Sitting of 12 November 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRITS

  WELLINGBOROUGH
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Wellingborough, in the room of Harry Howarth, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Mellish.]

  LOUTH
  Ordered.
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Louth, in the room of Sir Cyril Osborne, deceased.—[Mr. Pym.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  The House, according to Order, proceeded to consider the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.
  Bill to be read the Third tune Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Departmental Buildings (Capital Value)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the total capital value of buildings under the control of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Loughlin): This information is not readily available.

    New Houses (Condensation)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to alleviate the problem of condensation in new houses.
    Mr. Loughlin: A design guide on the prevention of condensation is to be published early next year and a handbook on remedial measures later. The Ministry is continuing to hold conferences to make the causes of condensation and methods of preventing it more widely known.
    Mr. Dalyell: While acknowledging the good work of Mr. Dick and his colleagues in the Building Research Station, since this problem is causing considerable distress to many tenants, could not something be done in the way of publicity before the winter begins, as it becomes severe in January and February, when condensation is probably at its worst?
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the distress caused by condensation. We have given all the publicity we possibly can to not only the problem but its solution so far as we see it. I have said before, and say again, that whenever an hon. Member has a problem of this kind we are prepared to give him every possible assistance.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Minister take into account the extreme danger caused by blocking up ventilation, which is necessary to avoid condensation, and can result in great tragedy when individuals are killed by fumes?
    Mr. Loughlin: Two problems are involved. By and large, a good deal of condensation arises from the tendency in the past few years to think in terms of creature comforts, such as warmth from central heating and part-central heating and the elimination of natural ventilation. I appreciate that this affects the matter of condensation and that elimination of natural ventilation may well result in danger from fumes of one kind or another.

    Crown Building, Bishop Auckland
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what will be the cost of the new crown building in Bishop Auckland; and what stage has been reached in its development.
    Mr. Loughlin: The cost will be £391,000. Work on site started on the 5th August.
    Mr. Boyden: May I ask whether the contract has gone to a north-east company? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern which exists in the northeast about the loss of north-east jobs to other builders? Will he ask his Department to look particularly into the claims of this regional development area, and if he finds that north-east builders need particular advice from his Department, will he see that they get it?
    Mr. LoughlinWe arc always willing to give assistance to builders and contractors in areas with a high degree of unemployment. I am sorry that I have not the information in relation to whether the contract has been let to a north-east builder, but would draw attention to the fact that, whoever gets the contract, a great deal of local labour will inevitably be employed in carrying it out.

    Building Maintenance (Report)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the final report on building maintenance will be published.
    Mr. Loughlin: Although the committee does not expect to complete its next general report until early in 1971, we intend publishing papers on aspects of its work at intervals during the next year.
    Mr. Boyden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reports which have been issued so far. In view of the complications of the subject and the fact that the best maintenance often is not widely known, will he make a special effort to ensure that the reports and the information available have the maximum spread in the building industry?
    Mr. Loughlin: Certainly we shall ensure that the greatest publicity is given. We shall disseminate as far as possible the research papers and reports from the various sub-committees. My hon. Friend was the original chairman of the Committee, and we recognise that it is only within the last few years that there has been any idea of the real costs of maintenance.

    British Standard Time
    Mr. Buchanan smithasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will conduct a surveyt of the costs to the building and construction industry of the continuance of British Standard Time.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. John Silkin): As part of a comprehensive programme of consultation with industry about the implications of British Standard Time and following the acceptance of my suggestin of N.C.C. on 17th September, 1969, a survey is being arranged under its auspices.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that all the evidence in the industry so far indicates a rise in costs and a fall in productivity? In view of the serious fall back in hte house building programme, ought not the British Standard Time experiment to be reviewed now?
    Mr. Silkin: I am aware of the evidence that was submitted earlier this year by the N.F.B.T.E. At the moment, I think that it is quite sufficient that the N.C.C. is itself considering the implications of British Standard Time. In due course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take all these matters into consideration and arrive at his conclusions.

    Land Commission, Southern Regional Headquarters (Reading)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works I what has been the cost so far to the nearest convenient date of the building in which is situated the Southern Regional Headquarters of the Land Commission at Reading;
    (2) by how much the Headquarters of the Southern Region of the Land Commission at Reading has been reduced consequent upon the 25 per cent. reduction in staff.
    Mr. Loughlin: The cost of the accommodation was about £125,000 up to 31st March last. Nearly 7,000 sq. ft. has been surrendered this year; this is a reduction of about 40 per cent.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I thank the hon. Gentleman for indicating that very

    385
    healthy trend. Will he accept my gratitude for showing at regional level what a marked economy will arise when this Land Commission is abolished by the next Government? [interruption.] It is no laughing matter.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand my laughter. It was caused by the double-barbed compliment that he paid me. I do not think I should get involved in an argument of this kind.
    Mr. John Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that what we want is some encouragement to the Land Commission to get on with the job of acquiring as much land as possible?
    Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Sir.

    Building Materials (Import Deposits Scheme)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effect on building materials of the import deposits scheme; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Silkin: In my view, the scheme has been marginal in its effect on building materials.
    Mr. Costain: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being too complacent over this? Does he not appreciate that quite a lot of timber is imported? According to a telephone call I had this morning, it will cost £500,000 more to do this and will add 3 per cent. to the cost of finished timber imports. Cannot he take the matter up with the Treasury with a view to getting the scheme rescinded, because that will help the housing programme and reduce costs?
    Mr. Silkin: The evidence before me is not wholly in accord with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that I should be in the position of encouraging home-produced materials and savings in the use of imports whenever possible.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the import surcharge went on in 1964 the price of houses went up by 2 per cent., but that when it came off in 1965 the price of houses came down by nothing? In effect, builders should have the money in the kitty amply to compensate for anything that the import deposits scheme is costing.
    Mr. Silkin: I would not go all the way with my hon. Friend on this. However, it is an extraordinary fact that when charges are made by the Government and later taken off it seems fairly universal that they tend not to come off again.

    Construction Industry (Organisation of Demand)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has instituted into the organisation of demand in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Silkin: An E.D.C. working party on which my Department was represented has recently reported, and its report is being studied by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. Costain: Is the Minister not aware that this working party reported that there was no co-operation between the Ministry and local authorities on the co-ordinating of work started in certain areas? Surely this is a job about which his Department ought to have information. He has the staff to do it.
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the report has been published, but I understand that it is confined to the public sector and specifically to hospital building and water and sewage works.

    Whitehall (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the rebuilding of Whitehall.
    Mr. John Silkin: I intend to put on display in December in the precincts of the House the designs of the new Government offices to go on the northern part of the Bridge Street /Richmond Terrace site. I hope that full publicity will be given to all these developments as soon as possible, but I think the House should have a possibility of examining them first and would ask the hon. Member to wait a little longer.
    Mr. Allason: Is not the right hon. Gentleman putting the cart before the horse? If we are to have public participation in planning, we ought to have the plan before we have the designs for the building.
    Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman should hold his fire until he has seen the display. After that, I would be very happy to discuss with him the implications of that display, but I think that it is better to see it first.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not this another case of stalling until it is too late to alter the plan? Is not the Minister aware that what he proposes and has already published is inhuman in scale and inhuman in purpose and that very many people, including the Royal Fine Art Commission, the G.L.C. and other amenity bodies, have spoken against it? if he proceeds with what he now intends without a proper public inquiry and debate, he will be condemned—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—by all future ages for an act of barbarism on our environment.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions cut out other hon. Members' questions.
    Mr. Silkin: I approve of the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, disagree with his facts, and would point out that December is only a couple of weeks off.

    Construction Industry (Labour-only Sub-contracting)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to introduce legislation to set up a register of building employers for the purposes of regulating self-employment in the construction industry.
    Mr. John Silkin: As announced in the Queen's Speech, proposals for controlling labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry will be submitted to the House during the current Session, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the form these will take.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is this to be a proper Bill? If so, can it be introduced before the Government raise S.E.T. again in the Budget and so make the problem of self-employment worse?
    Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I might deal with that portmanteau question in two parts. First, I quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said in the debate on the Gracious Speech that it
    388
    was "a necessary Bill". As to S.E.T., I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that labour-only sub-contracting was a serious problem even before the tax was introduced.
    Mr. Heifer: Can my right hon. Friend say what discussions he is likely to have with the trade unions and the employers before the Bill is published? Incidentally, may I say that the proposed legislation is greatly welcomed by the building trade unions?
    Mr. Silkin: I hope to have discussions with all responsible sections of the building industry.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: To underline the necessity for urgent action, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the recent suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee that the Revenue has lost millions of £s through bogus self-employment? Second, notwithstanding what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), can he give an estimate of how much it is due to the imposition of the selective employment tax?
    Mr. Silkin: On the first point, no, Sir. We can all make estimates, and I do not think that we would be very much at variance on the question.
    On the second point, it would be foolish to deny that S.E.T. is one of the factors in the problem. The only point that I was making was that the problem existed in a crucial form before S.E.T. was introduced.

    Construction Industry (Orders)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the current level of orders for new construction.
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the level of output in the construction industry during 1969.
    Mr. John Silkin: So far this year new orders have been declining. I expect the decline in output in 1969 to be about 3 per cent. from the 1968 level.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is not the Minister disappointed with the August figures,

    389
    which showed a drop in new house building of 17 per cent.? Is not that due to the disgraceful performance of the Labour-controlled boroughs, which have dropped new housing starts by 42 percent.? [HON. MEMBERS "Rubbish!"]
    Mr. Silkin: It is always disappointing to see a drop in housing. But I feel encouraged, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, by the knowledge that the Labour Government have produced in four years as many houses as his right hon. and hon. Friends produced in their last five years in office.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are more Conservative-controlled local authorities in this country, it is logical that a far greater number of Conservative-controlled local authorities have not gone ahead with the housing programme? Does he also agree that one factor in the drop in house building has been the breaking up of first-class direct labour departments that were controlled by Labour-controlled local authorities?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): Hear, hear ! Good stuff !
    Mr. Silkin: I do not deny the importance of both these factors. But at the same time, looking to the future, I hope that house building will recover and will soon be in the record area that it has always been under this Government.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: But in order, if nothing else, to engender a little optimism, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to deny predictions that have been made that output in the construction industry will fall this year for the first time, except for one freak year, since 1951?
    Mr. Manuel: What is the reason for that?
    Mr. Silkin: It would not be wise to confirm or deny the question of house building, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. But if he means output generally, I think that it will be in the region of about 3 per cent. less than last year.

    Building Industry (Credit)
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what
    390
    representations he has received from builders about credit difficulties; and what reply he has sent;
    (2) whether he will make a statement on his correspondence with the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding hank loans for builders.
    Sir Frank Pearsonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the building industry about the present credit squeeze; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the building industry about the difficulties of raising bank loans.
    Mr. John Silkin: I received a copy of the letter dated 23rd July from the President of the N.F.B.T.E. to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The subject was mentioned when I met the president of the federation informally on 10th September.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many builders, some of them substantial, are facing bankruptcy or, at the very least, are cutting back their house building programmes because of credit restrictions? If Her Majesty's Government are not merely paying lip-service to housing as a major social need, why will they not help the industry, upon which they are so dependent to provide the houses so desperately needed?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not minimise the very real difficulties facing house builders. But to suggest that the Government are doing nothing about this seems to ignore entirely the statement of my right hon. Friend last week on mortgage finance.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: But as the Prime Minister said that house building was to be the Government's first priority, is it wholly unreasonable to suggest that the Government might begin by putting house builders in the priority class for loans?
    Mr. Silkin: I understand the point and the arguments for it, but house builders, like every member of the community, are Britons first and members of their occupation second. The most important thing is to get the economy straight.
    Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a very strong lobby on this question? Does he also appreciate that substantial profits are still being made in the building industry, not in the building of houses but in more lucrative spheres where the profits seem largest?
    Mr. Peyton: Are we to understand that the Minister has no word of cheer for the small builder who is under considerable pressure, first, because he cannot get steel from the British Steel Corporation and, second, because he cannot get credit from the bank due to the economic and financial policies of the Government?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard what I was saying. I said that I understood the difficulties of the small builder, but I also pointed out that this Government were doing something for him. I mentioned, for example, mortgage finance, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend recently. I should also mention the Housing Act, 1969, and the immense amount of work which will be offered under the scheme "Old Houses into New Homes".

    Construction Industry (Commodity Identification)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for a commodity identification system to enable builders' merchants to create a computer-based system for its members.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have arranged for an examination to be made of proposals for a commodity identification system serving the needs of the whole construction industry, including builders' and plumbers' merchants, and expect to receive recommendations by the end of this year.
    Mr. Mawby: I congratulate the Minister on that reply, but I draw his attention to the fact that he said not long ago that this could save between 10 and 20 per cent. of designers' time? Will he say how his Department is to reduce the number of statistical inquiries which it sends out to the industry, which occupied 167 man-days in one firm last year?
    Mr. Silkin: When the report is available we shall all be much wiser and more understanding.

    Construction Industry Research and Information Association
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his decision regarding the future of the Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
    Mr. John Silkin: After consulting representatives of the industry I decided that my Ministry's special information grant to C.I.R.I.A. should end on 30th June, 1970. The association, however, will continue to receive a grant from the Ministry of Technology.
    Mr. Mawby: While the right hon. Gentleman's decision is probably right, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the B.R.S. is sufficiently well staffed to deal with telephone inquiries?
    Mr. Silkin: I hope that its staff will be increased, and it may well be, by the addition of some of the C.I.R.I.A. staff. I should like the hon. Gentleman to understand that this is by way of being an experimental service and we must see how it operates.

    Builders, Registration (Forbes Committee's Report)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects to receive the report of the Forbes Committee on the Registration of Builders.
    Mr. John Silkin: I hope that the report will be available early in 1971.
    Mr. Shaw: When the report is ready, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will judge its conclusions without the admitted bias towards registration that has already been shown by his predecessor?
    Mr. Silkin: The great thing about my predecessor was that he never showed bias at all. I think we had better await the report.

    Small Firms (Bolton Committee)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence his Department has presented to the Bolton Committee on Small Firms; and whether he will publish it.
    Mr. John Silkin: This evidence is still in preparation and no decision has been taken about publishing it.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed with that reply? I did not think that he would have been inhibited by the fact that the Press are present today. In view of the eminent support for and interest in this subject by someone who is also a close company which is in difficulties, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the building trade is composed as to about 80 per cent. of small companies? The credit squeeze is bearing down very hardly on them, and the right hon. Gentleman will not get production increased unless he makes representations to help them.
    Mr. Silkin: I have an idea that we have rather dealt with the second part of that question already. As to the first part, I know that Mr. Bolton has undertaken to publish a selection of evidence received, and I shall be ready to consider any request that he may make about the evidence of my Department.

    State Building Corporation
    Mr. Brian Harrisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now announce his proposals for a State Building Corporation.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 15th July, 10969.—[Vol. 787, col. 381.]
    Mr. Harrison: Surely the shocking experience of direct labour departments, and most recently what has happened in Leicester, should convince the right hon. Gentleman that this ought to be buried, and that he ought not to pursue this matter at all?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not draw quite the same conclusions as the hon. Gentleman does, and I perhaps do not share the same facts as he does.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it nto clear to my right hon. Friend that there is a greater urgency for a p7blic building corporation now than ever before, first, to increase the house building programme, and, second, to ensure that there is a real standard in the building industry which
    394
    all employers in the building industry can keep up to?
    Mr. Silkin: I think, and I have said this before, that any proposals, whatever they may be, which can assist in the efficiency of the building industry and in the production of more houses are of great advantage.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a fact is a fact whether he has a share in it or not? Second, will he take credit for his reticence this afternoon in not wishing to add to a totally unsatisfactory answer which he gave me in July? I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had the insolence to remind the House of it this afternoon.
    Mr. Silkin: My reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Yes, I do take great satisfaction from it". With regard to the first part, I was trying to be very kind. What are facts to me are guesses to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the bias and prejudice of hon. Gentlemen opposite in connection with direct labour schemes? Is he aware that Durham County Council's direct labour scheme has just completed a road project months ahead of schedule and saved £1- million on the contract?
    Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House will be content if he disregards all bias towards direct labour schemes and simply judges them on the facts?
    Mr. Silkin: I thought that that was what I was trying to do.

    Selective Employment Tax (Reddaway Inquiry)
    Mr. Brian Harrisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will publicise his Department's evidence to the Reddaway Inquiry on Selective Employment Tax.
    Sir S. McAddenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what assistance he has given to the Reddaway inquiry into selective employment tax.
    Mr. John Silkin: Professor Reddaway has sought information on statistical matters from my Department which will readily be given. I have no plans to submit formal evidence.
    Mr. Harrison: In view of the obvious crippling effect of S.E.T. on the building industry, why does not the right hon. Gentleman come into the open and put this proper evidence before the Reddaway Committee?
    Mr. Silkin: I shall be happy to give such evidence as Professor Reddaway requires of me. I thought that I had made that clear.

    Historic Buildings
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many of the buildings under his Department which are open to the public on a paying basis make a profit; and whether he will list the costs and revenues in each case.
    Mr. John Silkin: None, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: That is a surprising answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the private sector there are many profitable activities in this connection? Is he satisfied that where the Ministry is involved the venture is as profitable as those in the private sector?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir, I think so, but at the same time I conceive it to be the duty of my Department also to render a service which perhaps private individuals do not need to give; namely, to preserve the great and glorious heritage of our ancient monuments.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people who do not like wild life parks with lions, and zoos, and would far rather have ancient and beautiful buildings?
    Mr. Silkin: This is all a matter of taste.

    Small Builders (Credit)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he is having with the building industry about the problems facing small builders.
    Mr. John Silkin: No representations have been made to me, but I am always willing to consider any.
    Mr. Allason: Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard from the construction industry that it feels that it is facing the worst setback in its programme in the last 20 years? Does he not feel that something must be done for the small builder, otherwise there is a grave danger that very soon householders will not be able to get their repairs done?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think the building industry takes the matter quite as dramatically as the hon. Gentleman does, but I understand the problems, and I should like to help. I tried to say earlier that many of the actions of the Government during the past four years have been of considerable assistance in this regard.
    Mr. Hefter: I am not particularly enamoured with private enterprise, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless recognise the immediate situation in the building industry and make it quite clear to his right hon. Friends that there must be some assistance in relation to credit facilities not only to help the small builder but to help the building operative to get over a very difficult period?
    Mr. Silkin: I said that the first question is the question of the economy itself. There are ways and means by which the small builder might be helped by practical action. For example, accounts should be paid promptly, and I know that my Department—and I am pleased about this—has given a very firm lead in seeing that accounts are quickly and promptly paid.

    National Consultative Council
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the future of the National Consultative Council of which he is chairman.
    Mr. John Silkin: In addition to its standing interest in the general situation of the industry, the council has before it a heavy programme including metrication, data co-ordination, consultative arrangements for building services and the effects of British Standard Time.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Would it not be proper for the council to meet rather urgently to consider the fact that the level of house building in 1969 is going to be far lower than in 1964? Alternatively, would it not be better to cancel the whole thing and let the building industry get on with the job itself?
    Mr. Silkin: As to the second point, I think that the building industry, in the hon. Gentleman's words, would be horrified if the N.C.C. were cancelled. As to the first part, I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see.

  SCOTLAND

    Hunter Report
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the Hunter Report.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am not yet able to add to the answer given on 16th July 1969 to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 787, c. 609.]
    Mr. Campbell: That reply was very negative. Why have the Government no proposals for this Session of Parliament, not even a White Paper, when this report has been in their hands for about four years, and when action could be taken on some of the recommendations which would greatly assist the Scottish tourist industry?
    Dr. Mahon: I explained to the hon. Gentleman 28 days ago that there were a number of problems still to be resolved. There are many conflicts of opinion about the implementation of the Hunter Report. It is not possible to treat different parts of the report without legislation, and, therefore, we would like to do it all together.
    Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that inshore fleets and fishermen in my division are very annoyed at the fact that no decisions have been made about this report? They have spent large sums of money on nets for salmon fishing. A ban is supposed to exist while the report is being considered. Is it not about time some decisions were made?
    Dr. Mabon: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, but I assure him that these are complex matters and that we are getting as close as we can to a decision.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) answered questions during a debate at least three years ago he said that this was a matter of great urgency? I confirm everything that the right hon. Gentleman said today about the feelings of the Scottish drift-net fishermen.
    Dr. Mabon: I accept that, but, to be fair, my right hon. Friend ought to remember that the report was published in August 1965. My right hon. Friend knows the complexity of these matters. I assure hon. Gentlemen that they are not easy to resolve.
    Mr. Dalyell: There may be conflicts of opinion, and I admit that these are complex matters, but does not the suggestion in Question No. 54 commend itself to my hon. Friend? Would not this let him off the hook by putting forward an agreed solution?
    Dr. Mabon: I am not on the hook, despite the Hunter Report. I put it to my hon. Friend that the Question that he asked on 16th July of this year is probably the right line of questioning, and that he should look at it again and see the implications of his supplementary question.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to move for an increase in the status and powers of the Scottish Grand Committee and of the elimination from the Scottish Grand Committee of Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): As I said in my reply to my hon. and learned Friend on 16th October, I am not proposing Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Lord President not have regard to the rule laid down in

  399
  Chapter XXIV of Erskine May in order to prevent English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament from delaying and frustrating Scottish business in the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has quoted Erskine May. There is no desire on the part of any hon. Member—whether he be English, Welsh or Northern Irish—to frustrate Scottish business.
  Mrs. Ewing: Can the Lord President tell us whether the Government regard the Scottish Grand Committee as a substitute Parliament for the Scottish nation, or a talking shop for it? Or has he got some other description for it? In order to enhance its status, would not he recommend that it should meet in Edinburgh, to stimulate public interest? Could not we, in the Scottish Grand Committee, discuss our own agenda at regular intervals?
  Mr. Peart: It is wrong for the hon. Lady to denigrate the Scottish Grand Committee. I am not anti-Scottish, nor against the hon. Lady. I set up a special committee on Scottish affairs. I hope that she will be sensible about this.

  MEMBERS (WORKING CONDITIONS AND FACILITIES)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement of the steps he has taken and intends to take in future to improve the working conditions and facilities of hon. Members.
  Mr. Peart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 24th July. I am pursuing urgently the outstanding issues, on secretarial help and Members' travel allowances, and I will inform the House of the Government's further proposals to improve Members' facilities as soon as possible.
  Mr. Hamilton: That is a very vague answer. Can my right hon. Friend be more specific as to the time-tabling of these announcements? Will he make arrangements to have some kind of debate on the Floor of the House? It is very unsatisfactory that these improvements should be made without full public knowledge and public debate of them.
  Mr. Peart: I am always glad when my hon. Friend says that improvements will be made and that the House should look at them. I would only say that as Leader of the House I think that I have done more on this matter in this last year than any other Leader of the House has done. I am anxious to make a statement on this matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for it.
  Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not so bothered about conditions for Members of Parliament? What I want to know is whether we are going to have better administration by this Government. That would certainly ensure that Members could do the jobs that they were elected to do by their constituents.
  Mr. Peart: I respect the hon. Lady very much, as she comes from my own part of the country, but I must tell her that she is very wrong about this. This is an all-party matter affecting the conditions of Members—
  Dame Irene Ward: I do not care about that.
  Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Lady does not, but I do; that is where we differ. I am anxious for agreement on this matter and I will make a statement. I think that she should reflect a little more on this.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am tired of reflecting.
  Mr. Dickens: Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern in all parts of the House about the continuing delay in resolving outstanding matters concerning the Sixth Report of the Select Committee? Is he further aware of the deep resentment that many of us will feel if there is any obstruction to these improvements by the Treasury, which takes jolly good care to ensure that it is adequately staffed and serviced in these matters?
  Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there has been no delay in this matter. When the Services Committee reported I circularised hon. Members during the recess.
  An Hon. Member: Four months ago!
  Mr. Peart: Four months is a short time. No other Leader of the House has acted so quickly. I deplore the fact that hon. Members should chastise me for it. I am anxious for a quick decision. I will report as soon as possible.
  Mr. David Steel: Is the Leader of the House aware that I was informed the other day that my Parliamentary expenses for last year had exceeded my Parliamentary income by £300, and that this is a matter of growing concern to many hon. Members, who ought not to have to depend on an outside source of income? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the basic provision of salary recommended by the Services Committee is of extreme importance? Will he convey that to his colleagues in the Government?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is quite right. As a member of the Services Committee I am aware of the serious problems affecting hon. Members. I shall do all I can about it, and I hope to make an announcement soon.
  Mr. Maudling: Will the Leader of the House tell us what, in the official view of the Government, is a "short time" in politics?
  Mr. Pearl: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good debating point, but I just want an effective solution.
  Mr. Dickensasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Sixth Report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee.
  Mr. Pearl: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
  Mr. Dickens: May I put one additional point to my right hon. Friend? Would he bear in mind in his consultations with the Treasury that the average salaries being paid to private secretaries to medium-rank administrative jobs in the Treasury is about £1,000 per annum and that we as hon. Members would expect him to settle for no less than that figure when dealing with secretarial expenses here?
  Mr. Pearl: I know that my hon. Friend has put his point. As I have said, this matter is under consideration and I hope to make an early announcement.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 24th July and remember that his statement included a reference to hon. Members' travel facilities? Is he aware that last evening the all-party House of Commons Motor Club met and resolved unanimously, after two years of frustration and in desperation, to send a deputation to the Prime Minister on Members' mileage allowances, and that the Prime Minister has now refused to receive the deputation and has referred back this all-party committee to the Leader of the House? Is he aware that this is merely a whirligig of frustration and impediments put in the path of hon. Members? Cannot we have an early statement about raising Members' motor mileage allowances to a realistic level?
  Mr. Pearl: This is not an attempt to evade responsibility. As Leader of the House, I am aware of the problems and I have stressed that I hope to make a statement very soon. I recognise hon. Members' difficulties.
  Mr. Shinwell: In the matter of the provision of secretaries for M.Ps, about which I hear a great deal and read a great deal, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify the position? If secretaries are to be allocated, by whom? By the Government? Are these secretaries to be allocated by the Government or are they to be selected by private Members? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Government's taste may differ considerably from that of hon. Members?
  Mr. Pearl: My right hon. Friend is quite wrong. I agree with him on many matters, but not on this. I chaired the Services Committee which produced a report on this matter. The report was presented to the House, and the Government accepted it in principle. I have circularised lion. Members and I am having discussions on the matter. There must be discussions, both formal and informal. I hope to make a statement very soon.

  MEMBERS (ALLOWANCES)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give the reasons why he will not move for the granting to Members of Parliament of an allowance of 61s. 6d. for each night they have to stay in London on a similar basis to that now applied to the junior ranks of the Civil Service.
  Mr. Peart: It would not be consistent with the basis on which Members' remuneration is fixed to pay them subsistence allowance in respect of their parliamentary duties in London.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank the Lord President for that most unsatisfactory reply. Why is it that, apart from Members of Parliament, everyone—from the ordinary manual worker to the highest paid civil servant receives, either by trade union agreement or by negotiation, an allowance when he has to stay away from home because of his work or employment? When he gives this allowance to civil servants, why cannot he give it to Members of Parliament who have to stay away from home to carry out their Parliamentary duties? I have no interest in this matter.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member may have no interest. I understand that. But the present basis follows the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee on remuneration, in 1964. A civil servant is not paid subsistence if his place of duty is in London. It is not possible to compare the two categories.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would it not be better for the Leader of the House to make decisions on all these matters? Then we would not have to put Questions on the Order Paper and would not have to be discussing these matters constantly.
  Mr. Peart: That may be so. It so happens that I am in a position where I must do so.

  MEMBERS (OFFICIAL FRANKED ENVELOPES)
  Sir Clive Bossomasked the Lord President of the Council if he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of
  404
  the conditions governing the use of official franked envelopes by Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Peart: I think that what constitutes parliamentary business is best left to the good sense of individual Members. I am sure they will not abuse this facility by its use for correspondence which is plainly either of a private or constituency party kind.
  Sir Clive Bossom: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that enlightening answer, but I have two questions. Would this cover correspondence between Members of Parliament and the sending of Christmas cards to bona fide constituents?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member mentions Christmas cards. In view of my earlier reply, hon. Members must decide for themselves. I am sure that they will exercise good sense.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACOUSTICS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord President of the Council why the work undertaken during the Summer Adjournment to improve the acoustic arrangements in the House of Commons, remains unfinished; and if he will direct the attention of his relevant experts to the modern scientific arrangements, details of which have been sent to him.
  Mr. Peart: Manufacture and adequate testing of the equipment and installation could not be completed in the time available. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works that his Department is aware of the equipment to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, but does not consider that these arrangements would be appropriate here.
  Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend really mean that the resources of modern science cannot do for the House of Commons what has been done in the Top Rank Centre at Brighton, where the three great parties of the State held their annual conferences this year?
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must realise that the circumstances of the two places that he mentions are quite different. At the Top Rank Centre,

  405
  speeches are normally made from a rostrum with a microphone in front and roving microphones are passed about for speeches from the floor. It is rather different here: he must appreciate this.

  MEMBERS (RAPID READING COURSE)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for a rapid reading course in the House of Commons for Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Peart: I do not think it necessary for the House to provide this facility. Members who wish to take such courses will no doubt make their own arrangements.
  Mrs. Short: But, in the interests of increasing the productivity of Members of Parliament, some of whom need it, does my right hon. Friend not think that he might reconsider this, in view of the fact that, after only perhaps two or three lessons, reading speed could be doubled, which would be very useful?
  Mr. Peart: I note this, but one can apply this to courses of shorthand, typing and other things. I think that my reply is sensible and that my hon. Friend knows it.
  Mr. Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a good deal less urgent now, when much of the reading matter reaches Members of Parliament only when it has become of antiquarian interest?
  Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will not display too much illiteracy.

  SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS (CONSIDERATION)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Lord President of the Council what action he intends to take to ensure that increased parliamentary time is made available for the consideration of reports from select committees.
  Mr. Peart: I will look at this matter as sympathetically as I can, bearing in mind that more time on Select Committee reports must come from time spent on other business.
  Mrs. Short: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I have raised this matter with him before. Is he aware that, apart from the increased number of Standing Committees in the House, there is the Estimates Committee, which works by a series of sub-committees, each of which produces at least one very good report in a parliamentary session? Will he therefore consider urgently giving more time—never mind how he finds it—to the consideration of these very important reports?
  Mr. Peart: I recognise that my colleagues on both sides work hard on Standing Committees and on sub-committees of the Estimates Committee, and that their reports are invaluable. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have difficulty in finding time, because I must decide priorities. We may have to sit longer if we do consider this: I accept that.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In considering this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, whatever time he eventually decides to allocate to debating Select Committee reports, the debates themselves will be much better if, before they take place, the appropriate Department has laid a White Paper containing the Department's comments on the report? Are not the Government getting a little slack on this?
  Mr. Peart: I accept what the hon. Member says: I think this is right. I know that the hon. Member, who has been a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, will accept what I say and understand why I say it. I believe that, if possible, there should be a Government reply. I am not saying that it should be specifically in the form of a White Paper, but I will convey this to my right hon. Friends and colleagues.
  Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some hon. Members believe that it is generally better not to have a debate on Select Committee reports but to use the reports as the bases for further debates on the subjects of the reports, since at present many debates on reports are merely discussions between the members of the committee, rehashing what they have already said in committee?
  Mr. Peart: I understand this: this is a point which I must bear in mind.

  MEMBERS (OUTSIDE INTERESTS)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council when he intends to initiate legislation on the question of the declaration of Members' outside interests.
  Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a Select Committee was set up last Session by the House to examine our practices in this regard, and a Motion proposing its reconstitution this Session appears in this morning's Order Paper. We should, I think, await their report before considering any question of legislation.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very glad to see that Motion on the Order Paper today, but, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is on record about the desirability of legislation in this matter, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when the committee reports the Government will not hesitate to deal with this matter, which is of considerable urgency?
  Mr. Peart: I accept this. The Prime Minister has made a statement on this. I am not committing myself to legislation in any way. One must await the report, which it will be important for the House to consider.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (SUPPLY)
  Miss Quennellasked the Lord President of the Council what special steps he is taking to ensure that printed matter essential to Members of Parliament, i.e. Order Papers, Official Reports, Order of Questions, etc., will be so available to hon. Members in this new parliamentary year, in order that they may discharge their parliamentary duties efficiently.
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the interference with the business of the House caused by the present industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, he will now make arrangements
  408
  for the printing required by the business of the House and for HANSARD, to be undertaken elsewhere and, if necessary, abroad.
  Mr. Pearl: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday. A Motion proposing the setting up of the Services Committee for this Session appears in this morning's Order Paper.
  Miss Quennell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as HANSARD did not arrive this morning, I could not refer to the Chief Secretary's statement yesterday? What special steps will he take to ensure that hon. Members have available to them essential papers between now and the time that the special Select Committee reaches a solution to our difficulties?
  Mr. Pearl: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern. It is right that she raises this matter. My right hon. Friend made a statement yesterday. I am well aware of this and am watching the matter carefully. I will do all I can to help in this matter.
  Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is entirely the responsibility of the Government? It cannot be passed off on to any committee, however distinguished. What will the the Government do about it themselves?
  Mr. Peart: I accept this in relation to the dispute concerning Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As Leader of the House, I have done all I can in the supply of papers and so on to improve facilities. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the responsibility, but I have nothing more to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why cannot the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity institute a court of inquiry or intervene in some fashion? Is it not a disgrace that Parliament should be hamstrung during a dispute which the Government make no attempt to settle?
  Mr. Peart: I understand my right hon. Friend's view, and will convey it to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. She is concerned about this, and we are discussing it privately.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Palmerasked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the transfer of the responsibilities of the former Minister of Power to the Minister of Technology, he will now arrange for extra days for Questions to the Minister of Technology in order that opportunities for honourable Members to question Ministers on fuel and power policy shall not be reduced.
  Mr. Peart: As I have already said, I am willing to consider, through the usual channels, changes to the roster, if that proves to be the general wish.
  Mr. Palmer: But is not my right hon. Friend aware that there has already been a real loss of accountability to the House in fuel and power Questions? Should not action be taken fairly soon to put the situation right?
  Mr. Peart: I have repeated so often—for instance, I said it last Thursday—that we should see how it goes. I will then reconsider this through the usual channels.

  CHURCHILL MEMORIAL STATUE
  Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Peart to answer Written Question No. 15.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the Mouse of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)rose—
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with only one point of order at a time.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: As Written Question No. 15 does not appear on my Order Paper, will the Leader of the House read out the Question which he is to answer?
  Mr. Speaker: I gathered that he would do so.
  Mr. Peart: I am delighted to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) put down a Question to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to announce the date of the unveiling of the Churchill Memorial Statue.
  May I reply? It has been suggested to me that it would be for the general con
  410
  venience of Members if I were to answer this Question orally, and this is why I am doing so.
  It is proposed that Lady Spencer-Churchill will unveil the statue at 12 noon on 1st December, 1969. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, will be willing to waive the 10 year rule should this be the wish of the House.
  Mr. Turton: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his sense of timing in fixing this ceremony for the day after Sir Winston Churchill's birthday? Is he taking any steps to invite to the ceremony members of Sir Winston Churchill's Administrations who are no longer Members of this House?
  Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. I agree with that. We are paying tribute to a great statesman, and guests will include those nominated by Lady Spencer-Churchill, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, former Prime Ministers, members of the Memorial Committee, the Minister of Public Building and Works and the chairman and secretary of the Press Gallery and of Lobby correspondents.

CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT (WHITE PAPER)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Rankin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on future civil aviation policy.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 77.
I am today laying before the House a White Paper setting out the Government's decisions in the light of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Air Transport—the Edwards Report.
Over 90 per cent. of the output of British airlines is on international services. The industry must be strong in that intensely competitive field. In this country domestic services are limited and not very remunerative. There is need for rationalisation. Everywhere in the world civil aviation is highly regulated. We need to improve our regulatory machinery with the aim of strengthening the industry.

411
In the public sector the Government will establish an Airways Board charged with the task of securing that the fleets and resources of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are planned and marketed to the greatest overall advantage. This board will have complete authority and will not, therefore, represent an additional layer of decision-making. The Airways Board will also be responsible for setting up a separate regional airline bringing together certain domestic services of B.E.A. and of the British Air Services group.
The Government would welcome the emergence through combination of a strong independent airline undertaking scheduled services. We would favour the licensing of such a carrier on routes, notably on the North Atlantic, where the presence of a second British carrier could be expected to increase the British share of business. But we do not accept that the creation of such an airline should be made conditional on the transfer of a significant part of the air corporations' routes. We believe that there are continuing opportunities of growth for independent airlines and will pursue pricing policies which should assist them.
The Government accept that, after other steps have been taken to strengthen regional air services, it may still be necessary to subsidise certain services which can be shown to contribute to the economic or social development of the regions. They will seek powers to grant subsidies where detailed economic studies show them to be justified.
The Government propose to improve the regulatory machinery by setting up a Civil Aviation Authority which will have comprehensive responsibility for the regulation of the industry in all its aspects —economic, operational and technical. The Board of Trade will lay down the objectives and policies to be pursued by the authority: these will be published and come before Parliament before being made binding upon the authority.
In addition, the Board of Trade will continue to exercise its present functions in relation to the public sector—the Airways Board and the British Airports Authority. It will also continue to bear the main responsibility for negotiating international agreements affecting civil aviation, for investigating accidents and for the control of aircraft noise.
412
I am inviting the chairmen and members of the boards of the air corporations, of the Air Transport Licensing Board and of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committees generally to continue to serve for a further year, to allow time for the introduction of legislation.
With these changes the industry should be able to meet, with confidence, the challenges of the future and increase its contribution to an expanding economy and to the service of the public.
Mr. Rankin: May I thank my right hon. Friend very warmly for that excellent statement? Will he say why he has abandoned the idea of a holding board in favour of the Airways Board? May I prompt him a little by asking him whether that is because he regards a holding board as being too weak an instrument for the vast powers which will fall to it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.
Mr. Rankin: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I was being quite brief.
If I am in order, may I urge my right hon. Friend to go further along this path by establishing other companies such as a hotels company, a tour-promoting agency and perhaps companies dealing with travel activities?
Mr. Speaker: Order. A Question answered at the end of Question Time is no different from any other Question and supplementaries must be brief.
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. The Edwards Committee recommended a holding board which would have only a light rein over B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and had in mind developing common services between the corporations such as industrial relations, freight handling, hotels and computers, for example.
Further study flowing from the Edwards' conclusions by the Board of Trade led us to believe that there would be greater gains if we could also look at the overlapping which takes place on B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. routes, gradually getting an integration of the routes and in time procuring aircraft which would possibly satisfy the flexibility of that route system.

413
We therefore came to the conclusion that it would be better to have a stronger body such as an Airways Board which would be, in effect, the board of the public sector and which would have overall management of the airlines and would satisfy the Government's aims with respect to their financial objectives.
Mr. Corfield: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to introduce legislation on the matter? There are parts of the statement, at least, to which I can give a qualified welcome, assuming that he expects the criterion for licensing to be service to the public. Following his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), may I ask whether it is not clear that the ultimate result of this Airways Board will be a merger between the two corporations? Would it not, therefore, be better to say so in unambiguous terms?
Mr. Mason: I do not think that is absolutely necessary at this time. I hope that we can prepare a Bill by April next year. That is my aim. Once we have embarked on this course it is essential that we get all the bodies involved to co-operate and to get the legislation into being as quickly as possible. The hon. Member will have noticed, although my statement was brief, that the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority will take in the Air Registration Board and the Air Transport Licensing Board, giving, therefore, a stronger control of licensing, and that it will take over that segment of the Board of Trade which deals with safety and air traffic control.
Mr. Milne: In view of the increasing dependence of the travel trade on the air corporations, will my right hon. Friend, under the terms of the report, look at the question of transferring the travel agencies at present controlled by British Railways, such as Thomas Cook and others, to the Airways Board?
Mr. Mason: That question goes very wide of the statement before us.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that much of what he has said will be a great disappointment to the private sector? If the private sector is to play its role in the expansion of overseas routes it must have an improved structure. Will the
414
right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the capital cost of modern aircraft and the need for them to be utilised to full effect? Will he recognise the need for the private sector companies to get in the queue to get aircraft; and that some steps must he taken in this respect?
Mr. Mason: I hope that when the House reads the White Paper it will regard it as a major charter for the future of British civil aviation. A special chapter is devoted to the independent airlines, but we are satisfied that we would like to see mergers of some of the domestic airlines. We would like to see them strong and viable enough to be able to undertake overseas airline routes, especially if they want to challenge B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. on trans-Atlantic routes.
Mr. Alldritt: Having regard to the Government's policy, can my right hon. Friend say why he refuses to assist the City of Liverpool?
Mr. Mason: That is an entirely separate matter and does not come within the province of the statement.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation be prepared to assist in discussions between the independent airlines to create the second force, if asked to do so by British airlines? Will the licensing policy of the Board of Trade be spelt out in greater detail in his proposed legislation than it was in the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960? Can he say anything about the common services that he thinks may be operated by the holding board which are not already being implemented by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.?
Mr. Mason: I should have thought that the first point would be entirely within the province of the new Civil Aviation Authority.
On licensing, the hon. Gentleman must recognise, because I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters, that the A.T.L.B. was established in 1960, but that the framework of the legislation governing it did not prove quite satisfactory and that the licensing system has not therefore been completely successful. But the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to deal overall with licensing, and the proper routeing of domestic airlines in particular.

415
I have mentioned already some of the common services: industrial relations, freight handling, hotels, computers and marketing, in particular, can come under the Airways Board, and so can inclusive tours. But, particularly, the Airways Board can now look at how some of the routes overlap and see where great gains can be made by integrating those routes, and also bringing in special aircraft—perhaps building special aircraft—with that in mind.
Mr. Robert Howarth: My right hon. Friend's statement refers to a second carrier on the North Atlantic route. I welcome that if it leads to a greater share for British carriers. Can he say whether this more flexible approach will apply also to the Paris route? It seems ridiculous to me that there is no service between Gatwick and Paris.
Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend refers to a second carrier. There are all sorts of misleading descriptions when one talks about a second flag carrier and a second force airline. The point I am trying to make, and which the White Paper suggests, is that we would like to see a second force airline developed, but we are not intending to carve up B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. routes to assist it. We would hope that some independent airlines would merge, and gradually become strong and viable enough to contest overseas in their own right.
Mr. Amery: Can the President of the Board of Trade say how far he has consulted the chairmen of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and B.U.A in making his statement, and how tar they are prepared to go along with him?
Mr. Mason: During the past two days I have consulted Professor Ronald Edwards, and the chairmen of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and we have met the chairmen of the A.T.L.B. and the A.R.B. and been in touch with the unions—I have not met B.U.A.—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and all of them are quite happy with the report.
Mr. Dalyell: What directives does my right hon. Friend propose to give to the Civil Aviation Authority as to its relations with difficult municipal authorities such as Edinburgh with regard to Turn-house?
Mr. Mason: Turnhouse is a separate matter. The British Airports Authority will remain in being, governing its four airports, but Turnhouse is on its own, and it will be dealt with quite separately.
Mr. Marten: Will the President of the Board of Trade look again at the name "Airways Board", which is rather portentous and possessive for a body concerned with only two airlines? Will subsidies come from the central Government, or will the Government try to make a local authority which wants a subsidised airline pay its share out of the local rate?
Mr. Mason: The name "Airways Board" is self-explanatory. It will be the major body governing B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It will be for the Airways Board itself to determine how fast and how far any merger may come about.
I shall take powers in the Bill to subsidise where necessary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of the small services now receive subsidies through cross-subsidisation, and this may continue. But I hope that they will gradually pay their way and that subsidies will end.
Mr. Ellis: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt), the development of civil aviation aerodromes is referred to in the report. Will he say whether it is now his policy that it should be left to local authorities to develop their own airfields, or is that to be a matter for central planning?
Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend must recognise that we have a British Airports Authority, with four airports, and we have a number of joint user airports, Board of Trade airports and local authority airports. In the meantime, I intend to leave that situation as it is.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the President of the Board of Trade assure us that there is nothing sinister in the fact that he seems to have consulted the publicly-owned airlines chairmen but not the chairman of B.U.A.? May we have an assurance that this does not mean a move against independent operation.
Secondly, when setting up the terms of reference for the licensing authority, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the interests of the air travelling public—which should have the overriding

417
priority, as they have in the United States —and not just the other interests implied?
Mr. Mason: I go some way with the hon. Gentleman on his latter point. I did not myself consult B.U.A. but I am informed that my predecessor did so, and I gather that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has also done so very recently indeed.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT
The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The House will recall that in the debate on Northern Ireland on 13th October my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government proposed to create within Northern Ireland a local reserve defence force. This force is the subject of a Bill which is to be presented today.
The Bill has been drafted on the established pattern of reserve forces legislation and provides the stathtory framework within which the new force can be raised. There are, therefore, a number of matters which do not fall within its scope, but about which the House will wish to be informed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is, therefore, publishing at the same time as the Bill is laid a White Paper which will set out the broad outline of the new force's function and constitution.
The Hunt Committee recommended that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be relieved of all military duties and that the Ulster Special Constabulary should be replaced by two separate forces —one a police reserve, the other a military force to assist the regular Armed Forces.
The nature of the new military force will be governed by its operational task. That task will be to meet what the Hunt Committee called "armed guerilla-type attacks". This calls for a force to guard key points and installations, to carry out patrols and to establish check points and road blocks.
This force will be an integral part of the Army. It will be controlled by the
418
Secretary of State for Defence, and will be under the command of the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. Its immediate commanding officer will be a brigadier of the regular Army. The regular Army will also supply administrative and training staff.
The size of the force will be determined in the light of experience as the build-up proceeds, but will not ultimately exceed 6,000 officers and men. Of necessity, the new force will draw substantially on the Ulster Special Constabulary for its initial recruitment, but there will be a campaign to enrol recruits from all sections of the Northern Ireland community. Apart from the formal qualifications of age, residence and nationality the sole criterion for acceptance will be suitability for service in a military force. There will be a strict security vetting.
The force will be called the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The power to call it out for local emergency will be vested by the Secretary of State for Defence in an officer of the Regular Armed Forces who may, in turn, delegate that power to other officers of the Regular Forces not below the rank of major. Members of new force will be liable to be called out for service only in Northern Ireland.
Officers of the new force will be subject to military law at all times, others will be so subject when on training or on duty.
Members of the new force will be required to do one week's consecutive training, four other full days' training and 12 drills. This is, I believe, the minimum training required to produce an efficient force. In some special cases, however, the requirement may be varied within this total amount.
Members of the force will receive Regular Army emoluments for full days' training or duty in the same way as the TAVR. A non-taxable annual bounty will be paid to all members who complete the training obligation.
Although the defence of the United Kingdom is the sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government here at Westminster, the tasks for which this new force will be raised are of the greatest importance to the Government of Northern Ireland. We therefore envisage that the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, will

419
have the fullest possible consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland about the use of this force. This, of course, in no way diminishes the powers and responsibilities of the General Officer Commanding.
The success of this force is vitally important to the people of Northern Ireland. It must be representative of the community as a whole. Recruits must come forward from all sections. We are confident that they will. The Government will do all in their power to ensure the success of the regiment.
Mr. Rippon: We on this side welcome the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. It is very much in line with the views which we expressed in the debate on Northern Ireland on 13th October, particularly in regard to the size and shape of the force. We particularly welcome the proposed name, which, I think, should prove popular, and the emphasis which is rightly placed on the strict security vetting. Obviously, we must study the White Paper and the Bill before we reach final conclusions.
Can the Minister tell us when the Second Reading debate is likely to take place and when it is expected that this new force will be in a position to exercise an effective role?
Mr. Hattersley: The date of the Second Reading debate is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but it is certainly my hope that it will occur in the immediate future and my suspicion that it will take place on Wednesday of next week.
As to the effective date for the force, we hope to begin recruiting on the first day of next year and we hope that the force will be an effective instrument by April next year, with the four months or so intervening being used to make a sensible and practical transitional period between the old and the new forces.
Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are nine counties in Ulster, not six, and, therefore, that this name is something of a misnomer? It would have been far better to have called it the Northern Ireland Defence Force. Is he aware that many people who welcomed the Hunt Report welcome the
420
statement which has been made and the details, particularly in view of conflicting reports about who would be recruited into the force?
Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for the second part of that question. As to the first part, I hope very much that all sections, both in this House and in Northern Ireland, will judge the force by its characteristics and constitution rather than by one word in its name. This force is an integral part of the British Army. It is the practice, when raising new regiments of the British Army, to incorporate names which have been used in the past and the word "Ulster" has played a distinctive part in British Army history.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that there will be a general welcome for the fact that the military and civilian duties will be quite separate and that many members of the R.U.C. themselves welcome this?
May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that saying straight away that a substantial majority of this force is to be recruited from former B Specials is likely to increase the chances of general acceptance in Ulster?
Secondly, why has the hon. Gentleman rejected the recommendation of the Hunt Report that this body should not exceed 4,000 men? We are now to have a ceiling of 6,000. To what pressures was he subjected which led him to reach this figure and to reject what the Hunt Committee recommended?
Thirdly, in so far as this body will obviously be armed, will the arms be kept in a central garrison and no longer by people in their private homes?
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman has asked two questions of crucial importance. First, on the recruitment of substantial numbers of B Specials, I said that for two reasons. The first is the necessity—and I used the word in my statement that if the force is to become viable in the early months of next year the members of the B Specials must be incorporated in the force. The second reason is the fact that, despite the opinion of the House about individual members of the Specials, the force is composed of a majority of men who have given good and honourable service to Northern

421
Ireland. That in no way comments on my attitude towards a minority of that force. The majority are appropriate of membership of the new regiment.
The ceiling of 6,000 is a matter of calculation based on the military advice available to my right hon. Friend. The position is that if this force were needed for call out over a long period to man all the points which might be necessary for protection one would need to have a force of this size. But I emphasise that this is essentially a ceiling and whether that ceiling is or is not achieved will be determined by the conditions which operate in Northern Ireland between January and April next year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked an equally important question about keeping arms at home. It will certainly be the general practice for arms to be stored centrally, but there must be with this force an occasional exception to that rule and that exception must apply when obligations on this force to respond immediately to emergencies could not be met if the arms were stored in a central depot and would, therefore, take some time to collect.
This case will be an exception and, in practice, would be most likely to occur in rural areas. My hon. Friends who may be concerned about this provision will, I hope, be reassured to know that the Bill will make provision that on occasions when arms are kept at home all members of the force will be subject to military law.
Miss Devlin: Does my hon. Friend really expect me, or any other hon. Member, or anyone in Northern Ireland. to accept one solitary word of the whitewash and eyewash he has produced for the people of Northern Ireland? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh.") I am asking a question and I am asking it importantly and in all sincerity. Am I, as a Member of Parliament, expected to go back to my constituents and to tell them that this is what has been offered? If we are to have a new force with a ceiling of 6,000 men and if in the beginning we arc to rely on the Ulster Special Constabulary, there are only 8.000 of those men and we shall have the whole Ulster Special Constabulary in the new force by April.
Hon. Members: Order.
Miss Devlin: We shall have the whole of the Ulster Special Constabulary in that force. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Chair to keep order.
Miss Devlin: If there are not to be, as the Hunt Committee recommended, the strict qualifications relating to physical ability, mental ability, educational qualifications and medical fitness, how are the rest of us going to get into—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Miss Devlin: I will sum up my question reasonably briefly, Mr. Speaker. What we are being offered, in my opinion, is the B Specials under another name. Can the hon. Gentleman give me one concrete statement to show that this is not the Ulster Special Constabulary under the guise of the British Army?
Mr. Hattersley: The question whether the hon. Lady recommends it to her constituents is a matter for her conscience and judgment. I say two things to her which I hope will help her to do so. First, this force differs in at least seven major and fundamental ways from the Special Constabulary, not the least of which is that it is under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and is under the practical control of officers of the British Army.
Secondly, my statement included at least three pleas, and I make a fourth now, that all members of the Northern Ireland community should join this force. I believe—I say this to the hon. Lady with the greatest respect—tthat the greatest service she can render, in regard to this force, to her constituency and to Northern Ireland as a whole, is to encourage those responsible people who supported her to support and join this force.
Captain Orr: Is the Minister aware that, despite what the hon. Lady has said, the formation of the new Ulster Defence Regiment will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland of all shades of religious and political opinion and that we wish the new force well? Will he answer one question about the interim period? As I understood, it is to be from January to April. I assume that arrangements have been made so that the duties of

423
the Special Constabulary will be carried out until the new force is precisely complete.
Mr. Hattersley: Arrangements are being made for a suitable and satisfactory transitional period. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that, as a result of a statement being made in the Stormont today and of a Bill being presented in that place, there are two transitions. One is to accommodate the new military force which I have announced. The other is to accommodate the new civil police auxiliary which will be set up during the same period.
Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement about the storage of arms in Northern Ireland is bound to cause great concern, both here and in Northern Ireland? If this force is to be in any way a success, it will have to consist of people from every section of the community in Northern Ireland. What representations has my hon. Friend made to the influential persons in Northern Ireland who could guarantee the full co-operation of all sections of the community?
Mr. Hattersley: I think that it would have been inappropriate to have made formal representations to influential persons before I made a formal statement to the House. The influential persons to whom my hon. Friend refers, who are experienced and responsible as well as influential, will, I am sure, do their best to make this force a genuinely representative one. I share and echo my hon. Friend's view that this is an essential factor.
I repeat that the keeping of arms at home will apply to a small number of the force only. It will apply because operational requirements so dictate. It will apply with the approval and permission of officers of the British Army. I believe that those safeguards, combined as they will be with the provision for military discipline while such a situation obtains, ought to be adequate reassurance to people who are concerned about it.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that anybody knowing the terrain in question will realise that, because of the need for speedy action, the central storage of arms is not
424
possible in every case? Will he say something about the age limit? Will there be some flexibility about the age limit, at any rate in the initial stages?
Mr. Hattersley: There will be an initial flexibility. The flexibility will be spelt out in some detail in the White Paper which will soon be available. I emphasise that as the force builds up and as it takes on new recruits we must recruit men who are physically capable of performing the essentially military role which it must occupy.
Mr. Heifer: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal of uneasiness amongst hon. Members on this side, because it would appear as if to a large extent the new force is really the old force under a new name? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is my opinion. On that basis, does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us believe that we must go, not back to square one, but beyond? Therefore, will he reconsider the whole question of naming the force "Ulster Defence Regiment" because that raises the question: defence against whom? Is it defence against Southern Ireland, or is it an internal defence force?
Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend genuinely believes that this is the Special Constabulary by another name, it must be because of the inadequacies of my statement. When he reads the White Paper, as I am sure he will, he will find that the shortcomings of my statement are redressed in the White Paper and he will not, I think, draw that conclusion.
As to the name, I can only repeat that it would be absurd to judge the nature of this force by its title alone. The force must be judged by its composition and its constitution, which are very different indeed from those of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
Mr. Henry Clark: Is the Minister of Defence aware that the bulk of the people in Northern Ireland will welcome his statement, but that many will regret the passing of the Ulster Special Constabulary, which has provided a very real measure of defence for those living in the countryside, particularly for women? We will welcome the new force and we shall look forward to its providing a similar and adequate defence force.

