other than to accept compensation, which is not sufficient. The other point I want to put is a technical one. The present water consumption per head per day is 50 gallons. It is estimated that by 1981 it will be 77 gallons per day, which is about double the figure for Western Europe. That means that we must be a very clean nation—although to judge by some of the people one sees walking about the streets one begs leave to doubt it. These figures have been put in the hearing before another place, and the Committee were satisfied that there was still a need for this reservoir.
I feel that the greatest difficulty facing us is that a Select Committee of this House will not get the full facts, because the objectors will not be able to afford to appear before them. They have already spent £20,000 in appearing before the Committee in another place, and no more money is left in the kitty. This money has been subscribed by the people who are going to be affected and by other sources, and there is no way in which these people can appear before the Committee except at their own expense. It is well known—and your Lordships with experience of these matters must know—that there is little point in their Lordships who sit on the Committee hearing amateurs giving their objections to the scheme. Objections need to be presented by a barrister, by professionals, in the proper way. That is why some of us feel that the time has come to say "Stop" to these schemes until the matter has been properly investigated.
The present situation is not necessarily the fault of the present Government; it goes back for many years. The fact that water shortage was bound to occur has been disregarded by successive Governments and as a result we now find ourselves in this position. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who is perhaps the greatest expert on these matters,
612
has said that desalination is getting cheaper. There is the direct contact, the osmosis, method: and probably in 10 years that will be just as cheap as providing reservoirs like this, which is going to cost £30 million, and there are going to be eight more. If you multiply the figures you soon have the cost of the Wash Barrage. All these matters ought to be gone into by your Lordships' House but, because of the difficulties I have mentioned, I cannot feel satisfied that they will be so investigated under the Select Committee procedure. Therefore I am obliged to support noble Lords who want to go into the Lobby against this Bill.
7.23 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit one further small intervention because I share all the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton on this subject. I do not believe that river pollution is really outside the scope of this debate; in fact, I sincerely think that it is at the centre of it. We started off with the question of the industrial use of water. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, mentioned in some detail that industry is going to be a very large user of water—I think those were his exact words. I call in question this bland assumption that industry can go on being the principal abstractor of water, the principal user of water, and can go on, as it were, "ad libbing" continuously on the supplies of this country. In my view, the attitude that they should be permitted to do so is an entirely false one to adopt. I feel that legislation should be introduced compelling the industrial user to re-circulate and purify water. This is where I come in such close companionship with my noble friend Lord Molson, because this is the very centre of this debate: the use of clean water by industrial users and its re-use; the cleansing of our rivers and simultaneously the beautifying of a great natural resource.
I also have the very greatest sympathy with all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on the subject of farm-workers becoming redundant. I hope that no reservoir will be constructed if it means that one man will be put out of a job and made either permanently redundant or semi-permanently redundant; deprived of his home and livelihood and land. I

613
have the greatest anxiety that the Promoters of this Bill are not fully seized of the necessity, as I see it, of finding an alternative source of water by means of re-circulation. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is one of the unique experts in the fields both of local government and of administration as a whole; and I await his replies to the various questions that have been raised. especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, before I make a final decision as to which way I vote in this debate.
7.26 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and I hope an instructive debate. It seemed to me at times that it wandered a little far from reality, but no doubt it was none the worse for that. Most speakers have referred to the possibilities of the Wash; de-salinated water being derived from the Wash, and of course to Wash water being stored and used for distribution and supply. I do not propose to say very much about those two subjects because my noble friend Lord Nugent has dealt adequately with the whole topic of de-salination and the barrage as a cure for our water complaints. I would say just this about it. The Wash Barrage is not something that can be brought into operation to-morrow. It would be ten years if the works were to start it might be 15 years before the barrage was available to give water.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will yield for one second. To the best of the knowledge now obtainable to the Government, if things on the Wash Barrage go as favourably as they could imaginably go from now on, we could not get water, even under the quickest possible scheme, inside 12 years and perhaps 14 or 15 would be more likely.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that includes bunded reservoirs?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is being infinitely forbearing to tolerate this dialogue in the middle of his speech, but the desk study is looking at—I think the noble Lord will be content with this—every possible way of slicing the Wash.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the conception that Wash water was going to supply our needs was reflected in the speech of almost every speaker this afternoon. Almost every speaker has said, "Well, there is the Wash in the background. What is the good of having this reservoir here now?" The Wash is not going to provide—and this is the only point I desire to make about it—water which would take the place of water which would be supplied from this reservoir. We should have to wait much longer than that. It really is not right to oppose this Bill on the assumption that Wash water will be available in any appreciable time. In the light of what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has said, that is all I need say about the part that the Wash has played in this debate.
My noble friend Lord Molson made an instructed and most attractive speech, as he always does. He dealt with the question of procedure in these Water Bills and Water Orders. I must say that I go a long way with my noble friend. I think that before long we shall have to consider whether the procedure that we have adopted for dealing with Water Bills and Water Orders is really giving satisfactory results. It is very slow. There have been cases quite recently where four, five and six years have elapsed between the time when the water undertaking made up its mind to go for additional supplies and the time when the necessary proceedings were completed. At times it surprises me that anybody ever gets any water at all. I agree with my noble friend that we ought to look carefully at the procedure for dealing with these Bills and Orders to see whether we cannot do something which will safeguard everybody's rights, because naturally proposals of this sort infringe people's rights. We must look at it to see whether we can devise a procedure which, while safeguarding the rights of the parties concerned, will at least be a little shorter than the procedure we follow at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, made a short, but I thought a valuable speech. He drew attention to the social aspects of this matter and for a moment dwelt upon the needs of the urban population which he once knew well in this part of the country. I was grateful for that, because these questions of water supplies