425
Equally, we welcome the fact that the Army is assuming a role in the defence of one of the United Kingdom's land frontiers for the first time and removing the very heavy burden that the police in Northern Ireland have borne in the past.
When the Minister works out the details of the new force, will he remember that the risk of arms being stored in homes must be balanced against the very real risk of arms stored in arsenals, which immediately provide a target for I.R.A. attack, as the history of the last 50 years shows us?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions are unfair to other hon. Members.
Mr. Hattersley: Though I have done what I regard as my duty in defending the reputation of the Ulster Special Constabulary as a whole, I do not think that I want my defence to be translated into adulation. I want to carry the best of that force over to this new regiment. I certainly want a regiment which in 10 years' time does not result in my hon. Friends making the serious accusations against it which they can now make against the Special Constabulary.
Mr. John Mendelson: As to the central storing of arms, is my hon. Friend aware that in the period shortly after the recent disturbances, competent British military opinion on the spot, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must well know, was very much concerned that the keeping of arms in private homes will be one of the main dangers that might discredit the future military force?
Therefore, will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to have a further look at this question in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that no one shall run away with the idea that it is unimportant that people should have a gun ready every time they think that something is happening which might not be happening at all?
Mr. Hattersley: I think my hon. Friend is labouring under something of a misapprehension in that his question implied that since security in Northern Ireland had been the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence guns had not been kept in homes in Northern Ireland.
426
What happens in Northern Ireland now is exactly what will continue to happen. The keeping of guns on private property by members of the Special Constabulary is not now general or generally acceptable, but in key areas where it is necessary to keep arms and ammunition at home, they are there and they have been there, with the approval of the G.O.C. It is exactly that criterion which has been working successfully since August and which will be continued.
Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the creation of this force, contrary to what some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, will be much welcomed by all responsible people in Northern Ireland and that it will be their hope that every section of the community will be represented? What liaison, in an armed insurrection, will there be between this force and its commanding officers and the police? In a riot, will this force be used to assist the police when there is armed insurrection in the streets?
Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir. I make it very clear at once that it is the intention, and the proposed task and role, of the force that it should not be used on riot control. Indeed, the object of the Hunt Committee's recommendations in so far as they affect military force were to distinguish the civil police from the military function. The force about which I have been speaking is essentially intended to carry out a military task. It is certainly the intention of none of us that it should be used on riot control duties.
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the public relations and, therefore, the success of this force —to which I certainly wish all success —will be a continuing exercise and is not simply a matter of first impression? Now that the House has been told—I am sure that it was right that it should be told first—about these proposals, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those responsible quarters to which some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have referred will probably wish to explore the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they are kept informed and are helped as far as they require?
Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's suggestion. I will make myself available to do what in that matter can be done. It is certainly an important task. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand exactly when I say that some of the things that I have heard this afternoon have not encouraged me to believe that it will be easy.

BILL PRESENTED
  ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT
  Mr. Secretary Healey, supported by Mr. Secretary Callaghan, Mr. Roy Hattersley, and Mr. Ivor Richard presented a Bill to establish the Ulster Defence Regiment and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 28TH NOVEMBER 1969
  The following Members were chosen in the Ballot:
  Mr. David Crouch.
  Mr. Edward Milne.
  Mr. John Wells.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ORDERS)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary to move the first Motion, it might help if I informed the House that it had occurred to me that there are two courses that the House can take. We can either have four debates on the four Orders standing on the Order Paper, or we can have one general debate in which everything that would arise on any of the four could be discussed, with votes if necessary on each of the Orders. What is the view of the House on this matter?
Mr. Edward Heath: My hon. Friends believe that it would meet the convenience of the House if we had one debate on the four Orders, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: So be it.
I have not selected the four Amendments which stand on the Order Paper and which are, in any event, out of order as they are direct negatives to the Motion. However, hon. Members who hold the views expressed in those Amendments will be free, if they wish, to vote against the orders.
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be not approved.
I am glad to accept your suggestion and have one general debate, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with this course, so that we may have a general debate on this Order along with the other three relating to Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervenes a little later on the Order relating to Scotland, in view of the indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friend will be ready to deal with the draft Order relating to Scotland.
The terms of the Motion make clear the Government's view that we cannot advise the House to approve the draft Orders. Some people may ask why we

429
introduced a Bill in the first place, instead of following the procedure that I am now proposing to the House; that is, of simply putting the Motions and inviting the House to reject them.
Sir John Langford-Holt: We know why.
Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman does. I will have something to say about his constituency a little later.
I remind the House that on 19th June last, by a large majority, hon. Members rejected a Motion moved by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylehone (Mr. Hogg) calling on me to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. [Interruption.] That Motion was rejected by a very substantial majority of the House of Commons, and I then introduced a Bill which, I must say, I would have preferred to have seen go through—[Interruption.]the other place because it would have carried into force the Government's principle—
Hon. Members: What does that mean?
Mr. Callaghan: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will stop shouting and listen to me for a moment, they will see what it means.
It would have carried into force the Government's principle that where local government boundaries—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to me for half a second without interrupting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I am prepared to have a rough house if hon. Gentlemen opposite want one, but I prefer them to listen to my argument.
It would have carried into force the Government's principle that where local government boundaries have been recently settled—as in the case of London —Parliamentary redistribution should follow that process, irrespective of the political consequences, whether for good or for ill from the point of view of any party. I regret that the Opposition in the House of Lords has prevented some measure of parliamentary redistribution from taking place.
About 100 seats in this country, mainly in Greater London, could have been, and would have been, redistributed by now,
430
and that would have occurred if the Bill had been passed in another place in accordance with the Boundary Commissioners' proposals in the Greater London area. [Interruption.] If it had not been for the rejection of the Bill by another place, that redistribution would have taken place following the Boundary Commissioners' reports exactly, and following, also, the settlement of local government boundaries. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite have now got that point in their heads.
The Bill could now be put through again if we were to re-present it—that is, under the Parliament Act procedure—and could take effect from 2nd August next. But in some ways that would have been too late, because it would not have been able to operate in time for the Greater London Council elections. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh.") This was something that the G.L.C. Tory majority wanted. Indeed, they wished to send a deputation to me asking me that the redistribution should go through so that they might fight it on the Boundary Commission proposals. I was ready to accede to that, irrespective of the political consequences, but most of the Opposition in this House did not want that.
As regards the General Election, a number of procedural matters would have been required after the Bill had come into force on 2nd August next and, putting it at its lowest, it is possible that even the next General Election would not have been fought on the new boundaries. Therefore, the Government decided that there was no particular merit now in representing the Bill in order to put it through on the Parliament Act basis, because we could not have achieved the result that all the parties wanted in relation to the G.L.C., and possibly not in relation to the General Election either.
That was the decision of another place and it has compelled us in that sense to drop the Bill because it would not have been of any great value to the parties. But I hope no one is in doubt that the Government were ready and anxious to see that the Greater London seats were redistributed in accordance with the Boundary Commission proposals. The other place have used its power to prevent this happening.

431
Even as late as October, when we were debating the issue, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) betrayed at least a half interest in putting through the redistribution in London. He at least dangled a fly in front of me. If I had thought that there was any disposition to follow it up, I would have been only too happy to swallow that fly because I had no difficulty in putting forward these proposals for redistribution. The local government boundaries had already been fixed.
The right hon. Gentleman is a very far-sighted man with a great capacity for combining an eloquent statement of principles with an earthy regard for electoral advantage in London, and I think that he might have detected what was denied to some of his colleagues, that perhaps the redistribution would not have been wholly unfavourable to the Conservative Party in London, or so I am told.
But that was not to be. They stood on principle. They said, "The whole Bill and nothing but the Bill; the whole order and nothing but the order." So far as I can make out, the Leader of the Opposition, whom we shall no doubt hear later, was not apparently so taken with the idea as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. The right hon. Gentleman has been abusing the Government on this question since 1948, when he has been in opposition. I do not know whether he has reminded himself of the adjectives he used then, but his eloquence in denunciation of the Government was just as vehement as it is today, and just as unjustified. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition was not so taken with the idea. Perhaps he will tell us.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter(Kingston-upon-Thames): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, when I have finished what I want to say. The right hon. Gentleman must not be impatient. There is plenty of time.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman has been influenced by the effects in Bexley I do not know. After all, he represents a London borough. He knows what impact it would have and he knows what the effect would have been in his own constituency. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. A certain amount of noise in the debate is acceptable, but not too much.
Mr. Callaghan: Far be it from me to complain. I was not exactly putting the situation in an unprovocative way.
The right hon. Gentleman would have been faced with the redistribution in his own constituency. He could, of course, have moved over and no doubt he would have tried to do so, although I did read somewhere about a determined lass who was certain to prevent him from doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of considering anything but the highest principles in this matter. Why should I? The party opposite could have had all the London seats—every one of them—if it had wanted them, without difficulty.
Mr. Heath: I say straight away that we want the whole of the English Order. Let the right hon. Gentleman advise the House to approve it and I shall be satisfied.
Mr. Callaghan: I am coming to the question about the whole loaf. The right hon. Gentleman could have had half a loaf if he had wanted it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it not follow from the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman said, clothed in a good deal of provocative dressing, that the real reason why there is not to be a redistribution in London is not as he suggested, the action of another place, but the decision of the Government not to use their powers to lay an Order affecting this issue and to use the majority which they intend to use to vote down their own Order?
Mr. Callaghan: That remark seems to be more material to a speech than to an interruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If hon. Members will wait they will hear the answer in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman is, in any case, quite wrong. The Bill, or indeed any separate Bill, would have enabled the London proposals to come into effect. When the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames showed his half interest in the matter I gave him what I hoped was a "come on" reply, but there has never been any attempt to try to translate those London proposals.

433
Having made clear that the Government were ready to see them implemented, despite the political consequences, it is important at this stage that I should make absolutely clear—because I find a small doubt about this in some constituencies in London that if the House decides to vote down these orders, the G.L.C. elections and the next General Election will be fought on the basis of the 1966 boundaries. This should be made absolutely clear so that there is no doubt about it. There can be no further attempt to try to alter those boundaries.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Knowing the right hon. Gentleman's wish that the G.L.C. reforms shall go through, are we to take it that he is advising his colleagues to vote in favour of the reform of the G.L.C. boundaries? Secondly—I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing this intervention—do we take it that he is now for the first time laying all the Orders because he now realises that he would be in breach of the law if he did not?
Mr. Callaghan: No. The answer to the first part of the question is that my hon Friends have already demonstrated their support for reforming London by voting in favour of the Bill and that would have enabled the redistribution to take place at a time when the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Tories, was voting against it.
As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will undoubtedly be dealing with this matter. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should try to follow the technicalities. It is not possible to separate out London by means of the Orders. It can only be done through the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman voted against.
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe indicated dissent.
Mr. Callaghan: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop shaking his head and would listen. There are a number of constituencies which straddle the board—[Interruption.] Honestly, hon. Members opposite must be stupid. It cannot be done by way of Orders because there are a number of constituencies which straddle the border. Therefore, the procedure has to take the form of a separate Bill.
434
As regards being in breach of the law, that was certainly never the case. Indeed, when counsel, Mr. McWhirter, suggested that I was "bending" the law of the courts he withdrew the remark after a rebuke. Therefore, there is no suggestion of that. I remind the right hon. Gentle? man again that the House itself—[Interruption.]— I do not propose to be diverted too much—voted down the recommendation put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that I should introduce the Order as long ago as 19th June.
I come to the draft Orders—
Mr. Anthony Barber Mr. Anthony Barber(Altrincham and Sale) rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way again at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman should lick his wounds a little longer before he comes to the Dispatch Box again.
Mr. Barber Mr. Barber rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Home Secretary does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Callaghan: I would have no more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's figures on this occasion than I did last time.
If the draft Order for England were to be approved, it would implement without modification the recommendations contained in the 1969 Report of the Boundary Commission for England. Article 2 of the draft Order substitutes the new constituencies recommended by the Boundary Commission for the old ones. Parts I and II of the schedule to the Order set out the contents of the existing and new constituencies respectively and state whether they are county or borough constituencies.
I ask the House to note this figure. Three hundred and sixty-seven existing constituencies would be abolished by Part I and 372 new constituencies would be created by Part II. Thus, the total number of constituencies in England would be increased from 511 to 516. In case hon. Members see a discrepancy between the figure of 367 existing constituencies to be abolished and the 346 mentioned in the Boundary Commission's report, I should explain that the draft

435
Order also deals with the 21 constituencies for which the Commission recommended no change in boundaries but recommended either new names or that they should be designated as borough constituencies.
The draft Order for Wales is in similar terms—
Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: May 1 raise one small point?
Mr. Callaghan: I have given way rather a lot. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member would care to hear me and if, by the end of my speech, I have not dealt with the point, perhaps he will ask again. I have a lot of material to put before the House.
The draft Order for Wales is in similar terms to the draft order for England. Part I of the Schedule would abolish 12 existing constituencies, which would be replaced by the 12 new constituencies in Part II of the Schedule. The boundaries of 11 constituences in Wales would be changed. The spelling of the name of one constituency would be altered. Llanelly, with a "y", would become Llanelli, with an "i".
In Northern Ireland, the boundaries of seven of the existing 12 constituencies would be altered.
To complete the figures, perhaps I should say that the draft Order for Scotland would provide for the boundaries of 46 of the existing 71 constituencies to be altered, although there would be no alteration in the total number of constituencies.
In all, including constituencies for which new names have been proposed and minor matters of that sort, the four draft Orders provide for 432 existing constituencies to be replaced by 437 new constituencies. Even with the qualifications which I have made and subtracting the tiny alterations which I have mentioned, this is a major upheaval of the parliamentary map, the like of which we have not experienced in our parliamentary history.
Now, let me explain the basis of the draft Order—
Lieut.-Commander Maydon Lieut.-Commander Maydon rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to
436
get on. I promise that I will give way before I finish if he feels that I have not dealt with his question.
Let me explain the basis of the draft Order for the English constituencies. There seems to have been a thread of misunderstanding running through these debates about the basis on which the Boundary Commissioners' work. Many commentators in the Press, and some hon. Members, discuss the issues of redistribution as though the Commissioners begin by taking each constituency as a separate unit, review its size and then decide whether wards or groups of electors should be added to it or subtracted from it to conform as near as possible to a common size throughout the country. That is not the way in which the Boundary Commissioners have approached their work. They do not begin their work by starting with the constituency as the unit and building up to the total number throughout the country.
Paragraph 45 of their report for England explains clearly the way in which they approach their task. They start from the basis of the geographical county. What they did was to take the 1965 electorate of each county—I emphasise the word because of its significance in relation to Redcliffe-Maud —and they divided the electorate by the 1965 electoral quota for the country as a whole, 58,759. This simple division gave them a number of seats to which the geographical county is entitled in theory. Only at that stage, having decided what is the quotient of seats for each county, do the Commissioners set about the task of reviewing individual constituencies within the geographical county boundary so as to finish up with the right number of seats in each county.
In other words, the unit is not the constituency, but the county. Perhaps I should emphasise at this point, to avoid misunderstanding, that when I refer to counties the Boundary Commissioners obviously include in the county not only the electorate in what we would call county constituencies, but also the electorate of the county borough constituencies.
Having done that, the Boundary Commissioners found in the case of a number of counties that there were anomalies. In some cases they pinpointed them. I wish to pick out four, because they are among

437
the more major anomalies: Durham, Lancashire, Northumberland and the West Riding of Yorkshire. In the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire—it is in the report; 1 am sure that hon. Members who do not have it will accept what I am saying—they said that they proposed to leave the county, which included the boroughs in the West Riding, with one more constituency than its theoretical entitlement under the quotient which I have illustrated rather than propose
" a radical redrawing of constituency boundaries in advance of any changes resulting from the Royal Commission's review of local government in England ".
On page 42, the Commissioners refer to Lancashire. According to their theoretical quotient for each county, Lancashire has three more seats than the quota. They said, here again, that they felt it would be undesirable to embark upon a far-reaching redistribution in advance of any changes in local government boundaries resulting from the Royal Commission's review of local government in England.
The Commissioners said, at page 37 of their report, that the Durham county had two more seats than its theoretical quotient. Nevertheless, they proposed as little disturbance as possible whilst awaiting the result of the Royal Commission's review of local government in England. "[hey said much the same about Northumberland, which has one seat over quota according to the manner in which the Boundary Commissioners decide to do their work. This is not a new way of doing it. They have been doing it in this way for many years. There are, of course, other counties which 1 could quote in this connection and I will do so later.
Those four counties alone account between them for 134 constituencies. In each of those cases, the Boundary Commissioners have said that they do not propose to proceed on the basis of their theoretical quotient for the county as a whole because they prefer to wait for the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. In these counties the Commissioners declined to undertake the redistribution.
I emphasise once again, and this is the kernel of the Government's case—let there be no doubt about it—that parliamentary constituency boundaries which would be altered drastically-430-odd
438
would be altered in some way or other if the orders were to go through—would have to have another major redistribution as soon as the orders went through. No one on the Opposition side has ever attempted to destroy that argument.
The Boundary Commissioners would have to do their work over again. Once the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations, or something like them, came into force, the Commissioners would have to fix their new theoretical quotient for each of the new so-called unitary areas, decide how many constituencies each unitary area, county or whatever its name would have, and then divide it into constituencies. No one in the House can pretend that that would not involve the redistribution of hundreds of seats. Let there be no doubt about that.
In discussing this matter, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, while not accepting that there was some foundation for the Government's argument, said, in effect, "If we assume that there is some point in the Government's argument, why do not the Government at least deal with areas where Maud and the existing county boundaries coincide?" He quoted with approval an article from New Society, which stated that even if I relied upon the Maud Commission as a reason for not implementing the Boundary Commissioners' Report, nevertheless it would be fairly easy—New Society said that, not the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to isolate these cases and to implement some four-fifths of the recommendations which would probably not involve further upheavals.
If it were true, that would be a serious allegation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that it was true. He said that the conclusion that four-fifths of the recommendations would not involve further upheavals coincided with the Opposition's assessment. That assessment was inaccurate, and I propose to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House in what way it was inaccurate. There is only one county used by the Boundary Commissioners for working out their entitlement to seats which will become a unit under the Maud Report without alteration, and that is Shropshire.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Why not deal with Shropshire?
Mr, Callaghan: I have promised that I will deal with the question, and I will do so. Shropshire contains four constituencies. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been a Member for 24 years. He may well argue, "At least let the redistribution go ahead there". This is a serious argument to which the House has not listened, and I ask the House to listen to it today. Let me describe the consequences of an attempt to implement the Boundary Commissioners' recommendation for Shropshire, which becomes a complete unit under Redcliffe-Maud.
The boundaries of the county have been altered by the West Midland Counties Order of 1965, by which some areas of Shropshire were transferred to Staffordshire and others were transferred to Cheshire. Some parts of Staffordshire were transferred to Shropshire and parts of Worcestershire were transferred to Shropshire, too. If an order were made implementing solely the recommendations of the Commission for Shropshire, the parts of Shropshire which were transferred to Staffordshire and Cheshire in 1965 would not be included in any constituency at all, while the parts of Staffordshire and Worcestershire which have been transferred to Shropshire would be included in two constituencies.
We should be back to the plural voting system. I understand hon. Members opposite supporting that, but there is no reason why the rest of us should do so. To deal with Shropshire as recommended by the Commission it would also be necessary to look at the recommendations for Cheshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire. And if one looks at those counties, it will be seen that other changes affecting their boundaries were made by the West Midland Counties Order of 1965 and that Gloucestershire. Leicestershire and Warwickshire would also be affected—seven counties in all.
That is not the end of the story. The West Midland Counties Order of 1965 also altered the boundary between Gloucestershire and Herefordshire, so that it would also be necessary to look at the Herefordshire constituency. Under the Maud proposals, Herefordshire would be contained entirely within a unitary area —it may be argued that we could deal with that—together with part of Worcestershire. The Boundary Commission envisaged two constituencies for Here
440
fordshire: Hereford itself would have 52,000 electors and the Leominster constituency would have about 39,000 electors.
But it is reasonable to suppose that if the Maud proposals were to be implemented, the Boundary Commission would want to examine the question of achieving more balanced electorates, possibly by including some areas now in Worcestershire which under the Maud proposals would be in Herefordshire. In any case, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Herefordshire could not be implemented on their own because the county boundaries with Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were altered by the West Midland Counties Order of 1965. Therefore, to deal with Herefordshire we should also have to deal with Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.
I could go on. It would not be possible to implement these parts of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission's Report on their own. This is a jigsaw puzzle which fits together and cannot be dealt with piecemeal—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Do it all."J—It is an obvious conclusion that it cannot be done piecemeal and the question is: why not do all of it? It follows from what I have said that in the absence of a Bill—and the Bill has been defeated—either we put the whole redistribution through or we do none at all. As far as I can see, it is not possible to select areas the boundaries of which do not have repercussions elsewhere. The orders do not lend themselves to partial implementation.
The second important conclusion which I wish to emphasise—I have emphasised it before, but it is necessary to press it home—arises from my descriptions of these counties which it could be argued are among those interfered with least by the Boundary Commission. Indeed, in one case there is no interference at all. But even from those counties, which are the most favourable I could take from the point of view of getting on with the redistribution, it is clear that the comprehensive reform of local government will inevitably require the parliamentary map to be completely redrawn again.
Discussions on local government reform are going ahead in accordance with the Government's intentions. We have all observed the handicaps in the way

441
of effective and efficient local government. All of us—including those most actively engaged in making the local government system work—know how urgent is the need to proceed with local government reform. This is not an academic matter which can be put on one side or thrust into a pigeon-hole and left for 10 years. If local government is to survive, no matter what form it takes then local government reform must proceed.
The Prime Minister said in the debate on the Address that a White Paper will be laid before the House giving the Government's conclusions about the main principles and the main structural changes which will form the basis of legislation. The four local authority associations in England are already hard at work on this. They have made their comments known on the Redcliffe-Maud Report. In addition, comments have been received from over 1,100 individual local authorities. Their conclusions, together with the comments of the main local authority associations, are in the process of being digested by officials and considered by Ministers.
After the White Paper has been published, which, as the Prime Minister said, will be in the New Year, there will follow during 1970 the consultations on local authority boundaries which become consequent upon the redistribution. All this will lead up to the process which I described on 14th October last of working towards legislation in the 1971-72 Session, which should normally begin in October, 1971. It is the Government's view that by 1972 the Boundary Commissioners will have sufficient information to begin work on the redistribution of parliamentary boundaries which will be necessary following this Bill.
There will be a fundamental redistribution. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether he disagrees with that? I do not see how he can disagree with it, but at least he should declare himself. Does he or does he not think that we can have a fundamental redistribution of local government structures and boundaries in this country without a fundamental parliamentary restructuring following, too? If he says that he does not agree, then his case is the stronger, but I know of no one who takes the view that a fundamental
442
parliamentary restructuring need not follow.
The Opposition are asking Parliament to implement changes now which will affect 346 constituencies, most of them in a major way, and are asking that Parliament should do this knowing full well that the task will have to be embarked on again, from the beginning, in three years' time. One cannot adapt one to the other. They will have to start from scratch once more. In the light of this fundamental reorganisation, it would be irresponsible for the Government to invite Parliament to agree to the orders which are before the House today which in themselves are the biggest parliamentary redistribution that has been seen since the Reform Act of 1832.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The Home Secretary explained at great length that it was not possible to deal with the problem piecemeal. On the whole, without examining the various areas, I accept what he said. Why, therefore, was it possible to attempt to deal in a Bill with certain areas of Greater London and some other constituencies? If it was possible to do that in a Bill, why is it not possible today to table separate Orders for those areas?
Mr. Callaghan: The answer, if I understand the question aright, is that the local government boundaries have been settled for London, and there is no major change of which I know for London.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: And some other constituencies.
Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it would involve some other constituencies.
I will deal, first, with London, because it was hoped that it would have been possible, if there had been agreement, to get London through on the new basis. We would then have known whether the Boundary Commissioners in two or three years' time would need to embark on another fundamental reorganisation. As regards other areas, I have been into this matter with some care and I have given two illustrations this afternoon. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take it from me that it is such a jigsaw that we could not have extracted any

443
particular areas without there being repercussions on other areas.
Lieut.-Commander Maydon: It was done in the Bill.
Mr. Callaghan: It was done for a limited group of constituencies in the Bill. Other constituencies were not affected. All we were doing in the Bill in the case of, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) was to divide it in two. We were not affecting any constituency boundary outside his own. We were asking the Boundary Commission to draw another boundary inside the hon. Member's own constituency. That is the reason that it was possible to include some of those constituencies in the Bill if they did not affect contiguous constituencies.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Surely it would have been possible to have accepted the original proposals of the Boundary Commission that the whole of West Sussex should comprise four constituencies—Chichester, Worthing, Arundel and Shoreham, and my own? Two of those constituencies were not affected at all by the Maud proposals, but the two constituencies which the Home Secretary suggested should be divided were my own and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kirby), both of which are vitally affected by Maud. Does that not destroy the right hon. Gentleman's case?
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. He knows as well as I that Redcliffe-Maud proposed a fundamentally different organisation for Sussex. I do not remember the exact details, but it is substantially different as between East and West Sussex. The hon. Member's constituency is clearly one of the areas where the Boundary Commissioners would start again. One of the areas looked at by Maud was Brighton and part of East Sussex—I believe they called it Mid-Sussex. They would have to fix the quotient—[Interruption.] I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to understand this. I see little signs of it so far on the Opposition Front Bench. They would have to start to fix the new theoretical quotient for the new unitary area and start again. The hon. Member
444
has no more idea than I have about what sort of constituency would emerge from that particular reconsideration. That is the answer to his question.
Mr. Hordern Mr. Hordern rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I ask the hon. Member to excuse me. I have given way a good deal and I still have much material left. I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman, since that is not the purpose of intervention.
I wish to say a word about Wales. Here, the Government's view was fully explained in our debate last Session. On the basis of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Local Government in Wales", 19 out of the 36 proposed constituencies would contain a part of more than one proposed new county district. The Boundary Commission for Wales, in paragraph 20 of its report, says that at the outset of its review it calculated theoretical entitlements for each Welsh county and Monmouthshire. The result of its calculations appears in the table on page 6 of its report, and in paragraph 21 it indicates that these theoretical entitlements served as one of their main guides.
However, the proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales on which there have been consultations with the local authorities and their associations would provide for six new counties, but only one of these new counties, Powys, would contain complete existing counties. The other five would each contain part of an existing county.
But even if a new county of Powys was to be constituted from the existing counties of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire, I venture to suggest that the Boundary Commission would wish to examine whether it would not be possible to divide the whole area into two constituencies with more even electorates than those proposed in its report. It leaves the Brecon and Radnor constituency and the Montgomery constituency unchanged at present, with electorates of nearly 50,000 and 30,000 respectively. As regards the Commission's recommendations in respect of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is proposing a further review of the geographical counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth to see whether a satisfactory pattern can be worked out which would

445
avoid the continued division between these county boroughs and administrative counties. That is a further reason for not altering constituency boundaries now, though for personal reasons I might wish they were.
The Government's conclusion in respect of Wales is that an alteration of constituency boundaries now based on existing local government boundaries would as in the case of England have to be followed by yet a further major alteration as soon as new local government boundaries have been settled. In those circumstances, I cannot advise the House to approve the draft Order for Wales.
As regards Northern Ireland, the main effect of the recommendations would be that three of the four Belfast constituencies would be extended so as to include areas outside Belfast. The purpose of this recommendation is to reduce the high electorates in the South Antrim and North Down constituencies. For the same purpose some areas would also be transferred from the South Antrim to the North Antrim constituency.
I examined these recommendations most carefully in the light of the proposals of the Northern Ireland Government for reshaping local government which were contained in their White Paper published in July. I came to the conclusion that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission could not be reconciled with the local government proposals for 17 unitary authorities in Northern Ireland. Twelve of the new areas would be divided between the recommended constituencies; the boundaries of the recommended Belfast, North constituency would be the only ones which would not depart from the principle of observing local government boundaries.
The communiqué published on 13th October following my recent visit indicated that the Northern Ireland Government were setting up a review body to reassess the proposals for local government administration in consequence of decisions taken by them in relation to responsibility for housing. My advice to the House is that, as there is to be a further review, we should not approve the draft Order for Northern Ireland. But when the new local government boundaries in Northern Ireland
446
have been settled—and I hope that this will be considered as a matter of some urgency since I regard it as important—the Boundary Commission should look again at constituency boundaries and make recommendations based on the new local government structure. In the meantime, it is my view that the major alterations proposed in the Boundary Commission's report should not be implemented.
I have explained at some length why the three draft Orders which fall within my responsibility should not, in the Government's view, be approved. If the House accepts that advice, then the next election will be fought on the basis of existing constituency boundaries. That is the practical aspect of the matter, and I have no doubt that the course proposed by the Government is sensible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in connection with local government reorganisation. But the Opposition have tried to erect another argument by saying that there is a constitutional or moral obligation to see that any recommendations put forward by the Boundary Commissioners are implemented, irrespective of any other considerations, apparently. Once they have said it, we have to translate it into orders with the force of law, regardless of whether the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners have been outdistanced by time, may have been made irrelevant by other events or may be seen to have become obsolete because of other events which will take place.
Nevertheless, the Opposition say that the Government should not mind whether they are irrelevant or obsolete and that we as the House of Commons have still to implement them—[Interruption.] Yes, that is the argument. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), who is an excellent parliamentarian, sees what is coming. It may be that he would never have used the argument, but some of his colleagues, who are perhaps less far seeing than he, have used it.
Mr. J. T. Price(West Houghton): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Callaghan: I have given way a number of times to hon. Members opposite, so perhaps it is only fair that I should give way to one of my hon. Friends.
Mr. J. T. Price: If the idea prevails in any part of the House—and evidently it prevails among hon. Members opposite —that, however illogical or wrong-headed may be the proposals emerging from an outside body, albeit an eminent body like the Boundary Commission, this House should automatically rubber-stamp and approve them, surely that is a transference of sovereignty from this place, to which I for one have the strongest objection. Is not the very existence of a permanent Boundary Commission in itself a threat to the continued sovereignty of this House? If we have reached the stage when this kind of massive intervention in the political map of the country is to be settled outside this House, ought we not to reconsider the system with a view to setting up an ad hoc committee to deal with the grosser disparities in boundaries when necessary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate my hon. Friend's help on this matter, and I am grateful to him. He is demonstrating that it is arrant nonsense to assume that the Boundary Commissioners' reports must be accepted, irrespective of the time, nature and obsolescence of their recommendations.
Let us look at the terms of the Act of 1949. By Section 3(4) the draft orders are subject to approval by a Resolution of each House. What, then, is the purpose of such a provision if the draft orders must, in the view of the Opposition, be approved at all costs and in any circumstances? If that is their view, why bring the matter before Parliament at all?
The proper view is that Parliament is supreme in this matter. It was always intended to be supreme under the 1944 Act, and it should be supreme now in the conduct of its affairs. It must be free to deal with this issue in the manner that it thinks best according to the circumstances in which the Boundary Commissioners' reports have been presented. There is no provision which binds Parliament to the approval of these draft orders, nor has it been the intention of previous Governments that it should do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has quoted a
448
letter or statement on this matter from a former Home Secretary, Gwilym Lloyd George. It was never the intention. The Opposition cannot take this view, although it has been argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite on many occasions. The House is free to do what it thinks fit on this matter, and that is what I hope that it will do when it comes to the Vote tonight.
As to their Lordships, do they think for one moment that, because they have rejected the legislation passed by this House last Session, we are obliged in the light of the views expressed by them to come to an entirely different conclusion now that draft Orders are before us? Some of my hon. Friends have expressed surprise and indignation at the action of another place in wrecking the Bill. I can understand and share their indignation, but there is no occasion for surprise.
The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has made much of the point that he did not instruct their Lordships what to do about the Bill and did not tell them what their duty was. He had no need to. When the interests of the Tory Party are at stake, we all know that their Lordships will always rally to his support. It is a very convenient matter for him when the high principles of his party and his own interests coincide—
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Rubbish.
Mr. Callaghan: I hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) is in good voice again. Why does not he stand and say what he wishes to say?
Mr. Rippon: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying bears no relation to what happened. What views has he about the Bishop of Southwark, the Liberal peers and the independent peers, all of whom rightly condemned the Government?
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for not throwing anything at me on this occasion. The fact is that the great majority of hereditary peers always stand by the Tory Party. They have always intervened. The Liberal Party has suffered from it. One cannot find an illustration where the Tory peers have

449
not intervened on behalf of the Tory Party in this House—Vnterruption.]
I will not go back too far into history, but I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will remember the occasion when the Liberal Party introduced a Measure which would practically have given manhood suffrage. The result was that their Lordships threw it out, and the poor Liberal Government of the day had to reintroduce it with the promise that they would redistribute the boundaries to offset the effects of manhood suffrage.
Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair to the Conservative peers and that he would like to pay tribute to them for having had more Conservative peers go into the Lobby to vote in favour of his "Kenya Asian" Bill than he was able to persuade his own Labour colleagues.
Mr. Callaghan: That is a singularly ungracious remark, in view of the fact that I was trying to help the right hon. Gentleman. He was not here yesterday when we debated that matter. If he had been, he would have heard what I had to say about it. However, it would not be relevant to go over it again now.
To continue to come to his assistance, I do not know whether he remembers, but there were three occasions when a Liberal Government introduced Bills to abolish plural voting, which was a very profitable Conservative custom. A man voted as a resident and had separate votes for each business premises that he occupied. The Government fought for this in the sacred name of one man, one vote, one value, and the Conservatives threw out the Government's Bill on three separate occasions.
In 1928, they extended it, when they introduced an even more pleasurable custom. In giving votes to women, the Tory Party of the day, with every help and support from their Lordships, decided not only that women should have the vote but that women whose husbands had business premises should be able to get an extra vote because of those business premises. If a man had six business premises—and there was one case where there were 18—not only did he have a series of votes, but so did his wife.
I come now to a period when some hon. Members present were in the House.
450
When we tried to abolish this custom, the Tories voted against it. There are hon. Members in this House today who voted against the removal of that provision. It is not surprising that I am not willing to take lessons in this subject from hon. Members opposite.
I come up to date. I well remember the deep sense of injustice and injury expressed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite when we brought forward a Motion to abolish the City of London as a separate constituency. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will remember the habit that some of the more junior Members will not know. We used to sit there on Queen's Speech day and watch dignified hon. Gentlemen attired in top hats, frock coats and expensive watch-chains from the City of London take their two seats on the Government Front Bench to show how important the City of London was in running the democracy of the country.
What did the Tory Party do when we wanted to remove this anomaly? How many electors did they have? There are 18,000 electors in Birmingham, Ladywood now. But they were 10,000 electors not for one Member, but for two Members-5,000 electors. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen voted against its removal. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames voted against its removal. So did the hon. and gallant baronet the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who, I am sorry to see, is to leave the service of the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, much as I may wish—something may happen; I do not know—I am not a baronet; I am a knight.
Mr. Callaghan: I apologise. Quite clearly, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not had his deserts. If I can do anything for him during the months that lie ahead I will. I only want to say how truly sorry I am to see an old colleague from 1945 announcing his retirement from this House. We have enjoyed having him here. We know that behind that facade there is a shrewd brain—even though he does not always show it to us.
I could go over the history of the university seats—[Interruption.] Why

451
should we turn the knife in their wounds too much? But some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been preaching to us about the Ladywoods of this world, have for years been voting to keep the business vote, the spouse's business vote, the plural vote, and to ensure that non-residents in the City of London should have two Members in this House.
Mr. J. T. Price: Gerrymandering.
Mr. Callaghan: Gerrymandering! They would not even dare mention the word.
Now the up-to-date position. In quite recent times the Conservative Party has had the benefit of a large difference in size between the country constituencies, which have traditionally favoured it, and the urban seats. At one stage it was 6,000, but it reduced to 2,000. The result, according to independent experts who have examined this matter, has been that 2 per cent. fewer votes for the Conservative Party would win it the same number of seats as the Labour Party. The Conservatives have profited by it without demur for years.
I am told about gerrymandering. notice Mr. David Butler's conclusion, where he says:
" But if Mr. Callaghan had implemented the full proposals of the Boundary Commissioners he would have been restoring to the electoral system something of the anti-Labour bias it once had. Either on the existing boundaries or on Mr. Callaghan's limited proposals, I would bet that if the popular votes in the next Election are divided equally between the two major Parties the Conservatives will have a majority in seats. If the Boundary Commission proposals were carried out in full it is quite clear that the Conservatives would be assured of a Parliamentary majority even if Labour had I per cent. more of the popular vote."
Is not that the reason for their objection?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are not interested in arguments about Redcliffe-Maud. They do not mind if the parliamentary constituencies have to be torn up twice in three or four years. All that is a matter of indifference. They hope to see a situation in which, by getting less votes, they can win the election. That is all that they are interested in and that is, frankly, what the whole basis of their opposition to this particular matter has been about.
I have had to listen to a great deal of claptrap and humbug from the Opposi-
452
tion—[Interruption.] No one yet, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does so this afternoon, has attempted to answer the argument of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals and no one yet has attempted to answer the fact that there will have to be two parliamentary redistributions—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the custom of the House to hear debates in reasonable silence.
Mr. Callaghan: I do not blame the public schools for this. No one yet from the Opposition has taken up the Redcliffe-Maud case. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us this afternoon whether he really believes that the constituencies should be subjected to two radical changes of a more fundamental character than we have ever had in our parliamentary history within three to four years. The right hon. Gentleman should answer that question, and he should also tell us whether he believes that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, not in exact detail but in broad outline, should form the structure of local government reorganisation.
In the light of the Tory Party's record in this matter, which stretches back over a century, and having been accused, as I have, of pretty well every sin in the calendar, may I say that if I wanted to take lessons in how to combine hypocrisy with high-flown sentiments I should turn to the Tory Party.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Edward Heath: The Home Secretary has just made a speech which even his best friend—and I doubt whether the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is that—would tell him was lamentable. Those who have been watching the faces of his hon. Friends behind him have seen that, and seldom have I seen the face of the Leader of the House so smug as he saw his discomfiture.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition making a hard political point, but that was a terribly unfair statement, and he knows it. My right hon. Friend made a jolly good speech.
Mr. Heath: I do not wish to embarrass the Leader of the House. Perhaps he will send for his Deputy.
The speech, as a whole, was as shoddy as the proposal recommended by the Home Secretary. To think that at the beginning the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government's principle. No wonder the Prime Minister left the Chamber as rapidly as he could when he heard that from the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary's speech has raised two major points, with both of which I propose to deal in detail. I could not help noticing that the Home Secretary's speech was preceded by—roughly an hour ago—and ended with matters concerning Northern Ireland. To my mind this has highlighted the extraordinary weakness and, indeed, the duplicity of the Home Secretary, that he should tell Northern Ireland, where we understand that so many of the problems arise from boundary troubles and discrimination of various kinds, that it should set up a boundary commission. To do what? So that the Government can vote down its recommendations? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do?
Mr. Paul B. Rose Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley) rose—
Mr. Heath Mr. Heath: No.—
Mr. Rose Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) is not the Member for Northern Ireland, whatever he may think.
At the end of his speech the Home Secretary revealed the real reason why he is behaving in this shabby fashion and why the Government are rejecting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The right hon. Gentleman believes that the recommendations have an in-built bias against his own party. This is the real reason, and that has emerged without any shadow of doubt.
Any question of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission is a cover story. What really
454
lies behind this is the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the position. It was revealed in the correspondence in The Times by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and stated there quite plainly. Whereas his hon. Friend has no responsibility for matters concerning the implementation of the law of this House, or for reforming it, the Home Secretary has. If he believes this to be an unfair law, why has he taken no action about it for the past five years? If he is criticising the Boundary Commission for the way that it has carried out its obligations under the law, why has he not the honesty to come to the House and to the country and say that his criticisms are really of the Boundary Commission? If his criticism is of the law, his duty is to put proposals before the House to change it. If his criticisms are of the Commission, he should have the guts to stand up and say so.
The House is accustomed to a Government who sometimes come along and withdraw an unpopular Order. The House is accustomed, on rare occasions, to a Government being defeated and abandoning an order. Sometimes a Government has been defeated on an Order and has come back to the House and insisted that that Order be carried. We can all recollect examples of that. What is unique about today's debate is that this is the first occasion in our parliamentary history, as far as I, or the Government's representatives, or anybody else, can trace through the Journal Office, on which a Minister has come to the House, laid affirmative Resolutions before it, and immediately advised the House to reject those very Orders. That has never happened in our parliamentary history.
The three Motions are unique in substance in rejecting four years' work by independent Boundary Commissions and rejecting changes affecting, as the right hon. Gentleman said, more than 400 constituencies. They are unique in form in that the Home Secretary is rejecting Orders which he has laid. They are unique in the brazen effrontery with which the right hon. Gentleman overthrows the established means of demarcating boundaries in our parliamentary democracy. They are unique in modern times in the shameless demonstration, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted at the end of his

455
speech, of Government manipulation for seats for their own advantage. The House has been brought today to the end of this shameful road.
The right hon. Gentleman has added nothing to the arguments which have gone on for the past few months, for the simple reason that there is nothing to add. If the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the position regarding particular constituencies had been made in the context of Orders which had been laid, with amendments proposed by himself, which is specifically allowed for under the law, that would have been a comprehensible contribution to the debate in the House. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has not laid Orders to be carried with amendments, nothing has been added to our knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman's real conclusion was that this matter cannot be dealt with piecemeal. With that we agree, and what that really did was to defeat the major part of his argument for the Bill that he put before the House.
The second point which emerged, and which is of the greatest importance, is that the right hon. Gentleman showed by the examples that he gave that he did not seem to appreciate that the Commission took into account in its recommendations the factors of the present situation. It did precisely that in the counties which the right hon. Gentleman described to us. This therefore makes our point, and is the main reason why all these recommendations ought to be implemented under these Orders.
There has seldom been a larger red herring dragged across the Floor of the House than there was when the right hon. Gentleman accused us of saying that no matter how irrelevant, how out of date, and how misconstructed these recommendations were, this House had to pass them without amendment or debate. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nobody has argued that. The Home Secretary has only to look at what Major Gwilym Lloyd George did in 1954. He laid the Orders before the House without amendment because he believed that that was the right thing to do and that it was the least controversial thing to do, but that did not stop the House debating them. As a Whip,
456
I remember how at night, and through the night, we debated individual constituencies, and how every hon. Member had an opportunity of debating his own problems and his own constituency.—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What about the Whips?"J —I shall deal later with the question of the Whips, because those who wanted to vote in their own way were able to do so, but that is not going to happen with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Nobody can argue that these recommendations are irrelevant, or out of date, or that the wrong processes have been used in reaching the conclusions. All the inquiries have been held. The Commission has adhered to the regulations, and the Home Secretary has not challenged that. These are relevant recommendations, and they are up to date. They have been brought about through the proper constitutional processes, and that therefore defeats the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and is the reason why we believe that they should be carried.
Even allowing for the bumbling nature of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there was a remarkable passage in it. He blamed the House of Lords for what had gone on. Peers of all parties and none, some from his own party, wholeheartedly condemned the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for what they were doing. The Amendments to the Bill were carried by a majority which would have defeated the Government even if no hereditary peers of any party had voted. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have realised that what happened in the House of Lords was the best demonstration of what would have happened in a reformed House if he had had the courage to carry through his own proposals. There would have been a vote of life peers, of cross-benchers, and of some bishops, and the Government would still have been defeated, because their general view was that the Government's Bill and the Government's action was unjustifiable.
What did the House of Lords do? It gave the Government a chance to carry out their constitutional obligation. The Government have had the opportunity of doing that, but what have they done? They have rejected it. It is the Government who have rejected the path of

457
rectitude, not the House of Lords, and this the Home Secretary must realise.
If the Government are dissatisfied with what has gone on in the other House, they have their remedy. Their remedy is to use the Parliament Act. If they had done so, if they believed in their own Bill, instead of trying to find a way of dishing the Commission, this would have allowed a General Election to be held on their proposals from next September onwards. There is no doubt about that. There could have been a General Election from next September onwards on what the Government themselves say they believe to be right. But they have not even had the courage to carry through their own proposals in another place. Alternatively, they could have gone further and attempted to remove the powers of the other House if they thought that they were so unsatisfactory in their usage of them. But again the Government have not dared to do that.
The Home Secretary's duty has been clear from the beginning, namely, to lay the Commission's Report, accompanied by orders, before the House, with an explanation of any Amendments which he —or the Government themselves—wished to put forward. That is the constitutional position, and there is no doubt about it.
The Home Secretary says that we have to do all or nothing. With that I agree. The difference between us is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do nothing, whereas we believe that the orders should be carried through with whatever Amendments he proposes. He should explain them, and the House should then debate them and take its decision upon them. It is clearly laid down in the Act, but it is the one procedure that the Home Secretary has not followed. He has turned and twisted in every way to avoid it. He produces a Bill and hopes to get an indemnity; the Clauses are quickly closured by the Patronage Secretary; the Guillotine is applied; he tries putting forward Amendments to Lords Amendments and they all fail. Finally, when he is taken to the courts by a citizen, he is forced to carry out his statutory duties. Today, having carried out his statutory duty of laying them, he repudiates these very Orders.
Whatever the Home Secretary may now say everybody in this House knows
458
that when the Acts which have been consolidated were passed it was not the intention of Parliament that Orders should be laid only to be repudiated by the Home Secretary. That is neither the form nor the spirit of the Act, nor the wish of the Parliaments which have passed them. But even in the form in which the Home Secretary has now laid them right hon. and hon. Members are denied all possibility of individual decision. If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the speech made by the late Chuter Ede—when he was Home Secretary—in respect of the 1949 orders, he will see that Mr. Chuter Ede explained to the House that he had gone to great lengths to lay the Orders individually where possible and in groups where other constituencies were affected by individual constituencies, precisely so that hon. Members could take a decision on their own constituencies in the context of the other constituencies which were involved.
The Home Secretary, in laying these Orders and advising the House to reject them, has not even carried out that duty, which his predecessor said he believed to be essential to the operation of the Act. We can understand why. Any attempt by hon. Members opposite to express their views about their own constituencies, let alone follow such an expression of views by a vote, would get short shrift from the Patronage Secretary. He would lay on a three-line Whip as thick as he can lay it—and no one can ever accuse the Patronage Secretary of any subtlety. He uses the bludgeon. What would happen to the defaulters? There would be letters to the National Executive and the executives of the constituencies affected saying that the dog licences from the master were being withdrawn.
One brave spirit—the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has expressed the view that what the Government are doing cannot be justified. If he speaks in that way tonight and follows his voice with his vote we shall respect him for it. I hope that he agrees that this is politically and morally wrong, and that it is against the traditions of the House and the interests of democracy. I hope that he will not confine himself solely to arguing that the consequences of doing these things would still further tarnish the shop-soiled image of the Labour Party.

459
In 1966 the Home Secretary asked us to wind up the Boundary Commission. As he has said, we disagreed, and we did so for reasons closely connected with the arguments put forward in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. They were constitutional reasons. The first was that the period set for the Boundary Commission was from 10 to 15 years and it was apparent that by the time it had completed its work and we had been able to take action on it 15 years would have passed. Secondly, there were practical reasons, because of what was happening in the constituencies and because we realised that if we were to base a hope of future action on the RedcliffeMaud Report it would take not 15 years but nearer 25 years under the 1954 arrangements. These are practical as well as constitutional points.
I do not want to go into details of constituencies; they are well known to the House. But ever since 1966 Her Majesty's Government have been determined to use the Redcliffe-Maud Commission as a justification for not implementing whatever reports were produced by the Boundary Commission. That is clear from the proposition that they put to us and from the way in which they have behaved since. At Question Time the Prime Minister has been constantly asked about this, and we have had the usual dissimulating replies. The Government therefore brought forward their own limited proposals, cooked up by themselves without discussion with anybody else. The only argument of consequence produced by the Home Secretary is that the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals would mean very quick changes. We all dislike changes of this kind. That was why, in the discussions in 1954, the point was made strongly that a period of from five to seven years was too short, and the Conservative Government accordingly changed the law to make the period from 10 to 15 years. I dislike such changes myself.
My constituency is affected, because it is divided into three, and the constituencies of my right hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) are affected—no doubt the Prime Minister noted that fact—but I accept that when the Boundary Commission makes a recommendation of this kind, based on
460
the best evidence and procedures, these facts, which affect hon. Members including myself, should be accepted in the general interests of the structure of our democracy.
I now come to the specific point raised by the Home Secretary. I do not believe that any realistic person looking at the structure of local government and the work required to be done by the Boundary Commission in four years would believe that the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations can go through the process of proper consultation and then discussion and decision by the Government, and then translation into draft legislation; that they could be brought before the House, which could then agree upon the boundaries, and that at the same Ome the Boundary Commission could do its work in order to have a new situation in the time which the Home Secretary described.
I do not know anybody who believes that that is a realistic view of the situation. I do not believe that that process could be gone through in four years of Boundary Commission work even if the work was started directly the proposals of the Government were known, without waiting for the House to validate them—in time to have a General Election in 1975 on the new boundaries. If there is an election in 1970, which is obviously a possibility, the following election could be in 1975 and if we are still on the 1954 register by 1975 it means that we will have been on that same register for more than 25 years, covering six General Elections. That is the basic situation which the Home Secretary will not face.
There is now an additional danger confronting us. I had better explain it now. The Home Secretary has given the impression today that he and his colleagues are attempting to bulldoze through both local authorities and Parliament proposals for local government reform sufficiently quickly to give an air of verisimilitude to the statements that he has made about the work of the next Boundary Commission. I suggest that any changes in local government of the magnitude suggested by Maud—without going into the rights and wrongs of them —are changes which require full and detailed consultation with local authorities. They are not matters which can

461
be rushed through overnight. I saw in The Guardian today—a newspaper which is not entirely friendly to my party—a statement from the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend from High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), who said that he has had a much larger postbag about the Maud proposals for his own constituency than about any other matter. That is an indication, from his own side, of the interest which is taken in Maud and local government reform.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I was not concerned with it. I am deeply concerned with it, and it is because I am deeply concerned and want to see a proper reform of local government brought about that I believe there must be sufficient time for local government consultation. This is not a reason for delay, but if we try to take short cuts in these affairs they will take longer in the end. I should have thought that the Home Secretary, with his experience, would recognise that.
Very well then. This is the difference between us, that I do not believe that the job of local government reform can be done properly and the Boundary Commission can do its next job properly in time to have a register ready for a 1975 election, which we must accept is a reasonable probability. In this situation, I say quite bluntly that I believe that the Government's job was to say that these Boundary Commission recommendations should be implemented, with whatever amendments they wanted to make over particular points which occurred to them in discussions, and that we should then accept that it will take roughly 10 years before there is a General Election on a new register based on new local government boundaries. This seems to me to be the realistic appreciation of the processes of Government both inside and outside the House. The Home Secretary asked me for my views on that and I have given them to him very frankly.
Of course, one would have thought that we should hear one forthright, passionate and persuasive voice raised on the other side against this chicanery shown by the Government, and that is the voice of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He is always in the forefront of a fight against undemocratic practices,
462
wherever they raise their heads in any country whose Government he dislikes—[Laughter.] Perhaps that is the secret: "Government he dislikes". He must have been greatly torn in his position below the Gangway when he saw what was happening above the Gangway, but it is extraordinary how nearing a General Election somehow brings him to overcome this gap between him and his right hon. Friends.
Indeed, he goes further. In his correspondence to The Times he challenges the whole basis of the Boundary Commission. I have not noticed him, week by week, pressing for changes in the legislation governing the Boundary Commission. He has not presented Ten-Minute Rule Bills on the subject. The truth of his situation at the moment—no doubt he will seek to speak later on—is that he does not want to soil his hands with the Government's gerrymandering. I give him full credit for that and I understand it, but how can he get out of this position? The way is to go to the root of the whole thing. It is essential for him to prove that the constitutional basis on which the Government are working has been forced upon them against their will by previous legislation which is unjustifiable, because Mr. David Butler says so. That is really the basis of his argument.
So if there is no constitutional justification for what the Government do, he can be in the clear. Where there is no legitimacy, there can be no illegitimacy. Where there is no valid constitutional position, nothing can be unconstitutional. So, his intellectual processes having completed their vicious circle, his conscience is clear. That is the happy way in which the hon. Gentleman can get himself out of his particular intellectual dilemma and still support his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench in gerrymandering.
It was not the hon. Member, as we might have expected, who brought the Home Secretary to account; it was a citizen in the courts. How humiliating that the Home Secretary, the custodian of law and order in this country, had to be taken to the courts! He was forced to give an undertaking to carry out his responsibility which Parliament has placed on him—forced, indeed, to keep his own law.

463
What about the Law Officers, who must have advised him in these matters? I am not referring to the Solicitor-General, who is not present today, because he would not have been given a sight of anything so important as a boundary redistribution. I am referring to the Attorney-General. Is he the one who has been using his experience of constitution-making overseas, in which he has been prominent lately, to advise the Home Secretary on how to abuse his position?
In the courts, on the Home Secretary's behalf, the Attorney-General immediately offers an ex-gratin payment. Those of us who have sometimes dealt with the case of a constituent who, without being able to claim under the law, has at any rate been known to suffer an injustice or a grievance and have fought the Treasury, perhaps when the Home Secretary was Chancellor, to try to get some small ex-gratia payment, know the length of time that we have fought and the difficulties we have had and the correspondence which we have gone through. So often such a case fails. Not a bit of that for the Attorney-General. He says, "The Home Secretary is in difficulties—get him out—ex-gratia payments —let us hope the whole thing is wiped out."
What I want to know is, why should the tax-paying elector be forced to make an ex-gratia payment for getting the Home Secretary out of his difficulties because he will not carry out his obligations to the tax-paying public? Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us tonight. Or perhaps he would like to take another approach. Suppose that he and the Home Secretary were to say that the Home Secretary was responsible for the failure to carry out his duties and that the Attorney-General advised him that that was what he should do. Perhaps the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General would like to make the ex-gratia payment out of their own pockets.
This is an appalling day for the Government. It is a shameful one for hon. Members opposite, though if there are some hon. Members over there tonight who are unhappy about this, we shall respect them if they show it. But it is also a bad day for the House of Commons and for Parliament. When a Min
464
ister and a Government stoop to these depths, it is not only the Minister and the Government who demean themselves. The House of Commons and Parliament, and, indeed, democracy in this country are demeaned likewise.
In three months, the new register comes into operation and for the first time it will include young people aged from 18 to 21. We are told that there will be 51 million young people voting for the first time at the next election. The Labour Party has been very keen to send this message to them:
"When it comes down to it, aren't Labour's ideals yours as well?"
Perhaps "when it comes down to it" was to right phrase to use.
We have seen promises hastily given and lightly abandoned, solemn pledges just as easily discarded, London borough elections postponed for a year because they thought that it would suit their own purpose—but in fact they fared worse—constituencies left unrepresented for a longer time than ever before in British Parliamentary history, constituencies now in which dubious decisions are reached behind Labour Party closed doors—[Interruption.]—and now Parliament —[Interruption.]—I am not blaming the hon. Member for Ireland—and now Parliament turned into a mockery—
Mr. Rose: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman persists in calling me the Member for Ireland. I happen to be the hon. Member for Blackley. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the decency to give way, would listen to a serious point.
Mr. Heath: I readily accept that, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now dissociated himself entirely from Northern Ireland—
Mr. Rose Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Heath: And now Parliament itself has been turned into a—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Schoolboy stuff.
Mr. Heath: —mockery by the Home Secretary—[Interruption.].
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must again control himself.
Mr. Heath: And now Parliament itself is being turned into a mockery by the Home Secretary and his colleagues so that the Labour Party can try to save itself by hanging on to a few more seats. Are these the ideals—
Mr. Eric S. Heller rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the point of order.
Mr. Heffer: When the public school oafs on the other side of the House have finished making a noise I will get to my point of order. Is it right for any hon Members, especially on the Front Bench, to make continual reference in passing to an hon. Member and then refuse to give way when that hon. Member wishes to question him precisely on the point which he is making in his speech
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely within the discretion of any right hon or hon. Member whether he gives way to another hon. Member.
Mr. Heath: I have made no reference to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller).
Mr. Heffer: What about my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)?
Mr. Heath: I gave way to him.
Are these the ideals which the Labour Party is trying to put before the younger generation in this country? The Prime Minister's attitude—and one cannot leave a debate of constitutional importance without reference to the Prime Minister —has been absolutely typical: brazenly cynical and utterly indefensible. As usual, he has not taken the trouble to attend the debate. His attitude can be summed up quite simply. He says, "We have got dirty work to do; then let us get it over as quickly as possible". But he was defeated by the Upper House. They prevented it. The Prime Minister says, "A week is a short time in politics. When you have been rumbled, then gamble on the short memories of the people". We shall not let the people forget this shabby incident in the life of the Government. We shall not let the Government bury this incident. What the Government Front
466
Bench are offering to young people today is not ideals; it is just the quick fiddle and the small-time cheat.
Sir Robert Walpole said of the notorious Duke of Newcastle, who was the most discreditable manipulator of his day —[HON. MEMBERS: "A Tory."]—he was a Whig. He said of Newcastle, "His name is perfidy". Let that be the political epitaph of the Home Secretary and his shabby Government.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the debate can now proceed. Mr. Charles Pannell.
Hon. Members Hon. Members: Oh.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I do not know why such a cry of disappointment went up when I was called. At least I have had 50 years' membership of my party, and I am as proud of that as I am of over 20 years' membership of the House. I am just as sensitive as, and I am sure some people would think more sensitive than, the Leader of the Opposition to the decencies of this place.
In common with some hon. Members opposite I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Leader of the Opposition is completely wrong if he does not believe that the local authority associations are up to their neck in discussions about the Maud Report. They will try to get these reforms through as quickly as possible. I do not think the local authority associations are likely to be willing tools of this or any other Government who wish to engage in what the right hon. Gentleman called a fiddle.
It came rather badly from the right hon. Gentleman to invoke 1954. We were both here at the time, and both sat here all through the night. The debate was remarkable for the fact that the Home Secretary of the time, Major Gwylim Lloyd-George, made the position perfectly clear. In the debate he said,
" It is obviously open for the House to make what rules it likes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1784.]

467
He also said that Parliament could do what it liked about the recommendations and that it was for Parliament to decide. But it was the present Leader of the Opposition, as Whip, who had to see that there were no stragglers from the lines.
Anyone who was present through the day and night of those debates knows full well that some hon. Members opposite expressed the gravest reservation about what was being done. The then hon. Member for Devizes Mr. Hollis—pointed out during the debate that the boundaries up to that time gave an advantage of 750,000 voters to the Conservative Party in any election which might take place. That was a consequence of the political mechanism. Going back to 1950 and 1951, it was not the electorate which changed when the Labour Party in 1951 polled the highest vote of all—about 14 million—but was defeated by the redistribution. The party was not defeated by votes in the country. The question is whether democracy lies in votes in the country or in the political mechanism.
The Leader of the Opposition told us where he thinks the Government have gone wrong. In my view there is a far graver issue—the action of an unelected Chamber in rejecting the view of an elected Chamber. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition may say, any hon. Member who reads the Report of the debates in another place can be in no doubt of their Lordships' intentions. At the end of that debate the Marquess of Salisbury argued about the difference between complete rejection and an Amendment. He said,
" So long as it is understood that it still remains our unalterable purpose to prevent this Bill from passing into law, I do not personally care very much what method is used for that purpose. Moreover, speaking quite frankly, it is clearly better to adopt a course which rallies as many opponents of the Bill as possible into one single camp… I shall certainly not myself oppose it, so long as it is clear that our opposition remains unaltered and that that position is not changed by any step we take now."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT. House of Lords, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 304. c. 500.]
That was an unelected House of Lords dealing with a sovereign House of Commons.
It has been suggested that this is the first time that a Minister has brought an affirmative order before the House and
468
told the House to vote against it. But in the constitutional circumstances, my right hon. Friend had no other option.
Mr. Heath: The other option is for the Home Secretary to advise the House to vote for the Order.
Mr. Pannell: We are faced with what the House of Lords has done. I cannot accept the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition put in such a high moral tone. He used all the vitriol possible this afternoon. As the Home Secretary said, at the end of the day there would have been a proper redistribution in London, where something had been settled, and we must, therefore, consider the reality of the matter. In view of the promise that was made that action would be taken by 1972, I find it difficult to accept the views of the Opposition.
I shall vote in as good a heart for the Government tonight as the Leader of the Opposition will vote against the Government. I will not vote the way I propose for any shabby or sordid purpose but because I am convinced that the Government's arguments are right. It is no use the Leader of the Opposition trying to tell me that I have advantage to gain from the way I will vote. I will have even less of an advantage in that my constituency is comparatively undisturbed.
Despite the feline ferocity which the Leader of the Opposition pours out on this matter, he should accept that many people believe in what they are doing. The right hon. Gentleman always imputes the most sordid motives, but we recall that he succeeded, as a Whip, Buchan-Hepburn, who coined the phrase, "Your constituency or your conscience."
The right hon. Gentleman may talk about North Islington, but he should bear in mind the furore that occurred in Surbiton; and we also remember Bournemouth and Christchurch. I believe in the great political parties and I do not believe that any such party would allow itself to be advantaged in the way the right hon. Gentleman described. I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends have reservations about what the Government propose, but, in all the circumstances, I will have no regrets after casting my vote tonight.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in condemning the Government's proposals to gerrymander the voting system of the nation.
The Home Secretary seemed to base his remarks on an early acceptance of the Redcliffe-Maud Report by Parliament. He was wrong, because not only has Parliament not yet had an opportunity to consider those proposals—indeed, the Government have not submitted a White Paper on them—but when the White Paper is published and we have an opportunity to consider the matter, it is likely, from the information and repercussions I have gleaned from the grass roots in my constituency, that there will be a great deal of opposition to such a wholesale reconstruction of local government.
I have received many representations from local authorities. They condemn the hasty way in which they are being required to give a rapid reply to the Government's questionnaire. They have asked me to ask the Government for more time. Universally they condemned the Redcliffe-Maud reorganisation proposals and, while they welcome change, they do not want the wholesale destruction of the present system of local government which the Redcliffe-Maud proposals seem to envisage.
The Home Secretary was, therefore, wrong to try to mislead the House by saying that two or three years after the General Election in 1970 we are likely to have a further upheaval in parliamentary boundaries because of the RedcliffeMaud proposals. I believe that those proposals will get through this House—if they get through at all—only after many months, if not years, of discussion followed by a great deal of amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this may not take place before a further General Election in 1975.
I particularly wish to call attention to what I regard as the totally indifferent, haphazard and carefree approach on the part of the Government towards this whole matter. By inviting hon. Members not to approve the Orders, the Government are setting an example to the nation. They are saying, in effect,
470
"We shall obey the letter of the law" —as the Government have done by laying the Orders—" but shall ignore the spirit of the law "—which is what the Government are doing by advising hon. Gentlemen opposite to vote against the Orders.
This attitude on the part of the Government is typical of the malaise which is affecting people throughout the country. Who can blame them when from the top they are being set this sort of example? They are really being told, "You need just obey the letter of the law. Never mind the spirit of it." There is every reason for an approach of this kind to percolate through society.
I am addressing the House today primarily to present the problem which will arise in my constituency in the near future. I have kept quiet until now because I recognised that the Bill which the Government introduced a few months ago was at least a step in the right direction in relation to London and certain other areas. While it was not much, it was in the right direction, although I would have preferred the original proposals in their entirety.
Now, however, the Government have abandoned even that modest move. Therefore, on behalf of 100,000 electors in Harborough, I feel that it is time that I said something to indicate what they really feel about the present state of affairs.
The winner at Harborough in the next General Election would, on an 80 per cent. poll in a straight fight, have to gain no fewer than 49,000 votes, assuming a General Election next year. That is a tremendous figure, especially when one recognises how big the differences were between the winning votes in the five by-elections which took place at the end of last month. In those contests Paddington, North was won by 7,969 votes; Islington, North by 7,288 votes; Glasgow Gorbals by 7,834 votes; Newcastle-under-Lyme by 21,786 votes; and Swindon by 16,843 votes.
Those figures meant that the winning candidates in those seats had to average a total vote of 12,344 votes. If a by-election were to occur in Harborough in the immediate future, which heaven forbid, then, assuming that there was the same average poll there as occurred at Newcastle a fortnight ago, the winner in a straight fight would have to gain 35,000 votes.

471
My constituents feel that they are grossly under-represented now compared with the constituencies represented by many other hon. Members. But what I have described is absolutely nothing compared with what the position will be after the General Election, when the Harborough hon. Member will represent 120,000 electors. His vote in the House, however, will count for no more than that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, who will represent 20,000 electors.
It seems odd that one man, one vote, one value is the theme which this Parliament tries to put across abroad, yet at Harborough six men will have to vote to equal the vote of one man in Ladywood. Or, to put it another way, five Harborough votes will be needed to equal the value of one vote in the Gorbals. This will be bad enough in a General Election in 1970, but I can foresee a long procedure before the Redcliffe-Maud proposals are implemented, whether in their present form or modified.
I cannot foresee a speedy conclusion to these deliberations. As my right hon. Friend said, it may well be 1975 before these local government boundary proposals are implemented and the relevant parliamentary boundaries readjusted. We may have a further General Election before then. By 1974, we shall have in Harborough, at the present rate of increase, a population of 140,000. That is wrong.
That situation is not only unfair on a Member of Parliament—although that is immaterial—but it is desperately unfair on the electors that one man should be expected to put forward their views here and in the affairs of the land. It is desperately unfair on them that they should have to bring all their problems to one person while at the same time electors in a constituency perhaps one-sixth the size also have one man to represent them. In the larger constituency, the electors are unrepresented. For that reason alone I condemn the Government for their plans to fly deliberately in the face of democracy.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I must say to the hon. Member for Har
472
borough (Mr. Farr) that no one who discusses these boundary matters can fail to have some sympathy with hon. Members representing constituencies of the size he has mentioned. One of the reasons for arranging for boundary changes is to overcome such difficulties. So it is very natural that even at this stage of our debates on boundary reform the hon. Gentleman should raise the matter, and I hope in my remarks to incorporate some of the points he has made in relation to his constituency in particular. However, I hope that he will excuse me if, first, I turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to whom I am grateful for staying on in the Chamber to hear any comments I may wish to make on his remarks.
It would be churlish for anyone to deny that the Leader of the Opposition made an extremely energetic and aggressive speech. From his own point of view, it was very effective. It would have been a little more courteous if he had used different language in describing the Home Secretary's speech. In many respects this debate so far—and I hope I am not about to spoil it—has been superior to some of the other debates we have had on the subject over the past few months. It would have been more courteous. at any rate, and also more accurate, if the right hon. Gentleman had recognised that the Home Secretary presented a formidable case.
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. Had he acknowledged that at the beginning, he would have had to answer that speech. and as he had prepared the bulk of his own speech beforehand it was, no doubt, advisable and strategically convenient and acceptable to say that he did not have a speech to answer at all. He attempted to answer one of my right hon. Frend's questions, but he did not answer the main argument. As I say, it would have been advisable to do so, but I do not wish in any sense to detract from the compliments I pay to certain parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The speech had just that style of pungent, no-holds-barred oratory which the right hon. Gentleman usually reserves for American television. We are happy to see embodied this legend of which we have heard. We were told how in the United States our Government have been

473
knocked all round the ring; that in the United States the Leader of the Opposition had almost strangled the Prime Minister before the astonished eyes of the American public. He also made all those customary attacks on the British balance of payments and economic position that we expect from him. Apparently he had done this in the United States far more effectively than he had ever done it here. Some of us almost rubbed our eyes when we read the reports, but today we were glad to see what the American television audiences had seen, and what the right hon. Gentleman can do when he has to arouse his followers behind him. As I say, it was a very aggressive and energetic speech.
He seemed a little worried about my conscience. I should have thought that he had bigger troubles on his mind than that, because I say, with the best will in the world, that I do not have any animosity against the right hon. Gentleman in particular, although I propose later on to say a few things which may seem to conflict with that statement. I do not have any animosity against him. I like to come down in his favour when I can. Indeed. one of the things about his speech which most impressed me, and to me made it so effective, was that he concealed the weakness of his case by his aggressive manner. He managed to hide the fact that he was not answering the direct questions that had been put to him.
The Leader of the Opposition said that I had taken a somewhat different line from the beginning in dealing with these boundary questions, and that is quite true —although I agree entirely with the argument, because it is part of my argument, that these boundary proposals should be postponed because of local government boundary changes in prospect. I agree entirely with that proposition. It was the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that proposition that we waited to hear. We did not hear any very clear answer.
I agree with that part of the Government's argument, but the right hon. Gentleman must not hold it against me that I have also other arguments to deploy, and if he has consulted some of the previous debates as diligently as he pretends, he will have discovered many of my arguments on this report. I have also advanced them against previous reports. So he cannot convict me of
474
merely taking this attitude because we have in power a Government that I love so much. I took exactly the same attitude when his own Government were in power, and when he was a Lord Commissioner and Deputy Chief Whip of the day—still aspiring to those lofty heights he has since reached. I have always said that he has gone beyond the mark, and that the real doctrine is "once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip". It was the Chief Whip who today spoke to us again in the same old accents.
My attitude to Boundary Commissions and their reports have been consistent in the sense that I have always insisted on the right and duty of Parliament carefully to examine what the Boundary Commissions recommend to us. I have always said that I do not believe that Parliament should surrender to a Boundary Commission its absolute authority, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. That, of course, is a perfectly proper course. It is not merely a question, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested when trying to describe what would have been a proper course for the Government to adopt, of the Government laying Orders, with some possible minor Amendments—
Mr. Heath: Not minor.
Mr. Foot: Well, the whole lot, then. What is the percentage?
Mr. Heath: I made it quite clear that the Home Secretary is obliged to lay the Orders and is entitled to propose any Amendment he wishes and then explain it to the House. I went further and said that in my view every hon. Member ought to be entitled to discuss individually—or in groups or constituencies affected—an Order affecting his own constituency and the constituencies around it. Then the House takes a decision. It is the sovereignty of Parliament.
Mr. Foot: This is quite an advance on what we have had in previous debates.
Mr. Heath indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, I will try to prove it. He now says that it is perfectly proper for the Home Secretary to lay the Orders and in quite a number of cases to say that he wants Amendments or alteration made. That is a rejection

475
of certain proposals of the Boundary Commission.
Mr. Heath: Amendments.
Mr. Foot: Yes, amendments in particular cases, but what I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is what percentage of Amendments he thinks are constitutionally proper. Will he give a figure? It is no good his shaking his head because this is the constitutional position. He has been using words such as "perfidy" and "gerrymandering" and other adjectives and nouns. I remind him of what the previous right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said about the need for weak men to be careful about using strong adjectives.
All these arguments rest on the contention that the Home Secretary is not entitled to do what he is doing in this case. Suppose it was a 100 per cent. rejection; does the right hon. Gentleman say that that is improper? He says that it was constitutionally considered and never envisaged that a Home Secretary would come forward and propose rejection 100 per cent. of a boundary report. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman is retreating now, but that is the proposition. These are the grounds for talking about gerrymandering and perfidy and other adjectives used about members of the Government, that it is utterly improper for a Government to propose a 100 per cent. change in the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Unless there is a good argument for each one.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) suggests that it should be done one by one. Now hon. Members opposite have admitted, although it was denied in earlier debate by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and others, that this is what they meant. They said, "That is not what we meant by supremacy of Parliament." Now they have made an advance and say that it is perfectly proper for the Home Secretary to make a number of changes.
Mr. Quintin Hogg(St. Marylebone): Can it be that after so many debates the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has not even read the Section of the Act which lays down the duty of
476
the Home Secretary, which is to lay with the Boundary Commission Report a draft of the Order
" for giving it effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report"?
Is it that the hon. Member does not understand those plain words or that he is deliberately concealing them?
Mr. Foot: It would be foolish to try to conceal the words in the Act. I may be very green, but I am not quite as green as that.
The Leader of the Opposition sees these matters in a somewhat different light. He has now acknowledged that it is perfectly proper for a certain number of these recommendations to be rejected or amended in propositions made to the House. I am arguing that there is nothing constitutionally improper in the Home Secretary proposing that 100 per cent. of the recommendations should be allowed. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) keeps repeating those words as though they were some lucky charm. I say that this was perfectly well envisaged when the Act went through this House in 1948-49.
Hon. Members opposite have put great store on the fact that they are supposed to be carrying out that Act much more faithfully than we are. The charge against the Government is that we are not carrying out the Act—which was a Labour Government Act—and that we have twisted things. That is not the case at all. When the matter was debated in the House of Commons and the Opposition voted for it, it was perfectly understood that it might be the case that a Government would reject the decision of the Boundary Commission, and not merely individual items but the whole lot.
It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to shake his head. He has been lecturing me about what I understand at this late hour. He should have understood this because it was all there. The Minister responsible for presenting the Bill to the House was Mr. Herbert Morrison. He said:
" But these recommendations…"
those of the Boundary Commission—
" will not, of course, be binding upon Ministers. It will be competent for Ministers to accept or reject or amend…"

477
That is the third, but it is the first and second to which I am referring now?—
" the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners subject always to two points: first, that they will have to explain the reasons for their decision and, secondly, that Parliament must at all times be supreme in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1613.]
That is the doctrine. On that basis the Government are absolutely within their constitutional rights and all these charges collapse. The right hon. Gentleman should have been a little more careful about using such language. He should be more careful, incidentally—
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member could not have been present at the earlier debate at which it became absolutely plain that what Mr. Herbert Morrison was referring to in the Bill of 1948 was not the relevant proposals here but the initial review, as to which the legislative proposals were quite different.
Mr. Foot: I think I have attended the whole of these debates. I have followed them very carefully. Of course I can see that it is very awkward for hon. Members opposite to see it stated in black and white that it is perfectly open to the House of Commons to reject. Indeed, I think any other situation would be entirely improper. The argument comes down to the question of whether in fact there are good reasons for doing what the Government have suggested. In my opinion, on that the Home Secretary made an overwhelming case this afternoon.
I also understand the concern of many hon. Members opposite and others—I do not know whether this is part of the "delicate conscience" to which the Leader of the Opposition referred—who are extremely concerned with the maintenance of proper democratic practices in this country. I entirely agree with the view that it would he extremely advantageous if the whole question of how boundary decisions were to be made could be removed from party politics and partisan politics—if there were some way of ensuring that these decisions would not be subject to the kind of partisan debate we have here.
Not that I normally object to any partisan debate at any time. I think it is a good thing. Indeed, if hon. Mem
478
bers opposite had been the Government and had introduced proposals of this nature and I had been in the opposition, I would have been provoked at least to ask a few probing questions. I do not in the least object to having partisan arguments, but I entirely agree that so far as possible it is highly desirable that questions about boundaries between constituencies should be decided not by partisans but by some neutral authority.
The case advanced by many hon. Members opposite, indeed the main case I gather from reading the reports of debates in another place, although they base their argument on rejection of the Government's Bill, was that we had this procedure set up under the 1948-49 Act in response to the all-party decisions made in 1944 at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
It has been an argument which I have never accepted. It has been an argument which has been rejected by many others. The right hon. Gentleman knows this better than anybody, because he was here in 1954, as he reminded us. He was Deputy Chief Whip then. He had the title of Lord Commissioner. That was a very apt description of his role. He remembers those debates very well. He remembers, not merely that a few eccentrics and oddities like myself opposed those measures, but that the whole of those proposals were voted against by the official Labour Party in 1954.
In the face of that, it is difficult for anyone to argue that the system which was set up in 1948 and 1949 provided a system which removed this from party politics. On the second occasion when this provision for removing the matter from parliamentary discussion came forward, it broke down, not because of the malevolence of the Boundary Commissioners, not because of the malevolence at that time even of the Conservative Government, although that may sound a strange revelation, but for an altogether different and most remarkable reason. It happened because politicians could not foresee exactly what would develop under that legislation. They thought that they had set up a system which would be absolutely fair between both sides and which would be accepted by both sides.
It broke down for this reason, which is very relevant. It broke down because Parliament discovered that it was

479
extremely inconvenient to the whole of our democratic system—or, to use a stronger word than "inconvenient", it was disruptive of our democratic system —that there should be two major boundary changes within a matter of five years. Between 1948 and 1950 we had one major lot of boundary changes. Then we had another lot in 1954. That is why the official Labour Party voted against the Boundary Commission's proposals in 1954.
Perhaps I anticipate the right hon. Gentleman when I say that there were some changes introduced subsequently. By the way, they were not introduced before the 1955 General Election—not likely. There were some alterations in the instructions given to the Boundary Commissions later. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still wants to intervene, or have I anticipated his point?
Mr. Heath: Not entirely. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the changes made as a result of those debates, but 1 thought that the House as a whole was agreed upon those changes as being desirable and supported them. I want to intervene just to refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. The real reason why the Labour Party voted against the 1954 proposals in toto was that the Boundary Commission, in doing a complete review, had very largely eliminated the 17 extra seats which had been injected by the Labour Government in 1948 under Mr. Chuter Ede.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman had better go and examine the facts more carefully than that. He should pay a little more respect to some of those who engaged in those debates. Not only members of the Labour Party but many others protested. There were many who protested on exactly the grounds I have mentioned.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that Parliament was wrong to have set much store by the question of having two major redistributions in so short a time. In that case, why did the Conservatives try to alter the instructions to the Boundary Commissions a few years later? The right hon. Gentleman confounds his own argument. He says, first, that they did not take any notice of the Labour Party's representations, because it was merely a
480
matter of protesting against the removal of 17 seats which had been injected—which is untrue. Then, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman tries to get it the other way round by saying, "We listened so carefully to the representations then made that we even gave fresh instructions to the Boundary Commissions".
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it like that. What I said was that we all agreed that five years and seven years was too short a period in view of the experience we had had and, therefore, I thought with the general agreement of the House, it was extended to 10-15 years. I am refreshing the hon. Gentleman's memory that it was not for that reason that the Labour Party tried to reject the Orders in toto. It was because of the changes made by the Boundary Commission making a complete review of the 17 seats which had been injected by the Labour Government.
Mr. Foot: Before the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me again, he must decide upon which horn of a dilemma he would prefer to be impaled. It makes a little difference to the subsequent argument. It is a flagrant attempt to mislead the House to suggest that what the Boundary Commission in 1954 recommended were merely alterations to deal with the injection of the 17 seats. It suggested another major redistribution. That is what the House protested against, although the whipped majority turned it down.
Mr. Callaghan: Whipped by him.
Mr. Foot: Yes, whipped by the right hon. Gentleman. He was getting in practice for Suez at the time. What happened then was that the House of Commons legitimately came to the conclusion that it was very injurious to our democratic system to have two major redistributions in so short a time.
That being the main deduction which the House could draw from those events, the Government cannot be attacked for having applied that deduction to the present position. It is, indeed, the Government's major case that, if we were to proceed with the Boundary Commissions' recommendations as the Opposition want, we would repeat the confusion which occurred over the earlier affair. I believe that the Government have learned

481
very properly from those events. I believe that it is extremely injurious to Parliament to have the parliamentary boundaries constantly changed.
Of course, I acknowledge—nobody can deny it—that it is necessary also to have procedures from time to time whereby the changes in the numbers in constituencies can be brought into some order and conformity. However, that necessity must be balanced against the danger. I believe that the Government are making a perfectly reasonable conclusion in deciding that we shall not now repeat the changes over a period of five years which the Labour Party condemned in 1954 and which the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the Conservative Government took such account of that they gave fresh instructions to the Boundary Commissions.
The right hon. Gentleman now says: that is not the real issue; the cat was let out of the bag in a letter to The Times because that did not deal with this question. It dealt with the question of who would get the advantage.
I raised that question, not because 1 believed that that was a primary reason or ground upon which any Government could act, but because the Government had been accused of being guilty of all the crimes that have been alleged against my right hon. Friend. It was therefore perfectly proper for me and others to draw attention to what would be the consequences.
Here we rely upon Mr. Butler. I agree that it is rather difficult to rely upon him. I am not sure whether I should place such reliance upon him, because I have read the article by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) in which he reviewed Mr. Butler's latest book. In that article, which was published on 30th October, the right hon. Gentleman said this:
" I will advance Macleod's chameleon theory. If in any constituency the flat earthers are in the majority and make a point of calling on every newcomer, if the young flat earthers are the best and the gayest of the youth movements, if the newcomers are invited to flat earth social and political parties, then the flat earthers will obtain a high proportion of new members from the new arrivals."
I see the Leader of the Opposition pricking up his ears again. I picture the right hen. Gentleman, on the morning
482
this article appeared, ringing up the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and saying, "If this flat earth business is as good as that, why have we not got it in the programme?" It would come in very neatly in that "up with the expenditure and down with the taxes" line.
Of course, all these figures must be treated with care. I do not claim to be a great mathematician or statistician, and that is why I accepted generally Mr. Butler's figures. What he said roughly—and, by the way, nobody can prove it; we shall only know for certain after the election---was that that would not be of benefit to the Labour Party in the sense that it would list the electoral system to the Labour Party's advantage: all it will do is probably, between the two major parties, to produce a situation in which there is no electoral list one way or the other.
The right hon. Gentleman equates that with fiddling. That is the arrogance of the Tory mind. The Tories say, "It is gerrymandering if we do not have an advantage. It is fiddling if we do not have a 2 per cent. advantage. If we start off an election in which we have not got half a million votes in the bag already, it is perfidy." I thought the right hon. Gentleman would take his bateau and clear out of the election altogether.
On the last occasion when we debated this matter the right hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friends and made much worse charges against them than gerrymandering. He said that they were behaving like Tories in Northern Ireland. One cannot hit lower than that. He said that they were behaving like Smith. I remember that when I tried to answer I was shouted down by some of the Northern Ireland Members. I suppose they were the parliamentary equivalent of the B Specials.
However, these questions of Northern Ireland are serious and the right hon. Gentleman should not speak about Northern Ireland so carelessly. It is a very different situation, and he knows it very well. It is much more serious than questions such as Surbiton or Islington. Of course, one can get rid of the O'Neills and Fergusons more quickly than the Boyles and the Fishers. But that is what the right hon. Gentleman should be dealing with. He should not say that because we are carrying out a fair and reasonable

483
proposition, therefore we are in any sense conducting ourselves in the same way in which he and his friends have been conducting themselves on the other side of the Irish Sea for 50 years. He should not make such comparisons, because it reveals a dangerous lack of proportion in his mind.
In Northern Ireland people were only saved from terrible pogroms by British troops being sent there. They were only saved from the consequences of 50 years of absolute Tory rule by British troops having to be sent there. This House has dealt very gently with the right hon. Gentleman and his party on these matters —partly, I agree, because of the statesmanship which has been shown by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone in these matters, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he will be able to conduct debates in this House by comparing what we are doing with what he and his friends have done in Northern Ireland, we on these benches are not prepared to accept any such comparison. Even less are we prepared to accept it when he talks about Rhodesia.
The right hon. Gentleman said that I was interested in protecting democratic rights in countries where I happened to approve of the Governments. No doubt, we all have deficiencies in this matter, but, on the whole. I think I have got as good a record as the right hon. Gentleman in trying to protect democratic rights in all countries, and they include the particular places for which we are directly responsible. Two of those places are Northern Ireland and Rhodesia. In Rhodesia, people have been stripped of their rights. People have been imprisoned without trial. So the right hon. Gentleman, particularly if he aspires to any higher office than the one he has reached so far, should try to put these matters in proportion.
We shall be prepared to listen to him on Northern Ireland when he has really stated to his Conservative followers what he thinks of the direction in which their leadership has led that people. We shall be prepared to listen to him a bit more on Rhodesia if he does not always try to trim his sails to satisfy some of those policies which have been a little more consistent than his own in this matter.
484
The right hon. Gentleman called it a police State. Let him deal with this question and not come to this House hurling around these adjectives and words of abuse which bear no relation to the realities. What we shall have at the next election is a fair democratic election in this country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I certainly hope that a Labour Government will be elected, though I concede that it is possible or imaginable that the Conservative Party might win. It would be most ill-advised for the right hon. Gentleman to squeal so much before he is even hurt.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: We have listened with pleasure to, I suppose, our most brilliant if erratic fast bowler in the House at present. But in bowling very fast he certainly does not keep a length. The long hops that he has been delivering in the last quarter of an hour have been nowhere near the mark. The purpose of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was to divert the attention of those of us who occasionally read the facts.
We have already heard a brilliant speech this afternoon from one of my own constituents, and, if I may say so, I am proud of him, for he has said a great deal that otherwise I might have had to say for myself. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said one thing which, speaking at any rate as a lawyer who has to read matters, I thought was a statement of fact which is incontrovertible. It is this. This is the first time in the history of Parliament that any Government has ever laid before this House, under a duty imposed on it, an Order and has then invited its own party to vote against that Order which has been so laid.
It is just as incontrovertible as the fact that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale undoubtedly has not read, or if he has he has deliberately distorted them—the facts in Section 2 of the principal Act of 1949. I invite the Attorney-General when he replies to put the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale politely, if firmly, in his place and not allow him to get away with barrack room lawyer tactics as he sought to do this afternoon.
These are the facts. Under Section 2(5), that Act provides that the Order in

485
Council which shall be laid, and indeed must be laid—in this case by November 1969?
" for giving effect "—
those are the words—
" whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
Therefore, it means that the Government of the day are enjoined to lay the Report of the Boundary Commission before Parliament, in this case by this month, so as to give effect to it, with or without modifications. Of course, we may have amendment, but it is utterly ridiculous to suggest—and I found it hard to take this in all seriousness that the modification of the report can mean its complete annulment. To modify is to modify; it is not to disregard the whole tenor of the entire report.
In any event, it has been strictly enjoined in a great many speeches that everybody shall have the opportunity to debate, as we have always done, the position which obtains under the terms of the report. The law is clear here; it admits of no doubt. The Government may be technically entitled to say to hon. Members on their side, "Vote against the Order". But as a Government they are undoubtedly enjoined to vote for it, and, whatever they may do about their back-benchers, the whole of the Cabinet and all the Ministers should carry out the duty imposed upon them.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall not give way. I wrote to Mr. Speaker to say that I would not speak for more than five minutes. I have already taken two to 21 minutes, and I still want to try to carry out that undertaking, as other Members want to speak.
May I come straight to the Isle of Thanet, as an immensely valuable illustration. In 1965 the Boundary Commission laid a report that this constituency, which now has about 84,000 constituents, should be split in two through the middle. Virtually the whole of the Isle of Thanet agreed, including the local authorities. The Labour Party, as it was entitled to do, did not agree. It put forward a suggestion, as a result of which an inquiry was held in October, 1965. After careful consideration, the views, expressed by the Labour Party were dis
486
missed. An alternative proposal was put forward from elsewhere at the time. There was no opportunity for various people to be heard then, and so a second independent inquiry was called. It was conducted by an eminent Silk, who went into the matter in great detail, on 22nd May, 1967.
The outcome was threefold: first, that the Boundary Commission's original report was held to be completely valid; second, that Thanet now required two seats; third, that it should remain as a continuing entity, the Isle of Thanet, and should not be brought within any wider boundaries.
After a period of two years, a report and two inquiries, we have a solution which is entirely agreed, and a constituency which clearly needs two Members but is represented by one. I have represented it for nearly the past 15 years. It is true that it is not difficult for me to deal with it after years of experience there. But it must be quite plain to everyone in the House that we have a simple, straightforward solution. What ground have the Government, who have a duty to lay that report before the House, and to carry it into effect, subject to modifications which they or others in the House may think fit, not to lay the Order and give effect to it?
I give this illustration merely as one of a number of cases where it is impossible to contend any other course to be proper than the carrying into effect of the Commission's recommendations. If one is to have a Boundary Commission at all, to set it up to make an independent report, one must have a solid ground for refusing to carry its recommendations into effect when, after properly held independent judicial inquiries, the matters have been entirely cleared.
The law is clear. It is plain that it does not mean that one can so amend as to erode entirely the whole purpose of the Commission one has set up. It clearly means that the recommendations should be put into effect not only in the Isle of Thanet, but in the many other cases where the question of the Maud Report, the alteration of local government boundaries, has absolutely no relevance. In the case of the Isle of Thanet, it does not matter what Maud proposes; that part of the country is not affected. Therefore, my constituents feel that this is a clear

487
case where the Government should carry the recommendation into effect.
However attractive, witty and amusing it may be to deal with Northern Ireland or Rhodesia with all the attraction, wit and conscience of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, my constituent, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, was fully justified this afternoon in putting this situation forward as the clearest piece of Callamandering in the business.
6.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I apologise to the House for the absence owing to illness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a purely temporary indisposition. I am sure that his friends on both sides of the House will wish him a speedy return to ruddy health once again.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will want to answer the points put so well by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I should like to deal with the provisions of the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in opening the debate that I would try to explain some items in it for the benefit of the House in general and Scottish Members in particular.
The Scottish Order takes exactly the same form as those for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Article 2 would substitute for the existing 46 constituencies described in Part I of the Schedule the 46 new constituencies recommended by the Boundary Commission for Scotland and described in Part II. The Boundary Commission recommended no change in 25 constituencies in Scotland, so all of Scotland's 71 constituencies are thus accounted for.
Not all of the 46 constituencies dealt with in the draft Order would be substantially altered, but there would be far-reaching changes in certain areas. Some Scottish Members, if not all, know that Glasgow's representation in the House would be reduced by two seats, which would entail a major reorganisation of 12 of the remaining 13 constituencies in the city. In Dunbartonshire and Lanarkshire substantial changes of existing constituencies would be needed to accom
488
modate the additional seat which the Commission recommended for each of those counties, and there would also be considerable changes in Edinburgh, Fife and Renfrewshire. In addition there would be relatively small changes affecting four of the five constituencies into which Bute and Ayrshire are divided.
All this amounts to a redrawing of the political map of Scotland. The question to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had to address to himself, as did other Ministers, was whether or not we were justified in setting about this major reorganisation of constituencies when the local government structure on which the Boundary Commission based its recommendations was to be radically changed within a few years.
The difference in timing of the reports by the Royal Commissions meant that my right hon. Friend was not in a position to make so many references to the subject in speeches as were my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. But hon. Members will recall that in his statement to the House on 14th October on the Wheatley Report my right hon. Friend said that the Government accepted that major rationalisation of local government in Scotland was necessary, that this must involve a radical reduction in the number of authorities with executive power, and that the division of town and country should be brought to an end.
The Government are therefore committed in principle to a major reorganisation of local government in Scotland, and we are satisfied, after very careful study of the Wheatley Report, that whatever pattern of local government organisation may emerge from further consideration of the Royal Commission's proposals, there will require to be a major redrawing of Parliamentary constituency boundaries. I understand from a speech by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) on behalf of his party in Scotland last Saturday that he, too, is in favour of a major reform—not necessarily on Wheatley lines, but a major reform of local government quite soon. Indeed, in earlier speeches in the life of this Parliament the hon. Member, again on behalf of his party, has always said that we made a mistake

489
in not sticking to the Conservative Party's own efforts in Scotland to reform local government in 1962 and 1963.
I remember when I was Under-Secretary of State being shown in confidence, by one of my advisers part of the unpublished report of the working party showing the projected map of Scotland. The first question 1 asked was, "How will the 71 Members fit in?" I have still to hear a Scottish Member say that he wants to reduce the 71. We want to stick to our 71 hon. Members. It is the figure in the Statute, and I have heard nobody say that we should have less. Therefore, those 71 constituencies must be related to the local government structure.
The Royal Commission on Scottish local government, unlike the English Royal Commission, contained several distinguished hon. Members of this House drawn from the three parties. Therefore, the report was all the more important. In paragraph 1129 they say:
" The boundaries of local government electoral divisions ought to be tied in with Parliamentary constituencies. Indeed it seems to us that the whole electoral system should form a unified pattern. The basic units should be the electoral divisions of the district authorities; regional electoral divisions should consist of combinations of the basic units; and Parliamentary constituencies should in turn be formed from combinations of local authority electoral divisions."
There could be no clearer indication than this that, in the Royal Commission's view, parliamentary constituency boundaries will have to be reviewed at the time that the new structure of local government is set up.
To give an example of the kind of problem which is likely to occur: if the Wheatley proposals were implemented, no fewer than 35 constituencies, including 10 which straddle proposed regional boundaries, would comprise parts of different local government districts. It would therefore be necessary as a start to deal with the 10 constituencies which would be in this position if we acted on the Wheatley recommendations. These 10 constituencies are Moray and Nairn, Banff, Argyll, North Angus and Mearns, East Fife, Kinross and West Perthshire, Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk, West Stirlingshire, West Lothian, and Dunfermline. They can hardly be said to have hon. Members of no significance.
490
It would not be sufficient, however, merely to deal with those constituencies and those immediately adjacent to them. In dividing each region into constituencies, the Boundary Commission will have to have some regard to district boundaries which in many cases depart substantially from existing county and city boundaries. It may not he possible to avoid altogether the splitting of districts between constituencies but it would be desirable to reduce the divergencies to a minimum. Yet no fewer than 35 of the constituencies recommended by the Boundary Commission would be composed of parts of different districts. In one case, West Stirlingshire, the constituency would be made up of parts of as many as five different districts. It would be quite a task for an hon. Member to seek to represent five distinct local authorities.
Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling-shire)rose—
Dr. Mabon: Despite the qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. W. Baxter), it would be a very challenging role. There are two constituencies, Midlothian and North Lanarkshire, which are composed of parts of four different districts and nine constituencies which are composed of parts of three different districts. This is on the basis of the Wheatley recommendations, as they stand. What they would be like if we were to modify the Wheatley recommendations is a matter of speculation. But it is important to realise that any alternative to the Royal Commission's proposals would be likely to present at least as many problems from the Parliamentary constituency point of view. So many of the present local government boundaries are obviously out of date that as part of any restructuring of local government they must be redrawn on a rational basis. There is no escaping from the conclusion that, if the Boundary Commission's 1969 recommendations were to be implemented now, we should in a few years time be faced with a further upheaval in constituency boundaries.
I have listened carefully to the debate so far, and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) clearly brought out this important point. Parliament does not

491
like, and has never liked, upheavals in as short a space of time as five or seven years. That has been repeated over and again by the Leader of the Opposition in justification for what was done by the Conservatives in 1955 or thereabouts. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was 1954.1 Well, it was subsequent to that that they made the decision about the timing of reports by the Commissioners. But the fact is that we think that a decade or 15 years is the right time. It is unreal to imagine that this Government or our successors would not reform local government in reasonably quick time. Therefore, we would face the problems of upheaval if we were to approve the orders and at the same time adapt parliamentary constituencies to the reformed local government structure which we all know is so desperately needed in Scotland.
Mr. George Younger: There is a flaw in the Minister's argument. The fact that a constituency has a number of local authorities is by no means uncommon. In fact, some hon. Members have four, five or six local authorities in their constituencies. It does not cause them much embarrassment.
Dr. Mabon: I do not agree. I feel that it is not a good thing for hon. Members to face such a situation. I can remember a complaint, which was justified, by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who has to deal with 11 local authorities. He has a very scattered constituency with a small electorate and it is a burden for him to have to look after that constituency. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. George Younger) argues as if the status quo has something admirable about it. If we are to reform parliamentary constituencies in future, there should be a strong relationship to local government boundaries. I have no reason to complain since, being a burgh Member, I deal with only one authority. It is easy for me not to regard this as a serious problem for other Members because I do not suffer from it, but, as a Minister, I come across hon. Members whose burdens are substantially added to by having authorities in their constituencies with different policies but in which electorates still expect the same treatment.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I have a question about my own constituency. Since changes are not to take place until Wheatley is implemented, which seems very rational to me, might it not be the case that, by the time any changes are put into effect, the new constituency of East Kilbride might have grown to such a size that it would be better to leave the town of Blantyre in my constituency?
Dr. Mabon: I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) for offering support to the Government in this critical debate. I have no doubt that the fresh instructions to the Boundary Commission, if the orders are not approved, will take into account the other elements which should guide them in outlining the new parliamentary constituencies of the future. I am sure that developments in the early 1970s in Lanarkshire and other counties, including my own, are bound to be taken into account.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: Would the Minister say in how many constituencies in Scotland today the sitting Member has to deal with more than one authority?
Dr. Mabon: I think far too many. The burden on Members of Parliament who have more than one authority to deal with is a matter to be considered. Certainly this is true when they have 11 authorities, or five, or six, or even three or four. It is still too many for them to deal with.
Sir David Renton: There are some with 24 authorities.
Dr. Mahon: Then I am sorry for those hon. Members and their constituents.
Sir D. Renton: For the last 24 years, I have represented a constituency in which there are 11 local authorities. It has not been an overwhelming difficulty to represent it.
Dr. Mabon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Herculean in his labours. We know that he works very hard and does well for his constituents. However, that does not disprove the argument in paragraph 1129 of the Wheatley Report, repeated in the English Report and never

493
denied in this House until tonight, that it is a good thing to relate parliamentary boundaries to local government boundaries as closely as possible.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: I welcome the Minister of State to our debates on these matters of Parliamentary boundaries, and I want to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with what he said about the Secretary of State. We are sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is ill, and we hope that he will soon be restored to what I would call his usual rude health.
The hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to the wrong issues. He has spoken on a number of matters which are not a cause of difference between us, but he has not explained why the Government are following this extraordinary course.
I deal first with one point which I am glad that he mentioned, and it refers to the 71 hon. Members for Scotland. My hon. Friends will remember that it was I who challenged the Secretary of State on it. In a previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the smaller average number of persons in Scottish electorates compared with those in England. Immediately, I challenged him and asked if that meant that the Government intended to reduce the 71 constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question, and I am glad that the Minister of State has touched on it today.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention also because the Home Secretary restricted his remarks entirely to the Maud Commission. The Maud Commission dealt with England, not with Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman referred continually to it as the "Maud Redcliffe Commission" reflected all the other arguments which he got the wrong way round. It is the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, of course.
He said that no one has challenged his assertion that the Boundary Commissions' work would eventually be affected by major reorganisations resulting from the Maud Commission's Report. There, he was referring to England. But in a previous debate concerning Scotland, I challenged that assertion, and I did so on the question of timing.
494
I do not take issue with the statement that there will be a major re-organisation in Scotland, but I doubt whether it will happen next year or in 1971, and the Minister is on record as saying in the Scottish Grand Committee that it would take from five to eight years to put into effect what results from the Wheatley Commission, that being Scotland's equivalent to the Maud Commission.
I dealt with this matter of timing on 14th October. The Home Secretary spoke for one and a quarter hours today, and I did not interrupt him because I thought that I would have an opportunity to intervene in the debate.
When we discussed the matter before, I pointed out that the timing would fit in for Scotland. On the Minister's own calculation, if one takes four to five years for Parliament to agree to a new form of local government in Scotland, that is the moment when the Scottish Boundary Commission can start its work of review based on it which normally takes four years. That would bring us to the 10-year interval prescribed in the Act. It would fit in conveniently under the present system where reviews have to take place and recommendations result between 10 and 15 years from the previous review.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our 1963 White Paper and to the fact that, from time to time, we have criticised the Government for having allowed Scotland to get behind England and Wales on the reform of local government. In 1963, Scotland was two years ahead of England and Wales. They did not start making moves for the reform of local government until 1965. Now we are behind England and Wales, because the Wheatley Commission reported several months after Redcliffe-Maud. Had we been able in Scotland to get ahead more quickly and were we now putting into effect some new major reorganisation of local government—if we had been, say, five years ahead now—there might have been a case for what the Government are suggesting. However, that is not the position, and we criticise the Government because Scotland is well behind the programme for which we had hoped.
It is in this situation that the 1949 Act, as amended, would fit in very well.