615
are very much bound up with questions of social needs and requirements. The higher standards of amenity which are being introduced into dwelling-houses, the growth and use of piped water in the place of the old wells, the increased use of water-borne sewage—all these things are contributing immensely to the welfare of the population. If this Bill is not passed, it will mean that those benefits will not be brought so quickly to the population which needs them as they will if the Bill becomes law. I am quite sure that this is an aspect of the question which we ought not to lose sight of, and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for referring to it in the early stages of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Woolley always makes a good speech about agriculture and we always listen with great respect to what he has to say. But this afternoon he was really talking about the Barrage, and everything that he said really turned upon the assumption that the Barrage would be available within a reasonable period. I thought that rather detracted from the value of the noble Lord's speech. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, who speaks from great experience and great knowledge. I thought he put the rather intricate technicalities of this Bill very well.
I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Redmayne for not having heard all his speech. I always look forward to listening to his speeches; they do not take place very frequently but when they do we look forward to them. My noble friend also seemed to be straying a little over the bounds of reality. He seemed to assume that there were different ways of obtaining water and of distributing it; that all these things were being neglected and that we were dealing with old-fashioned and out-of-date measures. He spoke about obtaining our supplies on a grand scale. I do not quite know what these references mean. I do not know of any method of distributing water which is much more efficient than the methods now being adopted. There is the recharging method, which is suitable in some pants of the country but not in others. Recharging is a very difficult operation, for which one requires a special lower strata and a specialised type of area. No doubt it will give good results in the
616
right place. I hope that the experiments being conducted on the Thames will show what use can be made of it. But there again it is not available, and it will not be available for a long time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, spoke about the loss of agricultural land. Of course we recognise that there will be a substantial loss of agricultural land which cannot be avoided. We have to choose between agricultural land which is not, I think, of a very high grade—
LORD WISE: My Lords, most of it is Grade 2 land and not, as I think the noble Lord said earlier, Grade 3 land.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I thought it was Grade 3 land. Of course we recognise the serious loss of agricultural land and the disadvantages which follow for the rural population. The authorities recognise that: they are really rural authorities and they are very much alive to the problems of rural areas. It is recognition of the problems and needs of rural areas which leads me to the conclusion that water is the first necessity for a rural population.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood was good enough to send me a question which he proposed to ask. He asked me why scheme after scheme turns down the reservoirs created by the brickworks at Fletton and elsewhere. The answer to my noble friend is that the first reason why they are turned down is because they are inadequate; they do not afford the space that would be needed for them to be used instead of the proposed reservoir. There is also another difficulty about them: it is doubtful whether the sides would stand up. They are built on an unsecured and moving foundation, which means that the sides are always in danger of collapsing. I think there are other reasons why these brickworks have proved not to be suitable for this purpose, but I believe the two reasons I have given are conclusive.
My Lords, I think I have covered the debate. I must apologise to two noble Lords who spoke after I had to go out for a few moments. I did not hear their speeches and I am sorry. This has been a useful and valuable debate, and I hope your Lordships will support the Bill in the Lobby. I am quite sure that if you do you will be conferring a great advantage upon the population living in the districts affected by these two reservoirs.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Select Committee.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milne, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hemingford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Mitchison, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bowles, L.

Ilford, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Popplewell, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burden, L.

Listowel, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Denham, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Airedale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Redmayne, L.

Auckland, L.

Hazlerigg, L.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Terrington, L.

Chorley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wise, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Wooley, L. [Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Essex, E.

Monson, L.

PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House relative to the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament, communicated to them on Wednesday last.
  MENTAL HEALTH: PSYCHIATRIC PROVISION
  MENTAL HEALTH: PSYCHIATRIC PROVISION