495
We would have another review based on the results of the Wheatley Commission's work before Parliament in 10 years' time and, in the meantime, we would have the benefits of the recommendations which are up to date and presented this year—otherwise we shall be based on parliamentary boundaries of 15 years ago and 25 years ago in the future.
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman will remember what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about possible legislation for Wheatley and the timing of it. We have been criticised for going too quickly on this. He has quoted me on the implementation, which is very important. I said that in relation to the financial year in which the transfer would take place. It does not follow that the Commissions would have to wait until the financial year began, so the timing is considerably earlier.
Mr. Campbell: I made a careful note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he referred to five to eight years for implementation and I therefore suggested four to five years before legislation is passed by Parliament. The Boundary Commission will be beating the pistol if it starts its review before the reformed structure of local government in Scotland has been approved by Parliament. It will be taking a chance on where boundaries are to be drawn and whether Parliament agrees to 37, 50 or even 101 districts, which are some of the suggestions which are being put forward.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from newspaper reports of what I said last weekend. We on this side foresee the modernisation of local government in Scotland. However, we do not think that it can happen in a year or two. It will take time. It must be done following full consultation. Major changes are involved. Not the least important is the fact that nothing so far has been said by the Government on the vital question of finance for local government. In response to the short question that I was able to put to the Secretary of State when he made his statement on the Wheatley Commission, all that the right hon. Gentleman said was that this was being studied and that alternatives to the rating system were being considered, apparently behind closed doors in Government De
496
partments. The Wheatley Commission recommended that there should be a special inquiry into it. So if it is thought that the Secretary of State can introduce legislation in a few months' time, before all these matters, including the financial question, have been looked into, I must disagree.
We on this side will not hold up the move towards the modernisation and reform of local government in Scotland. But we want to get the best possible solution, and we want it to happen without running into antagonisms in Scotland. It must have the agreement of the majority of the people concerned. If the Minister thinks that he can use what I call the Scottish Water Bill steamroller on this subject, when every single amalgamation put forward by a Corn-mission was pushed through this House without a dot or comma being changed, I must disillusion him.
I hope that I have made it clear that we shall co-operate, though I have no doubt that we shall be the Government who introduce the legislation. When Parliament has approved a new structure of local government in Scotland the Scottish Boundary Commission can get going on its next review, and that would bring us to the ten years ahead which the Act allows.
The Minister of State was arguing that because of the reform of local government ahead of us, which we recognise is to happen, what the Government are proposing is necessary—that the House should vote down the Secretary of State's Order. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that in that ill-fated Bill which the Government put before us earlier this year they allowed themselves an option for Scotland whereby they could put the Scottish Boundary Commission's proposals of this year into operation before April. So the Government had left this open, despite this major reorganisation of local government ahead. What the Government proposed in that Bill—they did not do it for England, but they did for Scotland—torpedoes everything that the Minister has just said. They left the option open, despite the Wheatley Commission's expected report about this great restructuring of local government which is to take place.
If the other Ministers at the Scottish Office object to the system, based on the

497
1949 Act, for keeping parliamentary boundaries in Scotland up to date, they should have put forward some proposal for altering the Act. They should not have restored to this humiliating procedure of laying Orders and advising their supporters to vote them down.
The Minister has spoken about the situation in Scotland. I am glad, because Scotland was completely ignored by the Home Secretary in his speech. However, the Minister has done nothing to explain the Government's indefensible conduct in Scotland, as elsewhere.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. James Dickens: I hope that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) will not think me discourteous, if, as a fellow Scotsman, I invite the House to return to the Boundary Commission's proposals for England, because there are specific Scottish features about the recent mini-debate between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn which do not apply to England.
In the course of his speech today the Leader of the Opposition specifically referred to me, and I want to begin by taking up one of the points that he mentioned.
I require no advice from the right hon. Gentleman about democratic practice. He and his party have remained silent for 50 years over the open gerrymandering of local government boundaries in Northern Ireland. They have upheld authoritarian dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal. Today they also uphold white tyrannies in South Africa and Rhodesia. So I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House require no advice from the Leader of the Opposition or his party about democracy.
Nor do I join with those who accuse the Government of gerrymandering. That is not only a grossly offensive attack upon the integrity of the Cabinet, but it is also grossly inaccurate. Whatever differences I have had with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary over economic policy when he was at the Treasury, I have too much respect for him and his Cabinet colleagues to level any such accusation against them tonight.
My criticism of the Government is about their method of dealing with a
498
major problem in public administration, namely, how politicians should try to ensure that a fair and equitable electoral system is devised for a mature parliamentary democracy, but is revised and amended from time to time.
I doubt whether this House should have any say in detail about the implementation of Boundary Commission proposals or reports. I begin by paying tribute to the work of the Boundary Commissioners. It would be exceptionally churlish of this House not to face the fact that the Boundary Commissioners have worked hard for four years in England devising not only an admirable report, but by far the best report that we have ever had from Boundary Commissioners. I have read the report with great care and interest. I have been impressed with the tremendous care that the Commissioners took to try to arrive at a fair balance between the many factors that they had to take into consideration before arriving at their final decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned earlier debates in this House in the 1950s about the 1954 Boundary Commission proposals. Whatever may be said about that report, it is surely self-evident to anyone who reads this report that many of the criticisms then made in this House have been acted upon by the Boundary Commissioners. For example, they have consulted the political parties about the inconvenience caused by the upheaval in changing constituency boundaries; they have tried to take into account population movements; and they have tried to get to grips with the difficult problem of arriving at a fair balance between country and urban constituencies.
In discussing the balance that the Boundary Commission tried to strike, we at once, if we delve into the past, enter the realm of folklore and mythology. One of the biggest problems that we are up against is that we try to impose upon the work of the Boundary Commission tasks which Commissioners, with our crude electoral system of representative democracy, simply cannot overcome.
Mr. David Butler, who is currently in fashion as someone to quote in this House, in a book entitled, "The Electoral System in Britain since 1918", discussing

499
the role of the Boundary Commissions, said:
"It is not, of course, within the Boundary Commissioners' powers to eliminate all biases in the distribution of seats. They can ensure the approximate equality of electoral districts, but there is no way in which they can counter the geographical chance which may lead to the strength of one party being more favourably distributed for the winning of seats than that of its rivals."
One of the most important matters in this and in earlier debates about Boundary Commission Reports has been that no one on either side has argued that these are politically biased reports. Assuredly, that is not the view of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, addressing the House on 15th July, said:
" No balance sheet has been produced and nor will there be, because it is not possible. I have argued before that in a situation like that of the 1964 election where 25 seats were won by less than 500 votes and where any slight tilting of the balance, any shower of rain, any television programme might have altered that result, it is impossible to say. Indeed, it is not only impossible to forecast the result; it is impudent to do SO."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 315.]
This does not deter Mr. David Butler, in The Sunday Times of 20th July last, coming to the view that if the Government went ahead with
"implementing neutrally agreed proposals that would give the Conservatives on the best estimates 10 to 12 seats in an evenly-balanced election".
What does Mr. Butler mean by "the best estimates"? I submit that he does not know what the results will be. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he does not know.
The reasons for this are plain. The principal reason is that at the next election we will have between 2 million and 21 million new voters between the ages of 18 and 21 at whose political opinions we can only hazard the vaguest of guesses. Not only that, but we are living in a time when we have the most volatile changes in political opinion over very short periods. One of the most eminent Members on this side of the House said to me privately recently that in his view there were more floating votes today than there had ever been in his lifetime.
I hope that no one will advance the argument, one way or the other—and I was careful to note that my hon. Friend
500
the Member for Ebbw Vale did not employ this argument—that this report is politically biased. I think that if one looks at the folklore of the past, certainly since 1945, one realises that we are up against a certain feeling, for which there is some evidence, that there has been a bias against the Labour Party, either in Government or in Opposition, as a consequence of various boundary commission proposals. What is this based upon? It is based upon the assertion that in 1948 the Boundary Commission's proposals lost this party 30 seats, but that, too, is based upon the assumption that in 1945 there was an even balance between the parties.
There was no such thing. It must frankly be said that the 1945 election result, however welcome to this side of the House, greatly over-represented this party in the House of Commons if one looks at it as a proportion of seats against votes. Thus, when dealing with the 1948 Boundary Commission's proposals, Mr. David Butler said:
" A tribute to the fairness of the 1948 redistribution is perhaps to be found in the fact that in 1950 the average electorate in seats won by the Conservatives was only a fraction more than in seats won by the Labour Party, namely, 55,270 as against 55,161."
One cannot get much closer than that.
The assertion that this party gained more votes than the Conservatives in 1951, but had fewer seats in this House and that this was the result of the 1948 Boundary Commission, does not prove or disprove the validity of that statement. It simply emphasises the fact that geographically this party then failed by very narrow margins to win a number of key marginal seats, while we kept piling up considerable numbers of totally negative votes in second place. One has to be honest about this and recognise that the Boundary Commissioners are being asked by this House to work to produce proposals against the background of that sort of folklore, that sort of mythology, that we should stand up against.
I want to make two other comments about our proceedings this evening. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the burden of his case was that no one would deny that there would be the most far-reaching changes in boundaries in the 'seventies if the Government went ahead with their proposed changes in English local government as outlined in the Redcliffe-Maud proposals and that

501
this would affect many parliamentary boundaries, now and in future. 1 think that that is true. I think that it is unfortunate, but it is quite unavoidable.
I think that we should proceed now—this has always been my view—to implement this Boundary Commission Report, recognising that over the next three or four years, or whatever the period may be, we shall have to implement the Redcliffe-Maud proposals for local government, and that we shall then again, in the mid-'seventies, have to come back with fresh boundary commission proposals.
I can see nothing particularly wrong with that. It is the fact that many Parliamentary constituencies today, in 1969, are grossly over- or under-represented. We have the two extremes of Birmingham, Ladywood, with fewer than 20,000 electors, and certain constituencies in South-West Essex with 90,000 or more electors. One cannot carry that into the 'seventies with the extremely debatable argument that we can implement Redcliffe-Maud in the Parliamentary Session of 1971-72. It may be that I am mistaken in this matter, and that the Government can proceed with the haste that they envisage, but I doubt it. I doubt very much whether it is either necessary or desirable to proceed at anything like this speed.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments which can be put to the Government to ask them to consider carefully not only the far-reaching implications of Redcliffe-Maud-61 new local authority areas for England, and eight provincial councils—but the far-reaching political repercussions of this sort of local government in an age when we are asking people to participate more directly in their public affairs. When people want to do this, as they do now, it seems a singular irony that we are at the same time proceeding to discuss with local authorities a report which, whatever else it does, will cut down the number of people serving on local authorities all over the country.
One has to face, too, the fact that the existing pattern of local government must conduct the most complex and detailed negotiations over financial transfers between local authorities as they exist and as they are proposed. It is highly questionable to say that we should
502
await new local government boundaries in 1971 or 1972, and that we can then proceed in a neat, even way to reorganise parliamentary boundaries thereafter on that basis.
I make the point in passing that there are at present in this House, and there have been in the recent past, a great number of parliamentary constituencies which straddle local authorities boundaries. There are some in Scotland, which we have been discussing recently. I can think of East Stirling-shire and Clackmannan, West Perth and Kinross, North Angus and Mearns, and North Ayrshire and Bute. In London, before the reorganisation of London local government, the constituency of Chelsea took in the Brompton ward of Kensington. My constituency of West Lewisham before 1964 took in part of the Pepys ward of Deptford Metropolitan Borough Council. I do not believe that it affected in any adverse way the parliamentary representation in this House. It is true that it is always preferable to have local authority and parliamentary boundaries broadly similar one to the other so far as one can make them, but this is not in every case necessarily such an important factor as the Home Secretary made out this afternoon.
I turn, now, to say a word about the functions of this House in this matter, because here I think there is some confusion. There is some real confusion among those of us who want to uphold the sovereignty of Parliament, and I have been trying to do that since 1966, against all sorts of outside influences ranging from the I.M.F. on the one hand to the Bank for International Settlements on the other. One must clearly differentiate between interfering and debating and amending proposals prepared for us at our request by an independent body of Boundary Commissioners, and trying to establish by debate certain rules for their proceeding henceforth based on the experience of Boundary Commissioners' proposals in the recent past.
I think that, on the one hand, it is totally wrong for Members of this House to start to argue about the details of Boundary Commission Reports, but it is our responsibility, having had a report from the Boundary Commissioners, to say, "This Report did not deal with certain factors at which they might have

503
looked, and we are going to recommend amendments to the rules henceforth to enable them to carry out their function in a more sophisticated way". In short, we proceed by experience by trial and by error.
It has been argued that this side of the House has been placed in a position in which we are asked to vote against orders that my right hon. Friend has tabled because of the activities of the House of Lords. I do not accept that. I think that the Government should have pressed ahead with their earlier Bill so that they could even now press ahead with the full implementation of the boundary proposals and deal with the delaying powers of the House of Lords at the same time. This is the course of action that should have been followed. I stand for the total abolition of the upper Chamber in the British parliamentary system. I am not prepared to see my membership of this House degraded in the way in which it will be this evening to appease their Lordships, and consequently I shall have none of it.
7.40 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I had the opportunity of speaking on this subject in the debate on 2nd July, and on an earlier occasion I spoke on it for eleven minutes under the Ten Minute Rule, so I shall do my best to be brief. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) said. I agree with him in respect of many matters on which we have worked jointly in this House. He will therefore understand that I prefer to concentrate my remarks on the speeches with which I disagree rather than on his, with so much of which I am in complete accord.
Also I do not want to make specific references to the speeches that we have heard on the Scottish aspects of the problem, from hon. Members on both sides, but I must voice the comment that it is to be noted that all four Motions are being debated together and that there are those who will say that all four exhibit the same lack of principle. Whether this be true or not, they certainly exhibit the same kind of distorted logic about local government reorganisation and its so-called inevitable consequences. The Minister of State told us that it was essen
504
tial that there should be no overlapping of local authorities, and that constituencies should be made to coincide with local government boundaries. The Home Secretary used the same argument when he referred to the inadvisability of having a Parliamentary constituency in two county areas. He must know that this happens now. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) represents a constituency part of which is in the West Riding of Yorkshire and part in Lancashire. It is not possible to have things much more separated than that.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these are not matters which have been thought up on the spur of the moment by my hon. Friend the Minister of State or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? They are specific guide lines given to the Boundary Commission by the Act of 1949—I believe in the Second Schedule.
Dr. Winstanley: I am not talking about anything being thought up on the spur of the moment; I am talking about a situation which has existed for many years. Anomalies exist which are a clear demonstration of the fact that some of the difficulties which are being put forward are not real, because they do not cause difficulties in practice to hon. Members who are in this kind of situation. The arguments about the Maud Report are crucial to this business. I agree that it would be a nuisance to finalise new parliamentary constituency boundaries cutting across new local authority boundaries, but if there has to be a further division we must accept it. I agree that it is a nuisance, which ought to be avoided if possible.
I do not want to be misunderstood, but I wonder what kind of speeches we would have heard if the political situation had been different. I was very interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), whom I am glad to see back in his place. It was entertaining to witness the private fight between him and the Leader of the Opposition. I was tempted to join in. I probably would not have been greatly hurt if I had. It was very entertaining to see the discomfiture of the Leader of

505
the Opposition. We can all recall those merry quips. But before we start rolling on the floor in merriment again, let us ask ourselves what is so funny. We are here in order to perpetuate a situation in which many millions of our citizens are under-represented in the House. We are here, for one reason or another, to perpetuate serious anomalies in our present electoral situation—anomalies which could be put right.
It was amusing to hear the exchanges. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, that the speeches seem to get better and better. That is because people have made the same speeches on the same subject over and over again. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale felt that this had been an unusual performance by the Leader of the Opposition, in that he made a better speech than usual. Has it occurred to him that one reason why the right hon. Gentleman made a better speech than usual was that he happened to be right? When the right hon. Gentleman has a good case for once, he makes a convincing speech.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about the right of the House to amend. reject or modify the recommendations. He went into detail about the provision in the Act and then submitted that this surely meant that if the House wished to do so it could reject the orders 100 per cent. We are talking about the reality of the situation. If we say that it is right to reject these recommendations and orders 100 per cent. we are saying that no changes in our parliamentary boundaries are now necessary. We must he saying that. [Interruption.] If we are not, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should say what he means. He said that the Government have a right to reject the recommendations in total—in other words, not to have any of them. If the Government say, "We will not have any of them", and at the same time do not put forward any alternative proposals—and I have heard of none—or suggestions for joint consultations between the parties in order to try to arrive at a con-census; if there are these difficulties—and I have heard of no efforts to try to overcome them and the recommendations are rejected 100 per cent., surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that that is tantamount to saying that our parlia
506
mentary constituency boundaries do not need to be changed.
Mr. Michael Foot: That is an impossible deduction to draw. The Government proposed to have consultations in order to see whether party agreement could be reached on the subject and, as the hon. Member knows, that proposal was rejected by the Opposition.
Dr. Winstanley: I am not privy to the various communications that pass between the Whips and through the usual channels. I am referring to the manner in which the whole business has been brought before the House, with a blunderbuss Motion which gives the House no opportunity to debate the proposals in detail and therefore no opportunity to arrive at any compromises or acceptable proposals. In my submission this is removing from the House any possibility of making any changes.
Mr. Foot: This all came out long before, in the Third Reading debate, in which the charge was made by the Official Opposition that the Government never made any approach to them on this matter. The Government revealed that they had made these proposals and that the Opposition had rejected them. Today, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition gave us some explanation of rejecting them. If the hon. Member had been listening to that explanation he would have appreciated that there was no possibility of arriving at inter-party agreement.
Dr. Winstanley: I accept that no party is blameless in that regard, but the Government are in charge, and have a responsibility to lay the orders so that the House can give effect to the recommendations as soon as may be.
Later on we may have the Attorney-General telling us what is meant by the majestic phrase "as soon as may be". He will no doubt be trundled on like some piece of antiquated medieval artillery to try to quieten us with a legal salvo. But "to give effect to" must mean to give effect to some kind of changes. Here the Government say that they are giving effect to no changes. Unless, at the same time, they announce an alternative, they must be assumed to he saying that no further changes are necessary.

507
The Home Secretary told us that the Maud Report was a matter of great urgency. I do not dispute that it is urgent that our local government system should be reformed. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the four bodies representing different kinds of local authorities were proceeding urgently, and had let him have their opinions. But he did not tell us that they had all protested very vigorously at having been hurried and chivvied and forced to give those opinions before they were ready. Therefore, they see not quite the same reason for the same degree of indecent haste.
Let us agree that we want reform of local government and that achieving this reform, to be realistic, will take a long time. I accept broadly the conclusions of the Leader of the Opposition about the time scale involved. So it will be a long time, unless alternative proposals are produced, before any changes are made in the constituencies. It is as simple as that—never mind talk of gerrymandering or about what the words in the Bill mean. The fact remains that the Government, by their present action, intend to deny the people of this country an opportunity for a reorganisation of constituencies for many years.
Why is it necessary that Parliamentary constituencies should be as equal as possible? I accept that we cannot have arithmetical equality. From time to time, someone will leap from the Government side of the House and point out that the Boundary Commission recommendations would provide for as big a difference between one constituency and another of 40.000 electors in one and 75,000 in the other. But that as a "parallel" is just about perpendicular to the present situation, in which there are constituencies of 18,000 and others of 110,000. At the end of this period which will now elapse, this difference will be far greater.
Why is it necessary to reach as much arithmetical equality as possible? There are three reasons. The first is to divide the burden between hon. Members. The second, much more important, is to give equal citizens equal chances, and not just in votes. The opportunity which an hon. Member has to act in administrative matters for his constituents is very
508
valuable. I do not delude myself that my powers of influencing major aspects of Government policy are very great. Nor are those of any backbencher. But I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which I can sort out administrative muddles on behalf of my constituents. But I have over 100,000. I can manage this, but with the best will in the world it is difficult for me to give as much time to an individual constituent as certain other hon. Members can in all parties.
So we must relieve this situation and we must also attend to the matter of one man—one vote, one vote—one value. This has been said so often that we are all beginning to believe it, but it cannot be satisfactory that my vote, which is no more important than anyone else's, cast on behalf of over 100,000 voters in Cheadle, can be cancelled out by the vote of the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), cast on behalf of fewer than 20,000 constituents living just up the road. This is no criticism of the hon. Member, who is a very good Member. It is not his fault that the boundaries have not been readjusted but we must try to reach as much equality as we possibly can.
How do we do it? I have always said that it is very important to keep three things as separate as possible from Parliament—the Press, broadcasting and elections. We try not to interfere in the Press; for broadcasting we have established the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority, so that Parliament does not have a role. For elections and their organisation in constituencies, we had to try to find other machinery. What we found was the Boundary Commission. It may not be the right machinery. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said in an intervention, perhaps we need a new kind of Commissioner—perhaps ad hoc Commisioners for special purposes periodically: I do not know—but once one has an umpire, one should to a great extent accept his decision or at least its broad lines.
Of course I would prefer to go further and have a different system. If the House were prepared to accept a reformed electoral system, whereby one would have multi-member constituencies,

509
so that a certain area which now has four members could have three if its population declined or five if its population increased. That would be some automatic protection against that disparity. But if we do not have that method—it seems unlikely that hon. Members will accept it—if we do not have electoral reform to make these changes occur automatically, we must have some other system, and the one which has been devised is the Boundary Commission.
I accept that this House is not obliged to swallow the whole thing, hook, line and sinker, but in that part of the Act which has been read to the House, the intention was clear—that these things should be looked at and that, "as soon as may be" effect should be given to the recommendations. I cannot accept that effect is being given to any recommendations when all that we have is a Motion to obliterate the whole lot.
I cannot believe that this has been a very happy or helpful occasion for this House. It will not help any of us and may damage us all. I hope that, somehow, we may soon resolve it sensibly. It is not yet too late to do something by joint agreement, by some kind of consensus, to preserve the democratic basis on which this House exists. I hope that an opportunity will be found before it is too late.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Tony Gardner: I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow directly what he said. The issue which we are discussing concerns me personally. 1 am asked to follow my right hon. Friend into the Division Lobby and vote so that I should retain one of the most marginal seats, whereas the Boundary Commission, in its infinite wisdom, would give me what is commonly agreed by all the parties in my constituency to be a safe Labour seat. So I have a more than general interest in this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition treated us to a most rumbustious speech. The scriptwriters had obviously been working overtime and he enjoyed himself immensely. He made some remarks about some of us on this side who may not have always liked the way in which this affair has been handled. He referred
510
particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said. We have no need of the right hon. Gentleman's assistance in guiding us on how we should behave or in guiding our consciences.
I take it as a personal insult, indeed, from a man who sat on the Treasury Bench at the time of Suez—he talks about perfidy—and watched his right hon. Friends standing up in this House and telling lies about the activities and commitments of Government. I take as a personal insult a suggestion that I and my hon. Friends are involved in any perfidy. It was unnecessary and very foolish of him to make that silly remark about certain events in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran). One or two of us might have been tempted to look further afield at other parts of Britain.
I remember very well, because I was living there at the time, the way in which the party of which the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Whip in Government got rid of a very honourable Member of this House from Bournemouth, East, because he happened to disagree with the Tory line on Suez at the time. I remember the dirty campaign—"dirty" is hardly a sufficient word to use—which they used to get rid of Nigel Nicolson.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is very wrong. Mr. Nigel Nicolson was, to my knowledge, supported by the leader of his party. Ultimately, at his own request, the matter was referred to a referendum of his constituents, and it resulted in his defeat by a narrow margin of 70 votes. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and if he does not know that he is talking nonsense, he should look up his facts before he talks at all.
Mr. Gardner: I know this constituency very well and I well remember listening to a speech made by that very honourable Member after those events. I was living in the town when all this took place, and 1 do not recall any massive support for him from the Central Office of the Conservative Party or the Conservative Cabinet. But if the right hon. Gentleman did

511
at some time speak on his behalf, I will apologise and accept that.
Mr. Hogg: I was chairman of the party at the time, and it was my duty to hold the ring. I said that he had very strong support from the leader of his party and other very powerful members of my party, who brought the strongest pressure on me.
Mr. Gardner: Perhaps this shows how unwise it is to introduce into a debate of this kind the sort of references the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech. Few of us can look at politics in Britain and be unable to find in some places things we do not like. There is no need, therefore, for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to cast aspersions at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
A number of speakers have mentioned Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was very discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who tried to make the perfectly valid point that if we are talking about perfidy and gerrymandering we should look at what has happened in Northern Ireland over 40 years.
But let us not look so far afield. The history of the Conservative Party has been referred to. When it comes to spreading the franchise in Britain we need not go back 50 years or so to remember the vote after vote only last year in which Members opposite marched through the Division Lobby to maintain the business vote and the business qualification in local government. So we need no advice from them on democracy.
We have heard a great deal of noise throughout the debate and since July in the country generally and in the newspapers. This afternoon we have heard legal arguments, arguments from first principle and arguments about democracy. But no one has adduced the real argument, which is about politics.
The real issue we are discussing, and which we discussed in the last Session when we debated the Bill, is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the Boundary Commissioners have given them a political advantage. That is what we are debating, and that is why there is such a great synthetic uproar. There is no other reason. This is rather difficult to understand. Not
512
long ago I heard the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) forecast on television Conservative majorities of 150 to 250 if the recent by-election results were translated into similar swings in a General Election. So that is why we see this great passionate concern.
An Hon. Member: Principle.
Mr. Gardner: The hon. Gentleman says, "Principle", but the charge levelled amongst my right hon. Friends is one of gerrymandering. So the first thing we have to establish is that there is an advantage to be gained from this gerrymandering. I have read all sorts of reports in the Press about the likely result of the Boundary Commission's recommendations. At one time it was said that Labour stood to lose 30 to 50 seats. Then some hardened professionals at Labour central office said that it might be about eight, and people started changing their minds. It has been rightly pointed out that it is very difficult to make judgments based on the electorates of 1964 and 1966, partly because we rely on a simple majority.
Dr. Winstanley: Whenever this House interferes with parliamentary constituencies or election arrangements in any way there are accusations of gerrymandering, perhaps sometimes justified and sometimes not. The only way to avoid such accusations is not to interfere in a matter which could be left to an outside body.
Mr. Gardner: I want to refer to that towards the end of what I have to say.
The charge is one of gerrymandering, and the proof required is one of advantage. I can only look again, as I tried to look last July, at the outcome of the Boundary Commission's recommendations in my county of Nottinghamshire. There are in the city of Nottingham and its immediate environs six constituencies, five held by the Labour Party and one by the Conservatives. Only one, by any stretch of the imagination, is a safe Labour seat. Four are marginal Labour ones, and the other is a marginal Conservative seat. That was roughly the position in 1966. The Commissioners recommend the abolition of the constituency of Nottingham, South and the creation of a new rural constituency which is likely to be largely Conservative.

513
But the effect of their total recommendations is to create three safe Labour seats. two marginally Labour seats, to throw out of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Mr. George H. Perry) and perhaps at the same time to cause the disappearance of my honourable opponent, but good friend, the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). This compares with a situation in 1959 when there was only one seat in the whole of the city and its environs held by the Labour Party. On the basis of this kind of analysis, no one can suggest that there is gerrymandering in not implementing the proposals for Nottinghamshire. In fact a number of constituency Conservative associations share the Government's view that the recommendations for Nottinghamshire should not be implemented.
That is the political argument. I now come to the real issue. It is not good enough to dismiss the arguments about Redcliffe-Maud as they have been dismissed by some Members opposite. I do not take the view that parliamentary constituencies necessarily have to follow local authority boundaries. I represent a constituency with two authorities in it, and I think that I can work with them very well. Although I would not like the additional burden of working with part of another authority, I assume that I could still do my job as a Member of Parliament effectively.
The basis of the argument is the Act which requires the Boundary Commissioners to pay attention to local government boundaries, and in their recommendations for Nottinghamshire they make just this point. They have divided, as far as practicably possible, the city of Nottingham from the county. This is the expressed purpose stated in their Report. However, the effect of the implementation of the Maud Report would be to put the county and the city together again. Are we to assume that local government boundaries and the broad pattern of local government structure will not be known for a very long time? I am rather fearful of this prospect. If local government officers, councillors and electors are to go on for very long with Redcliffe-Maud hanging over their heads, I dread to think what will happen to English local government. I believe that it will be possible, not to implement all the detailed recommendations and to set up in detail all the
514
authorities, but at least to be able to define broadly the local authority areas in not five or six years but two or three.
It is true that if the delay goes on much longer it will mean that parliamentary boundaries have not been changed for almost 25 years. This could happen, and I do not view the prospect with joy. However, it does not behove hon. Gentlemen opposite to adduce this as an argument for their case. After all, they had 13 years in which to do something about local government, so perhaps the long period while we have been waiting for boundary changes is partly their responsibility.
If it is the general view—it is certainly the view of the House as expressed in previous Measures—that parliamentary constituencies should, as far as possible, follow local government boundaries, then it would be crazy to undertake a major upheaval now and another a little later.
I said at the outset that 1 did not particularly like the way in which all this had been handled. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend could not get the agreement of the Opposition. The action which the Government should have taken was to have announced, when the Redcliffe-Maud Commission was set up, that amending legislation would be introduced to enable the Government to suspend, for the time being, the activities of the Boundary Commissions. If that had been done at that time, there would, of course, have been arguments and perhaps even some of my hon. Friends would have objected, but there would not have been charges of changes being made for political reasons.
I do not like what has happened. However, I will join my right hon. Friend in voting against the Orders, not because I am particularly happy about today's debate or the discussions that took place in Parliament last Session, but because, on balance, I believe that this judgment of the Home Secretary is right.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). If one thing has come out of the deplorable proceedings which we have been through today and during last Session it is that we must find a different method of tackling the problem of boundary revisions. The last people to set about finding a fair set of boundaries for

515
constituencies are hon. Members acting in their political capacity.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) displayed considerable ignorance when he said that for 13 years nothing had been done about local government reorganisation by the Conservatives. That statement will not cut much ice, especially with an hon. Member who represents a Shropshire constituency.
The whole debate has, by intention, been obscured as a result of the smokescreen of the Maud Report. Dribbling through the smokescreen have been many crocodile tears about too many boundary changes and the rest of it. In Shropshire there have been three sets of boundary changes in the last five years. There have been changes in the county boundaries, small ones admittedly; there have been boundary changes of a drastic character in the boundaries of our district authorities; and we have had the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. Then in addition, the Government announced the Maud Report. Crocodile tears do not cut much ice in Shropshire.
The result of all this has been that Shropshire is unique in two respects. First, we alone of the English counties have already undergone the Maud process; and a painful one it was, though it is now complete. Secondly, of all the counties in England we were the only one left entirely untouched by the Maud recommendations.
Hon. Members may have been surprised that in a speech which was obviously directed to salving his conscience on the broad issues, the Home Secretary suddenly focussed on the problem of Shropshire. Why Shropshire? The answer is that Shropshire is the right hon. Gentleman's Achilles heel on the whole of this matter.
He directed friendly remarks to the hon. Baronet the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), perhaps aware of the fact that the considerations before us do not affect the Shrewsbury constituency. But the right hon. Gentleman reckoned without the hon. Member for Ludlow, and I will have quite a lot to say about him.
516
When the Government originally brought these proposals forward, in addition to their London proposals they selected nine large constituencies for division into two. If it had been proved possible to do that, why was it not possible to do it in a group of four constituencies as we have in Shropshire, inside a ring fence that everybody knows? Why could not they have been divided as recommended by the Boundary Commission?
When dealing with Shropshire the Home Secretary—how unwise the right hon. Gentleman was to raise this matter at all—produced, another, though smaller, smokescreen when he tried to terrify us with stories of how the county boundary had been changed. Bits of it had been put into Herefordshire and other bits into Worcestershire. Unfortunately for him, the right hon. Gentleman could not say that about the Welsh side because no changes have taken place there.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if these were major changes. I went through all this business with the county council and I discovered that they were the most trivial changes in terms of area and population that it is possible to make. The right hon. Gentleman then said, in effect, "We could not risk having people with two votes or people without a vote at all". Later I will suggest a simple way by which this could have been dealt with.
First, however, I wish to state briefly the results of the Government's present proposals. In the order before us we have in Part I the constituencies as they are now, and in Part II as recommended that they should be. On pages 26 and 27 in Part I and on page 65 in Part II we read two names which are relevant to what has happened. We read of the Borough of Wenlock and the Urban District of Dawley.
This all started a long time ago, when we had our great Abbey of Wenlock with its prior. As happened in those days, the prior sometimes wanted to get away from his colleagues, rather like what happens when the Prime Minister goes to Chequers to get away from his colleagues. The prior therefore had a country house on the other side of the River Severn, and, as things developed, the Abbey had a great area on both

517
sides of the River Severn. This situation prevailed until a few years ago under the historic name of the Borough of Wenlock, in area one of the largest boroughs in England, about the size of Manchester, with a population of 15,000 people—and, I may add, 15,000 of the best people in the world, all my constituents.
So it remained until, in their wisdom, the Conservative Government of the day decided that this area was a suitable site for one of our new towns. My right hon. Friend who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government designated the Dawley New Town area and this took in, out of the Borough of Wenlock, historic names like Coalbrookdale, Ironbridge, Madeley, Coalport and Jackfield, where so much of the real history of this country was made. The boundary was carefully drawn and took in a large part of the ancient Borough of Wenlock.
Faced with this situation, the county council, acting under the Act put through by the then Conservative Government for the reorganisation of local government—unknown though this may be to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe—carried out the necessary internal review. The county council decided that the sensible course was to make the local government area correspond with the designated new town area. For that reason all the designated new town area was added to the Dawley Urban District Council. Having done that, they followed it up sensibly by dividing up the urban district council into suitable wards. That was the position facing them in Shropshire when the Boundary Commission arrived.
The Commission had to take a big decision, and it decided to put the wholr, of the Dawley urban district, with this designated area, into the Wrekin Division, which adjoins my own, and take it away from me. That was a very unwelcome decision, as it deprived me of many friends and supporters and of one of the most splendid and historic areas in England. It also deprived me of the prospect of this wonderful new town venture. But that was that, and we in Shropshire believed that it was all settled and that the parliamentary boundary would correspond with that decision.
What happened then was that the new town began to be built. They built all over this area. The first area of the new
518
town, called Sutton Hill, was planned not by reference to ancient boundaries but, sensibly, in squares, rectangles and areas like that. They laid it out in streets and passages, and very beautifully it was done. But in the process what was forgotten was the ancient boundary.
What has been the result? When the Government announced that they did not propose to implement the reports, I got in touch with the Development Corporation and asked what it meant. A very large-scale map had to be produced to show what it really did mean. It meant that we have to go between, and underneath and through all these houses to see where the parliamentary boundary was. A very remarkable result it is. The boundary crosses through three of the new estates in the new town. In the street called Stebbings, No. 102 is inhabited by Mr. and Mrs. Punter. From the map it looks as though I have the bathroom and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has the bedrooms. That also applies to Nos. 97 and 94.
In Spring Meadow, the boundary goes through the house of Mr. and Mrs. Haycock, and I have the Bathroom and the hon. Member for The Wrekin has the bedrooms, With the house next door, it seems that I have the front door and a bit of the hall, and he has the rest. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Garbutt, at No. 87, it looks as though I have the back door and the hon. Member has the rest of the house—I suppose that it is useful to have the doors, at any rate. At Nos. 59 and 60 I have the front room and the hon. Member has the back room. As Nos. 55, 56 and 58 I have to be content with the bathrooms and, again, he has the bedrooms. We face the same position in Stonedale. I have about 60 per cent. of No. 63—the home of Mr. and Mrs. Slack—and he has the other 40 per cent. The hon. Gentleman comes off badly at No. 58 —Mr. and Mrs. Southall: he has a corner of the front lounge and I have the rest of the house. That gives the general picture.
I asked the general manager of the development corporation whether he could explain this result, and he thought that he could. He said that the boundary followed an ancient watercourse called the Mad Brook.

519
In such a situation, one must ask whether the Home Secretary or any of his officials consulted the people who carry the can with this kind of nonsense —the officials of the urban district council and of the Salop County Council. Although we may think it funny, I do not think that they did.
I wonder that the Home Secretary did not consult the hon. Member for The Wrekin, because he has been literally led down the garden path—down many garden paths. We had him taking his local Labour Party officials canvassing round the area saying, "Vote for Fowler". When asked, "Who is Fowler?" the hon. Member replied, "I am. I am the hon. Member for The Wrekin, and you are to be my constituents." It is all rather disappointing for his party supporters, because nothing has come of it. Most of the Labour Party officials who went round have been sacked—as often happens in the Labour Party organisation.
But what a waste of time for the hon. Member for The Wrekin: he really has been led down any number of garden paths by his own Government. It is all the worse nonsense because these people would in any case not vote for him. Inhabitants of new towns never vote for Labour candidates—they always vote Conservative. But the hon. Gentleman was afraid that his existing constituents in The Wrekin might vote against him, and that I think only too likely to be true. I visited all these houses, including those in which I have an interest only in little bits. These new residents, who sometimes come from very bad housing conditions in the Black Country and in the Birmingham area, are delighted with their new setting and new prospect—and, I think, quite honestly, with their existing Member of Parliament.
I come back to all this farrago of nonsense by the Minister about the county boundary of Shropshire with little bits taken off, and other little bits put into Herefordshire, Worcestershire or Staffordshire. That whole farrago was completely exploded when my right hon. Friend quoted "with or without modifications" and "amend recommendations". If the Home Secretary had wanted to come clean on this issue and
520
really justify his conscience, nothing could have been easier than for him to have implemented the commission's recommendations for the county of Shropshire. If there were an individual with two votes, or with no vote, it would not be beyond the capacity of parliamentary draftsmen to put a suitable appendix to the Order making sure that alterations would not be made in such cases until the next election. In that way Caesar might just have got himself above suspicion. I do not believe it was not possible to do this. I am certain it ought to have been done.
I think it a fair summary of all this to say that Shropshire has torpedoed the Home Secretary. He is caught in a web of moral turpitude and Shropshire has sprung the trap.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Edwin Brooks: After the histrionics of the earlier part of today's debate, it was rather refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) making a leisured and well-balanced traverse along the Wenlock Edge. Delightful as that part of the country is, I have nothing to envy it in my constituency on the banks of the Mersey.
I think the speech of the Leader of the Opposition has damaged the character of this debate as a House of Commons occasion. Many of us on this side of the House have reservations, and I shall come to mine, about the way in which this whole matter has been handled, but it makes it very difficult if we are to be asked tonight to vote for or against the perfidy of the Government and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in particular. I should much prefer to examine the arguments on their merits and to see to what extent the Government have acted soundly and wisely and to what extent they have not.
I have always been unhappy about the methods involved in the alteration of our constituency boundaries. Nevertheless, they are the only methods we have now. They therefore are the best methods we have now. My right hon. Friend referred this afternoon to the need for this House to reserve to itself the ultimate right to effect the implementation of any particular proposals. If there were hon. Members opposite who during these debates implied that this House had no such powers,

521
clearly they were wrong, and even foolish. None of us would deny that this House must have the ultimate power. Equally I think it is a power which we should use sparingly.
It is important that when we have an institution set up to examine impartially the need to change this most sensitive of all our political organisations in Britain, the constituencies themselves, unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary this House should accept the Boundary Commission's proposals. To modify this standpoint is to start upon a very slippery slope. I like my hon. Friends who have spoken earlier, do not wish to take lessons from the Opposition in political morality. I> learned about the perfidy of Tories and Whigs with the Cow & Gate milk I took in at my mother's knee. I really do not need to be reminded about the perfidy of the 17th and 18th centuries, nor no doubt, of the Anglo-Saxons, but I did not come to this Parliament, nor did I join my party to be a mirror image of a Tory or a Whig.
The chicanery of the Tories and the Whigs made some of us feel that there was a need for a different sort of party. It is therefore incumbent upon this side of the House to have the highest possible standards in this sort of thing, and we should be seen to be exercising those standards now. It may well be that in this debate it is possible to argue that Governments of the Tories have been guilty of all sorts of chicanery. That would not be difficult, but I do not think much profit is served at this moment in our democracy by having a sort of yabooh debate, saying, "You too did all this" and thinking that therefore we may take solace from the fact that whatever accusations are made against us, and however unjustly, we can make the same accusations in return.
This is part of the slow demoralisation which is taking place in the political morale of the country. Therefore, the Government arguments in favour of the proposals they have put forward should be subjected to the most critical scrutiny. The argument, as I understand it, is that because at some time in the early 1970s there will be major changes in local government boundaries, and possibly in local government functions and distribution of powers, therefore it would be premature to embark on some wholesale recasting
522
of constituency boundaries and shapes and sizes and so on.
There is an argument here. Hon. Members opposite, notably the Leader of the Opposition, did not do Parliament a service this afternoon in the way they dismissed—indeed completely ignored—the very fair question which was put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He asked, Would they be prepared to contemplate, within a very short space of time following the implementation of these Boundary Commission proposals, another wholesale recasting of parliamentary boundaries? Is it a good thing that perhaps in 1971 or in 1970, whenever the next General Election is held, we should have boundaries determined afresh, and yet still further new boundaries made even by the time of the following General Election? This is the argument which has to be faced.
I do not accuse the Home Secretary of perfidy in putting forward a perfectly sensible and rational point of view. I think it would have been far better, to put it no higher, if when the Maud Commission was set up with terms of reference which demanded that it should report within two years or so—there was great urgency about it—it should have been made clear that because of the major changes which almost certainly would arise out of its report any proposals to alter the boundaries of constituencies would have to be put into cold storage until such time as the local government changes had been made.
Mr. Heifer: Will not my hon. Friend accept that at that stage no one, unless he was a crystal ball gazer, could have had the faintest idea of what the ultimate proposals in the Maud Report would be be? Therefore, it would have been absurd to have made that statement in advance.
Mr. Brooks: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong, because in 1958 the Local Government Commission was set up with fairly closely circumscribed terms of reference. For example, a number of special review areas were set up, including my own Merseyside, as to which it was possible that novel forms of local government would be introduced. But, by and large, the 1958 Commission, which took evidence over many years, right up till after the 1964 General Election, was tinkering with the problem.

523
Its terms of reference were not cast sufficiently wide to involve any fundamental change of local government structure and powers. There is no doubt that the implication of winding up that Commission and setting up the new high-powered Royal Commission was to produce something much more fundamental and revolutionary than had been hitherto possible and something which was recognised to be needed.
Next, if my hon. Friend is saying that in 1966 it was impossible to foresee what recommendations the Redcliffe-Maud Commission would come up with, it is no less impossible for us now in 1969 to foresee what the House will do in 1971 or 1972 in implementing that report.
Mr. Heller: That is not the same point.
Mr. Brooks: It is not precisely the same point, but it is a fair point to make that, if we are being asked now to defer any changes in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies because there will inevitably be a major recasting of parliamentary boundaries four or five years from now, and the reason there will be this fundamental recasting is that there will have been fundamental changes in our local government structure, we are really saying that we are deferring action on parliamentary boundaries because we know as of now that there will be these very fundamental changes arising out of the Redcliffe-Maud report.
I am not saying that this will not happen. I am simply saying that we cannot know any more precisely that this will take place than in 1965 or 1966 it was possible to foresee the major changes which were then implicit in the setting up of the Maud Commission.
I do not accept that when we set up the Maud Commission we expected some sort of penny farthing machine to come out at the end. It was obvious to those of us who knew the calibre of the men appointed to the Commission that there would be a very fundamental report. It was obvious that men of the calibre of Mr. Senior would not produce a mere patching up operation. It was obvious that our system of local government, which had not been altered since the 1880s, was in need of fundamental changes.
524
We may disagree about the way in which these changes should be effected, but to say that in 1965, after 20-40 years of dithering about, it was not obvious that something urgent needed to be done is to fly in the face of all the evidence.
Therefore, I think that the Government could easily have foreseen, long before the cafuifie of the last few months had occurred, that there would be, when the Report of the Maud Commission appeared, proposals for such fundamental changes that it was inevitable that the proposals of the Boundary Commission would have to be put into cold storage.
Mr. W. Howie (Luton): Am I not right in recalling that there was an exchange across the Floor at an earlier stage in our debates which made it clear that the Government had offered negotiations but were unable to reach agreement?
Mr. Brooks: My hon. Friend no doubt will have an opportunity to develop his point. I think it is a little difficult at this stage for those of us who were not privy to those negotiations to comment upon what actually was offered. What I am saying is that I do not care what was offered to the Opposition, but I do care about the way in which the Government's actions appear in the country at large. I am trying to represent the situation as fairly as possible—
Mr. Heifer: I have received no comments, and I come from Liverpool.
Mr. Brooks: My hon. Friend evidently has not got such a literate constituency as I have.
Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brooks: I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) would accept the fact that those of us who try to make speeches do not do so in order to denigrate other Members. I am not doing that, and I wish my hon. Friend would not assume that his experience in his constituency is the same in other constituencies, because that is not so. He must accept that fact, whether he likes it or not. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend carries on a running commentary. If he wishes others to give way to him when he wishes to intervene, he should not keep up these commentaries.

525
It is perfectly obvious that on this matter there is room for disagreement in the sense that if the Maud Commission Report is to be implemented in the form in which the majority report indicates, there are bound to be massive changes in local government in the early 1970s. But many of these changes will involve—indeed, this is their purpose—a great simplification in local government boundaries. There will be a considerable reduction in the number of executive local government units. We shall have unitary authorities embracing a much larger area than the area of such executive units as county boroughs characteristically include today.
Also the majority report, unlike the minority report, of the Maud Commission has in general tried to fit its recommendations into the existing pattern of boundaries as far as possible. Therefore, there will not be a wholesale removal of well-known landmarks. True, there will be large areas, but within these there will be no difficulty in accommodating many of the new constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission. This would apply to South Merseyside Metropolitan District, of which I can speak with some experience. There will be no difficulty whatsoever about this. Even if there were some difficulties, the time to meet them is when we know precisely their shape.
Perhaps, because of the massive pressures which will certainly be developed by local government associations in the early 1970s, this House will not implement Maud at all. It may implement reform in a different way from the Maud proposals. I cannot see into the future, neither can anyone else. But we have to accept the knowledge that if we do not implement the Boundary Commission Report here and now, we shall possibly see not only the next election but the one after that fought on the old hopelessly outdated boundaries, and balance that knowledge against only the possibility that there will have to be massive changes in the boundaries which would have been implemented had the Commission's Report been endorsed.
This is a matter on which hon. Members have to make up their own minds whether it is better to go for the one solution rather than the other. What
526
cannot be denied is the point that in a situation like this, where the public is already sensitive enough about the way in which these sorts of apparent interference take place, it is better on balance to go for the solution which will lead to no such political doubts in the minds of the public at large.
In any case, there is the point which has been made time and again that hon. Members now are faced with the impossibility of representing constituencies of upwards of 100,000 constituents while others have to go round trying to find any. This makes a mockery of the principle "one man, one vote". If hon. Members on this side of the House cannot see that, I do not see how we can get it over to people in other parts of the world such as Rhodesia.
Mr. Heifer: Absolute tripe.
Mr. Brooks: Of course, there is no comparison between a situation—
Mr. Heifer: Make it clear.
Mr. Brooks: My hon. Friend has a peculiar concept of democratic exchange. Of course, there is room here for argument. I am suggesting that when we have a situation in which one Member of this House represents five or, perhaps, six times as many constituents as another hon. Member, that is no great credit to the democracy which we are trying to represent as something worthy of attainment across the world at large. We are supposed to be the Mother of Parliaments. Are we to set ourselves standards or are we simply saying that it does not matter? I think that it does matter. That is why I have risen tonight.
I am not one of those who makes a profession out of abstaining or voting against the Government on an issue like this, particularly when the Opposition have made it into such an extraordinary and unjustified attack on people's integrity. Certainly, this debate is to me a most unhappy occasion, but I am bound to say, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens, who made some detailed and searching criticisms, many of which I share, that tonight I shall not be able to go into the Lobby.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: Outside this House, those who know what the House of Commons is today being asked to do are feeling angry and frustrated. Those who do not know what is happening are interested to find out. The Opposition have a duty to explain quite simply what is going on and to expose it to public view. I propose to do just that in three simple stages: first, the problem; secondly, the constitutional convention; and, thirdly, the Government's plans on this occasion.
The problem is simple and straightforward. I immediately say that the Government are in no way responsible for it. People move from one part of the country to another. There are many different patterns in this, but the particular pattern which I want to pick out is that whereby, with rebuilding and rehousing activities, people are increasingly moving from our city centres out into the country areas.
One has now reached a situation in which, especially in the city centres, one frequently finds that there are two Members of Parliament representing 50,000 electors, whereas in the country areas there may be only one Member of Parliament for 90,000, 95,000, 100,000 or even 110,000 electors.
A point which has been overlooked during the debate is that the disparity between those constituencies will be sharply exacerbated when the 18-year-old voters come on to the electoral roll next year, because there will be more of them proportionately in the larger electorate constituencies and fewer of them in the smaller constituencies. There will thus be a situation in which the large constituencies will become even larger in proportion to the smaller ones as a result of the introduction of the 18-year-old voter.
That means quite simply that in a democracy in which one hopes that the result of a General Election will reflect the will of the people, we have a situation in which the votes of those in the city centres will count for double the votes of many of those who live in the country. There is a practical, sensible and traditional way by which this is settled.
There is a very clear danger of giving either to Parliament or to a Government
528
temporarily in office the right to decide parliamentary constituencies. The temptation to rig or to gerrymander is enormously great. I shall not suggest that Governments or Parliaments will always give in to that temptation, but our political forefathers had the foresight to take it out of the political arena and so arrange things that Members of Parliament. party politicians and Governments could not interfere. They established an independent Boundary Commission, an umpire who would take the decisions.
It is no fault of the Government that it happens that many of their Members represent city centre seats and that on the best assessment one can make, the findings of the Boundary Commission Report would lose them between eight and 25 seats. I sympathise with them about this. One always sympathises with one's friends or colleagues when one finds that they have lost on an umpire's decision, but what one does not expect them then to do is to stand up and quarrel with the umpire.
In the manoeuvre which is before the House today, the Labour Party are planning to cheat at the next General Election.
Mr. Heller: Rubbish.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman naturally says "Rubbish", but let us look at the facts. The Home Secretary came to the House today to try to produce a face-saver for the Government. For the first half of his speech he talked about principle. In the second half he admitted openly and barefacedly that it was on party political grounds that he was doing what he was doing today. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was not present at the time, I suggest that he reads HANSARD. when he will see that that was so.
What are the face-savers which have been produced? First, there is the suggestion that Parliament is supreme; it is legally entitled to make new laws and to defy convention. In a technical sense, I suppose, that is true, but where does it stop? Hon. Members opposite must realise that the Queen's Speech, which was introduced at the beginning of the present Session, is extremely long. I do not think that there is much prospect of

529
that legislation very important legis? lation in the eyes of the Government—being completed before the end of the lifetime of this Parliament.
It is said that Parliament is supreme. Why should it not declare for a seven-year instead of a five-year term and extend the life of this Parliament for another two years? Why not indeed if Parliament is supreme? If Parliament is supreme in this field, the Government have embarked on a dangerous and slippery slope and one can see no end to the difficulties which they may cause.
Then the second face-saver comes in the form of Redcliffe-Maud. One point was overlooked by the Home Secretary. He said in his speech that the Parliament of 1972 will decide on the pattern of local government following on the Maud proposals. What Parliament is he referring to? Does he mean a Parliament representative of the people of this country, or the Home Secretary's poodle, elected according to the gerrymandered constituencies with which we will be faced following his performance in Parliament today. The whole point is that the Parliament which will be asked to decide on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will not be a representative Parliament. This strikes at the root of democracy, and I hope that the Attorney-General will not overlook this point when he winds up the debate.
It was then suggested that Members of Parliament are so incompetent that they cannot deal with more than one local authority at a time. The fact that many hon. Members do just that appears to have escaped the Government's notice. Is the convenience of Members of Parliament more important than the roots on which parliamentary democracy is based? It is almost as bad that the RedcliffeMaud proposals are being rushed through without adequate discussion to justify the Home Secretary in this gerrymander.
We then had the spech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who was seeking to find a let-out not only for the Government but for his conscience. His words were full of rhetorical brilliance. But when I took a note of his specific points, what did they amount to? First of all, he praised the style of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him that it was an excellent speech. He said that Parliament was supreme and the Home Secre
530
tary could propose some small changes in the proposals of the Boundary Commission. Then he went on to describe how big the "small changes" could be. The burden of his speech was that if one could make a change of 10 per cent., one could equally make a change of 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) drew attention to the fact that the wording of the Bill specifically allows the Home Secretary only to bring in modifications. I looked up the meaning of modification, and it could not conceivably cover what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale tried to say. In the Oxford English Dictionary "modification" is described as:
" The action of modifying, limiting. restricting or qualifying. The action of making changes in an object without altering its essential nature."
Clearly, what is happening in the House today is a deliberate defiance of the Act, and that is something which Parliament cannot pass over so easily.
The hon. Gentleman made a most extraordinary assertion, which I hope he will have another look at. He quoted from the speech of Mr. Herbert Morrison in an earlier debate, when this legislation came on to the Statute Book, seeking to prove that Herbert Morrison had produced a certain argument that influenced the law. It is a new doctrine that Ministerial speeches override the terms of an Act of Parliament. That cannot be sustained for very long.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the result of earlier amendments to the legislation had been to ensure that we did not have changes in five or seven years but that the position was extended for a longer period. But we are now in 1969. If the next Parliament legislates in 1974 on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals it will be 1979 before we shall have had a four-year sitting of the Boundary Commission on the details of constituency boundaries, so on the hon. Gentleman's own criteria we are well beyond the limitation of five or seven years; we are up to somewhere in the region of 10 years.
The Home Secretary, in a disastrous speech this afternoon, spoke about 432 changes, and how very upsetting they were. Very upsetting to whom? Apparently, to the Labour Party. But

531
the very fact that there are 432 changes in 1969 indicates how serious is the need to implement the changes recommended by the Boundary Commission. If in 1969 there are 432 changes which in fairness should be applied, what will there be by 1975 or 1977, which will be the first time we shall be able to have changes put into practice? That will mean a period of about 23 years since the last Boundary Commission's proposals became effective.
Has anybody spared a thought for the voters in the 25 seats who will be denied an M.P. that they might have expected, or the possible fact that the result of the next General Election could well be decided by so small a margin as 20 or 25? That could mean that the result of the next General Election would be decided by the gerrymandering of the Home Secretary this afternoon, a situation in which the Government of this country are not representative of the people, not because of the quirks of the electoral system but because of the deliberate failure of the Home Secretary to carry out his obligations under the Act.
We, as Members of Parliament, are very much aware of the cynicism which is sweeping through the country about politics and politicians. It brushes off at parliamentary level, on candidates, county councillors and local councillors, and all who are involved in government in one form or another at local or national level. That cynicism and distrust is substantially increased when one sees a party using the power of the Whips' Office to herd Members through the Division Lobby to create a situation in which party has been put before the basic democracy of this country. I salute the small number of hon. Members opposite who are not being herded through the Lobby, and respect their courage in standing up for what they believe to be right.
This is the most squalid party political manoeuvre. I believe that those who have been responsible for it should be drummed out of public life.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg(St. Marylebone): Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not complain if we speak strongly about this matter. We feel strongly. However, in what I suppose is the last of
532
a series of speeches that I have made about it, I shall try not to speak strongly myself.
Earlier today, we listened to a speech from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) with admiration from some points of view but not from others. I will not speak about Northern Ireland, but I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation in Rhodesia is vastly different from what is being done here today. Certainly it is vastly different in degree. However, I venture to remind the House of an observation which I made at the beginning of this series of debates on 19th June. Very largely, we invented representative government. We are the pattern for it, and people look to us to be the pattern. It is under attack in almost every country. In many, it has fallen altogether. It behoves us to see that our own standards are of the highest and that the pattern should be of an irreproachable quality in the eyes of other people who may be deviating from what we think to be the norm in a far greater degree than we sometimes reproach one another amongst ourselves for deviating.
At this stage, I do not want to be offensive to the Labour Party, though no doubt I shall be when I work up to what the learned Attorney-General would call my hwyll, which is one of the two Welsh words that he has taught me. But, as the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) said in a remarkably courageous speech, if a party sets itself up as the party of soul, it should be doubly careful that what it does is beyond reproach. Incidentally, that is the standard which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have chosen to set themselves. It is not the one which I would have selected for them.
I am glad that the Attorney-General is to reply. It enables me to divide my speech into two parts—what I want to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and what I want to say to the Home Secretary, who has been courteous enough to attend the debate.
I want to enlist the Attorney-General's help in teaching the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale the facts of life, by which I mean the constitutional facts, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me whether I am stating them correctly so that the hon. Member

533
for Ebbw Vale may know them as coming from the adviser of the House in matters of law.
The first proposition that I put to the Attorney-General is that Ministers should obey the law. That is fundamental. Ministers should set an example. Not only are they under an obligation morally to obey the law; they are under a legal obligation to obey it.
That is not true of Parliament in the same sense. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and other hon. Members have spoken of the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament makes the law. It can make it in the ordinary course by a Bill. In the present case, we are discussing an example where it can make the law by a Resolution of each House. To say that it is supreme is a statement of legal fact. But it is not a statement about constitutional propriety. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Bebington, and I am sure that he is with me when I say that it does not mean that in exercising its undoubtedly legal rights Parliament is divested of its duty to follow the principles of justice, fair play, logic and good faith. We are discussing whether the proposal made by the Home Secretary is just such a breach of these principles.
That is the first proposition I put to the Attorney-General. But, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because he, like me, has been present during many of these debates, my contention has always been that, contrary to the first proposition, these Ministers—the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland —have not obeyed the law either in the moral or in the literal legal sense of the word. They have not obeyed the law because they have not discharged the legal duty laid down by Section 2(5) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, that duty being, "as soon as may be", to lay the relevant report of the Boundary Commission "before Parliament together with, except where the report states that no alteration is required, a draft of an Order for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report".
When I first challenged the Home Secretary upon what I claim to be a deliberate breach of the law, he defended himself on
534
the very peculiar ground that he had not laid the report and, therefore, was not bound to lay a draft Order. He said on 2nd July that he did not wish to rely upon a legal technicality. He said that the report had been presented but not laid, although it had been presented in the same form as previous reports upon which draft Orders had been laid.
That has been blown sky high, because he has now recited—and let him not say that he is asking the House to vote against this—that the Secretary of State has laid the said report before Parliament. So he has now abandoned the first defence.
He had abandoned it early in the argument, because, when he summoned the Attorney-General to his aid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman abandoned it at once. The Attorney-General's defence inconsistent with that of the Secretary of State, was that although the report, contrary to what the Secretary of State had told the House, had been laid, it had not been laid pursuant to Section 2(5). That was the Attorney-General's argument, which is also to be found in HANSARD of 2nd July, and I am willing to give the references if need be.
That was an astonishing legal argument. I gasped and stretched my eyes, to quote the story of Matilda. when the Attorney-General got his tongue round that as a legal argument. I ventured to make a small wager with the members of my Bench, when I heard that Mr. McWhirter was going to produce his mandamus before the Divisional Court, that the Attorney-General would not put this ridiculous argument before the Lord Chief Justice, and he did not.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that Mr. McWhirter withdrew his proceedings. There was no opportunity, therefore, to put the matter to the test.
Mr. Hogg: He withdrew his proceedings on the assurance of the Attorney-General that the Order would be laid. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to recognise that, as the Section provides that the Order has to be laid together with the report, that disposes of his original contention, because if the report had not been laid pursuant to Section 2(5) the Order could not have

535
been laid in compliance with his undertaking to the court. Those who have been long in the law realise that Attorneys-General do not pay the costs of the other side if they really think that they have a case.
The situation is that the Ministers have not obeyed the law, even according to the letter of it, and the Attorney-General has been put into a humiliating position vis-a-vis the Lord Chief Justice. Even so the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot rescue his right hon. Friend from the quagmire into which he has fallen, because although he has laid the Report —contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman claimed to have done—in June and laid the Order in November—or was it at the end of October?—he has not, as the Act requires, laid it "together with" the report, because there has been an interval of several months between the two events.
The position is that the Attorney-General is asked, "Do Ministers have to obey the law according to the theory of constitutional law in this country, or do they not?". In this case the two Ministers responsible for law and order have, as I ventured to show at the outset of this series of debates, been guilty of a deliberate breach of their statutory obligations, for which they have actually committed public funds to meet the costs of a private citizen who brought a suit against the Home Secretary.
I leave the Attorney-General with the remains of his legal contentions, and I turn to the political arguments which have been presented from time to time by the Home Secretary. I venture to say, again without any particular desire to be offensive, that the contention on this side of the House has always been not that the right hon. Gentleman has changed the rules but that he has broken them.
The rules are that he should lay the Report and lay the Order, and he has not done so. He has done something else, and having at last laid the Order he is trying to persuade Parliament to vote against it. For this purpose it is wholly irrelevant to contend, or to quote Mr. David Butler, who is the last refuge of the Labour Party in times of trouble, to the effect that the rules as they exist contain a bias against the Labour Party.
536
The rules were agreed both when the substantive rules were introduced in 1948 and when they were amended in 1958. They are not being altered now, and the Home Secretary's speech was very largely an attempt to look forward to the time when they would be put into operation again unaltered. That argument can be completely disregarded for this purpose, even though the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale still tried to clothe his nakedness with a sort of fig leaf derived from this portion of the Home Secretary's contention.
These are the rules. How have they been observed? We are now operating, not under the 1966 boundaries, as the right hon. Gentleman said we were by a kind of Freudian slip—naturally he wants to look back to 1966—but the 1953 boundaries. That is the date as at which the last Boundary Commission fixed them as they are. They are already that much time out of date, and at this late hour I am not going to give examples of that.
The Boundary Commissions took four years over their labours and reported in April 1969. The Home Secretary allowed those Boundary Commissions—because there are four of them—to carry out their labours for four years under High Court judges, or their equivalent, and equally distinguished lay members, in the knowledge that he was going to set their findings aside.
I did not know that when I began the series of debates. I owe the Under-Secretary of State thanks for having given me that additional point, because I had forgotten—if I ever knew—that the Home Secretary had, as early as 1966 at least, told the Opposition that he wanted to set aside the Commission's Report, and he got "No" for an answer. Why the Under-Secretary thought that this was a point in favour of the right hon. Gentleman I have never understood, because it is one of the most damning counts in the indictment against the Government. I can only apologise to my right hon. and hon. Friends for having missed the point when I made my first speech. For four years the Government allowed these distinguished gentlemen to waste their time, knowing all along that their findings would be set aside, because they had said so from the start.
That is the beginning of it. When they did report the right hon. Gentleman did

537
not consult the Opposition. He was not bound to. He sat on the Report—despite his obligation to lay it "as soon as may be"—from April until June. Then, on the same date that he was pre-empted by a Motion in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself, he made a statement to the effect that he would disregard the Report and bring in a Bill. The Bill would relieve him of his obligation to keep to the law, and would arrange the constituencies in a way which the Government unilaterally thought most convenient to them.
That Bill was steamrollered through the House on a Three-Line Whip without Amendments of any kind, under a Guillotine procedure which wasted half a day's Parliamentary time, in order to avoid any form of Report stage. So severe was the Whipping that even when drafting mistakes had manifestly been made Amendments were not allowed in order to avoid a Report stage. We sat up all night, and great heat was engendered during the course of the operation.
When the matter went to another place —I am still trying to be factual—[In terruption.] No doubt the Attorney-General, with his forensic skill, will be able to correct me if I am wrong. When the Bill went to another place, that place so far from throwing it out passed Amendments which gave the right hon. Gentlemen time for repentance and amendment of life, which we all hoped. in good faith, they would make good use of. They did take advantage of it to the extent of amendment, but not of amendment of life, because at the next stage they wasted the time of the parliamentary draftsmen by introducing into the House and again passing a totally new Bill—different in character from the first—under the guise of Amendments. Those, in due course, were rejected by another place.
In the course of his somewhat lengthy remarks this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman was at pains to make criticisms of the party complexion of another place. It seems to me, however, that my right hon. Friend was correct in saying—as I believe the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) pointed out on behalf of the Liberal Party—that against the Government on that occasion there was arrayed almost every segment of
538
opinion in the country other than the committed members of the Labour Party. I ventured to point out before that there were about seven permanent heads of the Civil Service, the head of the Government's own Constitutional Commission, Lord Crowther and almost every kind of peer except those who took—and obeyed —the Labour Party Whip, and they were not by any means all the Labour peers. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in antagonising every responsible segment of opinion except those who were too blind with prejudice to see the weakness of his case.
That is where we came in today. Since I have already dealt with it, I will not rub salt into the legal wounds of the Attorney-General, but the interval was occupied by the mandamus proceedings brought by the excellent Mr. McWhirter. I still wish to know how much he got by way of costs out of the Government. I asked the Home Secretary that in the debate on the Address, but he did not tell us. Perhaps he is paying the costs himself, as indeed he should. But this at any rate is where we came in today and now we are being encouraged to undertake the sorry farce of laying the orders so as to satisfy the technical requirements of the law and thereby defeat the mandamus proceedings in the courts, but defeat it in spirit, because the purpose of the law was to "give effect, with or without the modifications", to the findings of the Boundary Commission.
Although I said that I would not try to inflame feeling on this matter, if I call it a sorry farce, I am understating the case. It is rather a squalid tragedy that Parliament should be treated in this contemptuous way by the Government. I note the Patronage Secretary's absence from his customary place. That can only denote that he is ashamed both of what he is doing and of what he has said.
This is all done on an excuse which can hold no water at all. The excuse is the Redcliffe-Maud Commission. The right hon. Gentleman complained that no one had answered his point about this Commission. We have tried patiently to answer it in every debate that has been held. If he had done what the law said, which it was his duty to do, he would have laid the reports and the orders certainly not later than

539
May. By now, they would be law and they would have been able to effect a General Election under them, in an emergency, this winter, but easily by next spring. But that has not been done, because the Government have been determined in no circumstances to do it. But that is none the less the timetable from which we start.
The Redcliffe-Maud proposals, if any of them and when any of them are implemented, or any alternatives are implemented, on the most favourable view taken by the Home Secretary, will not become legislated before 1972, probably October, 1972. I do not think that that is a fair estimate. I think that it will take longer. But I will give the Home Secretary that date, in spite of the fact that I think it is wildly over-optimistic. It must take longer than that after they have legislated to put them into effect on the ground. After they have been put into effect on the ground, there has to be a year of concurrent running between the old authorities and the new, that is to say, if, which has never been denied, the London government proposals are treated as a precedent.
That means that the earliest moment at which the confusion will arise is 1974, and if there does not happen to be a General Election in 1974 it will be held on a date unascertainable thereafter. Even then, it may very well be that five or six years or seven years, whichever is the true figure, is not the optimum period between reviews. But it is not an intolerable period between reviews. What is intolerable is that, in addition to the 16 years which we have already undergone between reviews, we should then have to undergo 6 or 7 to make another 23.
We know, as a matter of fact, that the Government are favoured by the status quo. Let us leave aside questions of motive. This is something the pretence about which has now worn too thin to be maintained. The calculations about advantage to the Government are not based upon any doubtful prognostication of the future. They are a clear statement of fact about the past. They are the calculation of what would have been the result in 1966, had the boundaries been then changed in accordance with the Boundary Commission's Report. They are the calculations, that is, on the basis
540
of no swing either way. Although, like all other calculations, they are subject to human error, there is no doubt that the possibilities, the limitations, of human error are very narrow.
Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South)rose—
Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way now, because I am coming back to say something about the Home Secretary. He and I have been playing opposite each other for two or three years now—since 1966, I think. I belong to a profession which on the whole prefers to keep on good terms with its opponents. I think that great advantage to the public comes from this course of action in public life, and that great advantage to the client and justice comes from it in litigation.
But I must say this to the right hon. Gentleman. Over that period of years we have dealt with a number of issues together. We have discussed Northern Ireland. Last night we discussed the great issue of immigration. We have been through what is known as the Kenya Asian Immigrants Act together, and we have been through the Race Relations Act together. I think that on the whole the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I have tried to keep the temperature down, that I have been selective about the kind of issue which I thought it right to turn into party matters, that I have tried in what language I can command—and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a gracious reference to me earlier—to pursue the public interest, and not simply party interest. But by no stretch of my conscience could I overlook what the right hon. Gentleman has done today.
Mr. Michael Foot: I certainly paid a compliment to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Why does he try to suggest to the House at this stage of our proceedings that my right hon. Friend is a different man today from the man he was yesterday?
Mr. Hogg: Because today he is playing party politics, and yesterday he was a statesman. I am sincerely trying to set before the House the issues as I see them.
Mr. Callaghan: It is sheer effrontery on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's part to assume that anybody

541
speaking from this Dispatch Box is any less sincere on the issue than he is. Today he is purely playing party politics, as he did in 1948—[Interruption.]—when he said exactly the same things and used the same violent language on the same sort of case. I have no time for this sort of talk.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the protagonists.
Mr. Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that outburst I will not take offence. All I will say to the Home Secretary is that the reason why I am opposing him tonight is that I am wholly disappointed with, and unconvinced by, his arguments.
As I go around the country, people say to me about the right hon. Gentleman, "He is really not doing such a bad job of work." Sometimes they say it by way of criticism of me, in that I should have attacked him more severely.
He has managed to build up in other fields a reputation for integrity. But what has he done to his reputation tonight by his handling of this matter?
"Who but must laugh, if such a man there be?
Who would not weep, if Atticus were he!"
9.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The eloquence with which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) denied that he was taking a party political interest in this matter was one of the most outstanding cases of Satan denying sin that this House has heard for a very long time and I greatly regret that the excellent tone with which he began his speech was not maintained until its very end. No doubt the intention to instil a little hwyll into the matter got the better of him.
The debate began with an ugly storm of invective and abuse from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition directed largely against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It had been carefully written and polished before the right hon. Gentleman had heard my right hon. Friend say a word—the kind of contribution to parliamentary debate which should not be emulated.
Hon. Members: Reading.
The Attorney-General: Whatever, for my guidance, I am reading about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was written on this bench only after he had made his disgraceful attack on my right hon. Friend.
Happily, however, those who were in the House to hear it heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) do the most total demolition job on a right hon. Gentleman and a speech that I and many hon. Members have heard. I hope that it will be widely circulated throughout the country so that the humbug that has influenced the Opposition in this debate may be appreciated.
It was not my intention to follow a course of personal invective, which has characterised much of today's debate. I say that because it seems to me that the issue that the House must decide tonight is one of practical judgment. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite who had not attended the debate for about three hours care to go back to where they have come from while those who have a serious interest in the issues of the debate remain, I will be most content.
I was saying when I was interrupted—I will not apply an adjective to the quality of the interruption—that the issue that the House must decide is one of practical judgment; whether or not it is in the interest of the country—in the interest of parliamentary and local government efficiency—to implement now the most widespread distribution of parliamentary seats since the Reform Bill, shortly before we are likely to face the biggest upheaval in the structure and organisation of local government for nearly a century in England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
A further question is whether or not it is good practical sense to deal with both of these upheavals at the same time and, by this means, prevent two damaging developments from taking place; first, over-frequent changes in the identity and structure of constituencies, and, secondly, lack of coincidence between local and parliamentary boundaries. Those are the issues which the debate should be about and really is about for those who apply themselves seriously to the problem. As to the first consideration, it ought, I should have thought, to be common

543
ground that the less disturbance of parliamentary boundaries one can have, compatible with good democratic prim ciples, the better, quite apart from the position of a Member of Parliament himself, or his local party, and the knowledge they have of the problems of their areas, and the sense of identity and pride in the constituency that good constituencies certainly have.
As to the second consideration—
Dr. Winstanley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make one thing quite clear? Is he saying that the present structure of parliamentary constituencies is compatible with what he calls good democratic principles?
The Attorney-General: I think that it needs improvement—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the improvement should be introduced alongside with and at the same time as the improvement in the local government structure. We know that that will happen in four or five years' time.
The second consideration that is obviously desirable is the parliamentary and local government boundaries should, as far as is practicable, coincide. That is one of the principles enshrined in the Schedule to the 1949 Act. As the House knows, the Boundary Commissions are required to use local government boundaries in formulating their recommendations for the alteration of constituency boundaries, and they are encouraged not to recommend that parts of different administrative units should be joined together in one constituency.
That is obviously desirable for administrative reasons and for political reasons generally. The same boundares can be used for both parliamentary and local government elections. Polling arrangements for both types of election can be the same. The register of electors can be used for both without rearrangement. On the other hand, if the local government area is divided between two or more constituencies it is necessary for parts of the registers of those constituencies to be combined to form the register used at a particular local government election. There is also the question of convenience to local party organisations. For these reasons, it is obvious that this coincidence should be maintained.
544
What is happening at this time is that the recommendations of the Commissions have, as has been said, involved a major unheaval in the political map—
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Maud recommends unitary local authorities and that the whole of Cornwall should be a single unit? Is he suggesting that there should be only one M.P. for Cornwall?
The Attorney-General: The effect of the Maud recommendations will be to cut across a large number of constituencies that are planned by the Boundary Commission recommendations. It is clear that once the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission are implemented—and the Prime Minister has said that a White Paper dealing with the matter will be published before long—the consequence will be that, for instance, 94 of the constituencies recommended will be divided between two or more of the recommended main local authority units, and those 94 constituencies will be cut in two or even more parts by boundaries recommended in the new main local government issues.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes on boring the House with the speech he has written, although we on this side are very fond of him, may I ask him two simple questions? Will the Government gain or not gain under the terms of what they are trying to vote tonight? If they are to gain, by how many are they to gain? Will he answer those two questions? [Interruption.]
The Attorney-General rose—
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member has put his question.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General: I was not sure for the moment whether I was giving way to the hon. and gallant Member or he was giving way to me. The answer to the question, of course, is, we do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the other side of the House there is, I believe, a mountain of wishful thinking

545
about these Boundary Commission proposals, and all the allegations of gerrymandering are made on the basis of an unproved hypothesis. We do not know; the estimates of distinguished experts in this field like Mr. David Butler certainly do not confirm the optimism of the other side of the House nor necessarily the pessimism that has existed on this side of the House.
The country has to face this real problem, whether to have two major dislocations in constituencies. [Interruption.] We regretted earlier the forthcoming departure of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) from the House at the end of this Parliament. I hope that his present departure from the Chamber will not have such a disturbing quality. I hope that he survives that departure without having apoplexy.
It was suggested in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, I understand, that it may well have been that the Boundary Commissioners did pay attention to the Maud proposals and considerations. I did not quite follow that suggestion. They could not possibly have known what the Maud recommendations were, unless there were some private meetings between the members of the Commissions of which the right hon. Gentleman knows and which certainly we on this side of the House do not know.
Mr. Hogg: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to make a false point. What my right hon. Friend did was to point out that the Home Secretary had said that the Maud Commission had taken account of the possibility of local government changes, and he drew this as an example of the reasons why it did not afford an excuse for what the Government were doing. That was quite a different point from the one the Attorney-General was making.
The Attorney-General: Of course they paid regard to some minor local government changes that were made, but the Boundary Commission reported on 21st April, 1969, before the Maud Commission reported on the 28th May, 1969. So the Boundary Commission was denied knowledge of what the Maud proposals would involve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) criticised the Gov
546
ernment for not having taken some action earlier on the whole problem after the Maud Commission was set up. He should know that the Government approached the Opposition through the usual channels proposing suspension of the work of the Boundary Commissions when the Royal Commission on local government was set up in 1966. We know that the reaction from the Opposition was negative. Therefore, the problem was considered at that time, but the Opposition did not support the recommendations.
The solution that the Government proposed, in view of the practical situation that has to be met, was perfectly sensible. They introduced the Bill which would have provided for the implementation of the Boundary Commission's recommendations in respect of London, where boundaries will not be affected by the local government reorganisation. The Bill also dealt with nine constituencies with abnormally large electorates.
In its final form, the Bill would have provided for the Boundary Commission to reconsider boundaries generally in the light of local government reorganisation; but, as a guarantee that this would not lead to the whole matter being shelved, the Bill provided for the implementation of the 1969 Reports if by March, 1972 it appeared that the Reports would be delayed.
When an Opposition Amendment was moved calling for the acceptance of such an undertaking for a period up to May, 1972, it was said by Opposition spokesmen that acceptance of that Amendment would be a test of the Government's good faith. In the Bill in its ultimate form the Government improved on that and offered the date March, 1972.
Unhappily, the sensible solution in the Bill, which was approved by this House, was rejected by the Lords. I am interested to note that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the Government should now persist with the machinery of the Parliament Act, no doubt he being confident that his cohorts in the Lords will create the maximum difficulty once again for the Government.
The use of the provisions of the Parliament Act would not meet the difficulties,

547
because the Royal Assent, on the timing that I have calculated, could not be given until 2nd August, 1970, and the Bill could not come into being, therefore, until the beginning of September. If there is to be an autumn election, as some newspapers seem to think, the pressure of time and the problems or re-organisation would be impossible. In addition, the division of the large constituencies would involve fresh inquiry by the Boundary Commissions; and that could not have been done before a General Election.
It has been suggested that the Government have acted unconstitutionally. Sir Austen Chamberlain said this in the House in 1932:
" Unconstitutional ' is a term applied in politics to the other fellow who does something that you do not like."
That is a description of the Opposition's attitude now. The Government's proposal embodied in the Bill was a constitutional proposal, and it is only because the Bill was rejected in another place that we have to consider these orders tonight. It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has acted with illegality in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and accordingly, if the murmur of disinterest will subside for a moment, I will deal with the legal problems that have been put to me in the course of the debate. The 1949 Act, as the House knows—[Interruption.].
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for any right hon. or hon. Member to address the House against a background of multitudinous conversations.
The Attorney-General: The 1949 Act, as the House has heard on many occasions, is, in the relevant Section, in these terms:
" As soon as may be after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Act, he shall lay the report before Parliament together—"
I now quote the relevant words—
"… with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
It is important to note that the words
" for giving effect … to the recommendations contained in the report "
548
are descriptive of the draft Order. The Act does not place upon the Home Secretary a duty to give effect to the recommendations. Indeed, how could it? The Act expressly authorises him to make modifications to the recommendations in the draft Order.
Furthermore, a draft order cannot take effect until it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. It is inconceivable that an Act of Parliament would place a duty upon a Minister to seek to ensure that the House should pass a particular Resolution. Such an idea would be derogatory to the House itself. Parliament has clearly not intended to fetter its own independence in considering draft Orders. Indeed, the 1949 Act expressly provides what is to happen if either House does reject a draft Order. If Parliament had intended that every recommendation of the Boundary Commission should be implemented and that Parliament should have no discretion in the matter, it would have been perfectly possible, by legislation, to have provided that those recommendations should be given effect to by Order in Council. There would then have been no provision for the Home Secretary to suggest modifications and no provision for the House to consider the recommendations in debate on a resolution of a draft Order.
The pathetic suggestion has been made that the Home Secretary's decision to go forward with these draft Orders has been forced upon him by action taken in the courts. That, of course, is not so. The history of the matter is quite simply that the Government considered that the proper way of proceeding was to introduce legislation, and this they did by introducing the Bill. So long as that Bill was before the House there was no question of laying a draft Order. It is true that the Boundary Commission Reports were published by my right hon. Friend so that the House would be informed of the Reports in considering the Bill that the Government introduced.
When it became clear that the Bill would probably be, or at least might be, rejected in another place the Home Secretary had to consider his position, as the 1949 Act places upon him a duty to lay a draft Order—to lay it, I may say, "as soon as may be"—and those words covered the interval during which the

549
Bill was before Parliament. The Home Secretary announced that as he could not recommend the House to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, he would lay a draft Order and advise the House to reject it.
Mr. Julian Amery rose—
The Attorney-General: I will give way in one moment, after I have finished these observations.
The proceedings in the courts did not affect this decision at all. I appeared for the Home Secretary in those proceedings, and when the applicant announced that he was withdrawing his motion I made it clear that I would have submitted, had the case gone on, that the Home Secretary's actions had been entirely lawful and free of any taint of illegality[Interruption]—and I would have had formidable arguments to support that contention.
I have been asked why, in those circumstances, bearing in mind the confidence I had in the quality of my case, the Home Secretary agreed to make a contribution towards the costs. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"] The answer to the question "How much?" is that no submission for the ex-gratia payment has yet been received from the applicant.
Mr. Amery rose—
The Attorney-General: I am sorry. Time does not permit me to give way. The right hon. Gentleman has not favoured us—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Attorney-General does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must sit down.
The Attorney-General: This is a matter about which I have been questioned and it is right that I should have an opportunity of dealing with the point.
Mr. Amery: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
The Attorney-General: No, I will not. When the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mere pleading does not make the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way.
The Attorney-General: If there were time I would give way, but I must deal with this matter.
When the applicant in the proceedings asked for the costs, having withdrawn his motion, I explained to the court that it was my contention that his application was doomed to fail and I would resist his application for costs. I had. however, to inform the court that my argument on the law would last about a day and a half, if not more. The court commented that it would be unfortunate if the whole case had to be argued on the question of costs and the Lord Chief Justice suggested an adjournment so that the parties could try to reach an agreement about costs.
With that indication of the court's view, bearing in mind that the applicant's counsel had withdrawn an imputation against the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, an attitude which would have been more worthy from the other side of the House, bearing in mind the need to save the court's time and that of those who would have been involved in the presentation of the Home Secretary's case and bearing in mind that the cost to the taxpayer if the proceedings had lasted for several days would have exceeded that which may ultimately have to be paid, I thought it right to accede to the suggestion of the court and take the responsibility to suggest to the Home Secretary that an ex-gratia payment should be made towards the applicant's Costs.
In announcing that to the court, I made it quite clear that it was an ex-gratia payment and I did not resile from my position that the Home Secretary's actions had been entirely lawful throughout. It was a sensible and wise course and only the ignorant, the malicious and the misinformed would be capable of taking any other view of the matter. Unfortunately, there has been a wide combination of all those factors in the Tory arrogance that we have had throughout this debate and I think it is deplorable that that has been the mood in which the debate has been conducted.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 250.

Division No. 3.]

AYES

10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Edelman, Maurice

Lawson, George

Albu, Austen

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Leadbitter, Ted

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Alldritt, Walter

Ellis, John

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Allen, Scholefield

English, Michael

Lee, John (Reading)

Anderson, Donald

Ennals, David

Lestor, Miss Joan

Armstrong, Ernest

Ensor, David

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Ashley, Jack

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Faulds, Andrew

Lipton, Marcus

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fernyhough, E.

Loughlin, Charles

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Finch, Harold

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Barnes, Michael

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

Barnett, Joel

Fletcher,RtHn.SirEric(Islington,E.)

McBride, Neil

Baxter, William

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

McCann, John

Beaney, Alan

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacColl, James

Bence, Cyril

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

MacDermot, Niall

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Ford, Ben

Macdonald, A. H.

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Forrester, John

McElhone, F.

Bidwell, Sydney

Fowler, Gerry

McGuire, Michael

Binns, John

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Bishop, E. S.

Freeson, Reginald

Mackenzie, Gregos (Rutherglen)

Blackburn, F.

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackie, John

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Gardner, Tony

Mackintosh, John P.

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Garrett, W. E.

Maclennan, Robert

Booth, Albert

Ginsburg, David

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Boston, Terence

Golding, J.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Boyden, James

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Bradley, Tom

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Gregory, Arnold

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

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

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Manuel, Archie

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

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mapp, Charles

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

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Marks, Kenneth

Buchan, Norman

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marquand, David

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

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hannan, William

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Harper, Joseph

Maxwell, Robert

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mayhew, Christopher

Cant, R. B.

Haseldine, Norman

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Carmichael, Neil

Hattersley, Roy

Mendelson, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hazell, Bert

Millan, Bruce

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Heifer, Eric S.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Coe, Denis

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Coleman, Donald

Hilton, W. S.

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

Concannon, J. D.

Hooley, Frank

Molloy, William

Conlan, Bernard

Horner, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Crawshaw, Richard

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Cronin, John

Howie, W.

Moyle, Roland

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Huckfield, Leslie

Murray, Albert

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Neal, Harold

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Newens, Stan

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Hunter, Adam

Norwood, Christopher

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Hynd, John

Oakes, Gordon

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

Ogden, Eric

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Janner, Sir Barnett

O'Halloran, M. J.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

O'Malley, Brian

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

Oram, Albert E.

Delargy, Hugh

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Orbach, Maurice

Dell, Edmund

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Oswald, Thomas

Dempsey, James

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

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

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Padley, Walter

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Dobson, Ray

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Palmer, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Driberg, Tom

Judd, Frank

Park, Trevor

Dunn, James A.

Kelley, Richard

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dunnett, Jack

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

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Latham, A.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Eadie, Alex

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Pentland, Norman

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

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

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

Weitzman, David

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wellbeloved, James

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Silverman, Julius

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Skeffington, Arthur

Whitaker, Ben

Price, William (Rugby)

Slater, Joseph

White, Mrs. Eirene

Probert, Arthur

Small, William

Whitlock, William

Randall, Harry

Snow, Julian

Wilkins, W. A.

Rankin, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Rees, Merlyn

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Richard, Ivor

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, Clifford (AbertillerY)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Taverns, Dick

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Thornton, Ernest

Winnick, David

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Tinn, James

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Rose, Paul

Tomney, Frank

Woof, Robert

Rowlands, E.

Urwin, T. W.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Ryan, John

Varley, Eric G.

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sheldon, Robert

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mr. William Hamling and

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Wallace, George

Mr. loan L. Evans.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Dance, James

Hirst, Geoffrey

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Holland, Philip

Astor, John

Dean, Paul

Hooson, Emlyn

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

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

Hordern, Peter

Awdry, Daniel

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hornby, Richard

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Howell, David (Guildford)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hunt, John

Balniel, Lord

Drayson, G. B.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Iremonger, T. L.

Batsford, Brian

Eden, Sir John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Emery, Peter

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bell, Ronald

Errington, Sir Eric

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Eyre, Reginald

Jopling, Michael

Biffen, John

Farr, John

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Biggs-Davison, John

Fisher, Nigel

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Black, Sir Cyril

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Blaker, Peter

Fortescue, Tim

Kershaw, Anthony

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Foster, Sir John

Kimball, Marcus

Body, Richard

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.O)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gibson-Watt, David

Kitson, Timothy

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Boyle, Rt. Hit, Sir Edward

Glyn, Sir Richard

Lambton, Viscount

Braine, Bernard

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Brewis, John

Goodhart, Philip

Lane, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Goodhew, Victor

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bromley-Davenport,L t.-Col.SirWalter

Gower, Raymond

Lawler, Wallace

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Grant, Anthony

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Bryan, Paul

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

Gresham Cooke, R.

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

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Grieve, Percy

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

Bullus, Sir Eric

Griffiths,Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Burden, F. A.

Gurden, Harold

Longden, Gilbert

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lubbock, Eric

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Carlisle, Mark

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

MacArthur, Ian

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

Cary, Sir Robert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Chataway, Christopher

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harrison, Brian (Maydon)

McMaster, Stanley

Clark, Henry

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Macmillan, Maurice, (Farnham)

Clegg, Walter

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Cooke, Robert

Harvie Anderson, Miss

McNair,Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hastings, Stephen

Maddan, Martin

Cordle, John

Hawkins, Paul

Maginnis, John E.

Corfield, F. V.

Hay, John

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Costain, A. P.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Marten, Neil

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maude, Angus

Crouch, David

Heseltine, Michael

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Crowder, F P.

Higgins, Terence L.

Mawby, Ray

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Riley, Joseph

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hilt, J. E. B.

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

554

555

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Pym, Francis

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

Miscampbell, Norman

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Temple, John M.

Monro, Hector

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Montgomery, Fergus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Morgan Ciles, Rear-Adm.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Tilney, John

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

van Strauhenzee, W. R.

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Ridsdale, Julian

Vickers, Dame Joan

Murton, Oscar

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Waddington, David

Naharro, Sir Gerald

Robson Brown, Sir William

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Neave, Airey

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Walters, Dennis

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Ward, C. (Swindon)

Nott, John

Royle, Anthony

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Onslow, Cranley

Russell, Sir Ronald

Weatherill, Bernard

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Scott-Hopkins, James

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Sharpies, Richard

Wiggin, A. W.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Silvester, Frederick

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Pardoe, John

Sinclair, Sir George

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

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

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Peel, John

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Woodnutt, Mark

Percival, Ian

Stainton, Keith

Worsley, Marcus

Peyton, John

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wylie, N. R.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Stodart, Anthony

Younger, Hn. George

Pink, R. Bonner

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Pounder, Rafton

Summers, Sir Spencer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Tapsell, Peter

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Prior, J. M. L.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be not approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motions relating to Representation of the People in respect of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may be entered upon and proceeded with at this
day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ORDERS)
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be not approved.—[Mr. Callaghan.]
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 250.

Division No. 4.]

AYES

[10.14 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Bradley, Tom

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Albu, Austen

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Alldritt, Walter

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Allen, Scholefield

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

Delargy, Hugh

Anderson, Donald

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

Dell, Edmund

Armstrong, Ernest

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

Dempsey, James

Ashley, Jack

Buchan, Norman

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

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

Dewar, Donald

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Dobson, Ray

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Doig, Peter

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cant, R. B.

Driherg, Tom

Barnes, Michael

Carmichael, Neil

Dunn, James A.

Barnett, Joel

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dunnett, Jack

Baxter, William

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Beaney, Alan

Coe, Denis

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

Bence, Cyril

Coleman, Donald

Eadie, Alex

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Concannon, J. D.

Edelman, Maurice

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Conlan, Bernard

Edwards, Robert (Bilaton)

Bidwell, Sydney

Corhet, Mrs. Freda

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Binns, John

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Ellis, John

Bishop, E. S.

Crawshaw, Richard

English, Michael

Blackburn, F.

Cronin, John

Ennals, David

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Ensor, David

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Booth, Albert

Dalyell, Tam

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Boston, Terence

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Fernyhough, E.

Bottomley, Rt. Ho. Arthur

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Finch, Harold

Boyden, James

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Fietcher,Rtlin,SirEric (Islington,E.)

Lipton, Marcus

Prentice, Rt. Hn, R. E.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Loughlin, Charles

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Price, William (Rugby)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Probert, Arthur

Ford, Ben

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Randall, Harry

Forrester, John

McBride, Neil

Rankin, John

Fowler, Gerry

McGann, John

Rees, Merlyn

Fraser, John (Norwood)

MacColl, James

Richard, Ivor

Freeson, Reginald

MacDermot, Niall

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Macdonald, A. H.

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Gardner, Tony

McElhone, F.

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Garrett, W. E.

McGuire, Michael

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ginsburg, David

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

Golding, J.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Mackie, John

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mackintosh, John P.

Rose, Paul

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Maclennan, Robert

Rowlands, E.

Gregory, Arnold

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Ryan, John

Grey, Charles (Durham)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Sheldon, Robert

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E,

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hannan, William

Manuel, Archie

Silverman, Julius

Harper, Joseph

Mapp, Charles

Skeffington, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marks, Kenneth

Slater, Joseph

Haseldinc, Norman

Marquand, David

Small, William

Hattersley, Roy

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Snow, Julian

Hazell, Bert

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Spriggs, Leslie

Hefter, Eric S.

Maxwell, Robert

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mayhew, Christopher

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Hilton, W. S.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Hooley, Frank

Mendelson, John

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Homer, John

Millan, Bruce

Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley

Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Taverne, Dick

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

Thornton, Ernest

Howie, W.

Molloy, William

Tinn, James

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

Tomney, Frank

Huckfield, Leslie

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Urwin, T. W.

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Varley, Eric C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hunter, Adam

Malley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hynd, John

Murray, Albert

Wallace, George

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

Neal, Harold

Watkins, David (Consett)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Newens, Stan

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Norwood, Christopher

Weitzman, David

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

Oakes, Gordon

Wellbeloved, James

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ogden, Eric

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

O'Halloran, M. J.

Whitaker, Ben

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

O'Malley, Brian

White, Mrs. Irene

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

Oram, Albert E.

Whitlock, William

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Orbach, Maurice

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Oswald, Thomas

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Judd, Frank

Padley, Walter

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hithin)

Kelley, Richard

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

Paget, R. T.

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Latham, A.

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Lawson, George

Park, Trevor

Winnick, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Woof, Robert

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Pavitt, Laurence

Wyatt, Woodrow

Lee, John (Reading)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Pentland. Norman

Mr. William Hamling and

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Mr. loan L. Evans.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Balniel, Lord

Biffen, John

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Biggs-Davison, John

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Batsford, Brian

Black, Sir Cyril

Astor, John

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Blaker, Peter

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

Bell, Ronald

Boardman, Toni (Leicester, S.W.)

Awdry, Daniel

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Body, Richard

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

558

559

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Hawkins, Paul

Onslow, Cranley

Braine, Bernard

Hay, John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Brewis, John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Heseltine, Michael

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Higgins, Terence L,

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Bryan, Paul

Hiley, Joseph

Pardoe, John

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

Hill, J. E. B.

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Peel, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Percival, Ian

Burden, F. A.

Holland, Philip

Peyton, John

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hooson, Emlyn

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hordern, Peter

Pink, R. Benner

Carlisle, Mark

Hornby, Richard

Pounder, Rafton

Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hunt, John

Prior, J. M. L.

Chataway, Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pym, Francis

Chichester-Clark, R.

Iremonger, T. L.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Clark, Henry

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Clegg, Walter

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Cooke, Robert

Johnson Smith, G. (E, Grinstead)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cordle, John

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Corfield, F. V.

Jopling, Michael

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ridsdale, Julian

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Crouch, David

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Robson Brown, Sir William

Crowder, F. P.

Kershaw, Anthony

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Kimball, Marcus

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Currie, G. B. H.

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Royle, Anthony

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dance, James

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Scott, Nicholas

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Lambton, Viscount

Scott-Hopkins, James

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sharpies, Richard

Dean, Paul

Lane, David

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

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

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Silvester, Frederick

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lawler, Wallace

Sinclair, Sir George

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Drayson, G. B.

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

Stainton, Keith

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eden, Sir John

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Stodart, Anthony

Emery, Peter

Longden, Gilbert

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Errington, Sir Eric

Lubbock, Eric

Summers, Sir Spencer

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Tapsell, Peter

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

MacArthur, Ian

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Eyre, Reginald

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross & CroM'ty)

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

Farr, John

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Fisher, Nigel

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Temple, John M.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McMaster, Stanley

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Fortescue, Tim

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Foster, Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Tilney, John

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Gibson-Watt, David

Maddan, Martin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maginnis, John E.

Vickers, Dame Joan

Glyn, Sir Richard

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Waddington, David

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Marten, Neil

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Goodhatt, Philip

Maude, Angus

Walters, Dennis

Goodhew, Victor

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Ward, C. (Swindon)

Gower, Raymond

Mawby, Ray

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Grant, Anthony

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Weatherill, Bernard

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

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

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Wiggin, A. W.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Miscampbell, Norman

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Gurden, Harold

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Monro, Hector

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Montgomery, Fergus

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Woodnutt, Mark

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Worsley, Marcus

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Wylie, N. R.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Younger, Hn. George

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Murton, Oscar

Harrison, Co!. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harvey, Sir Arthur Very

Neave, Airey

Mr. R. W. Elliott and

Harm Andersen, Miss

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Jasper More.

Nott, John

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be not approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 250.

Division No. S.

AYES

110.28 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Edelman, Maurice

Leadbitter, Ted

Albu, Austen

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Alldritt, Walter

Ellis, John

Lee, John (Reading)

Allen, Scholefield

English, Michael

Lester, Miss Joan

Anderson, Donald

Enna's, David

Lever, RI. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

Armstrong, Ernest

Ensor, David

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Ashley, Jack

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lipton, Marcus

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Faulds, Andrew

Loughlin, Charles

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fernyhough, E.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Finch, Harold

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Barnes, Michael

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

McBride, Neil

Barnett, Joel

FietcherRt.Hn.Sir Eric(Islington,E.)

McCann, John

Baxter, William

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

MacColl, James

Beaney, Alan

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacDermot, Niall

Bence, Cyril

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Macdonald, A. H.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Ford, Ben

McElhone, F.

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Forrester, John

McGuire, Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Fowler, Gerry

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Binns, John

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Bishop, E. S.

Freeson, Reginald

Mackie, John

Blackburn, F.

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mackintosh, John P.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Gardner, Tony

Maclennan, Robert

Boardman, E. (Leigh)

Garrett, W. E.

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Booth, Albert

Ginsburg, David

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Boston, Terence

Golding, J.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm

Boyden, James

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Bradley, Tom

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Gregory, Arnold

Mallalieu, E. L. (Grigg)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Manuel, Archie

Brown, Hugh D. (C'govv, Provan)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brighton)

Mapp, Charles

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

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Marks, Kenneth

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

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Marquand, David

Buchan, Norman

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard

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

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hannan, William

Maxwell, Robert

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Harper, Joseph

Mayhew, Christopher

Callaghan, Rt. Hn, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cant, R. B.

Haseldine, Norman

Mendelson, John

Carmichael, Neil

Hattersley, Roy

Millan, Bruce

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hazell, Bert

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Heifer, Eric S.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Coe, Denis

Hilton, W. S.

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

Coleman, Donald

Hooley, Frank

Molloy William

Concannon, J. D.

Horner, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Conlan, Bernard

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Crawshaw, Richard

Howie, W.

Moyle, Roland

Cronin, John

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Crosland, Rt. Hi). Anthony

Huckfield, Leslie

Murray, Albert

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Neal, Harold

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Newens, Stan

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hunter, Adam

Norwood, Christopher

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Hynd, John

Oakes, Gordon

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

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

Ogden, Eric

Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

O'Halloran, M. J.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

O'Malley, Brian

Davies, lifer (Gower)

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

Oram, Albert E.

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Orbach, Maurice

Delargy, Hugh

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Oswald, Thomas

Dell, Edmund

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham. S.)

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

Dempsey, James

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

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

Jones, Dan (Surnley)

Padley, Walter

Dewar, Donald

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

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Jones, J. Itiwal (Wrexham)

Paget, R. T.

Dobson, Ray

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Palmer, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Judd, Frank

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Driberg, Tom

Kelley, Richard

Park, Trevor

Dunn, James A.

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

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dunnett, Jack

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Latham, A.

Pavitt, Laurence

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

Lawson, George

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Eadie, Alex

562

563

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Pentland, Norman

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

Weitzman, David

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wellbeloved, James

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Silverman, Julius

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Skeffington, Arthur

Whitaker, Ben

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Slater, Joseph

White, Mrs. Eirene

Price, William (Rugby)

Small, William

Whitlock, William

Probert, Arthur

Snow, Julian

Wilkins, W. A.

Randall, Harry

Spriggs, Leslie

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Rankin, John

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Rees, Merlyn

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Richard, Ivor

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goranwy

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Willis, Rt. Hnn. George

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Taverne, Dick

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

Thornton, Ernest

W innick, David

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tine, James

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Tomney, Frank

Woof, Robert

Rose, Paul

Urwin, T. W.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Rowlands, E.

Varley, Eric G.

Ryan, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Walker,Harold (Doncaster)

Mr. William Hamling and

Sheldon, Robert

Wallace, George

Mr. loan L. Evans.

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Watkins, David (Consett)

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Holland, Philip

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

d'Avigclor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hooson, Emlyn

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Dean, Paul

Hordern, Peter

Astor, John

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

Hornby, Richard

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

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Howell, David (Guildford)

Awdry, Daniel

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hunt, John

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Drayson, C. B.

Iremonger, T. L.

Balniel, Lord

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Eden, Sir John

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Batsford, Brian

Emery, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tuf ton

Errington, Sir Eric

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bell, Ronald

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Jopling, Michael

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

Eyre, Reginald

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Farr, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Biffen, John

Fisher, Nigel

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Bffigs-Davison, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Black, Sir Cyril

Fortescue, Tim

Kimball, Marcus

Blaker, Peter

Foster, Sir John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Kitson, Timothy

Body, Richard

Gibson-Watt, David

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lambton, Viscount

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Glyn, Sir Richard

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Godber, Rt. Ho. J. B.

Lane, David

Braine, Bernard

Goodhart, Philip

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Brewis, John

Goodhew, Victor

Lawler, Wallace

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Gower, Raymond

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Grant, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

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

Bryan, Paul

Gresham Cooke, R.

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

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

Grieve, Percy

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Longden, Gilbert

Bullus, Sir Eric

Gurclen, Harold

Lubbock, Eric

Burden, F. A.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

MacArthur, Ian

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty)

Carlisle, Mark

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Cary, Sir Robert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Chataway, Christopher

Harris, Reader (Heston)

McMaster, Stanley

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Clark, Henry

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Clegg, Walter

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Cooke, Robert

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Maddan, Martin

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Hastings, Stephen

Maginnis, John E.

Cordle, John

Hawkins, Paul

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Corfield, F. V.

Hay, John

Marten, Neil

Costain, A. P.

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Maude, Angus

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Crouch, David

Heseltine, Michael

Mawby, Ray

Crowder, F. P.

Higgins, Terence L.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hiley, Joseph

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

Currie, G. B. H.

Hill, J. E. B.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hirst, Geoffrey

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Dance, James

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Miscampliell, Norman

564

565

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

Monro, Hector

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Taylor, Drank (Moss Side)

Montgomery, Fergus

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Templc. John M.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Tilney, John

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Tinton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Murton, Oscar

Ridsdale, Julian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Naharro, Sir Gerald

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Vickers, Dame Joan

Neave, Airey

Robson Brown, Sir William

Waddington, David

Noble, Rt. Ho. Michael

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevcnoaks)

Walker, Peter (W orcester)

Nott, John

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Walters, Dennis

Onslow, Cranley

Royle, Anthony

Ward, C. (Swindon)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Scott, Nicholas

W eatherill, Bernard

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Sharpies, Richard

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Page, Join (Harrow, W.)

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

Wiggin, A. W

Pardoe, John

Silvester, Frederick

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Sinclair, Sir George

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Peel, John

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

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Percival, Ian

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

W olrige-Gordon, Patrick

Peyton, John

Stainton, Keith

Woodnutt, Mark

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Steel, Davizl (Roxburgh)

Worsley, Marcus

Pink, R. Bonner

Stodart, Anthony

Wylie, N. R.

Pounder, Batton

Steddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Younger, Hn. George

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Summers, Sir Spencer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Prior, J. M. L.

Tapsell, Peter

Mr. R W. Elliott and

Pym, Francis

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mr. Jasper More.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, he not approved.—[Mr. Callaghan.]
The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 250.

Division No. 6.1

AYES

[10.40 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cant, R. B.

Ensor, David

Albu, Austen

Carmichael, Neil

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Aildritt, Walter

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

Allen, Scholefield

Coe, Denis

Faulds, Andrew

Anderson, Donald

Coleman, Donald

Fernyhough, E.

Armstrong, Ernest

Concannon, J. D.

Finch, Harold

Ashley, Jack

Conlan, Bernard

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Corbel, Mrs. Freda

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islingtorl,E)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Crawshaw, Richard

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Cronin, John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Barnes, Michael

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ford, Ben

Barnett, Joel

Dalyell, Tam

Forrester, John

Baxter, William

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Fowler, Gerry

Beaney, Alan

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Bence, Cyril

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Freeson, Reginald

Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Gardner, Tony

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Garrett, W. E.

Binns, John

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Ginsburg, David

Bishop, E. S.

Delargy, Hugh

Golding, J.

Blackburn, F.

Dell, Edmund

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dempsey, James

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Devlin, Miss Bernadette

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Booth, Albert

Dewar, Donald

Gregory, Arnold

Boston, Terence

Diamond, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Dobson, Ray

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Boyden, James

Doig, Peter

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Bradley, Tom

Driberg, Tom

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dunn, James A.

Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Dunnett, Jack

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

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

Hannan, William

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

Eadie, Alex

Harper, Joseph

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

Edelman, Maurice

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Buchan, Norman

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Haseldine, Norman

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

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Hattersley, Roy

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Ellis, John

Hazell, Bert

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

English, Michael

Hefter, Eric S.

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Ennals, David

Hilton, W. S.

Hooley, Frank

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Roberts, Gwilyn (Bedfordshire, S.)

Homer, John

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

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

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Manuel, Archie

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Mapp, Charles

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Howie, W.

Marks, Kenneth

Rose, Paul

Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

Marquand, David

Rowlands, E.

Huckfield, Leslie

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ryan, John

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mason, Rt. Fin. Roy

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Maxwell, Robert

Sheldon, Robert

Hunter, Adam

Mayhew, Christopher

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Hynd, John

Mellish, Rt. Fin. Robert

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

Mendelson, John

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

Janner, Sir Barnett

Milian, Bruce

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Silverman, Julius

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

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Skeffington, Arthur

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

Slater, Joseph

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Molloy, William

Small, William

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Snow, Julian

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

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Spriggs, Leslie

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Stewart, Rt. Fin. Michael

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Moyle, Roland

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Mulley, Rt. Fin. Frederick

Strauss, Rt. Fln. G. R.

Judd, Frank

Murray, Albert

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Kelley, Richard

Neal, Harald

Taverne, Dick

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

Newens, Stan

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Norwood, Christopher

Thornton, Ernest

Latham, A.

Oakes, Gordon

Tinn, James

Lawson, George

Ogden, Eric

Tomney, Frank

Leadhitter, Ted

O'Halloran, M. J.

Urwin, T. W.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

O'Malley, Brian

Varley, Eric C.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Oram, Albert E.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lee, John (Reading)

Orbach, Maurice

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Oswald, Thomas

Wallace, George

Lever, Rt. Fin. Harold (Cheetham)

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

Watkins, David (Consett)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Padley, Walter

Weitzman, David

Lipton, Marcus

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Wellbeloved, James

Loughlin, Charles

Paget, R. T.

Wells, William (Wa'sall, N.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Palmer, Arthur

Whitaker, Ben

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

White, Mrs. Eirene

Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

Park, Trevor

Whitlock, William

McBride, Neil

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Wilkins, W. A.

McCann, John

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Willey, Rt. Fin. Frederick

MacColl, James

Pavitt, Laurence

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

MacDermot, Niall

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Macdonald, A. H.

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

McElhone, F.

Pentland, Norman

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

McGuire, Michael

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Mackie, John

Price, William (Rugby)

Winnick, David

Mackintosh, John P.

Probert, Arthur

Woodburn, Rt, Hn. A.

Maclennan, Robert

Randall, Harry

Woof, Robert

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Rankin, John

Wyatt, Woodrow

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Rees, Merlyn

McNamara, J. Kevin

Richard, Ivor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

MacPherson, Malcolm

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. William Hamling and

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Roberts, Rt. Fin. Goronwy

Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Blaker, Peter

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Body, Richard

Chataway, Christopher

Astor, John

Bossom, Sir Clive

Chichester-Clark, R.

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Clark, Henry

Awdry, Danief

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Clegg, Walter

Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

Braine, Bernard

Cooke, Robert

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Brewis, John

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Balniel, Lord

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Curdle, John

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Corfield, F. V.

BatsfOrd, Brian

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Costain, A. P.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Bryan, Paul

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Bell, Ronald

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

Crouch, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Crowder, F. P.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Berry, Fin. Anthony

Burden, F. A.

Currie, G. B. H.

Biffen, John

Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Biggs-Davison, John

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Dance, James

Black, Sir Cyril

Carlisle, Mark

Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

568

569

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Peyton, John

Dean, Paul

Jopling, Michael

Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Pink, R. Bonner

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pounder, Rafton

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Kershaw, Anthony

Prior, J. M. L.

Drayson, G. B.

Kimball, Marcus

Pym, Francis

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Eden, Sir John

Kitson, Timothy

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Emery, Peter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Errington, Sir Eric

Lambton, Viscount

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Lane, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Eyre, Reginald

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Farr, John

Lawler, Wallace

Ridsdale, Julian

Fisher, Nigel

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Fortescue, Tim

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

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Foster, Sir John

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Royce, Anthony

Gibson-Watt, David

Longden, Gilbert

Russell, Sir Ronald

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lubbock, Eric

Scott, Nicholas

Glyn, Sir Richard

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Scott-Hopkins, James

Godlier, Rt. Hn. J. B.

MacArthur, Ian

Sharpies, Richard

Goodhart, Philip

Mackenzie,Alasclair(Ross & Crom'ty)

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

Goodhew, Victor

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Silvester, Frederick

Gower, Raymond

Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

Sinclair, Sir George

Grant, Anthony

McMaster, Stanley

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

Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Gresham Cooke, R.

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stainton, Keith

Grieve, Percy

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Madden, Martin

Stodart, Anthony

Gurden, Harold

Maginnis, John E.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

Marten, Neil

Tapsell, Peter

Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Temple, John M.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Thorpe, Rt, Hn. Jeremy

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Tilney, John

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Miscampbell, Norma

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Hastings, Stephen

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

van Strauhenzee, W. R.

Hawkins, Paul

Monro, Hector

Vickers, Dame Joan

Hay, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Waddington, David

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Walters, Dennis

Heseltine, Michael

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Higgins, Terence L.

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Weatherili, Bernard

Hiley, Joseph

Murton, Oscar

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hill, J. E. B.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hirst, Geoffrey

Heave, Airey

Wiggin, A. W.

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintet

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Williams, Donald (Dudley)

Holland, Philip

Nott, John

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hooson, Emlyn

Onslow, Cranley

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Hordern, Peter

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Wcdrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hornby, Richard

rr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Woodnutt, Mark

Howell, David (Guildford)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Worsley, Marcus

Hunt, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wylie, N. R.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Younger, Hn. George

Iremonger, T. L.

Pardoe, John

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Peel, John

Mr. R. W. Elliott-and

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Percival, Ian

Mr. Jasper More.

VALUATION FOR RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be Committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Buchan.]
Question agreed to.
Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts, occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and to report thereon to this House.
Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.
Ordered,
That Mr. Brian Batsford, Mr. D. Chapman, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. M. English, Mr. D. Ensor, Mr. W. E. Garrett, Mr. Eddie Griffiths, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. R. Mellish, Mr. C. R. Morris, Sir Frank Pearson, Mr. F. Peart, Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. D. Steel, Dame Joan Vickers and Mr. W. Whitelaw be Members of the Committee.
Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee do have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report to the Committee from time to time.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee.
Ordered,
That any Sub-Committee which may be appointed to deal with the organisation of, and the provision of services in, the Library do have the assistance of the Librarian.—[Mr. Mellish.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the rules and practices of the House in relation to the declaration of Members' Interest and to report thereon.
Ordered,
That Mr. G. Darling, Mr. Patrick Gordon-Walker, Sir Eric Fletcher, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. J. Ramsden, Mr. G. Strauss, Sir John Vaughan-Moraan, Sir Derek Walker-Smith and Mr. G. Willis be Members of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
Ordered,
That Five to be Quorum.
Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration), together with Appendices, in the last Session of Parliament and reported to the House on 14th October, 1969, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Mellish.]

LANCASHIRE HILL FLATS, STOCKPORT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Hamling.]
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Arnold Gregory: In raising the matter of the Lancashire Hill flats development at Stockport I fully realise that we are dealing with a specific issue and not one of the

573
broader implications of housing in the borough.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and my hon. Friend's predecesso- at the Ministry, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), will recall discussion on the subject on 26th June when the Minister met representatives from Stockport and Macclesfield with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). In all instances the need for special consideration to the borough's problems was sought, and today we are in precisely the same position.
It is a matter with massive financial implications for the size of the authority involved, an issue that presents colossal problems which remain completely without settlement or reasonable conclusion today.
My right hon. Friend is fully aware of what is at stake. He wrote to the Mayor of Stockport as recently as 23rd October, 1969, in his now famous housing black list communication, as follows:
"I am writing to you as Mayor of an authority which appears to be reducing its housebuilding and clearance. I realise, of course, that the problems and delays that have occurred this year over your scheme at Lancashire Hill had an effect on the housing programme But with 6,000 unfit dwellings to be cleared and more than that number to be improved there can be little doubt that the Council have still housing problems to be solved."
Indeed the council has. I am informed that the flats are still unfinished and remain unoccupied and, whereas it was hoped by the authority to have them finished in September last, the date has had to be postponed until May, 1970.
What is the measure of the Lancashire Hill flats problem, and what has gone wrong? When the panic of the terrible Ronan Point collapse and disaster had subsided, the matter then fell to other local authorities with tall blocks of system-built flats, in the words of the Ministry
" to have an appraisal made of any high blocks (over six storeys) owned by them with system buildings—that is, in large panel construction with load-bearing walls".
That was issued on 13th August, 1968.
Immediately, the Stockport Borough Architect Took action to meet the Minis
574
try's requirements. These were, first, to eliminate gas supplies for cooking; second, to consult the National Building Agency; and, third, to ask the Jespersen 12M designers, Messrs. Laing, to meet all the Minister's requirements. Also, the Minister was asked as a sponsor of the project to advise forthwith on necessary action and to arrange for appraisal on all other tall blocks in the town.
Reaction to all this was painfully and expensively slow. The resultant costs and effect to Stockport are tantamount to monstrous. Notwithstanding that, on 30th August, 1968, the Minister advised the authority that work should stop on blocks 2 and 3 of the 6-block scheme, containing units of seven storeys, and it was indicated that work on blocks 1, 4, 5 and 6, with six storeys or less, should continue.
The borough architect wrote for specific advice from the Ministry on remedial structural work on 12th September, 1968. This was formally repeated at a meeting on 27th November. Requests by letters and telephone were put out by the town clerk and the borough architect. It was not until 7th March, 1969 that a reply was received. This reply suggested that the council should appoint one of three consultants to make an appraisal. Apology was given for the delay. Reference was made to the amount of expenditure and to some Exchequer assistance. with certain conditions.
It is small wonder that all this, after so much delay, should he regarded as totally unsatisfactory and also give rise to opinion in the town that the affair had been shabbily handled. Work on the Lancashire Hill site had stopped dead because of sheer lack of essential information. On 24th February, 1969, Messrs. Laing, the constructors, were instructed to cease work on the flats. Apart from the appraisal work done by Messrs. Kenneth Severn Associates, that is the position today.
Can anyone be surprised at the sense of sheer disappointment that is felt by Stockport borough surveyor? The council is presented with a gigantic problem. So are the people on the waiting lists and those living in bad housing conditions who cannot occupy the flats, and so are the ratepayers who are the ones who face a massive bill.

575
A local newspaper, the Stockport Express, wrote on 19th June, 1969:
"It is a scandal that there has been so much shilly-shallying at Government level on the question of who foots the bill for work on the Lancashire Hill flats."
Recently, in responding to the Minister's letter pressing the council for action on the council's housing programme, the same newspaper commented:
"The rocketing charges in respect of the Lancashire Hill flats is a case in point. £200,000 is a considerable amount of money to find and particularly so when such a charge has arisen through no fault of the local authority."
In this context, there can be quite a bit of criticism pitched at the local authority—that is the controlling authority—for selling off municipally-owned land at prices which they are alleged to have put lower than that they paid for it, and that kind of activity will not go unnoticed, but the authority finances are not helped either when they are presented with a bill of this magnitude for something for which they are not entirely responsible and, indeed, the amount increases.
Why then the special case to which constant reference is made? It is because the Stockport Council maintain—and they have informed the Ministry several times—that they were not free agents in the decision to build system-type flats in the first place. It was at the instigation of the Ministry that they entered into a contract with Laings for the erection of these dwellings. They were to be built in deck access of the Jespersen 12M system, and on the recommendation of the Ministry a tender figure of £1,252,200 was negotiated with Laings on 19th June, 1967. It was to form part of the West Pennine Group project and the Ministry fully commended the system.
At a meeting of the West Pennine authorities in December, 1963, the Ministry commended the Laings Jespersen 12M system specifically—as early as that—and it was after many more meetings and discussions amongst officials that finally the decision was made. On 21st May, 1965, the Ministry wrote to the Town Clerk of Stockport:
"The Ministry can fully commend this system and I ask whether your council would approve in principle the negotiation of a large
576
scale contract for this work with Messrs. Laing through the West Pennine Group."
In fairness, everyone, including my right hon. Friend, obviously could not foresee trends, and the disaster of Ronan Point was three years away. But the developments since have caused this local authority great problems, and, whereas we know the Minister has recommended a 40 per cent. rate in meeting these costs over all the country, some difficulties are greater than others. In meeting the costs, Stockport faces a bill of £122,000 for strengthening the flats and another £110,000 to cover contractors' claims for delay, and equivalent to an annual charge of £8,179. Furthermore, during the period of delay, they had to meet additional interest which amounted to £1,587 per week for 18 weeks, a total of £28,566 which will be a charge in the accounts for 1968-69 and 1969-70. There may be other authorities in greater difficulties, but this charge is bad enough and Stockport is involved.
I shall be only too pleased to let my right hon. Friend have the details given by the town clerk on this aspect. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to know that all of this was said to be an element leading to rent increases. The council faces an estimated deficit of £139.000 on housing revenue account at 31st March, 1970.
Another measure of all this is that the Stockport 1 d. rate represents £22,000 and the effect equals a rate increase of something like ls. 1d. or Is. 2d. to be met by the Stockport ratepayers. This is a crippling burden to the authority and its ratepayers, and for Stockport it has massive implications. The point must be put to my right hon. Friend and the Ministry that they should again look into the special circumstances of the case. The authority believed that it was dealing with high ministerial policy. Whatever the degree of emphasis it placed on the advisory services—and is there small wonder in view of the type of building and its constructional links; that is, the 12M Jespersen system it was left to ponder, "Who are we to thwart a recommendation of this sort?"
I believe that the Minister has a continuing responsibility in the matter and, as the situation shows, it is far from having been discharged. To say the least, some concession is needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will give one tonight.
11.5 p.m.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: am sure that the people of Stockport will be grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) for raising this matter, which equally affects the Borough of Macclesfield. The two hon. Members for Stockport and myself saw the Minister of Housing and Local Government towards the end of last Session. He had the facts presented to him in the presence of the officials, the town clerks and the borough architects, and there can be no excuse for the Minister saying that he does not know, because the facts are well known.
The Macclesfield Corporation, as well as Stockport, has been placed in an intolerable position through the action of the Ministry. It is a member of the West Pennine Housing Group, which is sponsored by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. For a long period, the Ministry has pressed the technical examination of the 12M Jespersea system. As far back as March, 1965, the Ministry's representative drew attention to the "current lead" of the system. The Ministry said that it was convinced that the system was satisfactory.
Then, in May, 1965, the regional officer of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that the system had emerged as the system most suitable for deck access development. On 21st May, 1965, the regional officer wrote to the Macclesfield town clerk:
" The Ministry can fully commend this system and I ask whether your Council will approve it in principle."
The borough architect pointed out the most unusual nature of a negotiated contract of this size—over £1 million for a small borough—but the council relied on the advice of the Ministry. I wonder, and I ask the Minister, what would have happened if Macclesfield and Stockport had gone against the advice of the Ministry. As I see it, it is a case of Whitehall knowing best. Macclesfield is a much smaller borough than Stockport and it has to fall into line.
Even the Ministry's architects took an active part in the detailed design of the dwellings. After the Ronan Point collapse in August last year, the Minister failed to appoint consulting engineers to
578
examine this sponsored system. I believe that it was only yesterday that the report to Macclesfield came to hand, and I do not have details of it.
The loss to the Corporation to date is £219,700. The Minister said that he would contribute 40 per cent. of the cost, a figure which is already out of date and far too low in relation to current subsidy levels. That means that if the council has to borrow the rest of the money -- 60 per cent. of £219,000—for a period of 60 years, it will incur additional loan charges on the housing revenue account. This would amount to £12,454 per annum on a small borough, which represents a 9s. I ld. per week increase on each dwelling or Is. per week additional rent on all the houses in the borough. Alternatively, it represents rather more than the Stockport figure, or 10. in the £ per annum on the rates.
All this has held back slum clearance in Macclesfield. Because of the extra cost, the corporation cannot commit itself. It is a tragedy for people who expect to be rehoused. The Minister sets the maximum rents which can be charged. If the corporation has to put these extra interest charges on the rents, will the Minister give dispensation? I very much doubt it.
I would like to have spoken much longer, but I want to register this complaint in the strongest terms I can command. I have never seen such treatment meted out to local authorities in the 24 years I have been a Member of the House of Commons. If this is the way the Minister deals with local authorities, I am sure that there will be retribution, if not tomorrow, certainly at the General Election. The Minister may smile, but I ask him to look at the matter again with great sympathy, because the two boroughs are in dire difficulties over this problem.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Orbach: There is no doubt in my mind, from the attendance at the meeting held in June, when representatives of both boroughs were present, together with my two colleagues and myself, and from the subsequent correspondence, that there is a great number of misunderstandings and ambiguities about this matter which have not been cleared up. I rise to support both my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) and the

579
hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) because I believe that there is a fundamental issue behind this situation. We are not dealing only with a calamity which occurred in the London area and which had repercussions throughout the land, arising from an act of God or the stupidity of an individual or a leak in a fuel system which caused the Ronan Point disaster. We are dealing also with the fact that we are condemning many people to wait very much longer for the housing accommodation which they badly need.
As Member for Stockport, South I am not immediately concerned in the problem, but of course I am concerned about the rates which will have to be levied in future to clear up the deficit on the housing account, which has reached astronomic proportions both in Stockport and in Macclesfield. The local authority in Stockport—and I gather from the hon. Member that this is the situation in Macclesfield, too has had to curb or to halt its housing programme. Indeed, in Stockport it has gone further and has declared that it wants to sell the land which was purchased by the previous majority for clearance purposes—and in some cases to sell it at lower prices than those which were paid for it. The authority is also closing down its direct labour department. and it is doing all kinds of things which will affect the amenities for which the ratepayers pay their rates.
I am seriously concerned that the corporations of Stockport and Macclesfield are not given the opportunity to say, "We were persuaded to this action by the Ministry". In my opinion the Ministry have not been clear on the issue and I am concerned that they should arrive at their conclusions as quickly as possible.
First, we claim that we are in a special position because suggestions were made to the borough architect—particularly in Stockport; and he is a man we greatly admire—that he should use this building system. Not only was it suggested that he should use this system. but it was also suggested that he should accept these contractors—which is contrary to the established convention in any Government or local authority contract. In fact, a 40 per cent. grant has been offered to
580
the local authorities concerned, but we believe that we are in a special position and that we should be offered more than 40 per cent. In addition, we want to know, what does the grant cover? Does it cover the long period of delay in making these premises available—a period during which no rent could be collected? Are we to lose not only the assets but also the revenue which might have been collected—without the Government giving us any assistance?
I very much hope that in his reply the Minister will tell us that he will reconsider the level of the grant, possibly for the whole country and certainly for these two authorities, and that at any rate he will tell us what the grant will cover. Surely we shall not be asked to pay the full 100 per cent. to the contractors of the amount which they are requesting —and requesting because of the delay caused by the Ministry. I ask the Minister to appreciate the depth of feeling which exists in the County Borough of Stockport and, I am sure, in Macclesfield, too.
11.15 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I appreciate the depth of feeling on this matter which is not confined to the two authorities concerned but to authorities elsewhere in the country. The fact that it is generally felt in no way belittles the strength of feeling reflected in speeches this evening.
I start by saying that whatever the difficulties—and I assure the House that I was not smiling—facing local authorities which have experienced the aftermath of Ronan Point, there is no justification for priority housing areas cutting back on housing programmes. There is even less justification for anything which will pre-empt the situation in regard to future programmes in years to come. If that is the position which threatens in Stockport or anywhere else, I hope that there will be serious and urgent second thoughts by local authorities. I do not in any way belittle the difficulties arising from this particular situation, but make my comment as a general proposition in the light of the housing difficulties facing so many people in these particular authority areas and elsewhere in the country.

581
I should like to turn, in the limited time that 1 have available, to deal first with the position of Stockport. The arguments presented this evening by both hon. Members who have spoken have been advanced in such a manner to suggest that the system of construction and the choice of it was such in this case as to build up a special relationship with the Ministry, by reason of which my right hon. Friend is morally obliged to refund to the county borough council and to Stockport and Macclesfield the whole cost of construction of these blocks irrespective of what he may decide to do in respect of other local authorities.
I make the general point that, following discussions held by my right hon. Friend's Department with the local authority association on the 40 per cent. Government grant to assist in financing strengthening work on these blocks of flats throughout the country, my right hon. Friend considered representations made generally on behalf of local authorities regarding that grant which the Ministry has so far agreed should be paid. It is not this evening possible for me to speak on behalf of the Minister as to the results of his consideration, but I hope that there will be an answer to these representations fairly shortly.
Sir A. V. Harvey: What does the Minister mean by "fairly shortly"? Will he say when?
Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member must take the point as far as I have taken it. The Minister is considering that representations on behalf of all local authorities concerned and will come to his conclusions as soon as he has finished that consideration. It is not for me to give the date and time when he will do so. The matter is being seriously considered by the Ministry and there will be an announcement as soon as he has come to his conclusions. I cannot make an announcement this evening in respect of either Stockport or Macclesfield ahead of what the Minister may conclude about local authorities generally.
I speak at some disadvantage since this matter was argued at some length at a meeting between my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 26th June. I was not present at that meeting having been appointed to my
582
present office subsequently. But I have carefully studied the record of the events which have been described and I have seen the letter of 8th August from the Town Clerk of Stockport, copies of which were received by hon. Members concerned. There is much that is common ground. It is not denied that over a period of years there was active Government sponsorship of industrialised building systems employing large load-bearing concrete panels.
I hope that it will be accepted as a matter of general agreement that the increased production of housing has been in the broad interest of the whole body of housing authorities in the country, and should not be treated as if it was beneficial to Ministers in some special way. It has been beneficial to the housing programme nationally.
It was by reason of this active sponsorship and the attribution of responsibility by the tribunal of inquiry that my right hon. Friend thought it right to offer the extra-statutory capital grants to which I have referred under the 40 per cent. heading.
Equally, it is agreed that the borough architect in this case was advised that the system in question would be suitable for use in the scheme under discussion, under a directly-negotiated contract. But, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) has sought in his argument about a "special relationship" to produce a picture of a reluctant authority which was steamrollered into using the system by the then Principal Regional Officer, backed by some kind of implicit or explicit guarantee. I am afraid that I cannot go that far.
The record shows that the application of system building in this area was exhaustively studied by a technical committee of the West Pennine Group, a consortium of local housing authorities which has the backing of the Ministry, as have other consortia elsewhere in the country. It is accepted that the then Principal Regional Officer gave his services as chairman, but a considerable part of the active and participating membership consisted of local authority officers, including the Borough Architect of Stockport. It

583
was the recommendation of the committee that the system in question was suitable for deck access schemes, and the then Principal Regional Officer acted as spokesman for the committee of the local authorities' consortium when he suggested the system to the authorities.
The final decision to act on this advice rested, as it had to, on the councils concerned. Therefore, I must agree with the words of the Department's letter which was sent in August before I was appointed to my present post and which said:
" A reading of these documents in full lends no support to the contention that this was a form of development, a method of construction, or a procedure for placing a contract which was being pressed on an uninformed or unwilling authority. Rather does it indicate a course of action arising out of long and detailed consideration, in which the authorities were fully involved, of all the relevant factors."
I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's general contention that a special relationship existed in the terms that he has described this evening. Stockport is in principle in the same regrettable position as other authorities which have to strengthen flats because of defects which were not foreseen by the professions and the industry, both at home and abroad, the
584
local housing authorities and the Ministry.
A number of other points were raised. I take, for example, the question of the financial burden remaining on Stockport. As to that, my right hon. Friend offered to discuss with the local authority associations an arrangement whereby part of the grant which he had offered might be distributed differentially according to the burden falling on local authorities and the strength of their resources. However, he was unwilling to pursue it unless the associations agreed. Unfortunately it has been found to be unacceptable to them. I say that with regret, because it might have been a more sensitive way of handling the matter financially and would have affected the costs falling on Stockport.
My hon. Friend also spoke of conflicting advice. There is some truth in this, but it did not affect the financial position. We have been talking about finance—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Kensington Gardens (Refreshment Building)
  Kensington Gardens (Refreshment Building)
  Ancient Monuments Laboratory
  Ancient Monuments Laboratory
  Brick Stocks
  Brick Stocks
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Economic Development Council for Building
  Economic Development Council for Building
  Building Research Station and Agrement Board
  Building Research Station and Agrement Board
  Silbury Hill
  Silbury Hill
  CRANFIELD COLLEGE (CHARTER)
  CRANFIELD COLLEGE (CHARTER)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Secretary of State for Scotland (Questions)
  Secretary of State for Scotland (Questions)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Reorganisation (White Paper)
  Local Government Reorganisation (White Paper)
  Forestry (South-West Scotland)
  Forestry (South-West Scotland)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  County Development Plans (Public Inquiries)
  County Development Plans (Public Inquiries)
  Fishing (Report)
  Fishing (Report)
  Police Forces (Recruitment)
  Police Forces (Recruitment)
  Police (Pensions)
  Police (Pensions)
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Housing
  Housing
  School Building
  School Building
  Employment Targets
  Employment Targets
  Esk Valley Study (Report)
  Esk Valley Study (Report)
  Newbattle District Council Area (New Industries)
  Newbattle District Council Area (New Industries)
  Egg Marketing
  Egg Marketing
  Crofting
  Crofting
  Scalpay (Fishery Jetty)
  Scalpay (Fishery Jetty)
  Gravir, Isle of Lewis (School Premises)
  Gravir, Isle of Lewis (School Premises)
  North-East Scotland (Development)
  North-East Scotland (Development)
  Hospitals, North-East (Geriatric Beds)
  Hospitals, North-East (Geriatric Beds)
  Border Railway (Timber Freight Contracts)
  Border Railway (Timber Freight Contracts)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation Payments)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation Payments)
  Countryside Act, 1967 (Section 67 Grants)
  Countryside Act, 1967 (Section 67 Grants)
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Milk Distributive Margin
  Milk Distributive Margin
  House Building
  House Building
  Pre-School Education
  Pre-School Education
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Land)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Land)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Commonwealth Preference
  Commonwealth Preference
  Dyce Airport, Aberdeen
  Dyce Airport, Aberdeen
  Aircraft (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Aircraft (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Air Flights from Scotland
  Air Flights from Scotland
  Food and FeedingsMs Suppliers (Trade Balances)
  Food and FeedingsMs Suppliers (Trade Balances)
  E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council Meeting
  E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council Meeting
  Beira Patrol (Hospital Provision)
  Beira Patrol (Hospital Provision)
DEFENCE
  Army Courts-martial
  Army Courts-martial
  Mr. W. Ashworth (Salford)
  Mr. W. Ashworth (Salford)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Overseas Expenditure
  Overseas Expenditure
  Gough Military Barracks, Armagh
  Gough Military Barracks, Armagh
  Servicemen (Absence Without Leave)
  Servicemen (Absence Without Leave)
  H.M.Y. "Britannia" (Refits)
  H.M.Y. "Britannia" (Refits)
  H.M.S. "Malcolm" (Orders)
  H.M.S. "Malcolm" (Orders)
  Servicemen (Discharge)
  Servicemen (Discharge)
  South African Rugby Team (Service Grounds)
  South African Rugby Team (Service Grounds)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Farms (Inspection)
  Farms (Inspection)
  Animal Husbandry (Codes of Practice)
  Animal Husbandry (Codes of Practice)
  Canned Fruit
  Canned Fruit
  Food and Drink Additives
  Food and Drink Additives
  Vacuum-packed Foods
  Vacuum-packed Foods
  Northern Pennines Rural Development Board
  Northern Pennines Rural Development Board
  Farms (Poultry)
  Farms (Poultry)
  Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
TECHNOLOGY
  Firms, Sunderland (Visits)
  Firms, Sunderland (Visits)
  Government-Financed Factories, Northern Region
  Government-Financed Factories, Northern Region
  Wylfa Power Station
  Wylfa Power Station
  Advisory Services
  Advisory Services
  Nickel Stocks
  Nickel Stocks
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Nuclear Fuel Business
  Nuclear Fuel Business
TRANSPORT
  Employment, Inverurie
  Employment, Inverurie
  Prestwick Airport—Glasgow (Rail Link)
  Prestwick Airport—Glasgow (Rail Link)
  M4 (Accident Hazards)
  M4 (Accident Hazards)
  Railways (Closed Lines)
  Railways (Closed Lines)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  British Theatre Museum
  British Theatre Museum
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Experiments on Living Animals
  Research Units (Animals)
  Research Units (Animals)
  Continental Shelf (Extraction of Sand and Gravel)
  Continental Shelf (Extraction of Sand and Gravel)
  Further Education Students
  Further Education Students
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing (Thermal Insulation)
  Housing (Thermal Insulation)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Pensions (Contracting-out Proposals)
  Pensions (Contracting-out Proposals)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Low-paid Workers (Benefits)
  Low-paid Workers (Benefits)
  Medicines and Drugs
  Medicines and Drugs
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Indebtedness
  Overseas Indebtedness
  Fuel, Motor and Selective Employment Taxes
  Fuel, Motor and Selective Employment Taxes
  Purchase Tax and Import Duty Relief
  Purchase Tax and Import Duty Relief
  Private Pension Schemes
  Private Pension Schemes
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Wales
  Wales
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
WALES
  Welsh Slate Industry
  Welsh Slate Industry
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Births and Deaths
  Births and Deaths
  Population
  Population

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

LORD CLARK
Sir Kenneth Mackenzie Clark, C.H., K.C.B., having been created Baron Clark, of Saltwood in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the Lord Goodman.
LORD BERNSTEIN
Sidney Lewis Bernstein, Esquire, having been created Baron Bernstein, of Leigh in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord James of Rusholme and the Baroness Plummer, and made the solemn Affirmation.

TOURISM ACT AND HOTEL BUILDING GRANTS
2.25 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 how many grants have been paid to date for the building of new hotels or the extension of existing hotels respectively under the provisions of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, and what are the amounts so paid.]
THE MINISTER or STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I understand that the English, Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards are already actively engaged in dealing with applications under the provisions of the Development of Tourism Act. They are required by the Act to make a report on their activities every year, and the report will be laid before this House. Any other progress reports would be at the discretion
622
of the Boards. The Act has given the Boards clear terms of reference as to when they are to report; it would be wrong to institute a precedent for pressing them to report more often.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, so far as it goes, which really is not very far. May I ask him whether he does not recall the most unusual pressure which the Government put on the Select Committee last July, making them sit day after day, on the ground that it was urgent to complete the consideration of that Bill before we rose because hotels were going bankrupt and the pipeline was full of urgent applications for grants? Is it so unreasonable that the Government should now be asked to give Parliament the four simple figures referred to in my Question?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, if the Bill had not become an Act before the beginning of August it could not have become so until towards the end of October. A further month would have elapsed before the Board of Trade could take action towards appointing the chairman and others; and it is therefore very doubtful whether any applications for grant could have been dealt with before January. In these circumstances, I think it was completely reasonable to request the members of the Committee, as I did, to get the Bill through, so that it could become an Act before the Recess. I do not think it would be appropriate, having delegated to the Tourist Boards authority for the administration of the scheme, to begin belying that policy by immediately asking the Boards to report when the Act itself lays down that they shall report annually. There is nothing to prevent the Boards from reporting more frequently if they feel that that is the appropriate thing to do.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, would it not be much more appropriate to give hotel companies the benefit of investment grants? And would not that have the additional advantage that it would save the noble Lord from being questioned on the subject?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I should like to avoid being questioned but, with great respect, that is quite a different matter. The proposal that hotels should receive investment grants has received a

623
good deal of attention, but for the moment the protagonists have lost that one.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Department is the one in regard to which noble Lords have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a simple answer to a simple question?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not hear the beginning of the noble Lord's supplementary question.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Department is the one in regard to which noble Lords have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a simple answer to a simple question, particularly when it relates to figures and facts?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I did not hear the key words at the beginning of the noble Lord's expression of the same question, and I am still doubtful as to what is the intention of the question.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, for the third time—and I very much regret that I am so inaudible to the noble Lord—is he aware that noble Lords find that his Department is most unwilling to give information, and that it is the Department with which they have the greatest difficulty in dealing? I have personal experience in this matter.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the generalisation.

EAST-WEST RELATIONS AND N.A.T.O. MEETING
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the special meeting of the North Atlantic Council called to discuss East-West relations.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, 110 COM-muniquè was issued and the proceedings were, of course, confidential. But, as the Secretary-General said at his Press Conference after the meeting, speaking on
624
behalf of all members of the Alliance, the Council
"provided the guidance needed for the final preparation of the Ministerial Meeting from 3 to 5 December."
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether in those discussions there was a more constructive approach to the proposal for a European security conference, which has now also been so widely supported by Western Governments?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not accept that the NATO Powers have not taken a constructive view before. Indeed, they themselves had taken initiatives in this direction. I think that what the Secretary-General said sums up the position. He revealed the readiness of Alliance members to consider all possible procedures for negotiation of these issues, including a conference or series of conferences, provided that these are constructive and appropriate to the subject discussed. There was no desire to hold a conference for a conference's sake, but rather a strong determination to promote the careful preparation of all kinds of possible negotiations towards the resolution of the serious problems dividing Europe. I think that that is quite constructive.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the precondition for a successful East-West Conference would be the abandonment by the Soviet Government of what is called the Brezhnev doctrine?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that this raises other points. If we are going into negotiation I for one am not going to take up positions; but I am sure that the noble Lord is right.

DECIMAL COINAGE: THE 50p PIECE
2.33 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to replace the present 50-pence piece with a coin or note

625
less readily confused with others already in circulation.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, experience shows that coins of a completely new specification are seldom popular when they are first introduced. Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be premature to come to any conclusions about the acceptability of the 50p coin before the public have had sufficient time to get used to it. They have made no plans to replace the coin.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, though it was a disappointing one, may I ask whether he can say why, when the whole field of design was open, the designers designed, and the Government accepted, a design of a coin which was extraordinarily similar in size, in circumference, in thickness, in diameter, in colour and in weight to one already in circulation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an assertion, and he is entitled to his opinion; but a good deal of experimentation was carried out before a decision was made. Many organisations were asked and tests were carried out. If the coin were to be bigger, it would be too big, and if smaller it would be the same size as a 10p piece. If the noble Earl looks at this coin, he will find that it is not unsatisfactory.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this really is not a case of the public not wishing to accept something new? Is he further aware that investigations beforehand were not made among people who had to deal with the handling of change? And may I ask him whether he would recommend that, if we have to have a new coin, we should have a hole bored through the middle of it, which would make it different from any other coin in circulation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with respect, my noble friend is wrong in saying that no inquiries were made among people who had to handle coins. As a matter of fact, this was the first category of users to which the Decimal Currency Board went. It is interesting to know that those organisations who train their staffs in the use of coins have
626
had absolutely no difficulty with the 50p piece. As to the idea of having a hole in the middle that, of course, would have given rise to design problems and I do not think we should have had such a handsome coin.
LORD WADE: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say to what extent false 50p pieces are in circulation and what steps are being taken to minimise this additional hazard?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the usual steps are being taken against forgery, but it is a negligible problem in this case. The possibility of forging with a softer metal is remote, as the coin in a softer metal is easily detectable. It is not possible to press out the hard coin of cupro-nickel unless the forger went in for a "mini mint".
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the grounds on which the Isle of Man came to the exact opposite conclusion and decided to produce an extremely handsome note for 50p?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not answer for the Isle of Man and I have no idea how they came to their conclusion. As to the production of a note, I would tell the noble Lord that even had there been no decimal coinage. on economic grounds alone the Government had decided that it was preferable to have a coin with an estimated life of 50 years rather than a note with an average life of under five months.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if both Houses of Parliament had been allowed a free vote, the pound/half-cent system would have been defeated and this problem would not have arisen?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that the problem would not have arisen, but I seem to recollect that the noble Lord was greatly concerned with the other question.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, is it true that the new coin is to be known as the "clanger"?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that a lot of unnecessary fuss is being made about this question? Does he not also

627
think that confusion could be avoided if people would put their new 50p pieces in one trouser pocket and the rest of their silver in another pocket? Moreover, as many women nowadays wear trousers, there would be no sex differentiation.
LORD BESWCK: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his usual common sense. I gather that there was an equal amount of fuss when we changed from a metal coin to a 10s. note. I believe that when we have had a little time to get used to the new coin, it will be a case of "familiarity breeds content."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only difference between the 50p piece and the 10p piece is the fact that the 50p piece has seven sides to it It also has seven corners to it. Further, is the noble Lord aware that these coins collectively serve to rub holes in your trouser pockets That being the case, would the noble Lord agree that the pound in your pocket would devalue at a much greater rate than even the Government have been able to achieve?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, leaving aside the expression of opinion on the latter part of the noble Earl's supplementary question the fact is that the 50p piece is larger than the 10p piece.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords does the noble Lord recollect whether there was any confusion between the half-sovereign and the farthing in mint condition?
LORD BESWICK: My memory does not go back to the farthing but I am certain that there is something in what the noble Lord says.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords does not the noble Lord take some comfort from the fact that this coin is at least as popular as perpetual Summer Time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords I derive some comfort from the fact that in a year or two the noble Lord will be saying what the Government say to-day.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords did the noble Lord say that the new coin would last up to 50 years? Could he give any reason why, contrary to custom, no date of issue is put on these coins?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords I suppose that that is a design question. I did
628
not say that "I thought" the coin would last 50 years; that is the estimated life based on experience.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords is it not rather extraordinary not to make the new coin the size of the half-crown, which is being withdrawn, instead of the size of the florin, which is being retained?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord's question shows that he has not looked at the new coin. If noble Lords will take one out of their pockets, look at it and compare it with the 10p piece, they will see that the fact of the matter is that it is larger than the 10p piece, though not so large as the half-crown, which in the view of those who studied it is too large.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: LABOUR DISPUTE
2.40 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and I hope in the absence of too much chinking of coins, I should like to make a further Statement about the situation at the Stationery Office and the position of Parliamentary Papers in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will mostly be aware that neither the Minutes nor the Hansard of yesterday's proceedings are available in the Printed Paper Office as yet, although I understand that a number of copies of Hansard may be available in the Printed Paper Office in the course of the afternoon. Emergency arrangements, therefore, are in operation to meet essential Parliamentary requirements. Despite the pressing nature of the circumstances, I am sure the House will agree with me that the Parliament Office are to be congratulated on the steps they are taking, and will continue to take.
On the last occasion when we exchanged words on this subject the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me whether I could say something on the nature of the dispute. For reasons that I indicated then, I do not want to be too far drawn, but I think it is right that I should tell the House that the difficulties at the St. Stephen's Press of the Stationery Office arise out of unofficial action on the part of a single chapel, following a return to work by the members of the chapels involved on the basis

629
of an interim wage offer. Although there are some unresolved issues there is no official dispute and no official support for a go-slow. Nevertheless, the output is irregular and has resulted in the delay in the production of Parliamentary Papers. I can only repeat that a variety of measures have been taken to ensure in one way or another the continued supply of essential Papers, and I would, with apologies, ask your Lordships to help as much as possible by not placing too much of a burden, other than is essential, on the now diminished resources of the Printed Paper Office.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as usual, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that Statement and explanation, and I join with him in thanking the Printed Paper Office and those who make it possible for the life of Parliament to continue at all. But he would be the first person to recognise that this is a very unsatisfactory situation. None of us can read what is said in another place; none of us knows even what has been said here if we were not in the Chamber. We do not know what is going to happen, because the Minutes of the day do not appear until the last moment. It is a situation which is profoundly unsatisfactory. The noble Lord tells us that this is the result of an unofficial strike. I do not want to make things any worse, but if Parliament is of any importance the Government should at some time take some steps to see that we get our Papers at the right time so that the life of Parliament can continue.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I agree that the situation is very unsatisfactory, and everything that the noble Lord has said I have already thought myself. I will not attempt to deceive the House that everything is going along all right. But the noble Lord is not entirely accurate; we have the Commons Hansard for yesterday. But I fully admit this difficulty. I am not attempting to do more than indicate that the Government are taking steps, and the House authorities, in particular, are taking steps, to provide the best service they can to Members of both Houses of Parliament. I agree that there are important issues. I can only report as accurately and truthfully as I can on the situation. I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said. I may
630
say that I myself have spent a good many hours trying to cope with this problem.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall be making a Statement on future civil aviation policy at a convenient moment after half-past-three, after which my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Ulster Defence Regiment.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
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 be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Jellicoe,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Colville of Culross,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Goschen,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Byers,

L. Caccia,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Clwyd,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Merthyr,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

L. Wade,

L. Willis,

L. Wilberforce,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

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

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Dundee,

E. Dundonald,

E. Jellicoe,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Goschen,

V. Simonds,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Airedale,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Bowles,

B. Brooke of Ystradfellte.

L. Burden,

L. Byers,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Chorley,

L. Conesford,

L. Denham,

L. Hawke,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Hunt,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Inchyra,

L. Ironside,

L. Jessel,

L. Kennet,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Mancroft,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Newton,

L. Ogmore,

L. Rea,

632

L. Reid,

L. Robertson of Oakridge,

L. Sainsbury,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

B. Summerskill,

B. Swanborough,

L. Wade,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

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

MENTAL HEALTH: ATTITUDES AND POLICY
2.45 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN rose to call attention to contemporary attitudes to mental health; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was thinking how to start to-day's debate, I remembered that Christ said:
"I came that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly."
"They" include those people on the receiving end of the services that we shall be talking about this afternoon; for them life is not as abundant, as full, as it ought to be. We all know that even those who are seriously mentally ill or handicapped can be happy, can receive and give love. But the clouded mind stops its owner from joining in, from sharing properly in, the emotional, intellectual and spiritual side of life. I thought of saying that such people could not really belong. Of course, they belong to us, and from our compassion we must help as much as we can. But, my Lords, if the cloud in the mind is getting big, we cannot really belong to them: there is a great gap between our desire to give and their ability to receive.
How best we can give so that their lives may be made more abundant ought to be the mainspring of what is said to-day. That is why I have chosen the wording on the Order Paper—"attitudes". Are we prepared to co-ordinate our efforts to tackle social distress where it starts? What is our attitude? Are we prepared to pay for research, and follow it through? Or shall we just leave the hospitals to tidy away the also-rans who cannot take the technological

633
age? So much of mental illness is an indictment of our society. Those who are not strong are put on the edge and pushed over by what we do to them; and when that fall has started, the way that we behave, is so important, whether as part of the hospital service, as relatives or in our ordinary lives. The frame of mind that we bring to bear on the problems of the people who might be us to-morrow can do so much to help or harm. As a concerned amateur, and as someone who as an undergraduate suffered from depression, I should like to touch on various points which I hope the more expert of your Lordships will expand.
First, prevention. The late Lord Feversham, then Chairman of the National Association for Mental Health, said in your Lordships' House on June 4, 1959:
"I have felt ever since this Bill"—
what is now the Mental Health Act—
'was published that it is little more than a half-hearted attempt at promoting the preventive services where, to my mind, the future of this whole subject lies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 216, col. 694].
He was quite right, my Lords. Prevention really is the Cinderella of a Cinderella service. One has only to look at Seebohm to see what could be done: general prevention to stop social decay; better housing and so on. More specifically, there should be better social services on tap for those likely to be under mental strain—the new widow or widower, and so on. The principle of special help for areas with special need is now well established. Mental health comes into that, too. I say, "Hear, hear!", to Seebohm's suggestions. Voluntary bodies do wonderful jobs, but more of the community needs to know more about mental health.
The Health Education Council, under the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, last year received £223,000 from Central Government to deal with things physical. The National Association for Mental Health received £10,000. Does that sum up the Government's attitude to mental health education? The recent Report on psychiatric nursing recommended that psychiatric nurses should more often go and talk to schools, associations and other such bodies. The idea was partly to help recruiting. But, like so many constructive
634
efforts in this field, the good done in one way works another way, too. Those who heard a psychiatric nurse talk about her work would get a much more accurate picture of her job and her patients. The stigma of mental illness is on the way out. Every psychiatric bed in a general hospital—and I am pleased to see that the number of beds is going up—is another step towards making the attitude of the community more positive. The people inside the hospital are just ill. I, like the authors of the Seebohm Report, cannot specify exactly how to combat social distress. My disconnected suggestions prove that here is a subject crying out for research. But I can say that we ought to make our social safety nets better.
I will now discuss mental hospitals in more detail. I was sad to learn that of the money recently spent on 85 major building projects under the Department of Health and Social Security, both those completed in 1967–68, and those started since then, only 3·17 per cent. of the total was spent on schemes concerned with mental health. That was a drop on the previous year. But I really want this afternoon to talk about those who work in mental and subnormality hospitals. The obvious dedication of so many of them is perhaps the main reason why the hospital service is not collapsing. Certainly the idea of the therapeutic community betokens a splendid attitude to the patients; and, of course, new treatments have helped. But I am worried about the way the staff are treated. To my embarrassment I must praise Mr. Godfrey Winn for his article in the Daily Mail on Monday. One of the points he underlined in my mind was that even a really dedicated person may choose another form of service if pay and conditions in hospitals do not give the staff a chance to eat properly, to relax, or to concentrate on nursing and their job, rather than on the chores. We must treat the nurses and the other workers right if we expect them to treat the patients right. For, my Lords, not only is a happy hospital service the best recruitment policy, it is also best for the patients.
I cannot lay down the law about the way hospitals are organised or the way they should be controlled. I hope that it is not a choice between local parochialism, fights over who does what, and remote inflexibility. But however things are

635
organised, a ward where there are over 100 beds (and there were still 32 in mental and subnormality hospitals in 1965, with 70-plus in 200 wards) must be nearer to the ideal of a broiler house than the ideal of a therapeutic community. Wards should have only 20 to 30 beds. I wonder whether there are so many huge wards now.
Great progress has been made towards making mental illness decent. On that score alone, I am sure that general hospitals catering for psychiatric patients are a good idea. A mother or daughter can say that a relation is at St. So-and-so's which has not the stigma of being "put away in a loony bin." Physically ill patients know at first hand that mentally ill patients recover. Then I should have thought that the special nature of psycho-geriatric patients, who now occupy some 43 per cent. of mental hospital beds, are normally better catered for in a general hospital where physical ailments can be quickly attended to—though I may well be wrong here. Let us continue the practice of making mental hospitals open and gay and, if possible, ensuring that they do not smell like hospitals. On the subject of complaints, I am glad to hear of the initiatives that are being taken. But are we going to get a really independent body to investigate complaints? Are we going to have a proper inspectorate? Both these would give great reassurance all round.
And so, my Lords, we come full circle, to the patient who returns to the community. We do homage to the idea of community care. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, told your Lordships about the pilgrim mothers who traipse from office to office—or give up. The services that exist must be accessible. Now that the responsibility is placed back on the shoulders of the community, the community must be given the chance to do its duty. I wonder whether it is in fact given that chance. I quoted Lord Feversham's gloomy foreboding about the preventive side. The community must also help those for whom prevention is too late. Seebohm says:
"The widespread belief that we have community care of the mentally disturbed is, for many parts of the country, still a sad illusion, and judging by published plans will remain so for years ahead."
636
So, my Lords, we must salute the concept of community care. Certainly, we must have more hostels and halfway houses for those returned to the world; but they will need expert staff. Certainly, too, the community must be the focal point. Yet there were only 541 trained psychiatric social workers in England and Wales in 1968. Some areas are splendid: voluntary organisations complement official bodies; there is good liaison between general practitioners and the mental hospitals and the social workers. But other areas are just too feeble-minded to buckle down to the job.
I recently went round a hospital for the subnormal. A teenage girl was sitting on a bench swaying and crying—in fact she was screaming—as I came into the ward. Naturally the nurse said, "Sh-sh!" in quite a kind way. The girl stopped shrieking and said, "Sh-sh!" in answer. That was a remarkable advance; it was the first time that even such a link had been established. I came away from that hospital with an acute dilemma made more acute. I had seen wonderful work being done. Criticism, of course, undermines the morale of those whose job is with mental illness or subnormality, and it saps the public confidence. So often in the mass media there seems to be only one sort of news—bad news. On the other hand, we have evidence of inadequate services outside the hospital and unpleasant things inside the hospitals. I must ask, how typical is that splendid place that I visited? Of the mental and subnormality hospitals, how many more Elys are there? How many half Elys? Or part Elys? Although this country's care for the mentally ill is remarkably good, there are great variations. Perhaps the answer is a unified health service.
My Lords, I have left out a great deal with regard to research. I wonder whether all this processed rubbish that we read can really be of help to mental health. The special problems of subnormality I have hardly touched on, and I hope that noble Lords will fill in the gaps. I am sorry if I have been mean to the Government, or to their predecessors. I hope, too, that this country's steady progress towards a practical but compassionate attitude to mental health will continue. Perhaps what we say to-day will help. I beg to move for Papers.
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, this afternoon we are debating so serious a problem that we all have reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for his Motion and for creating an opportunity for free and frank discussion on this subject. This is no subject for Party political strife. Mental ailment is a disease which, in one or other of its manifestations, might attack any one of us at any moment. I wonder how many of us are acutely conscious of these grievous disabilities and feel that we ought to be making some contribution to their alleviation. How many of your Lordships have felt it your duty to visit mental hospitals and psychiatric units in an objective way, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has recently done himself, to see for yourselves the size of the problem and the ways in which it is being tackled?
My interest in the whole field of mental health was aroused when I was a member of a Regional Hospital Board. When asked which of the various committees interested me, I asked to serve on the mental health committee, which was then under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Robinson before he became Minister of Health. He was a first-rate chairman of that committee and I was sorry when he found himself too busy to continue. I chose the mental health committee for the simple reason that at that time I knew little about mental health or its treatment, and I wanted to learn.
Before deciding to visit my first mental hospital, and feeling a little apprehensive, I asked advice from an older and much wiser member of the Board, Sir Allen Daley, who as Medical Officer of Health to the London County Council had been responsible for all the mental hospitals under the L.C.C. before the National Health Service Act 1948. He urged me to visit the newest and most up-to-date purpose-built hospital in our region first, so that I could see the open-door technique and the various newer therapies in action—occupational, physical and industrial. To reassure me he added that, thanks to the use of sedative drugs, he did not think that I should find it as disturbing an experience as one might have feared. He was absolutely right, and as a result of that day spent at Shenley, a hospital that had been built
638
in 1934, I grasped something of the problems facing the doctors, the nurses, the administrators and the ancillary workers.
Mental health, or rather mental ill-health, is an absorbing field in which tremendous advances have been made in treatment, drugs and attitudes of approach. A hundred years ago public opinion, uninformed and insensitive, regarded the lunatic asylums, into which all abnormal or subnormal people were relegated, as objects of ridicule or complete disinterest. The idiot was a clown in society, sometimes to be teased and to provide amusement; more often repellent and therefore to be hidden away from normal human contact and observation. To-day, thanks to modern legislation, research and experience, public opinion is a little more enlightened, the worst of the stigma that has attached to the whole subject of mental health has disappeared and much more intelligent attitudes towards it are developing.
But unhappiness is still prevalent, not only among the patients and their relatives and friends but also among the staff of the hospitals caring for them; and it is to this state of unhappiness that we should be bending our minds and giving our help. It is a lamentable fact that public opinion is awakened and shocked only by revelations such as those of the state of affairs that existed in the Ely mental hospital, which came to light last March as a result of the published report of a Committee of Inquiry set up by the Secretary of State to investigate allegations of various forms of misconduct on the part of members of the staff. It always grieves me when wide publicity is concentrated wholly upon something that has gone wrong. A picture is created in people's minds that this state of affairs is widespread. Friends and relatives of patients in similar hospitals think the worst, and the morale of the staff in those hospitals sinks like a stone in a well. So much excellent work is being done; so much real, loving care is being shown to so many patients. But this receives no publicity because it is not news. We were shocked, all of us, by the headlines, and many of us read the report of the inquiry and were amazed by what we read. But how many of us did anything about it? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, could tell us, when she comes

639
to speak, how many of the 45 recommendations at the end of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry have been acted upon. Some, I know, are far-reaching and considerable in their implications of major reorganisation and new building; but some of the simpler, more practical ones I hope we shall hear have already been carried out.
This whole subject is so immense, and so many noble Lords have put their name down to speak, that I shall not attempt to cover the field but will concentrate on one part only: the large subnormality hospitals. Why is there unhappiness in so many of these? One of the reasons, to my mind, is the geographical isolation of so many of them. Built in the last century, they were placed on land which was cheap and easy to acquire and tucked away from the normal community life of the nearest town or village. The wards were vast; many of them still are. The sanitary arrangements were inadequate by modem standards and often some distance from the wards. The patients were segregated into sexes and the care of them all was mainly custodial, behind clanging doors, always kept locked, with padded cells for the more disturbed patients. The exterior of most of these hospitals was, and still is, austere, formidable and discouraging. To-day a great deal of the older horrors has been swept away, thanks to modern treatment and the realisation that vast numbers of patients in the long-stay subnormal hospitals can be trained to take their place in society again, earning their living, or some part of it, through sheltered workshops and sympathetically managed light industrial factories, and living in hostels away from the shadow of the old asylum.
Advances have been made in attempts to break up and subdivide the terrible old dormitories where no one could hope to retain his or her own individuality. The closely packed wards of Hogarthian appearance are disappearing. Many of the patients now have their own private locker by their bedside in which they can keep their personal possessions and their clothes. But too many are still without this obvious need, simply because there is not enough room for the lockers to stand in between the beds. In some wards the space is only a few inches and there
640
is no other furniture at all. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea as to the number of patients who are still without a personal bedside locker, with all that that can mean to a man or a woman?
Clothing is another problem. All of us are conscious about what we wear. Attractive, well-designed clothes not only say something to other people; they do something to us. In some hospitals patients are being dressed in clothes fifty years behind the times. The women are not provided with any kind of foundation garment; clothes are common property. In others, real imagination is being used and varieties of material, colour and design are available, often for personal choice if the patient is capable of using it. Clothes much be designed for constant laundering and cleaning. With the tremendous advances that have been made in man-made, "mini-care" fibres and fabrics, all hospitals should be able to provide comfortable, well-fitting, attractive clothes of reasonably good quality. To what extent, I wonder, is advice given to those hospitals where little has been done, so that they may benefit from the experience of others who have been alive and imaginative and, consequently, have produced original ideas in this field.
A conference was held on this subject of clothing for long-stay patients at the Hospital Centre in 1967. Discussions took place between nurses, administrators, supplies officers, laundry managers and manufacturers. They approached the common problem from very different points of view. I wonder what notice was taken generally of the findings of this conference. I know that there may be purchasing difficulties and that buying small quantities of appropriate sizes is very expensive. But if the pattern of purchasing were changed so that, instead of an individual supplies officer being responsible for the clothing of his own hospital, or group of hospitals, a group of hospital management committees combined together and arranged area contracts; or if the directors of Marks and Spencer were invited to tackle the problem of providing inexpensive but attractive clothes for long-stay patients, they would produce a solution forthwith. A greater variety of garments at less cost might be the result, which would be of

641
benefit to everyone. The ideal is for every patient to have his or her own clothing. In some hospitals the patients have been encouraged to bring their clothing with them, but in many hospitals it has been quite impossible to organise individual personal clothing because the problem of storage has been allowed to become insurmountable.
Then there is the question of staffing. Many of these hospitals are so grossly understaffed that the nurses are unable to do as much psychiatric and therapy nursing as they would like. There are nowhere near enough domestic cleaners. That work has to be done, and for lack of domestic staff it is the nurses who are too often called upon to do it. In one hospital that I know the full nursing establishment was fixed in 1907 at 480. It has never been revised. But that hospital is now 60 nurses below strength, and out of the total of 480 there are more than 100 staff nurses too few. How can the existing staff cope? In the hospital to which I am referring there are 30 large wards with only 25 domestic cleaners—fewer than one per ward. Why should something not be done to pay the fares of cleaners who cannot get to these isolated hospitals except by travelling long distances every day from the nearest town?
So far as the recruitment of nurses for these hospitals is concerned, a very high percentage come from overseas. We could not get on without them and they are making a valuable contribution. But although most of them speak English, and therefore there should be no major language difficulty, the English which some of them speak is easier to understand than that spoken by others; and when their English is not clear it is bound to slow down the speed with which tuition can be given and practical work demonstrated. British staff are not coming forward in sufficient numbers, and they will not come forward until the conditions of service, the pay and the lack of suitable living accommodation, are attended to.
My Lords, if you are going to devote the major part of your working life to employment in these hospitals you must be given the chance to enjoy your time off. Facilities for social life and entertainment for the enjoyment of leisure time are often totally neglected by those
642
who administer the Service. Many of the trained staff who are in posts are often unhappy through lack of appreciation and poor job satisfaction, for the reasons that I have given, and this leads either to apathy or to aggressiveness. The isolation from a more lively and thought-provoking community makes life difficult for the many members of the staff who have to depend upon public transport or scanty hospital transport to get away. Consequently, the staff tend to live in on themselves, surrounded by others working in the same field, and unless there is some imaginative leadership they tend to become, as I have said, apathetic or aggressive—aggressive to the patients, aggressive to themselves, aggressive to the doctors and to the hospital management committee. And who can blame them? As one enthusiast in this field said:
"A difficulty which surely every big organisation must experience is the problem of personalities and passive resistance. One sometimes feels that our hospital is staffed by centipedes—each member with a hundred toes all waiting to be trodden on, and of course almost any new venture could be taken as a personal criticism of someone's work".
My Lords, all is not bad. In many hospitals first-class work is being done under similar physical disadvantages, but those are the places where appreciation for good work is given freely, and where there is closer relationship and better communication between staff and staff and staff and patients, and between the hospital and the community outside. This latter is an overwhelming need, and where it has been achieved the veil of mystery clothing psychiatric treatment in mental hospitals has been lifted. It is highly necessary for the hospital staff to get the people in the neighbourhood living around them to be on their side. Once such relationships and co-operation are created, support from without will flow in automatically.
Co-operation does not cost money; it is brought about by freedom to have informal meetings; freedom for members of the public to enter the hospital to help with voluntary jobs, and freedom for the hospital staff to make friends and to develop interests outside. I look forward very much to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, on the splendid work which has been done by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. There are the Leagues of Hospital Friends and there are splendid

643
schemes where young volunteers and the Red Cross are making invaluable contributions to the more human side of the life of these patients. There is much to do. If this debate to-day serves to draw attention to the needs for more voluntary work to be offered and received, it will not have been in vain.
My Lords, I should like to end what I have been trying to say on a note of warm appreciation. In the Mental Hospital Service there are many devoted and dedicated men and women, at every level, doing selfless jobs of work. May their example shine as a beacon to those others in the Service who do not yet seem to recognise the full purpose of their work; and may those hospitals which are rapidly reaching the forefront of what really good mental hospitals should be act as an encouragement to those other hospitals which up to now have been lagging behind to try to catch up to the pace of those in the lead! Encouragement, not carping criticism, should be the call that goes out from this debate.
3.18 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, am glad that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has seen fit to put down this Motion to-day. It is a long time since we had an opportunity of talking about mental health, and many things have occurred since then. I want to confine myself to two points to-day, but there is one thing I should like to say before that. When I was talking in the debate on the gracious Speech after the Opening of Parliament, I said that in my view the report of the Central Health Services Council upon the future of the general district hospital was a very encouraging document, because it said that the time should come when the geriatric services should be closely linked with the district general hospital. To-day I should like to add that it says in the same report that the time should come soon when the psychiatric department should be part of the district general hospital. I think that is one of the most encouraging pronouncements I have seen for some time, because in the long run it must mean the end of the large mental hospital, isolated in the country, forbidding in appearance and with, I regret to say, even now some of those large wards to which the noble Lord referred and which make any form of treatment absolutely impossible.
644
At the present time in the treatment of mental illness the tendency is towards having small treatment centres attached to general hospitals, from which patients speedily return home with their treatment completed. It may be said that quite a number of those patients will relapse and need to go back again. I do not think that that matters at all. The fact is that they have been able to return for a short time to their family and to the community, even though they need to go back; they can have further treatment and return home again. That is one of the things with regard to mental treatment which we should encourage very much in the medical world. Some of the big mental hospitals have a large amount of ground round them. At one time they used to farm and keep pigs, and all that sort of thing. One wonders whether some of those lands, if they are not too far out in the country, could not be used for building these new little departments where treatment can be given, during which time the bigger buildings could be pulled down, modified or destroyed.
There is one point in the Mental Health Act 1959 to which I should like to refer. One of the really first-class things that that Act did was to open the doors of the locked wards in the mental hospitals, and that has been entirely to the good. One or two difficulties have sometimes arisen, but these have been overcome and do not really cause any trouble. The whole problem, as was shown in an article which I read in the Practitioner last month, comes from a tiny number of patients. It is further complicated by the fact that some mad patients are also bad. That may be the difficulty with a tiny group of patients when they are transferred to regional mental or general hospitals. If you get one or two psychopathic criminal types coming into a general ward they can do an infinite amount of damage to the patients who are there and being successfully treated. This type need some kind of further control—I am sorry to have to say it; it is a very unpleasant thing to have to say. One wonders whether it might not be an improvement on what is being done at the present time if there were some sort of closed community for them, well run and well taken care of, not oppressive at all. I read in The Times on November 1 something

645
which I checked in an article in the Practitioner: that the danger is growing of a real use of restraints. There is a nasty thing called the geriatric chair—why it is called the geriatric chair I do not know—which is rather akin to the stocks; a patient is locked up in this chair and cannot move. Another thing is called the "safety vest"—another word for a straitjacket. These are things that I thought we had got rid of from our medical circles, once and for all. If people must be restrained and it cannot be done by any other means, it would be far better to keep them in some kind of confined locked community, rather than restrain them physically in this kind of way, which is quite repulsive.
The noble Lord referred to the need for research into mental disease, and I agree with him, because so far as one can see the amount of mental disease is not going down very much; it may be increasing. Certainly the amount of neurosis is going up, and that is an illness we do not know very much about. Going on from that, I think that one of the big problems of the future will be the care of the increasing number of senile, elderly, confused patients who need some kind of care and treatment. From a curative point of view there has not been much advance in their treatment yet, and so far as one knows—I am not an authority on the research which is being done—there is not very much possibility in the future of any radical change occurring. A great deal can be done to make them more comfortable by the use of day hospitals, which take the burden off their families, and these old people can live in the community and live at home.
A good deal more can be done by ensuring proper housing. I know that it is rather a King Charles's head of mine that most of our social ills can be alleviated by proper housing. I wonder whether any particular inquiry has been made into that with regard to these senile, confused old people. One of the troubles is that it is becoming, or was becoming until recently, more and more difficult to find accommodation for them, because they are not really suitable to be in a mental hospital. They are better in an annex in the grounds of a mental hospital, where they can be by themselves, have much more freedom and be regarded as
646
normal people, just a little confused in the head and not needing to be taken care of too much. There were a number of such places around London to which I sent a number of patients myself, once upon a time; but when the Mental Health Act came in the hospitals said that they had now become acute mental hospitals and did not wish to take in any more elderly people who would be there all their lives with no possibility of cure. That is a pity, because I am sure it is important that places for these elderly, confused people should have some tie-up with a mental hospital, not necessarily being part of it. Certainly it is a great advantage if some members of the staff have been trained in a mental hospital, because they will not be so upset by the rather bizarre behaviour of some elderly people when by themselves.
Coming to the question of staff, I should like to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, has said about stalling. I would say, as she did, what extremely fine work is done by the staff of these hospitals under the most appallingly bad conditions: overcrowded, understaffed. The marvel of it is that they do their work so thoroughly and well on the whole. I admit that there is the occasional lapse, as the noble Baroness said, which immediately gets pounced on by the Press, whereas nothing is said of the good work done by the 99·9 per cent. whose work must be extremely trying, even under the best conditions. One would like to say how much one admires the very high standard kept up in these hospitals, and trust that as much as possible will be done to keep up the standards and improve the conditions in which these men and women have to do their work.
3.30 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has done the House a very great service in initiating this debate this afternoon. Perhaps I may say to him that we do not at all feel that he is being mean to the Government in the way he raised it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, said, there is nothing Party political about this; we are all in it together. It is a problem we all have to deal with, and if I may say so—I hope without appearing in any

647
way condescending—I thought it particularly good that one of our youngest colleagues should have spoken with such deep concern and so movingly about a subject which a great many people, after all, are only too anxious to forget because of its nature. I think the young generation to-day are wonderfully concerned with the problems of the underprivileged, and this, for me, is a great hope for the future of our deeply troubled world.
As many people have said, attitudes really do condition what actually happens, and what the noble Lord said about attitudes is absolutely right. Many of the problems which the Health Service faces to-day arise from past attitudes, and it is only in new attitudes that solutions can be found for, at any rate, some of the problems. There has really been a need for a revolution in thinking about how to deal with mental health, both by the authorities and by people generally, and I think that this debate shows that that revolution has begun.
The old approach to the subject is symbolised by those grim, remote, ghastly edifices in which most of our mental hospitals still exist, but they were built by men who sincerely believed in their mission. They believed that they should be custodial, and that their duty lay in safeguarding the public and society. The very solidity of these buildings is a tribute to their industrious faith, if I may call it that. But, of course, that solidity poses one of our major problems in following the new approach to this subject. We have had a revolution in thinking about these problems, but there has also been, as the noble Baroness said, a therapeutic revolution which is, in a way, more important. But that therapeutic revolution can basically be acted upon only if the social conditions for its implications are adequate, and this includes not merely social institutions but social attitudes.
If I may just glance at what is actually happening now, noble Lords know that in our actual services we are at the moment in a position of transition. The Royal Commission on Mental Health in 1957, which was followed by the Mental Health Act of 1959, unquestionably marked a major turning point in this whole field. In the past, barriers were created between mental hospitals and the community. Possibly this was necessary,
648
but since 1959 we have been actively working towards creating positive links between the hospitals and the community.
When we think of the mentally ill we have to think in terms, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, of preventive services, of active treatment and rehabilitation. This calls for an enormous range of facilities: outpatient services; day hospitals; acute psychiatric units; after-care hostels; workshops and day centres. Noble Lords will know as well as I do the multitude of services that are needed in this new approach; and, above all, social work support. Most important, we know that where these services exist the need for in-patient beds and the average length of stay in them can be drastically reduced, and is being drastically reduced. But we are able to think in these terms partly because the changes in attitudes which the noble Lord looks for have actually happened, and also because the therapeutic revolution has made these attitudes possible.
Of course, when we talk about the therapeutic revolution it is perhaps a rather fancy phrase; all it really means is the treatment of mental disease by drugs or other medical means. This has all happened remarkably recently. In 1950, I think, insulin coma treatment and other forms of shock treatment became available, but early in the 1950s the tranquillising drugs were discovered, and this made a tremendous difference in the treatment of the more disturbed patients. This, in itself, also made a very great difference to the general atmosphere in the wards, and was able to lead to a new approach in the unlocking of doors. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with mental hospitals will know the profound change that all this has created. It is now possible to provide a much better social atmosphere and better occupational facilities for patients, and a very dramatic improvement has resulted in the patients themselves, which is one of the hopeful things about the present situation.
Noble Lords will know that from 1954 onwards the total number of patients in mental illness hospitals has steadily declined. Later, new drugs were discovered which have a beneficial effect on the depressive illnesses. For the last ten years it has been possible to treat all the functional mental illnesses with one or other

649
form of drug therapy, and where these physical treatments have been combined with changes in the social environment —and I stress that fact—patients and their families have benefited very much. This is hopeful. It has made a breakthrough, and we have been dealing with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree said, by opening psychiatric departments in general hospitals. It is known that these departments can now handle not only the more hopeful acute cases, but almost any form of mental illness, apart, as the noble Lord said, from those needing conditions of special security. It was a breakthrough in treatment, and most important it has led to a reconsideration of the actual role of the hospitals.
If I may, I should like just to explain that. What we are now doing is to plan to unite the department and the staff treating mental illness with the general hospital. In this way, not only will fewer beds be needed in the future, but the patient and his family will receive greater support. It is important to remember, however, that although fewer beds will be needed, more nurses and doctors will be needed than in the past, and this, of course, is one of our great blocks. My noble friend Lady Serota will be dealing in detail with subnormality, but I should just like to mention that there has also been a therapeutic breakthrough here, too. Sadly, there is no specific treatment for mental subnormality, but immense advances have been made in dealing with the physical conditions that go along with it.
This combination of revolutions, if I may call it that, both of treatment and ideas, means that we have to make sure that the service is directed towards the patient's rehabilitation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, his return to the community at the earliest possible moment, even if he does not always stay there. Nothing is so bad for patients as keeping them in hospital when they should not be there; and, on the other side, nothing is more wasteful in resources. Therefore, it follows that the mental health services of the future must be centred on the community, and not on these large, isolated hospitals. District general hospitals have far closer links with all the things we know they need —hostels, day centres, and all the rest of it—and this is now our constant aim.
650
There is the question whether we might possibly need separate hospitals for medium and long-stay patients, but experience in a number of areas where modern district general hospital units are in operation suggests this may not be necessary. But this is something about which we shall have to think a little further.
What I have said applies to hospitals for the mentally ill, but the same principles apply to hospitals for the subnormal. Not all severely handicapped patients can hope to leave such a hospital, and it is essential that it should be thought of by them as their home. It is their home and there must be a homelike atmosphere there.
I should like to deal for a few moments with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, about clothing, because this applies to both kinds of hospital. I know that she has taken a deep interest in this subject and I must say that I agreed with every single word she said. I think we are progressing a little, and I hope she will be comforted to hear that, although no specific advice has as yet been given to hospitals, they are very much aware of the way we are thinking. In fact, a memorandum which I hope will shortly go out will say that clothing provided by the hospital should be in modern style both for men and women, and for underclothing as well as top clothing. Dry cleaning facilities should be made available to patients and consideration given to the care of modern garments by those organising laundry services. We all know what it is like to send a nylon garment to an ordinary steam laundry, and I hope that this problem will be a thing of the past. The memorandum will also suggest that a laundrette service should be available to patients in hospital, and that encouragement should be given to the purchasing and wearing of individual clothes from local stores. I noted the reference of the noble Baroness to Marks and Spencer. I think it was a very interesting suggestion, and it must apply for everyday purposes. We all know the bulk buying of hospital issues to be one of the old bugbears, and the memorandum will say that this has a devastating effect on the individual who cannot claim that he owns even the trousers he is wearing. Moreover, the sameness is humiliating to the

651
individual. I hope your Lordships will agree, after what I have said, that we really are tackling this problem in exactly the same spirit as the noble Baroness looks at it. Of course, the geriatric patients usually wear their own clothes, but they often have to be issued with clothing and we will apply the same principles.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan talked about the large isolated hospitals, as other noble Lords have done, and we accept that it is clearly essential for hospitals to be more accessible not only for the patients, but also for the staff. It is absolutely wrong that these dedicated people should be cut off from the main stream of medicine, nursing and other professional work, and cut off also in their social lives. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness said about this. I am sure it makes it easier for them to carry out their extremely difficult tasks if they have a relaxed atmosphere outside their work, and this is what we are aiming at all the time.
I know that there are some arguments in favour of specialist mental hospitals, but even if they were accepted they must still be in close contact with the community. In all this what we are aiming at is to stop these terrible communities of institutionalised patients. We are deeply aware of the necessity for this. But I must stress again that this calls for a revolution in thinking, not only from the organisations, but also from the public, and it is only through that that we shall be able to achieve what we want.
I have tried to explain broadly what our aims are, and I think noble Lords will understand that what we are really doing is gradually—I am afraid it is only gradually—proceeding towards admitting mentally ill patients to the new units in district general hospitals, returning them to their community, as speakers have said we should, but with this difference; that we want them to remain in the care of the same therapeutic team of doctors, nurses and social workers as in their psychiatric hospitals, and continue to have treatment in day hospitals and out-patient clinics.
I was very interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that we should use these vast grounds—where,
652
as he said, we used to grow pigs—for some kind of unit. I should be a little afraid that they might be a little far away from the community, but it is an interesting point. Noble Lords will know that doubts were expressed at the beginning about having mentally ill patients in the district general hospitals, and the hospitals have—understandably, I think—progressed cautiously. But the advantages to the patients are now quite obvious and we shall proceed from there.
The success of all this also depends on the attitudes of the public. It is only if a caring community exists that we can make sure that the strain will not be too great, not merely on the patient but also on his family. This is a point which is so often forgotten. Many of your Lordships will know of really tragic cases where the family has had a total breakdown as an entity because of the strain of looking after a mentally disturbed patient, even if only for a short time. This is what we have to direct our efforts towards helping. The therapeutic teams will also be working in patients' homes, in day centres, and wherever they are necessary.
Noble Lords may think that I am only describing a future perfect world. It is quite true that the provision of these essential services is uneven, but this is inevitable because we are moving from one kind of pattern of care for the mentally sick to another. Local health authority services have expanded rapidly in the last few years, but I do not attempt to pretend for one moment that these services are as yet as comprehensive as they should be. Nevertheless, in the last five years local authorities have invested £24 million in building training centres, workshops and hostels. There are at present 108 local authority hostels and another 57 are being built. There are 23,000 places in training centres for adults and another 11,000 are planned. I would not say that it is a drop in the ocean, although I know that it is not adequate. The programme has a long way to go, but a great deal has been done and your Lordships will be glad to know that it is gathering momentum and is in many ways more substantial than people realise.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to the article in the Practitioner on restrainers. The House deeply appreciates the noble Lord's experience in

653
these matters and we all value his wonderful contributions to our debates. I was especially glad to hear that he favours the "open door" principle. Of course, it is true that this principle carries difficulties with it and I think there can be no possible doubt that there is a necessity for a small area, a small ward, which can be locked for the most disturbed patients. I do not think anybody will deny that that is the case.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, that is the point I was trying to make. While entirely approving of the open door so far as one can possibly have it, there might be need for one tiny little place where you keep some of these unfortunate people.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I realised that that was the noble Lord's point. However, I wanted, as it were, to dot the i's and cross the t's as well, because although we are passionately in favour of the open door there must be some other provision. The subject of restrainers is a distressing one. I asked the Department about this, and they told me that they are not aware of mechanical methods of restraint being used in the treatment of psychiatric patients. But body-bands and ankle-restrainers sometimes have to be used, particularly in general or geriatric hospitals, where the patient's physical condition makes it necessary. The trouble is that some of these patients, as noble Lords will know, can hurt themselves as well as other patients and staff. I am sure that we have got rid of the safety vest, the straitjacket. As to the geriatric chair, it was an horrific description in the Practitioner but there are special geriatric chairs which have been designed to enable bedfast patients to sit up. They very much welcome this; they like to sit up and have their meals. But it has to be a rather, if you like, mediæval contraption; though I do not think they are used—I hope they are not—in the form of the stocks, as the noble Lord said.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point, elderly patients present an ever-increasing problem in psychiatric hospitals—and, of course, we all know about the mental confusion which occurs among the elderly—and we wholly agree that we need more places for them. The rising proportion of elderly people in the
654
population has led to an increasing number of psycho-geriatric patients, and it is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that many of them have been admitted to mental hospitals simply because there has been nowhere else for them to go. This is a tragic situation, and we know that geriatric homes, and so on, would be more appropriate. We are hoping to deal with this, but I would deceive the House if I did not say that it will be a long haul. It will be; but we are deeply aware of the problem. I think the noble Lord will probably agree that improved assessment will help in this way—who should be admitted where, and so on. What we are trying to do is to set up assessment centres in psycho-geriatric units and outside to try to decide where these particularly disturbed old people, or, rather, confused old people, should go. Noble Lords have expressed anxiety about the hospital side of the health services, and I hope that the developments which we have planned and the great changes of attitudes on all sides will lead to real improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, talked about prevention and training. Broadly, I think that this comes down to education. Modern research is of course adding to our knowledge of the causes of some forms of mental handicap—better obstetric care; vaccines, such as for German measles; genetic counselling, and that kind of thing—but I think the National Health Education Council is doing a very important job here. My noble friend Lady Birk, who is the chairman of this body, and who we are all looking forward to hearing, will describe it in more detail than I can, but, basically, the point is that there are two things in education: first, in preventing the occurrence of mental illness; and, secondly, in developing public understanding of the nature of mental disorder and of the need for support for patients and their families.
My Lords, I have taken a little time to describe the impact of new treatments and new attitudes, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. It is a very complicated situation, and I wanted your Lordships to know the kind of progress that we are making and, perhaps more important, what we are aiming at. All this is what we are aiming at; but, of course, there are tremendous difficulties. When the National Health Service started

655
in 1948, 45 per cent. of all hospitals were built before 1891, and even after twenty years of the National Health Service hospitals with anything up to 2,000 patients are trying to adapt themselves. In the course of time they have got to be abandoned or remodelled—I hope they will be abandoned—but there they are, and inevitably this will be a gradual process. In the short-term, this deeply concerns us all, because they face a formidable task in adapting their management and structure to modern methods. I do not want to minimise that: it is a formidable task. But noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lady Serota are deeply conscious of and concerned about this problem.
At this point, I should like to say what is perhaps more difficult for my noble friend herself to say: that in my view the new policy in this field has shown very great courage. It would be easy to try to sweep the whole question of mental illness under the carpet because it is distasteful, distressing and, indeed, frightening to many people, and the problems of inadequate staffing, housing and so on are immense. But my right honourable friend and my noble friend, together with the Department, have firmly grasped the nettle, and I think they have made significant and important moves towards improving the situation.
The truth is that some of the difficulties in the care of the mentally handicapped arise in a very significant degree from our success in other directions: getting them out of these long-stay hospitals and putting them on the community; the fact that in the past people born with severe handicaps often did not live very long whereas now they do. But one of the major difficulties lies in the present tripartite structure of our National Health Service. The new approach calls for very close co-ordination between the services in the community and the hospitals. Overlapping boundaries between hospital catchment areas and local authority areas cannot but be a major handicap. Unless we can solve this fundamental problem we shall not get a comprehensive and co-ordinated service for our mentally sick. My noble friend,
656
with her great experience in this field, will be saying something about the Government's policy in this direction.
For myself, I should like to say again how deeply grateful we are to the noble Lord for providing this opportunity to have this debate, which has inevitably raised issues wider even than those of his original Motion. I have myself, like many noble Lords, served on the management committee of a group of mental hospitals, and the one thing which shone out among all the distressing problems we had to deal with was the dedicated devotion of the staff. I do not regret the recent publicity of bad conditions in some hospitals. I think it is important that the public should know about it. But the overwhelming majority of nurses and doctors show quite exceptional qualities in their challenging and very trying work. Their positive attitudes are fundamental if we are going to get the improvement of our mental services. No one who has ever worked with them could underestimate their magnificent contribution.
My Lords, I am afraid this has been, perhaps, a rather sombre debate so far. I say that we in the Government know what we have to do. It is a challenge—a tremendous challenge. I have tried to outline a blueprint for our mental health service, and we are trying to implement it. So far as our present knowledge of this incredibly complex subject goes, it has everything we need, but changed attitudes are essential if we are to achieve it.

CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT
3.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I would now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. May I take the opportunity to apologise to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, for delaying her maiden speech, to which I am sure noble Lords are looking forward?
My Lords, the Statement reads:
"I am to-day laying before the House a White Paper setting out the Government's decisions in the light of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Air Transport—the Edwards Report.

657
"Over 90 per cent. of the output of British airlines is on international services. The industry must be strong in that intensely competitive field. In this country domestic services are limited and not very remunerative. There is need for rationalisation. Everywhere in the world civil aviation is highly regulated. We need to improve our regulatory machinery with the aim of strengthening the industry.
"In the public sector the Government will establish an Airways Board charged with the task of securing that the fleets and resources of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are planned and marketed to the greatest overall advantage.
"The Board will have complete authority and will not, therefore, represent an additional layer of decision-making. The Airways Board will also be responsible for setting up a separate regional airline bringing together certain domestic services of B.E.A. and of the British Air Services group.
"The Government would welcome the emergence through combination of a strong independent airline undertaking scheduled services. They will favour the licensing of such a carrier on routes, notably on the North Atlantic, where the presence of a second British carrier could be expected to increase the British share of business. But they do not accept that the creation of such an airline should be made conditional on the transfer of a significant part of the Air Corporations' routes. They believe that there are continuing opportunities of growth for independent airlines and will pursue pricing policies which should assist them.
"The Government accept that, after other steps have been taken to strengthen regional air services, it may still be necessary to subsidise certain services which can be shown to contribute to the economic or social development of the regions. They will seek powers to grant subsidies where detailed economic studies show them to be justified.
"The Government propose to improve the regulatory machinery by setting up a Civil Aviation Authority which will have comprehensive responsibility for the regulation of the industry
658
in all its aspects—economic, operational and technical. The Board of Trade will lay down the objectives and policies to be pursued by the Authority: these will be published and come before Parliament before being made binding upon the Authority. In addition, the Board of Trade will continue to exercise its present functions in relation to the public sector—the Airways Board and the British Airports Authority. It will also continue to bear the main responsibility for negotiating international agreements affecting civil aviation, for investigating accidents and for the control of aircraft noise.
"I am inviting the chairmen and members of the boards of the Air Corporations, of the Air Transport Licensing Board and of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee generally to continue to serve for a further year, to allow time for the introduction of legislation.
"With these changes the industry should be able to meet, with confidence, the challenges of the future and increase its contribution to an expanding economy and to the service of the public."
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that fairly lengthy Statement made in another place on the long awaited, rather protracted, birth of the Government White Paper on the future of the civil air transport industry. The noble Lord knows as well as any of us that all sections of the industry have been eagerly, in some cases anxiously, awaiting the Government views on the recommendations of the Edwards Committee, and the House will remember that this was forcibly expressed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye during the debate in July. The conclusions that the Government have arrived at will, I am sure, be examined closely by those of us who are interested, and I hope that in time we shall have the opportunity of debating this White Paper. If there is one conclusion that I am sure will be widely welcomed from all sides, it is that the Minister will retain full responsibility for the control of aircraft noise.
Arising from the Statement, I should like to have clarified a number of small points. Could the noble Lord say

659
whether the White Paper makes it crystal clear that the new Airways Board will be intending to take a financial stake in any of the independent forces, or second force, as recommended by the Edwards Committee? Secondly, when he says that the
"Government would welcome the emergence … of a strong independent airline …"
could he explain just how different in practice the new licensing system will be from the old one? Thirdly, could he say whether the Government intend to follow the Edwards Committee recommendation by publishing its future policy as a Statutory Instrument? Fourthly, if I am not going too fast, one assumes from the Statement that it is intended to keep the Civil Aviation Authority separate from the British Airports Authority. Who, in practice, will be responsible for future siting of airports? Lastly, and most important, could the noble Lord confirm that the Government definitely—I repeat "definitely"—intend to introduce legislation implementing this White Paper this Session?
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement which has just been made. I should like to have one or two points clarified. First, is this new Airways Board to take the place of the Boards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.? The Statement says that the Board
"will have complete authority and will not, therefore, represent an additional layer of decision-making."
Are we to assume that the Boards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will no longer be charged with making decisions on what is to be their own futures and their own policies? Does it not rather indicate criticism of these two Boards? Surely the noble Lord would agree that both these Boards have rendered tremendously successful service over a period of many years.
We should welcome the decision in the Statement that it is not intended to take away from the State airlines the routes that they have established across the Atlantic; but there is a rather alarming suggestion of the
"transfer of a significant part of the Air Corporations' routes".
What does the word "significant" mean? Is it going to be a small portion
660
of the routes that they have developed? Will it be done in conjunction with them and with their agreement, or will it be done arbitrarily? Another question that I should like to ask concerns the subsidies of certain internal services. Does this refer to what is known as the social services—for instance, the Highlands and Islands services? Lastly, is the Civil Aviation Authority to take the place of the Board of Trade, will it be additional to the Board of Trade or will it be just an additional cog in the machinery?
4.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I shall try to answer those questions. First, may I thank both noble Lords for their welcome to the Statement. I was asked about the possibility of the new Airways Board having a financial stake in the independent companies. It is not intended that the Board should have this stake. In this respect the White Paper makes it clear that it has a different view from that recommended by the Edwards Committee. I was asked about the difference between the Licensing Board as it now exists and the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority. The directive of the new C.A.B. will be much more purposeful. There will be greater scope and there will be the possibility of having a second operator on a given scheduled route, which was denied by the directive given to the present Board. I was asked whether the policy of the new Aviation Authority would be laid down in a Statutory Instrument. The answer is, yes; in that it will be, in a formal document. Its exact form has not yet been decided.
I was asked whether I would clarify the responsibilities between the C.A.B. and the B.A.A. for aerodrome policy. The responsibility of the British Airports Authority will remain precisely as it is now laid down by Statute, but the responsibility for the licensing of aerodromes will be passed to the new Civil Aviation Authority. The siting of airports, however, with the implication of land usage, will be the responsibility of the Board of Trade. I was asked whether I could give any definite indication as to legislation. The intention of Her Majesty's Government is that the new Authority and the Board will be brought into being before the end of next year.

661
In order to achieve that, there will have to be legislation.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, about the definition of "complete authority". I think that if he reads the new White Paper, which is a closely reasoned and fully argued document, he will find that this is made quite clear. Within the defined area there will be a complete authority to the new Board. The noble Earl asked if this was not a criticism of the two Corporations. Again if he reads the White Paper, he will find that there is absolutely no criticism intended. It is not a criticism of the two Boards but a recognition of the development of this industry; the new aircraft and the possibilities of marketing in through-traffic which it is thought—and the argument is made clear—could be more efficiently carried out by centralising this sector of decision making. I was asked about the transfer of routes. There will be no transfer of routes, excepting in so far as the new licensing authority, on the facts before it, might come to a decision in certain cases that a given route could better be operated by one of the independent companies.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, would that apply to new routes and not existing ones?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, certain routes are designated to the Corporations, but there will be powers to designate a second carrier. In certain cases, on the facts before them, the new authority may well come to the conclusion. in the interests of the economy generally and of getting a bigger share for Britain of the going traffic, that the licence should be given to an independent rather than to the Corporations.
I was asked about the regional services. Of course, these do refer to the Scottish Highlands and Islands services, but, in addition, the regional services in England too; the North-East and the South-West, for example.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I have only two questions to ask the Minister. He used the term "Government decisions". He also told us that there would be some period of time before legislation is introduced. Are these decisions absolutely inflexible, or are they decisions which will be debated? And will the Government be willing to
662
listen to the point of view of representations within both Houses of Parliament and outside? My second question is addressed more to the Leader of the House. Would the Government consider promoting an opportunity at a not-too-distant date for debating the White Paper?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the White Paper is now available in the Printed Paper Office. It will be necessary for it to be discussed in the journals and outside; and, of course, a Parliamentary debate would be expected. I shall be very happy to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of a debate here. The noble Lord asked whether it would be possible to change the Government's policy. The Government's decisions, taken in the light of their considerations, are enshrined in the White Paper. Of course, it would be foolish to say that if an absolutely conclusive argument was brought forward it would not be possible to listen to that argument and to make changes; but it is not intended as at present to make any changes to the policy laid down.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord would agree that it is for Parliament to have the ultimate authority. Therefore, before irrevocable decisions are taken, surely there should be a full debate on these proposals in both Houses of Parliament.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in what the noble Earl has said with what I said. The irrevocable decision will be when an Act of Parliament is passed, and of course it will be Parliament which will decide whether a Bill should become an Act of Parliament.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could confirm the impression I gained from listening to the Statement. I think it was said that it was the intention that the new Civil Aviation Authority should have comprehensive responsibilities. Am I right, therefore, in taking it that all the functions at present exercised by the A.R.B. will come under the umbrella of the new Authority?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the authority of the Civil Aviation Authority, or the responsibiliy of the Civil

663
Aviation Authority, will of course be comprehensive over those areas defined in the White Paper, and they include the A.R.B.

NORTHERN IRELAND: ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT
4.15 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission I, too, should like to repeat a Statement, and at the same time I would apologise to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who is about to make her maiden speech. My Lords, the Statement, which concerns the Ulster Defence Regiment, is as follows:
"The House will recall that in the debate on Northern Ireland on October 13"—
and in a similar debate in your Lordships' House—
"the Government proposed to create within Northern Ireland a local reserve defence force. This force is the subject of a Bill which is to be presented to-day.
"The Bill has been drafted on the established pattern of Reserve Forces legislation and provides the statutory framework within which the new force can be raised. There are therefore a number of matters which do not fall within its scope but about which the House will wish to be informed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is therefore publishing at the same time as the Bill is laid a White Paper which will set out the broad outline of the new force's function and constitution.
"The Hunt Committee recommended that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be relieved of all military duties and that the Ulster Special Constabulary should be replaced by two separate forces—one a police reserve, the other a military force to assist the regular Armed Forces.
"The nature of the new military force will be governed by its operational task. That task will be to meet what the Hunt Committee called armed guerrilla-type attacks'. This calls for a force to guard key points and installations, to carry out patrols
664
and to establish check points and road blocks.
"This force will be an integral part of the Army. It will be controlled by the Secretary of State for Defence, and will be under the command of the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. Its immediate Commanding Officer will be a Brigadier of the Regular Army. The Regular Army will also supply administrative and training staff.
"The size of the force will be determined in the light of experience as the build-up proceeds, but will not ultimately exceed 6,000 officers and men. Of necessity the new force will draw substantially on the Ulster Special Constabulary for its initial recruitment, but there will be a campaign to enrol recruits from all sections of the Northern Ireland community. Apart from the formal qualifications of age, residence and nationality the sole criterion for acceptance will be suitability for service in a military force. There will be a strict security vetting.
"The force will be called The Ulster Defence Regiment.
"The power to call it out for local emergency will be vested by the Secretary of State for Defence in an officer of the Regular Armed Forces who may in turn delegate that power to other officers of the Regular Forces not below the rank of major. Members of the new force will be liable to be called out for service only in Northern Ireland.
"Officers of the new force will be subject to military law at all times; others will be so subject when on training or on duty.
"Members of the new force will be required to do one week's consecutive training, four other full days' training and 12 drills. This is, I believe, the minimum training required to produce an efficient force. In some special cases the requirement may be varied within this total amount.
"Members of the force will receive Regular Army emoluments for full days' training or duty in the same way as the T. & A.V.R. A non-taxable annual bounty will be paid to all members who complete the training obligation.

665
"Although the defence of the United Kingdom is the sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government here at Westminster, the tasks for which this new force will be raised are of the greatest importance to the Government of Northern Ireland. We therefore envisage that the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, will have the fullest possible consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland about the use of this force. This in no way diminishes the powers and responsibilities of the G.O.C.
"The success of this force is vitally important to the people of Northern Ireland. It must he representative of the community as a whole. Recruits must come forward from all sections. We are confident that they will. The Government will do all in their power to ensure the success of the Regiment."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement. In our debate a month ago I welcomed the decision to set up a force of this character, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, must be gratified that his recommendations not only have been accepted but are being acted on so speedily. I cannot refrain from expressing the earnest hope that Catholics as well as Protestants in Northern Ireland will volunteer freely for service in this force.
I have two questions to ask. I was expecting all the time to hear in the Statement that all the details in it had been endorsed by the Government of Northern Ireland. It seems to me extremely important that that should be the case, though the responsibility here lies on the United Kingdom Government at Westminster. I hope that we may have that assurance. Secondly, I cannot help wondering whether the training schedule set out in the Statement will be sufficient, at any rate in the initial period. I should have thought that if this force is to take over its new duties, which will be to oppose I.R.A.-type raids of all kinds, should they occur, it will be necessary for recruits, at any rate in the first year or two, to experience rather more extensive and intensive training than is set out here. The terms of the Statement seem to be giving a kind of assurance that
666
nobody will ever be required to do more than this. I trust that, if the assessment of the position and the progress of the force require it, these periods of training here will not be treated as an absolute maximum.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Statement and to congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have acted in producing this decision. I have only one question. There is reference in the Statement to strict security vetting. I would ask what body will be responsible for the strict security vetting, and who is going to lay the standards required of members of the force, bearing in mind the experience which we had with the "B" Specials and in view of the fact that, as I understand it, the initial recruits are likely to be drawn from that force.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their recognition of the part that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, played and of the speed with which we have been able to move on this. It is clearly of great importance that we should move quickly. A Bill is being introduced in another place, and we hope to have it and deal with it speedily in this House. The position about the Government of Northern Ireland is that they have been fully consulted on detailed matters, and I understand that they are in general agreement with the proposals. Of course, the responsibility for this force and its conditions rests solely with Her Majesty's Government. But I can frankly say from my own knowledge that there has been very full discussion with the Northern Ireland Government and that, although some changes have been discussed, they are content with what is proposed. However, I would not want to bind them totally. There may well be some points on which they might have liked something different.
On the training commitment, we are in somewhat of a dilemma, and this is an aspect with which the Northern Ireland Government themselves have been concerned. A number of the members of this force will be small-time farmers, who will probably find it difficult to fulfil the training requirement. Naturally the Army want the longest possible training, and I very much take the noble Lord's point. But we are satisfied that what

667
is proposed will be satisfactory. Clearly we shall want to consider this further, and maybe we shall have an opportunity to do so when we discuss the Bill. But we arc satisfied that what is proposed is right for the particular purposes we have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about security. The vetting will be done in the same sort of way as for those men who join the Armed Forces. There is of course a special problem here, and vetting will be in the hands of the military authorities, who will no doubt make sufficient use of the specialised information we may be able to obtain. There is a danger either way. Do not let us assume that it is always from Ulster Protestants; there is also the possibility of I.R.A. members trying to join the force. It is important to ensure that there is complete confidence in the members of this force, and I am sure that in fact this will be achieved.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me the answer to two points? First of all, will the unit of T. & A.V.R. 2 which still exists in Northern Ireland be incorporated into this force, and are the former soldiers of T. & A.V.R. 3 units going to be eligible for the new force?—because it seems likely that the A.V.R. 3 units have been disbanded. The other point is: are there enough drill halls in existence for the training of this force?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I give the noble Lord a quick answer, subject to further examination? I do not think that the question of incorporating T. & A.V.R. 2 arises. If my recollection is right, from our earlier debates, T. & A.V.R. 2 is organised in support of NATO and of the Regular forces. As for T. & A.V.R. 3, of course it will be open to anyone to volunteer for the new force, and clearly it is desirable in general that men from the Ulster Special Constabulary, and others with territorial or military experience should join the force. I should think that the noble Lord's question will be met in this way.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: LABOUR DISPUTE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder if I may add a personal statement—yet another apology on my part to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I know that it makes it difficult for him every time I apologise and that this is probably not the correct moment. I indicated earlier, when making a Statement on the supply of Parliamentary Papers and the situation in the Stationery Office that copies of yesterday's Commons Hansard were now freely available. I am told now (and I am going to be very careful about what I say) that it was Monday's Hansard that was available. However, I also understand that a number of copies of yesterday's Lords Hansard are now coming through. I thought it right to correct this. Noble Lords who are here will now know my apology and those who are not may, with luck, be able to read it in Hansard.

MENTAL HEALTH: ATTITUDES AND POLICY
4.29 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, this is my maiden speech and I crave the indulgence of the House for any faults, an indulgence which I know your Lordships always readily give. First of all, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for initiating this debate. Much has been done in the last few years to bring to the notice of us all the problems and stresses of mental health. The contemporary attitudes to mental health are somewhat contradictory at the present time, but could be looked at from three points of view. In the first case, there is the critical searchlight which is directed particularly to subnormality hospitals, triggered off, one must admit, by events that have taken place in the hospitals. Although the policy of the authorities is constantly to improve the service, it is possible that recent events have been inclined to overshadow the great amount of good and to emphasise the bad. I am glad to say that in the most recent programmes on the radio steps have been taken to correct

669
this difficulty. We know that in many cases the buildings are old and that the work is made more difficult because of this. But the majority of hospitals are not deterred by this, and the work is going forward in a very progressive manner, with ever-increasing imaginative enthusiasm.
Of recent years, big efforts have been made to make the public more aware of the hospitals and what goes on; and the recent spate of programmes on both radio and television indicates that some success has been achieved in this respect. I should like to emphasise the need for it to be understood by the wider public that the patients are people, just as much as any other section of the community, and should not be regarded as a kind of lower order of life just because their difficulty lies in the intellectual sphere. In recent programmes and articles one has been inclined to detect a slight amount of surprise on the part of the writers when they found the patients doing "ordinary things". I feel that it would help people generally if they could think of people with subnormality as a glass half-full, rather than as one half-empty.
The second point is the attitude of the staff who are intimately concerned with the day-to-day care of the patients. They have no power to provide buildings and facilities, and yet they feel that they bear the brunt of the criticism. Although many are able to weather the storm, there are some who are discouraged by it. There has been a noticeable reduction in recruiting in the last few months, which, of course, makes the work more difficult for those who have to carry on.
In the third matter, there has been a considerable increase in the interest of voluntary workers, who seem to be motivated by the feeling that things are so bad that they feel compelled to come and lend a hand to put them right. In one hospital I know that they have over 100 volunteers on the books. The contradictions I mentioned earlier are between the critical attitude, on the one hand, and the increase in the desire to help by members of the public on the other. I have the greatest admiration for all those connected with nursing of all types, but I should like to pay my tribute especially to those of the mental health service.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I am very happy that it should be my privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Countess on her maiden speech. I am sure that we all much appreciated her most thoughtful speech, and that the House will look forward to further speeches from the noble Countess in due course.
I am grateful to the mover of this Motion, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for drawing our attention to this subject this afternoon, because it is a vast problem which needs regular consideration. I am informed on good authority that it is the case that the number of hours lost in work to the nation through mental illness probably amounts to about four or five times the amount that is lost by strike action. Those figures, which, as I say, I have obtained from the most creditable source, show the vast scope of the problem with which we are dealing. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has drawn attention to contemporary attitudes to mental health, and I would say that in this respect the public attitude has greatly improved. As has already been remarked, there is no longer a stigma attached to it, and people are more open about the subject. This is wholly desirable. It is one of the reasons why the rate of admissions to mental hospitals has increased, because many who in former years would not have asked for admission are now doing so.
There is, however, one respect in which the attitude of the public falls short. It does not sufficiently realise that new money will have to be obtained if the problems are to be overcome. Recently there has been a great deal of holding up of hands in horror about the statements that have been made in regard to overcrowding in these hospitals. I shall refer to that again in a moment, but undoubtedly those statements were justified. It is no good just holding up hands in horror; the nation must realise that improvements will cost money. If I may speak as a member of a Regional Hospital Board, I should like to say how, sometimes, it is frustrating for a Board to know of these problems but to be unable to cope with them to the extent they would like. Time and again,, the anxious choice has to be made as to the way in which the money available to the Board should be spent.

671
There are other ways in which contemporary attitudes to mental health can be improved. First, there is a need to convince people that psychiatry is nothing of which they need be afraid. I think it is true to say that in the past people have shrunk from admitting that they themselves might have need of psychiatric treatment. It is therefore necessary that we should overcome this very natural reluctance. So let it be understood that there are periods of particular risk in people's lives; and let it also be understood, as again has been remarked, that none of us can say that at any time in our lives we may not be subject to this kind of difficulty.
I hope, too, that further consideration will be given to the use of mass media in order to dispel fear of psychiatric treatment. This has been used to a certain extent, but in regard to one programme I was not quite sure whether, rather than being dispelled, fear was increased; but that might have been a personal opinion. This is a matter which has to be carefully approached by producers. When we come to physical illness, an operation can be portrayed on television in such programmes as "Your Life in Their Hands", and we all look at it goggle-eyed, but it is not so easy with this kind of ailment. The line between physical health and physical illness may be clearly defined, but it is not so clearly defined in mental health. The line there is much more indistinct, and in order to prevent the trouble we have to help people to understand that in their lives they may be near this line.
I therefore hope that we shall refrain from making moral judgments on such people. It is only too easy to do so, and is perhaps rather natural. On the other hand, I hope that none of us will ever regard psychiatry as being a kind of panacea for all such types of mental illness. Some people do so, and apply to a psychiatrist in order to try to dodge the realities of life, when in reality they should be taking a grip on themselves. But here a difficulty arises for those who are in a position to try to help. How, for instance, are people who desire to help to know whether others are in need of psychiatric treatment? When, for instance, ought people to go to their doctor, and when ought they, frankly, to try to
672
snap out of it? Here I think the clergy, in particular, need real guidance. They often have to deal with this type of case, and efforts are now being made to give them some knowledge in order to equip them for their task. I do not want to imply for one moment that what we want to do is to try to turn the clergy into a group of amateur psychiatrists—that would be highly dangerous—but I feel that it will help them to recognise certain psychiatric cases as a rather different matter. Here we are particularly grateful to a number of consultants in this speciality of medicine who have given up their time freely to lecture to ordinands and clergy, and courses have been arranged in clinical theology. If I may say so, turning from my own profession to another, the general practitioner is probably recognising psychiatric cases to a greater extent than in the past. This is also leading to a greater caseload in mental hospitals.
The increase in the caseload leads me on to stress once again that surely overcrowding is still one of the greatest problems. Looking back over the years, how often have I heard it said that as a result of the new techniques, and so on, the number of patients was going to come down; and yet here we are, still the same in 1969 with this terrible problem pressing upon us. I suppose the consultant might say, "All right, do not admit any more patients. This is the number of beds we have, and that is that." When I was discussing this subject the other day with a medical superintendent of one of these large hospitals he said, "In all the years I have been here I have not turned away a case that a general practitioner has sent to me. If I did, what would happen to that person, and what would happen to the family?".
It is not so easy to say, "Clamp down on it". The Hospital Service cannot be expected to cope with the whole of this problem. It is a fact that there are many people in hospitals to-day who, by their presence, reflect a lack of community care, because many of them, we know, ought not to be there at all. There is this tremendous problem of the overlapping between the psychiatric and the geriatric patients. We must do all we can to keep psychiatric beds simply for psychiatric patients, and not for others. So the Hospital Service must look to the

673
other authorities to play their part. Most of the local authorities are making some provision for community services for the mentally ill. This, however, is still far from enough. I hope the possibility of boarding patients out will he still further developed. I understand that one of the authorities in Northern Wales by this expedient has greatly reduced the crowding in the mental hospitals, and of course if it can be pursued it is far less costly than keeping patients in hospital.
In this matter of the mentally subnormal, to which many references have already been made in this debate, as was natural, may I come again to the need for more money if the problem is to be overcome? Given the proper facilities, many of these people could lead useful and productive lives in the community, and we need greater provision of day centres for their training in simple occupations. But a consultant psychiatrist of great experience impressed upon me the other day that if the subnormal is to be cared for at home rather than in hospital, he must not be given any precedence in care over the rest of the family, but must be treated along with the rest; otherwise great jealousies and tensions can undoubtedly arise.
Efforts are now being made to avoid segregation of psychiatric cases, and the Bonham Carter Committee recommended that these cases should be dealt with in the district general hospital. I am quite sure that that suggestion must at any rate be tried. Also, we need more hostels to adjust patients to everyday life when they come out of the hospitals. But is it not true, my Lords, that these hostels are tending rather to price themselves out of the market? Could they cost less than they cost at the present time? It would be quite hopeless if these hostels were blocked by cases who stayed there a long time, for they are not there for that purpose. They must be short-stay institutions, or the whole object of the hostel is defeated.
Then there is a need for the follow-up on the part of the psychiatric social worker and the mental welfare officer. Again, as we have heard, there are still not enough of them to cover the work. Moreover, still more day hospitals arc needed where these patients can go and receive a certain amount of supervision. I am informed by people who have great experience in this matter that very many
674
readmissions of patients are due to the failure on the part of those patients to carry out the instructions of their doctor when they have left the hospital.
In recent months there has been a lot of bad publicity for a number of these hospitals. There were the allegations that were made in a book which, if I remember aright, was entitled Sans Everything; there was the story of the Ely Hospital, and others. I agree that in a sense this publicity is desirable, because if there are instances of cruelty they should be very definitely stopped. On the other hand, we must always remember, before we criticise too sharply, the kind of tasks that the staff have to undertake. I have recently been around several of these hospitals. My Lords, honestly I wonder, as I look at the work that has to be done, that we get anyone to do the job at all. As has been remarked this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, one hears about the cases of bad behaviour, and so on, and they get highlighted. In a sense that is right, because they must not be allowed to go on. But when one speaks to some of these ladies and gentlemen who act as the staffs of these hospitals, one feels most moved that they should go on year in and year out in the way that they do.
I said to the matron of one hospital. "Matron, looking at the jobs that have to be done, how do you get staff at all?". She replied, "Well, you know, after you have been at it for some time, you come to love them very much". It is that kind of attitude to the work which animates so many of the men and women who are serving on the staffs of these hospitals, and we should be indeed most grateful to them. If we get continuing adverse publicity, it is going to affect recruitment very badly. What the noble Countess said just now in her maiden speech is perfectly true: that in the past few months recruitment has been flagging very badly indeed. It is getting very worrying. If we keep on having this kind of publicity, what can be expected as a result of it? So I would add my voice to those speakers who have said that we must call on all kinds of voluntary workers to help as much as possible. And it is remarkable what a number of organisations do—for instance, an organisation like the Round Table, which comes and takes the patients out for the

675
day, or organises their summer holidays. That kind of thing is going on to a much greater extent than people realise. Let it always be said, as is true, that in this day of the National Health Service there are more people engaged in voluntary work in our hospitals than ever before; and let us be most grateful for what is done.
May I, in my concluding remarks, say one or two things about chaplains and the part that the Church must play? It is very gratifying for us to know that in hospital after hospital the chaplain is now being regarded much more as a member of the healing team. We are trying as best we can to fit him for this work, and the Hospital Chaplains' Council organises regular training courses for chaplains. We are pleased to know that we have passed through these courses more than a thousand chaplains. I should like to express gratitude to the Department of Health and Social Security for the way in which they support these courses. They do so not only by paying for the men to attend the courses. We have had a senior representative of the Department to give the opening lecture; and this kind of seal, set on it by the Department, is something that helps the Church very much. A really good chaplain in a hospital is undoubtedly going to be a great source of strength to the patients, just as the good parish priest will be a source of strength in his work. Let it also be said that the chaplain should be a man who does much to help the staffs in their difficult tasks.
So, as we think of the role of the Church in this matter, surely the link between the Church and the sphere of psychiatry should be a close one; and here the Churches' Council of Healing and the Institute of Religion and Medicine have been very active in trying to bring the two together so that we may work in the closest harmony. The pastoral work of the good psychiatrist and of the good parson are closely akin. But it is important to remember one outstanding fact: what we must aim at, first and foremost, is not so much the treatment of mental illness, but its prevention. Prevention is so much better than cure; it relieves so much anxiety, and from the economic point of view it is far less costly. We must strive to help people to become, and to remain, whole. I hope,
676
therefore, that the public will have a fair and open approach to this problem. And if this debate this afternoon helps us in our attitudes to this great problem, then I think that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will feel that he has been rewarded.
4.52 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I know that we should all like to thank my noble friend Lord O'Hagan not only for initiating this debate but also for bringing the word "contemporary" before us: for never before, perhaps, has the situation of the mentally handicapped been more urgent than it is to-day. The right reverend Prelate has spoken most movingly on the subject of staff in hospitals, and I do not apologise in any way for speaking on that subject as well We all know that there have been incidents which have been highlighted in the Press and in books, with such unattractive names as Sans Everything and Put Away. I am told that this flurry of literature is necessary to inform the public on the conditions in our mental hospitals, and it is right that the public should know. But the fact is, of course, that many of the public do not read these books; they read only the extracts printed in our daily newspapers. And these, I fear, have on the whole been very one-sided and have deeply disturbed the staffs of mental hospitals, who in many cases are working under extreme pressure in near to impossible circumstances. My Lords, they are the salt of the earth; and if in some isolated cases the salt has lost its savour can we in Parliament, the local authorities, and indeed the public, put our hands on our hearts and say that we ourselves are blameless?
I doubt whether the record of spending in the last forty years on our mental hospitals would, if carefully analysed, make us very proud. In many hospitals our mentally handicapped live in conditions which we do not allow to our worst criminals. There is public indignation if we allow our prisoners to sleep three in a cell; but the fact that many of our mentally handicapped citizens are sleeping in overcrowed wards, with beds touching, and the nurses, both male and female, battling to keep them clean and happy—and, if I may say so, to remain sane themselves—has been largely overlooked. No, my Lords; we have little

677
to be proud of in the way we care for these unfortunate people and those who look after them.
I shall be speaking a little later on the contemporary thought for the future. But before we look into the crystal ball let us face the hard facts of the present. For some years I have raised my voice in this House on the requirement for hostels for the mentally handicapped, and I have in the past given a résumé of what local authorities have done under the permissive rights given to them in the Mental Health Act 1959. I do not intend to go into these details to-day, but I will firmly state to both Front Benches, and to all your Lordships, that the provision of hostels is totally inadequate for the urgent need at the present.
There are some local authorities who have a high record in their care of the mentally handicapped; and there are some who have not. And never at any time in our history should our consciences be more moved than at the present time. I would appeal to the public not to raise objections to the establishment of hostels for mentally handicapped in their neighbourhood. It is so easy to say, "Of course we must have hostels—but not next door to me". Those who can live in hostels will be harmless people, badly in need of help and friendship, and all the kindness that the public, whether they be children or adults, can give them. I can only trust that both Press and television will be of help in this cause. In some local authorities excuses may be made that, even if they had hostels, they would be unable to staff them. My answer to this is: acquire or build your hostels, and then get your staff. Experience shows that where there are hostels staff have been forthcoming; and I am certain that if they are shown the hostel there will be men and women of good will who will accept the challenge.
In disasters in war and peace we in this country immediately rally round—and in saying what I am about to say I am picking my words carefully. In many hospitals, including those in my own group, we have a great number of wonderful nurses, both male and female, from our Commonwealth. In my opinion, it is only right, should they so desire, that after we have trained them they should return to their country to take up posts in order to train their own people in the
678
art and the care of healing. I have spoken to many of them, and the majority are undecided as to their future. But have we thought of the consequences should a great number of them, together with the doctors, decide to return to their native lands? Have we considered the consequences if a number of our nurses of the mentally handicapped came to the conclusion that conditions were so bad that they could not carry on? Have we considered the consequences of all this adverse publicity to recruitment of nurses, both here and overseas? My Lords, we indeed face a crisis, and I am firmly convinced that this crisis can be met only by the provision of increased accommodation in beds for the mentally handicapped in either hostels or hospitals.
Recruitment of nurses is naturally tied up with pay, about which I shall be speaking in a moment. But there is also the undoubted question of environment. There can be no doubt that it is far easier to work in bright, attractive wards rather than dark prison-like hospitals which savour of the old institutions. "Morale" is a difficult word to define. We all know that with fine leadership morale may be tremendously high in impossible situations; but this is characteristic of the British race. It is quite a different thing when nurses are working in terribly difficult circumstances, in which they can see no future improvement and at the same time are accused of cruelty and lack of care for their patients. On their behalf I would quote a line from Rudyard Kipling's famous poem:
"If you can keep your head while all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you".
It is a well known fact in the world of hospitals for the subnormal that patients who are highly disturbed are prone to self-infliction of wounds, and in fact to wound each other. We do our best to help those who are prone to self-infliction of wounds by providing protective headgear, and in some cases gloves. Our nurses do all they can to prevent patients wounding one another, but it must be understood that, in the case of the severely disturbed, these things happen so suddenly that they may be impossible to avoid. In my opinion the complete answer to charges of cruelty is open visiting. We have nothing to hide. Any form of cruelty is immediately

679
looked into. In return, we would ask visitors to trust us to give our all to the welfare of the patients, and not immediately to jump to a conclusion if a patient has an abrasion on his or her face.
As I am closely connected with mental hospitals, I feel a deep responsibility in speaking out for the nurses. Of course as in all professions, there are black sheep; but when I come back from a round of my hospitals I feel humble and grateful that there are so many people, both young and old, who are prepared, with loving care, to look after our fellow citizens. It infuriates me that, because of a few, as yet unproved, cases, they should be given a reputation which is wholly unjustified.
The present situation is frankly this. I say this in the full understanding that I have a group of hospitals with lovely 20-bedded wards in villas, and although for children we have a waiting list of over 100 we are better off than many. But as a Member of your Lordships' House I speak for all hospitals. There have been a number of conferences at which the future of the Hospital Service has been discussed. In one report to the Ministry it is stated that our mental hospitals are to be run down and abolished and that the mentally handicapped will be looked after in district hospitals, local authority hospitals and in the home. In my opinion it will be impossible to abolish the mental hospitals for at least twenty years. In fact, there can be only one solution to our present situation; namely, that to relieve overcrowding and the waiting list beds must be provided for adults and children. Time is not on our side. For this reason, in asking the noble Baroness to inform us of the plans of the Government for the immediate future I put forward suggestions which will go some way to deal with what is a very difficult problem.
I fully realise that it will take time to educate the public into having hostels next door to them. For this reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has stated, where applicable hospital land should be released for prefabricated hostels to be occupied by patients released from hospital, and paid for by the local authority. This scheme would save an enormous amount of money in regard
680
to the purchase of further land and would be the first stage in returning the mentally handicapped into community care.
My second suggestion is that in any New Towns or new housing developments it should be mandatory, commensurate with the proposed population, to include a number of hostels, thus making the hostel situation a fait accompli and furthering our hopes that, in the eyes of the public, more of our mentally handicapped can be brought into the community. My third suggestion, on which I have spoken before, is that if the cottage hospitals are to be closed in favour of district hospitals—a decision on which I cannot comment, except to say that it seems to be unpopular—I would hope that these hospitals would be used as hostels or, maybe even more important, as centres under the local authority for day help and for counselling the families of handicapped children and adults. If contemporary thought is that more children should be kept in the home these centres will be invaluable. It is to this subject that shortly I turn now.
I have spoken on many occasions of the strain placed on the family of the mentally handicapped child and I do not intend to weary your Lordships with repetition, but I would say this. If encouragement is to be given to such families to keep their children in the home, massive support must be given to them both in counselling and in money. Counselling centres must be set up where the family can obtain kind and understanding advice, especially on how to get assistance. Forms can be very cruel, especially in the early years when the whole family is desperately keyed up. Home help and laundry must be considered, for in the first place the parents are never able to go out together unless there is some responsible person to look after the child; and in the second place, and maybe reaching into adult years, incontinence can put an unbearable burden on the parents.
Above all, in order to encourage families to keep their children in the home an assurance must be given that the children will be happily looked after in case of their parents death. I am wonderfully blessed in the fact that my daughter can stay at St. Mary's Convent, Roehampton, for her life, but I get a number of letters from people who know

681
that I am interested in this subject, begging me to find a place for their child. It matters not whether they are able to pay. There do not appear to be vacant beds, in hospitals or homes that I know of, to accommodate them. It would be of great assistance if there could be set up a central bureau of information—something on the lines of the emergency bed service —which would have knowledge of accommodation for the mentally handicapped available in hospitals, local authority and charity homes, and which would be able to advise families who have got to the end of their tether and require temporary relief, and those who have reached an age when they wish to have an assurance of their children's future in case of their death.
Let it be fully understood that parents just cannot leave the case of the mentally handicapped child to other members of the family. Other children will be growing up and will have children of their own, and it would be unfair to leave with them any care of mentally handicapped child or adult. We must take this heavy burden off the family, and ensure that anyone can die in peace and know that their child will be looked after in a way of which they would approve.
I know that I am speaking for quite a long time—more than I usually do—but I would add one final observation. In the last few months we have seen how strikes have been settled by the main demands being met. It is not necessary to go into that matter in your Lordships' House, but I cannot help feeling that those who are unable to strike through humane considerations are at a considerable disadvantage. Is it not time that, out of our consideration for fair play, we show our gratitude for the work that they do, and also, because of the urgent requirement of recruiting, decide to give a substantial increase in pay to our nurses? Those of us who work closely with them know their worth and realise fully their difficulties in making both ends meet at the end of the month. Apart from this, it is monstrous that a job which has responsibility for making decisions of life and death should be so badly paid in all ranks of the nursing service. The Daily Telegraph has announced that a great increase, amounting to £15 million, has been given to ancillary staff. I am delighted to read it. But does not this
682
award make the case of the nurses even more urgent? My Lords, it is indeed urgent. It is a subject which is deeply worrying many of us. Something must be done immediately if real trouble is to be avoided.
I have spoken enough, but I trust that everyone in the House will realise how deeply we must feel with the situation as it is. We are in a crisis. As we go on we shall go deeper into that crisis, unless something is done to relieve the overcrowding of hospitals and to see that those who give such valuable service, our nurses, are properly paid.
5.12 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, on her maiden speech, and say how both informative and human I found it, as I think we all did. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for couching his Motion in such wide terms so that it is possible for me, as Chairman of the Health Education Council, to say something about health education in this field. The Health Education Council, as your Lordships know, was set up as a result of a recommendation of the Cohen Committee. It had rather a prolonged gestation and also an uncertain post-natal progress, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Serota will agree. She was its first Chairman, and I had the privilege of following her as Chairman; but there was a year's gap in between. Though the Council itself was working during this time, there was no organisation, very little personnel, and it is really only in the last six months that we have been, so to speak, in business.
We are in an extraordinary position. We receive a main grant from the Ministry of Health—and I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who compared the sum of £223,000 that we get with the £10,000 which the Exchequer gives the National Association for Mental Health, that what we get is meant to cover the whole field of health education. I think that, measured in those terms, one can almost say that what we receive is proportionately even less! While cooperating and working out our programmes in conjunction with the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Health

683
we do have a considerable degree of independence. We are the Health Education Council, Limited. This helps us to act both as a stimulus and, sometimes, as a goad to the established authorities, both central and local.
It is true that in our present and future estimates we have no special allocation for mental health. This does not mean for one moment that I, or the members of my Council, think that this is something that we should not be concerned with—far from it. This is something with which we are greatly concerned. But one of the reasons we have nothing under that head is lack of resources. In the context of mental health (I am talking of mental health, rather than mental illness or mental disease, about which so many other speakers have spoken, with great experience) the recent brochure which we pubished makes it clear that at least six of the subjects which we pick out as being among the most important of the current health problems have a mental as well as a physical content: alcoholism, drug addiction, venereal disease, sex education, health problems of new immigrants, preparation for retirement and helping old people to stay healthy and independent. I think this is a very important aspect of our work and our approach, that we should be able to try to integrate physical health with mental health, rather than have it divided, as unfortunately it is divided to such an extent because of the necessity to concentrate on mental disease and mental illness.
Where the major mental illnesses have their origins in biochemical causes and do not seem to be precipitated by behavioural or environmental causes, our rôle can be very important in helping to change the attitude of the community. My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies referred to social attitudes, and there is no doubt that there has been a great deal of change. But I take issue with the right reverend Prelate when he says that the stigma of psychiatry has gone. This just is not so. It may be true so far as a great many fairly sophisticated people are concerned, but to many people to-day the word "mental" still means mad; and this is something we have to accept; it is no good pretending that it is not so. Indeed, this is to such an
684
extent that the editor of the periodical, Mental Health, the publication of the National Association for Mental Health, was telling me that they were considering trying to find an alternative title simply in order to get away from the word "mental".
So far as the mentally handicapped are concerned, I think that we in the education field can perhaps be of some help. Again, my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies spoke about a caring community, and I believe that a great deal of education of the community still needs to be done here. I am talking now of the cases of subnormal people. The principal way one can deal with the problem is through education of the patient, so far as that is possible, but much can be done also by education of the teachers and of the family, and also of employers. The attitude of employers is extremely important because a great many mentally handicapped people could be employed on certain jobs if only employers were prepared to take them on. But they have all sorts of fears about this, and often are not prepared to give them a chance. In addition there is, as my noble friend pointed out, the need for genetic counselling and emotional counselling, because the breakdown (to which several speakers have referred) in families can be a very serious thing. Very often a decision has to be made as to whether a child can be kept at home or should be sent to an institution; and this decision may leave the family, and particularly the mother, with a tremendous feeling of guilt. I am not suggesting that we should encourage people to put their children into institutions, but there are circumstances where it really is far worse for the child and for the family for the child to be kept at home. I feel that in these cases we should be doing what we can to mitigate the guilt, and to understand and support (my noble friend used that word) the family and the relatives, as well as the patient.
Where I think that we in the health education field can be of real assistance is in the preventable stresses, because here when we talk about prevention the main way we can bring it about is by means of education. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out—and it is perfectly true —figures show that in 1966–67 29 million working days were lost through mental

685
disorders, depression and nervousness. This evidently equals £25 million in sickness benefit; but that figure gives no indication of what it means in terms of personal tragedy, unhappiness or, again, the effect on the family and workpeople and other people around.
In the prevention field one of the problems with which we are particularly concerned at the moment, and which I believe is responsible for a great deal of the bad mental health which is preventable, is the problem of the unwanted pregnancy. The effect of the unwanted pregnancy, not only on the mother but, if there is an illegitimate child, on the child itself, and on the child who is unwanted even though born in wedlock, and on the whole family can be extremely serious and traumatic and often long-term. What we want to see is a comprehensive contraception service which is part of the National Health Service. The Family Planning Association, whose slogan this year, "Every child a wanted child", is one that I warmly support, has done, as we all know, a magnificent job in this field. Nevertheless, the time has now come, in my opinion, when this work should be part of the State Health Service with, of course, the Family Planning Association and other bodies participating.
The question of education here is extremely important. One of the things that we have been pressing the Ministry to do is to try to see that whenever possible, when any woman leaves a hospital after an abortion, miscarriage or the birth of a child she is offered contraceptive facilities and is directed to them. At this point—and this is often the point where again some form of education could start—the ideal would be to have contraception clinics attached to the hospitals, all the hospitals, as well as having the contraceptive facilities provided by the local authorities. I have set up a Sex Education and Contraception Advisory Panel in order that we can work out the best way to set about so many of these problems, because there are a great many problems which come very much into the area of mental health. It is not just a question of the physical facilities and the geography. We also need to know why so many women who know about and have access to contraception do not in fact use them, and either have
686
an abortion or give birth to an unwanted child.
We are also extremely concerned with sex education. Criticising parents for dereliction of duty is a very popular pastime, but I think it is both counter-productive and quite unfair, as many parents find it absolutely impossible to communicate in this way. Some of the reactions that I saw in letters to The Times, and other papers, to the announcement of the B.B.C. programmes, seem to me, with great respect to the Archbishop of Cardiff and some of the other people who wrote, a misunderstanding of the present problem. What we must hope for is that we are going to make it possible for future generations of parents to have this sexual dialogue with their children. This means that we must have a far better and more coherent form and more consistent system of sex education in schools which is part of an ongoing course in living. This seems to me to be part of the basis of a stable and good mental health structure for this country. Though there are some courageous exceptions, on the whole I am afraid that sex education in schools is inadequate, uneven, and often nonexistent.
Recently—and I am not talking about years ago but in the last few months—I was talking to a number of youngsters from different schools; secondary modern, grammar and comprehensive. They were about the age of 15, and I asked them what sex education they had had. The majority had had one lecture at the age of 11, and some had seemed to manage to miss out altogether. Many knew all about the sex life of the salmon, but, as one boy pointed out, as he was not a salmon it was really very difficult for this to be of much use. One girl said, "Yes, I know all about V.D.". I asked, "What were you told? How old were you?". She said, "I was 11, and the games mistress told us never to go out with boys with spots around their mouths." If that is the extent of our sex education., then we ought to question the basis of whether we are going to have a positive mental health policy in this country.
But if the educators are not educated, how can they be expected to educate their pupils? This again is another of the things with which we are concerned. A report prepared by the Young Teachers

687
Advisory Committee of the National Union of Teachers shows that of teachers entering the profession between 1964 and 1967, over one-third received no instruction in sex education during their three year training course. Of those who did receive it, 13 per cent. pronounced it inadequate, and only 12 per cent. found it was good. Therefore, in the Health Education Council we are calling a conference on sex education next spring in order to try to hammer out a coherent and consistent policy, and face up to many of the implications frankly and without hypocrisy, and to face the problems which are swept under the carpet. There is a point at which people shy off them. People will give instruction up to a point, but when it comes to imparting knowledge on contraception and giving advice they shy off it. I think we have to accept that the morals and values must be included, one hopes, in parental teaching, teaching in school, the churches, and any other agency with which the young person comes into contact. But it really must be at some point divorced from clinical advice, otherwise the results will be shown not only in bad physical health but also in bad mental health as well.
The Health Education Council has a field division which gives in-service training to health visitors and health education officers on human relations. One of the most important of our tasks, as I see it, is communication, because although a great many people are trained in their subject and have the knowledge, I think it is a skill in itself to be able to put it over to the people concerned, and even more so to many of the groups who are most at risk in the mental field. We need very many more trained health education officers. The majority of health authorities have someone responsible for health education, but only a minority of these people are professionally trained. This is no longer a job for the amateur, and, like many of us here, I am waiting anxiously to see what the Government's legislation on the Seebohm proposals is going to be. I earnestly hope that the conflict between the various vested interests will not weaken the sort of family service that so many of us want to see.
I believe that a health education officer must be an essential part of every local structure, because he or she forms one of
688
the bridges between the medical and social agencies which are so important in the field of mental health work. For instance, in Croydon, which has a very good health education set-up, there is a mental health education committee which meets in the health education office, and which brings together G.Ps. and local and voluntary organisations, as well as so many other people who are involved in that field.
Also, because it is now recognised that education and behaviour patterns, which are going to affect the mental health of our lives in the future, start right back in childhood they hold ante-natal classes explaining the emotional effects on the mother and father before the arrival of the baby. I think it is very important to bring the father into many of these activities, because this creates a much better and healthier atmosphere in the family.
There are also what they call "toddlers' clinics", where mothers have group discussions every fortnight about the whole family. This is very important, because J. W. B. Douglas, in his book All our Future, reports that the mothers of a number of delinquents on whom he was researching and to whom he was talking had not used the facilities available for child welfare in their children's early years.
The health education officer should cover the school health service; and it is interesting that even in a place like Croydon, where the health education set-up is a good one, half the schools co-operate but the other half do not. We are concentrating on two campaigns which have a very direct relationship to mental health. One of them is anti-smoking, and, although that may sound a physical matter, I think there is a very strong mental content because although people who smoke are very well aware of the dangers there is still this compulsiveness to smoke which has something very much to do both with personality and, presumably, also with the stress of the life we are living. The ether is V.D. in young people. To tackle these matters adequately, we are doing an evaluation so that we know where we can make the most impact.
We also hold a number of colloquia—I was not sure what that is, but I understand that it is "a getting together"; it

689
is not my word—on different subjects. Although we cannot run specific campaigns on them ourselves, it enables us to bring together the people concerned. We have had one on cancer, and yesterday we had a very successful one on nutrition. Here, again, you cannot completely segregate the physical from the mental, and one of the distinguished doctors present told us that there was now evidence to show that in the later months of pregnancy, or in the first few weeks of infancy, malnutrition can affect the growth of the brain. Similarly, another doctor concerned with geriatrics pointed out that his research had shown that malnutrition can lead to degenerative senile psychosis. So all these matters are very much interlocked.
There is another tie-up, my Lords, between mental health and nutrition. Domestic science training is very important, and such training, including budgeting, should be part of the curriculum of girls' schools, because so many of the family breakdowns, and so many of the difficulties that people get into, result from the mother's not being able to cope and not knowing where to go for help. Our next colloquia will be on mental health. Health education cannot be done just from the centre. We can lay down the guide lines, and we can produce material as we will; but it needs the close co-operation of doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, and all those people who are in direct contact with the person concerned. One of the most important aspects is the training of doctors and nurses, and it seems incredible that sex education and human psychology form part of the basic curriculum for medical students and student nurses in so few medical schools. Then I think that medical students and student nurses need far more education in communicating with the patient, because the G.P., who has the closest contact, is often too embarrassed to discuss many of the problems with his patients, although the spoken word is often very much better than a prescription for another pill or another drug.
I also attach a great deal of importance to counselling. I am a member of the Youth Service Development Council, and in our recent publication, Youth and Community Work in the '70s, we stress the tremendous need for counselling for young people. I understand that at
690
Cambridge University a group of about 12 G.Ps. and social workers, has been set up as an experiment in counselling for students. Many people either receive no help at all or are sent to a psychiatrist, when their G.P. or a counsellor could help them if those people were only available.
Finally—and I must apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time—we must look ahead to the human result of the technology and automation about which we hear so much, and which we also feel, since it is all around us. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, Mr. John Stonehouse, referring yesterday to some of the wonderful computers that there are going to be in the '70s, when people will not even have to leave their own homes and can do all their office work at home—a situation which, it seems to me, is going to create a tremendous problem of loneliness and isolation—said that Britain in the 1970s would get a new and infinitely more refined and sensitive "nervous system" What I want to know is, what is going to happen to the nervous system of the individual? These are matters about which we must be taking a very much longer-term view than we have taken up till now. In America, these are subjects with which "think tanks" are concerned, but that takes the sort of money that we do not have to spare. But I do not think we can afford to leave the subject alone, as otherwise we are going to have a great deal of human disaster.
In conclusion, I really believe that health education needs to be taken much more seriously if it is to become a natural part of people's lives and upbringing. But this can be done only if there is a far bigger allocation of resources. The subject must be high on the order of social and medical priorities, and a bit could be pinched here and there from other places. The noble Lord. Lord Bernstein, who was introduced in your Lordships' House this afternoon, said in a speech yesterday that he thought that colour T.V. would cost the nation £600 million over the next five years, and that we could not afford it at this time. He compared this unfavourably with money spent on housing subsidies, roads and education. I should like to add to that list health education, because if there

691
was ever a good investment it is spending more money on health education. This will produce high dividends in economic, social and human terms; and this, in my opinion, is one of the most important ways of enormously improving our mental health.
5.40 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like not only to thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for making to-day's debate possible, but also to tell him what he has been able to do for me, the impetus which he has given to my thinking and the tremendous impression and inspiration which he has been able to create. It has been said before to-day that this strength coming from youth is doubly valuable, and perhaps he will never realise what he has started by putting the Motion down to-day. If only I had his ability to sychronise my thoughts with my words, I should be a much happier woman.
But, having spoken of Lord O'Hagan, I should like my first tribute to be to the nurses in the mental and subnormal hospitals. I think it is a mistake to keep on talking about the bad things which have been said. I should like to hear people refer to the things they have realised as they have visited hospitals and seen what these women and men do. This is one case where the greater embraces the less, and that is why I put the women before the men! I have a feeling that anyone who travels the country and visits mental hospitals can only come back, as I do, humbled at seeing what these nurses are prepared to do and the way in which they do it. I think I have the right to say this because I represent a body which works in 105 out of the 190 mental hospitals and in 49 out of the 181 subnormal hospitals. Here, I am ashamed that the percentage should be so low, but I hope that we shall soon he able to make it much higher. One of the things I regret about this afternoon's debate is that more tributes have not been paid to the tremendous work that has been done up to date by mental health associations of a variety of different natures. I suppose it is because of my age that I can look back to the times when such things did not exist, and to the great efforts of the late Lord Feversham and
692
others, and can look at to-day's situation, which owes a very great deal to these societies.
My contribution to-day, I fear, is only a very small one. I want to make one point, and one point only. It is to emphasise that the slightest contribution from the volunteer who makes even the lowliest gesture is of value, for it is the start of the involvement of the individual within the community and is of paramount importance. I think the realisation by that individual of his own particular responsibility within the community is the start of the effort we are anxious that individuals should make in participating in helping both with mental health patients and also with subnormal patients. I think this can be achieved only by contacts and the understanding that is bred of such contacts. To do this, a great deal of individual hard work must be undertaken.
The reasons why people are sent to mental hospitals are many, but it is mostly because of their disregard of the rules of society or because in some way or other they have become too difficult within their own environment and are either an embarrassment or a real nuisance to handle within the community. One of the really serious problems which has not been mentioned today is that life in hospital often results in an illness of isolation, and institutional neurosis. This often results in the patient's lacking confidence and being fearful of going back to live in the great world from which he has come.
It is often thought that it is difficult to find volunteers to work in mental hospitals, but this is not so. It is true that there used to be a shrinking away, and the start of work in such a hospital was something which had to be undertaken rather carefully, but once volunteers have found how easy and how tremendously worth while the work is, the catchment area can produce the volunteers required. The demand, as it should be set out, is for regular workers, both in the mental and in the subnormal hospitals; and, whether it be for a day a week, half-a-day a week or whatever it may be, the work quickly becomes interesting to the individual. The patient gets to know and trust the volunteer, and the volunteer begins to appreciate the reason for his contribution and to understand why he is needed.

693
I do not have to tell your Lordships that mental illness touches all sorts and kinds of persons, but I would remind your Lorships that equally help in voluntary service can be given by all sorts and kinds of human beings. It is the person that matters, not the clothing or the cut of the hair. The very quiet, simple, unassuming housewife is a much more welcome helper, because of her understanding smile and gentle patience, than her counterpart with a rich car and a hasty manner. The help from youth which comes forward to-day is of tremendous value and welcome in every single way. It may not, perhaps, be uninteresting to report that due to a Motion in this House, set down by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, youth, together with a background of older people, undertook to build an indoor, heated swimming pool in one particular mental hospital—a hospital which has 1,200 patients. The matron tells me they have never had any shortage of nurses because recruitment is facilitated by the fact that there is a swimming bath.
There are many ways in which those who live in the area can help. Very often people do not realise how much they can do. They can help in a mental hospital with music or drama, with art or craft, with needle or paint-brush, with visiting or canteen work. The work in the mental subnormal hospitals is rather different and has its own problems. The social behaviour of the patients is unacceptable to the community, and their personal care needs constant supervision. They have not learned to live within the community, and so they are sent to an institution. Their surroundings are not what any of us would like, but we all hope that they are going to be very much better—and, here again, keeping in touch with the outside world, with the community to which they belong, is supremely necessary.
My experience is in the simple, humble things done by the volunteer—things done on a large and continuous basis. The provision of bright and gay canteens where the patients can feel that they are on their own and away from their usual hospital environment; the running of a shop; the provision of a club—these things are the beginning of a small movement towards the restoration of dignity and independence. As patients order and
694
pay for a cup of tea and a cake for themselves they begin to realise that they can do the same thing for other people. They recognise that they can entertain a friend, and they immediately take the opportunity to talk to someone sitting next to them at the table— a table at which the electrician, the telephone operator or someone else has just popped in for "elevenses".
All these little things start the patient moving forward towards self-dependence. They come slowly; and these people need a tremendous amount of patience to help them, whether it be in the selection of sweets or of cigarettes. I have watched a woman take 15 minutes to decide whether she would have pink or blue suckers! One realises then what is necessary in the way of tolerance and understanding on the part of the people who are helping. The time taken when a man is trying to decide what sort of tie he should buy or a woman is deciding on the colour of the stockings she is going to get is something that is unbelievable unless one watches oneself. With all these things, volunteers can help. They can help with the reading of plays in the clubroom, and they can help with all types of things—things that are a start to the return to normal life, aided by the quiet, patient help that can be provided. I would ask your Lordships to believe me when I tell you how deeply moved I have been, again and again, watching a man sitting in a canteen with a cup of coffee and a large jug of hot water, eking out his coffee, with the aid of a great deal of sugar, to last as long as two hours, so as to be sitting at a place busy with the va et vient of the people who, to him, are the world, and being given a feeling of being among other people, a feeling of friendliness, a feeling of happiness. Shops and canteens teach the patients to make choices and to spend their money. Beauty parlours which have been started in some hospitals help the women to re-establish their own self-respect, and individual kitchens where cooking is reintroduced to the housewife are of tremendous help. Friendly visiting is of great value. This is a field in which a great deal more could be done by a great many people.
As the volunteer works in the hospital —and this is the theme I really want to impress on your Lordships—so does much understanding come to him, under-

695
standing that as an individual within the community he can really do something and be responsible. As he returns to the community this understanding in turn is shared with others by talking to them and by suggesting to them that their help also is needed. So little, when it is provided by those who are thoughtful of the loneliness of the patients away from home and personal surroundings, means so much when one is in hospital. Those with whom I have talked and who have invited patients to their homes for tea (and use good china and good linen) are made humble by the appreciation shown by their guests. A garden tea party with posies of flowers by each individual's plate results in so much pleasure that the hostess is appalled to realise how much she could do if she only applied herself to it.
Voluntary service in its manifold shapes can teach individual members of the community something of the degree of tolerance which can be such a strong factor in influencing admissions to and discharges from mental hospitals. This is where the community is suffering from a lack of knowledge, lack of impetus and lack of energy. One is apt to think of the community as a whole instead of as a collection of individuals. I am sure that if those who make up the community were to realise even a small part of their capacity to help, the lot of those in mental hospitals and subnormal hospitals could be greatly helped. The reentry, such a difficult thing at any phase of life, could be made easier for the ex-patients as they return to their own background within their own community.
5.55 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I should like to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and to the House because I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate. To-day is Prize Day at our local district hospital in Epsom. I had promised a long time ago to attend and I feel I ought to do so, if only out of loyalty to the staff of that hospital. I hope that I have the indulgence of the noble Baroness and of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whom I should like to congratulate on a most courageous and thought-provoking speech with which to introduce this debate. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun,
696
on a particularly charming maiden speech. I am sure that we all hope to hear much more from her in the future.
My Lords, Governments of all political Parties come and go; but the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick are with us, however good or bad the Government may be. I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, in her typically wise speech when she said that we are a nation of individuals and not just a mere collection of people. Those who are mentally handicapped are, each one of them, single, individual people. I think it is a fair estimate to say that on average one person in eight or nine at some time in their lives has treatment for some form of mental illness. This happened recently to a very close member of my own family. It need not necessarily be something particularly serious; it may just be a nervous breakdown—which is a small thing compared to the illness of somebody who is severely handicapped for life. It is when we think of mental health along those lines that our attitude, whether contemporary or in the past, must really take a jolt.
The first experience I had of visiting a mental hospital, or an asylum as it was called at the time, was at a large hospital in Bedfordshire. It was still known as "the loony bin", but, thanks to a very enlightened medical superintendent, the lot of the patients and the staff—this was just after the last war and shortly before the National Health Service came into being—was a relatively happy one. I myself used to play billiards with some of the patients as well as with the medical superintendent and his son, whom I happened to know particularly well. Contemporary attitudes have changed. There are more open days in our mental hospitals. The hospitals on whose house committee I have the honour to serve has as its outstanding chairman of the hospital management commiteee a Member of your Lordships' House. We have heard his first-class speech to-day. Here we have an outstandingly good staff, a dedicated staff with whom those of us who are on the house committee work in close liaison. We visit the wards; we talk to the nurses; we talk to the patients. Some of the patients are very severely handicapped; many will never walk; many will never talk; but I repeat that

697
they are all human beings and should be treated as such.
Much has been said about our nursing staffs. Perhaps we tend to think of a radius of 30 to 40 miles of London as containing the whole of our mental hospitals. Some forget that there are places like the Black Country, that there are places on Tyneside and places near Glasgow which are perhaps not as salubrious as those areas nearer London. But, my Lords, mental health in those areas is just as important, if not more so, and one should be particularly grateful for the work of the staffs of hospitals in areas where it is perhaps not so easy to gather together a "League of Friends"; or where the local Rotary Clubs or Round Tables are perhaps not quite so prolific in membership. However, I think it may fairly be said that what might be lacking in quantity would certainly be made up for in quality, because the people of those places are people with extremely warm hearts.
There is a large mental hospital in Hertfordshire—I read about it in the Sunday Times supplement the other day —which has something like 24 different nationalities represented on the nursing staff. There are a large number of hospitals, and certain other noble Lords and I attend the prize-giving ceremony of one of them. There almost all the student nurses come either from Commonwealth countries or countries other than Britain. We should be extremely grateful to these people. It hardly needs me to reinforce the view already stated that if these people who came from Spain, India, Hong Kong, Sweden and other countries went back to their own countries tomorrow, it would be no exaggeration to say that the National Health Service would break down.
I live in a town in which there are seven mental hospitals, dating back to the Victorian days when these places were situated in concentrated areas. Recently one of the evening papers carried out a picture probe among some of the local people. This probe was not very favourable to the hospitals in the area. The impression given was that the local people lived in a reign of fear. My Lords, that is just the attitude that I hope we are trying to dispel this afternoon. Of course, if you have a young family
698
and if you have patients from mental hospitals in the area, there is some risk. There have been incidents on our local common in which young girls and indeed children of both sexes have been attacked, and every now and again it may well be that a patient from a mental hospital was responsible. But that is not by any means true in every case, and I think that our Press and television, who on the whole do a very good job in this connection, have a bounden duty to make this absolutely clear; because if the staffs of these hospitals are not loyally backed up by our communication media, no campaign by any Government or from any other source, to recruit nursing stalls will succeed.
My Lords, I conclude by saying this: the more people who can visit mental hospitals on open days the better. The more schoolchildren from private and State schools who are enabled to meet their less fortunate colleagues the better. We all have to realise that we in your Lordships' House to-day, who have our sanity, are no more or less human beings than those unfortunate fellow creatures who cannot walk or talk, many of whom are in our mental hospitals. As I see it, that is what this debate is all about.
6.5 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, as one of the medical Members of your Lordships' House, I should like to add my thanks to those of other noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for his excellent opening speech and for initiating this debate. The noble Lord deliberately opened the subject very widely for us in his title. Naturally, he referred to the fact that he could not cover every aspect of it himself. Nor, of course, shall I try to do so. I shall confine myself—not I hope at too great length—to two questions, some points about community services, and something about the education, or I might almost say the non-education of doctors and medical students in psychological medicine. As I have never specialised in the field of psychological medicine myself I have consulted a number of eminent colleagues who are my friends, and I shall call on their material and quote from it when necessary.
There has been great progress in mental health in the last 25 years and developments of which I think we may

699
reasonably feel proud. The opening of the locked doors in mental hospitals and the opening of the mental hospitals into the community have transformed the relationships between patients and staffs, both within the hospitals and within the community, and the attitude towards the needs of psychiatric patients. The establishment of psychiatric units in general hospitals, the more active therapeutic programmes of mental hospitals, have brought the image of the psychiatric patient closer to that of a physically ill person who requires medical care; and at the same time an increasing emphasis has come to be laid on the psychological, social and family facets of psychiatric disorders. This has had its effect on medical practice as a whole.
Yet, my Lords, the amounts of money invested in community care are quite inadequate to do anything like a satisfactory job. There are far too few social workers, and the role of these and other community workers, and the optimal form of organisation, requires more precise definition. There is urgent need for objective investigation into the quality of care of such individuals who are discharged from mental hospitals into the community. There is some evidence that areas in which the community services are exceptionally poor get more than their share of patients discharged from the local hospitals. Some of these patients tend to drift into inferior lodging houses, or into vagabondage. As one of my friends said, it has become accepted as a principle that the community should care for its disabled persons, be they physically or mentally handicapped, but nobody has really defined community care; least of all have they asked whether the community really does care. Moreover, the effects of these current trends on the family also require investigation. Families are expected to care for psychotics, dementias in old people and the mentally subnormal. What are the social consequences of this? There is some danger of a backlash of intolerance. It tends to be forgotten that there are not numbers of pairs of spare female hands available at home. The emphasis on community care has come to stay, but programmes will need to be developed and applied with realism, flexibility and humanity, if we are not to run into serious difficulties.
700
Turning now to medical education, and starting at the beginning, I must say that there is still a quite inexcusable lack of any proper training in psychological medicine, and in the psychological background which should precede it, in most of our medical schools— though many of them are beginning to wake up to the facts. The Royal Commission on Medical Education called attention to this in strong terms and also to the almost equal lack— can you believe it?—of sex education, even to medical students, in universities. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to this point in her speech. This lack of adequate attention to psychological medicine leads to a vicious circle. Because of it good men are only comparatively rarely attracted into psychiatry. Thus there is a shortage of teachers and, of course, the inadequate instruction in psychological medicine goes on. Fortunately, there are now a few very important exceptions and some very good growing departments of psychiatry, psychological medicine, mental health—call it what you like—but they are usually inadequately staffed and provided for. There is a real need here for something to be done to encourage these departments with better facilities and more money to spend, more teaching time and more opportunities created for the personnel they train, so that in time—and it will take some years —we can build up a core of good research departments in psychological medicine and good teachers to go with them. Only in this way, by a new realisation of the importance of psychological medicine in medical education, will the vicious circle to which I have referred be broken.
Even those who do become teachers are mostly concerned with adult psychiatry and not with child, or (as it is better called) family psychiatry. The emotional development of the child is neglected in teaching and research. Yet only here can the beginnings of psychological illness be studied; and only through this study can the violence and instability of certain young persons be eventually prevented or at least mitigated. The proper education of future general practitioners in psychological medicine is equally important and should also have a preventive function. At present, far too few of them are equipped to deal with the everyday neuroses and anxiety states,

701
and with the early symptoms of mental breakdown which form so large a part of their practices—though here, as everywhere, I know of honourable exceptions to the general state of ignorance, an ignorance for which, I repeat, the medical schools are largely to blame.
Recruitment to the field of psychiatry suffers in another way. Quite naturally, young men and women with inquiring minds have been caught up in the technological advances of our age and are attracted to the departments in which phenomena of organic and physical disease can be accurately measured and assessed; and are little attracted to the vaguer and more difficult disorders of behaviour, which often they find frightening and bizarre. This re-erects the barrier between disorders of the body and disorders of the mind which it is important to try to remove; and, as a result, psychiatry gets less than its share of the kind of individuals it most needs. Yet there are plenty of questions to be answered in the psychological field, plenty of opportunities for rewarding research. One way to attempt to break the vicious circle would be to do what I believe has been done in Sweden, for the Government to take action to endow in various universities and medical schools research departments in psychological medicine. It is believed by friends whom I have consulted that there would now be enough good men to make a start with departments such as these.
My Lords, I have spoken mostly from the doctor's point of view, though I am very well aware that in this field the doctor is but one member of a team. But other noble Lords have spoken of other aspects of the mental health services, and I am convinced that doctors have an essential role in creating the new attitudes towards mental health which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, so rightly feels are necessary. But until medical education is drastically revised, the doctors will far too often remain reluctant, unconvincing and insecure in a field in which their good influence and guidance are so much required.
6.17 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I had intended to discuss two matters which seem relevant to this debate. One was the question of priorities in connection
702
with public spending, but my noble friend Lady Birk has dealt very pertinently with that and given us some exceedingly vivid examples of the relevant expenditure on various services. The only thing I would add to what she said is to suggest that the money spent on the Concorde would go a long way if spent on mental health services.
The other matter that I wish to raise was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, when he spoke of fear of psychological treatment. With several other speakers, he pointed out that recent publicity given to deficiencies, and even abuses, in mental hospitals might have occasioned such fear. It is possible that there have been abuses, and we shall all agree that they should not be swept under the carpet: if they are not known, they cannot be remedied. There is no doubt that those sections of the Press and others who have given them publicity were not actuated by a desire to denigrate or frustrate the mental health services as such.
The same cannot be said of a sect which seems to have taken the field under the name "Scientology". For some months—indeed, I think, for a year—I have received, unasked, a great deal of literature from that sect. Much of it appeared to me to contain what can only be described as the ravings of lunacy. My first impulse was to consign it to the wastepaper basket, and that I did for some time. Then I began to think again and I consigned it instead to my neighbour, Lady Norman, who is a devoted and hard worker for the National Association for Mental Health, of which I believe she is Vice-President, because it seemed to me that this was getting beyond a joke. Such literature, if widely disseminated and likely to fall into the hands of ignorant or disturbed people, might indeed create a general fear of psychiatry, of psychology or of the mental health services, as such: because the literature that I received contained accounts of sadistic torture in mental homes and psychiatric units, of horrifying pictures of skeletons labelled "psychiatry", and of trampling on unhappy human beings. So it went on from week to week, and is, I believe, still going on. No doubt other noble Lords have been similarly visited.

703
The existence of this attempt, as I regard it, to denigrate the mental health services raises for the citizens of a free country a rather awkward problem. We pride ourselves on our freedoms: on the freedom of the Press; on the freedom that we allow individuals to express opinions, even unpopular opinions, to persuade others to share their opinions; to conduct propaganda, and to issue literature on behalf of their opinions. That is part of the freedom which we, as a free country with a free Press, cherish, and, I hope, shall always cherish. But there comes a point, in face of the kind of propaganda which is being carried on by the scientologists, when one may have to compromise with that conception of freedom.
I understand from the evening papers that I saw a little while ago in the Library, which contain a report of this afternoon's annual meeting of the National Association for Mental Health, that members of that sect, who have apparently infiltrated the membership of the Association, succeeded in disrupting the meeting, which I gather from the Press has been adjourned. What the result will be, I do not know. But this raises a legal problem. What I really want to know is whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of this risk; whether they have made any inquiries into the teaching and practice of this particular sect and its possible effect on the mental health services; and, if so, whether there is anything they can do about it.
6.22 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for introducing this debate to-day, because I feel that if ever a subject wanted a good airing, this is it. The problem of mental health is often swept under the carpet. In spite of progress in this field, I feel that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding, fear and mistrust. There is an element of "Don't know" and "Don't want to know". The composition of our planet has been explored, and outer space and the oceans are continually being probed. A tremendous effort has gone into the finding out about the rest of the human body and its ills, but the mind and the
704
brain has been left severely alone. To my mind, mental illness still carries a social stigma. People continually express revulsion about discrimination in other spheres, and I hope that some of this might be channelled into expressing disgust at treating mental patients as something apart. The illness itself makes no distinctions: it is everyone's problem, and can strike quickly and cruelly. I believe that one in four families in this country is in some way affected.
Is the attitude which I have described reflected in the fact that although some 40 per cent. of hospital beds are filled by mental patients of some kind, mental hospitals are in comparison understaffed and under-financed? I believe that a psychiatrist may well have to look after 200 beds in a mental hospital, whereas his counterpart in other spheres may not have to look after more than 50. The situation at the Ely Hospital seems a natural result of understaffing and under-financing. But I, like other noble Lords, should hesitate greatly before trying to criticise staff, who have a very difficult job in any mental hospital, because I feel that they and the patients alike are victims of certain public attitudes. While on the subject of staff, I should mention that over 40 per cent. of junior hospital staff come from abroad, and though we are grateful to them this is not a satisfactory situation in regard to psychiatry, where we need the maximum communication between doctor and patient. Three hundred doctors a year leave this country, and, as I say, this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I want to say a word about rehabilitation, re-employment and recirculation of mental patients. I feel that more should be done to bridge the gap between hospital life and the outside world. Here I support strongly my noble friend Lord Grenfell in his request for more hostels. I understand that in 1967 there were only 2,846 hostel beds available, and there is not much provision for sheltered employment and reserved jobs. This compares unfavourably with what is provided in other spheres of injury, disease, disablement and so on. In other spheres we have great work done by the Remploy Factory; and we have the 1944 Disabled Persons Act, which makes special provision for disabled people. I feel that this sort of attitude should be

705
adopted with regard to the re-employment of mental patients. There is a crying need here, particularly when we consider that 32 million working days a year are lost to the country due to mental illness.
In all this, no progress can be made without research; and here I feel that as a country we are falling down badly. The Ministry of Health figures for 1967 show that the Health Service cost £1,500 million, out of which £610,000 was allocated for all research, and only £50,000 for mental research. The Americans, as I understand it, spend 4,000 times as much as we do on mental research. I realise that the National Health Service is under great strain, but I think we should appreciate that perhaps £1 spent on research could easily save £100 being spent on bricks and mortar in the form of hospitals.
To augment money available for mental research, the Menial Health Research Fund was set up in 1954, and has so far raised £400,000 to finance 230 different research projects. A sum of £50,000 has been distributed in the present year. I help to raise money in the East Midlands Division of this fund, and I have been greatly heartened by public reaction and support. A wide variety of people are involved. Those of your Lordships who read the sporting Press will have seen that the Wolverhampton Wanderers and Irish centre forward, Mr. Dougan, recently received eight weeks' suspension for saying something to a referee, or not saying something to the referee, whichever the case might be. But it is an ill wind which blows no good, and he has promised to use this time to raise more money for this fund, in addition to the several thousands of pounds that he has already been responsible for raising in the Wolverhampton area. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the example he has given to all sportsmen and others by the great work he has done, and is doing. I believe that it is in no small part due to the efforts of people such as this that a revolution has taken place in recent years in the treatment of mental illness by modern techniques and drugs. I can personally vouch for the success of much of this. I hope that the Government will do all they can to encourage these spontaneous efforts, and that they might
706
perhaps, for example, allow exemption from tax for money bequeathed to such funds.
I realise that much of what I have said is impersonal and unreal in terms of the suffering and hardship experienced by many people. I want to conclude my speech by mentioning just one specific case of a slightly eccentric friend of mine with whom I and several Members of your Lordships' House were at school. For the past 12 years he has been detained under Section 26 of the Mental Health Act. Apart from the odd week-end staying in my house and one or two others, he has had almost no contact with the outside world, his family or friends. In my opinion (confirmed yesterday by my noble friend Lord Elton, who is unfortunately not able to be here to-day) he remains remarkably cheerful and sane. Some six months ago a part-time occupational therapist at the hospital, with the consent of the hospital authorities, found him an outside job with an understanding employer. The day before he should have started someone at the hospital changed his mind, and he was refused permission to start work. He is now back in his old empty and frustrating routine with hopes dashed. In my view, unless something is done he will become institutionalised and without hope and liable to stay in the mental hospital for the rest of his days.
I mention this case to-day because it so happens that this man is, or is entitled to be, a Member of your Lordships' House. I thought it might illustrate that this problem is not far away from these four walls. I also mention it because it seems to me to illustrate a classic case of "don't know" and "don't want to know" attitude, a certain lack of communication between a mental hospital, the outside world and employment; and perhaps, above all, the chronic need for great research so that such cases of needlessly frustrated and wasted lives may be a thing of the past.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I intervene just for one second, before Lord Soper speaks, on the question of funds for research? Of course I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken abort the need for more money. But we must not forget that the research funds in medicine, including psychological medicine, in this country largely come not

707
from the National Health Service, but through the Medical Research Council, and through the University Grants Committee. I did not want that fact to be forgotten.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord said.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, by this stage in this comparatively long debate I feel satisfied that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will have a quiet sense of satisfaction at the way in which the arguments have been deployed; and he has put us all in his debt for the initiation of this debate and for the quality with which he introduced it. Perhaps even more gratifying is the large amount of common ground that has been trodden by the various speakers and the large element of congruity in the kind of general results that have followed from the setting out of arguments and the describing of conditions. I should like to re-emphasise some of these common points. Let me begin by establishing unanimity with my noble friend Lady Stocks in her animadversions on Scientology. I think it is sufficient for your Lordships' House to read the "stuff", and that will have a converting influence immediately, and prevent any further contamination. The trouble is that there are so many suggestible people who are right for any kind of totalitarian offer, and I would cordially invite the Government to accede, if they can, to the general requirement that Lady Stocks was putting forward.
However, on the general theme of the debate, this is no comparative matter in the field of ethics or human behaviour. Your Lordships will have sensed the sense of almost the absolute in what has been described and called for in this debate to-day. I am reminded of the occasion when I listened to Dr. Inge comforting a number of undergraduates who were quite sure that there was no such thing as absolute morals. He said that there was, and he was challenged to give an illustration of anything that was absolutely wrong. He said that it was absolutely wrong to ill-treat a child; he said that it was absolutely wrong to mock the insane. I have never forgotten that second absolute. I was reminded of it a few days ago when I visited one of the great, large
708
hospitals for mentally afflicted people, what has been cynically described as forming the "lunatic fringe" of London, stretching from Epsom, in the South, to St. Albans, in the North.
It happened to be the last day of this year's Indian summer: the countryside was resplendent, and the outward and visible signs of this large conurbation were equally attractive. It was my business to go to a closed ward. As I entered it, about 80 pairs of eyes were fixed upon me, and it was my job to try to talk to a number of people inside that closed, locked ward. I do not know whether I was more affected by the person whose eyes were fixed on me, and who said she could tell me of the room—which was very close—where they had the straitjackets, and where people were confined in chairs, or by the person with a blank look who told me that she was quite sane and was going to be released within a few days. The word "mockery" came back to my mind.
As I think of these things, I am well aware it would be foolish and churlish to fail to recognise that great changes for good have taken place; and that perhaps experiences in these large and, in my judgment, wrongly sited and wrongly formed hospitals are the residual legacies of the past, and no longer represent the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. The second unanimity to which I believe we have come is that the general direction to which Her Majesty's Government look, and the plans in the pipeline, are right. There may be modified rapture as to the pace at which they are going, but there is little contradiction as to the correct nature of this trend away from the whole area of stigma, and towards the area of community care.
I think your Lordships will also agree, however, that even if there is a marked movement towards better things there is still, if not stigma, at any rate indifference. One of the phrases colloquially to describe insanity is "round the bend". I believe that the vocabulary for those who are insane, as well as for those who are drunk, is probably more voluminous than almost any other human affair. When I think of "round the bend", I think of out of sight, for that is precisely, geographically, what "round the bend" means. As in our prison background, so with care for those who are mentally

709
afflicted, there are far too many people who would prefer that the mentally afflicted are round the bend, so that they can no longer be seen; and in so many cases what the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over. if we have been pricked in our consciences to-day and can communicate the sense of conscientious realisation to a wider community, we have done, I think, the first thing to break into this wall of indifference.
How will it be done? There has appeared in speech after speech the recognition of the block system, the large hospital catering, or pretending to cater, for a thousand mentally afflicted people, and of the intolerable strain on those who do the caring. Let me add my word of commendation and my word of humble recognition for the splendid work which is done, the self-sacrificial work which is done, and to echo what my right reverend friend said. He said he was surprised, as I think we all are, at the number of people who vocationally accept this unrewarding work and pursue it with such diligence. It nevertheless remains true that the proper care of those who are mentally afflicted must entail reducing the total numbers of those who are congregated together under conditions which militate against their own personal therapy. Therefore, how right, in my judgment, speech after speech has been in claiming that smaller units attached to local hospitals must be preferred to those vast conglomerations of 19th century huge residential premises, which were never really suitable and are now in so many respects a mockery.
I want to draw attention to one particular group: the rootless, unattached adolescents, of which there are far too many in London—and indeed it would be far too many if there were very few. I have it on the highest authority from those who, as in the Tavistock Clinic, have expert knowledge of this matter—and I have a little myself—that what is needed is far more experimentation, not only in day care but in residential care; and that residential care must be tuned to and geared to a variety of rootlessness and a varying degree of mental stress and difficulty. I am sure there is need for more approved hostels of the kind I know something about in the Catherine Price youth hostel. I am sure there is profound need for more hostels in which
710
to care for boys. The tragedy is now that so often those who work in the Tavistock Clinic find in the end that the rootless adolescent ends up in borstal, where of course he cannot be refused. This is one of the experimental elements in your Lordships' debate which I am quite sure Her Majesty's Government have already intended to take seriously, and I hope they will be spurred by the unanimity with which this need has been expressed.
I will detain your Lordships to talk about only one other matter. I believe that mental health, as my noble friend Lady Birk exemplified in what she had to say, has more to do with social environment than have many other ailments from which we suffer. To put it simply, if I have a tooth that aches or if I contract gout—perhaps as a teetotal Methodist minister that is a more academic supposition, but suppose I were afflicted in either the tooth or the toe—therapy very largely would be directed towards that afflicted part; or at least such therapy would be directed to the individual who was suffering the affliction. But let me tell your Lordships a true story. Since the ingestion of the pill and the operation of the Abortion Act there has come a subtle and difficult change in the two hostels to which I have already given mention.
Once upon a time we calculated that if there were one disturbed girl among (shall we say?) 13 or 14 more or less stable girls, the effect of the stability would be reflected in an improvement in the condition of the unstable girl. But nowadays it is highly likely that those who come to a hostel—for instance, pregnant girls who are unmarried—will be those who are unstable, because of the opportunities that are now offered to more stable girls to avoid the troubles in which their less fortunate sisters find themselves. So it comes about that in these hostels today—I have checked it up within the last 24 hours—instead of having, say, 10 or 12 more or less stable girls (not ideal and not saintly, but stable) and one or two disturbed, the proportion is the other way round. This produces instability, or tends to produce instability, even among those who previously were stable.
The reflection which I would offer to your Lordships is that this question of

711
mental health has far more to do with society, far more to do with the background and the environment in which people live. I reflect that, sometimes with kindness and not always with contempt, a place was found for the village idiot in the community of yesterday. It is possible that he would not find anything like that same place in the conurbations of today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said so eloquently, and as I should like to repeat out of an experience which for me grows almost daily, unless we are prepared to recognise that community care means care by the community, expressed by the totality of the community, alike in its corporate relationships and its family relationships, we shall be left with a residuum of mental ill-health which will become increasingly intolerable.
Therefore I would add my word of thanks to those who have initiated this debate, and invite those who would become volunteers to cheer themselves up with one reflection. It is my experience, and no doubt my right reverend friend also shares it, that ordinary decent people, if they are prepared with love and care to take into their own heart and mind and sometimes into their own house, certainly into their own environment, those who are at present mentally disabled, do not require to think that they are inadequate for the task. They require, obviously, the trained and occasional help from the psychiatrist—better still, I think, the parson, but that is another matter—but what is essentially demanded is the recognition that it is possible for decent, ordinary people to rise to heights of social and personal care, which I believe will have a greater therapeutic effect on the sum total of those who are now mentally afflicted than almost anything else I can think of.
6.47 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for he is a very experienced speaker. However, I shall not inflict myself upon your Lordships for more than ten minutes. Like other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon in the important debate of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, calling attention to contemporary attitudes to mental health, I wish to congratulate him most sincerely
712
for initiating such a debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is one of the youngest Members of this Chamber a young man who has already proved himself in a thoughtful and brilliant maiden speech a few months ago. Like all noble Lords, no matter where they sit in your Lordships' House, I look forward to a great future for him in this Chamber.
Before going on to make my modest contribution to the debate, I should also like sincerely to congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, on her maiden speech. My thoughts have been with her very much this afternoon, for every noble Lord or noble Baroness in your Lordships' House will recall the anxiety which he or she had to face up to when the day arrived on which they had decided to "take the plunge".
The stress and strain of everyday life in our present age is in a great way responsible, I feel, for much of our mental illness. In consequence, it is of vital necessity for any Government in power to keep a constant watch on the ways and means in which we may be able to improve our National Health services where mental health and the necessary treatments and hospitalisation are concerned.
In this connection I am firmly of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government are doing a good job, and, in common with other noble Lords, I greatly welcome the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, on the Government Front Bench. I can think of no one in the Labour Party who is more fitted to undertake such high responsibility, nor can I think of anyone who would have devoted so much effort in the Ministry of Health and Social Security to the running of our mental hospitals. Your Lordships may have noticed that from time to time during the past year the noble Baroness has been absent from the Chamber. The reason was that she was visiting mental hospitals throughout England and Wales, trying to find ways and means of improving their administration, from the points of view of both the patients and the nursing staff. I felt very sincerely for the noble Baroness because of the many problems facing her. When she replies to the debate I wonder whether she can tell us how she has fared in connection with the existing problem of the understaffing of mental

713
hospitals, for I feel that this is one of the major problems in the administration of our mental hospitals.
On May 15 last I spoke on the question of nurses' pay and conditions and pleaded for justice for the nurses in teaching and all other hospitals. What I said is recorded in Hansard of that day's date, and I need not go further into it this evening other than to say that I fear that justice has not as yet been done, although I feel sure that the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Richard Crossman, have this firmly in mind and fully realise that justice in pay and conditions must be a priority in the National Health and Social Security Service. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, this afternoon movingly underlined this.
Again in this connection, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is to initiate a debate in your Lordships' House on a Motion for Papers asking Her Majesty's Government
"…whether they will consider the appointment of a review body to replace the present Whitley machinery dealing with the remuneration of nurses employed in the National Health Service in order to ensure that their pay is commensurate with their responsibilities."
Then, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, when she comes to reply, will also tell us what progress is being made in the social and welfare department within the National Health Service, for I have found from past experience that where mental hospitals are concerned there is some need for improvement, purely from the lack of teacher training.
To continue, those of your Lordships who have not experienced the great work which is done within our mental hospitals may not fully appreciate the difficulties that patients face when they are discharged. A patient is never discharged until such time as a psychiatrist is convinced that the patient is competent and willing and able to resume his or her normal responsibilities in the somewhat abnormal stresses of this day and age. it can and does happen that the patient may slip back. This is where a certain danger sets in, and that is why it is so necessary to have a broad and constant social and welfare follow-up. I am happy to say that, due to modern drugs and the skill of psychiatrists, so wonderfully backed up by a hard-working staff of nurses in our
714
mental hospitals, there has been no reason for 90 per cent. of the voluntary patients treated to return for further treatment. Of the 10 per cent, who do return for treatment, I believe the main cause is due to lack of understanding by the general public of illnesses of the mind.
For this reason, I recommend that we should all do our best to try to understand the problems of such illnesses. It is my firm conviction that if this were done, the greater part of the other 10 per cent. who return for treatment would not have to do so. I do not exaggerate when I say that a chance remark, such as "Oh, did you know that so-and-so has just come out of a 'bin'?" can trigger off a subsequent mental breakdown in a person who has already received treatment. Do let us try to educate the public a little more with regard to illness of the mind. No stigma should attach to one's having had treatment for mental illness. As yet, I fear, this is not quite so. That is why I urge Her Majesty's Government to seek ways of educating the public a little further with regard to these illnesses.
There is one other point that 1 wish to make. I would implore any former patients who are in need of subsequent help, following discharge, not to delay in seeking their doctor's help, and readily to accept his advice if they should be urged to undergo further treatment as voluntary patients. I mention this point because from experience I have found that even one day's delay can result in at least one week's further hospitalisation. In saying this, I do not wish to add to the problems of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. I do so simply with the idea of trying to suggest one way in which a quicker turn-round could be made.
In his excellent opening to this debate the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that the stigma is on the way out. I agree with him; but it has not completely disappeared, and I repeat that in my opinion it could be a thing of the past, provided that we continue to educate the public where illness of the mind is concerned. My Lords, I have spoken to-day as someone who in the past has accepted voluntary psychiatric treatment under the National Health and Social Security Service—treatment for which I am most grateful. In view of this, I considered that I should have been lacking in my

715
duty and responsibility to your Lordships' House if I had not spoken.
6.59 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, on her maiden speech, and also on the subject which she chose as her main theme, that is to say, an appreciation of all that is being done in our mental services with so few resources. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for having introduced this debate. It has indeed been wide-ranging. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, took us into the fields of contraception and sex education. I do not want to say anything about that, except that I shall be glad if my two youngest children get through school before she gets any further with her plans.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: Hear, hear!
LORD SANDFORD: Then, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, led us off on to scientology. I think it was a good thing that she raised this difficult subject, because it is a difficult one to deal with in a society that believes in free speech. Only the other day I heard from my honourable friend the Member for St. Albans and my friend the right reverend Bishop of St. Albans, who have had a similar problem with a self-styled college near that town which has already been the cause of a nervous breakdown by one of the people rash enough to attend it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is going to deal with this and would like more information, I can give it to her.
I should like now to turn to the question to which several noble Lords have referred; namely, the inadequacy of the resources committed to the treatment of mental disorders, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and to some extent perhaps answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. I think we can see how serious this problem is if we look at one or two figures. The cost of maintaining an inmate in an acute general hospital for one week is £45 11s. 1d; the cost of maintaining a convicted criminal in prison is £15 10s.; the cost of maintaining a patient in a mental hospital is £14 7s. 5d.; the cost of maintaining a subnormal patient in a
716
mental hospital is £12 5s. 7d. Those are 1968 figures in respect of the hospitals and 1967 figures in respect of the prison. Surely something is wrong here.
On the question of staff, in the case of the care of the physically ill one nurse looks after one patient; in the care of the mentally ill one nurse looks after four patients; in the case of the mentally subnormal one nurse looks after five patients. Surely there is something wrong here, too. Take the case of consultants. In the case of physical illness we have one consultant to 19 patients; in the case of mental illness we have one consultant to 128 patients; in the case of the subnormal we have one consultant to 570 patients. Surely there is something wrong here as well.
Looking at hospital buildings, Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, pointed out, are following the 1962 hospital plan. This envisaged the development of psychiatric wings in general hospitals, and that was good. It envisaged the running down of the large, old mental hospitals, and that was good. But by that plan we shall still need beds for 92,000 mentally ill patients, leaving out the subnormal altogether, and in 1975 we may well need more. It is really quite unrealistic to think that enough money will be available, unless there is a very radical change, for 92,000 beds in those old hospitals to be converted to 92.000 beds in nice new psychiatric wings by anything like 1975. And if it were, would it be right to spend it on buildings and none of it on staff? The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, did not indicate that we were going even to attempt to do this, but I think it raises false hopes to give any impression that we shall be able in the near future to sweep away all these old hospitals.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did not give the impression that we were going to sweep them away in the near future. It was very specifically explained that I did not think we could.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not mind my emphasising what she said, because I think it is important in order not to raise false hopes in the staffs who are going to have to work in these old hospitals for a very

717
long time ahead. Still on the question of the inadequate resources for this field, I should like to turn, as other noble Lords have, to the question of research. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, was right to remind your Lordships that this is channelled through the Medical Research Council. The amount spent by that Council on mental disorder, which reached over £1 million for the first time last year, one might think was substantial and satisfactory. But this very large figure, or so it would seem, is only just over 8 per cent. of the Medical Research Council's total expenditure, the point at which it has been stuck for the last five years. If one considers—and several noble Lords have said this—that 40 to 50 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by mental patients, 8 per cent. of the money spent on research seems to me very inadequate.
There is another factor which prompts me as a layman to think that this central effort on fundamental research is so inadequate, and it is this. If the noble Baroness will allow me to suggest a correction, I think it was in the 1930s that Sakel in Hungary introduced the insulin treatment; later on E.C.T. was discovered in Italy, leuchotomy in Portugal, and then, as she said, the French hit on the tranquillisers in 1950. All that constitutes advance and it is certainly very recent, though perhaps not as recent as was indicated. But it is an advance which has been made, I believe, by people stumbling on things when they were really looking for something else; and at least two of those forward steps have been based on theories about mental illness which have since been falsified. So far as I can understand, though treatment now proceeds, and indeed advances, there would still be very few experts able to give a comprehensive account of the fundamental causes of the main mental illnesses without any fear of contradiction from their colleagues. I believe that is the position.
I should have thought, in these circumstances, that the need for far more than the numerical share of any research was required on the mental health side. The applied research efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, which is about 16 per cent. of the total effort, is better than the M.R.C. is doing, but I would judge that neither is a match for the work to
718
be done, and that here is really a case for grasping the nettle, as one noble Lord mentioned earlier.
I turn from this question of resources and the right balance to the centrality of community care in this field, which everybody has recognised and applauded. I believe that the Mental Health Act 1959, although, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, it was perhaps weak on the preventive side, will rate as a great turning point and one of the more far-reaching pieces of social legislation in the last decade. Last year, eight years after its coming into force, its main central concept of community care for the mentally disordered came true for the first time, when the number of patients in care in the community, 194,000, exceeded the number in care in hospital, 184,000—that is, mentally ill and subnormal taken together; the total case load of G.Ps. numerically exceeding both together. I submit that this marks the point after which we need to regard the facilities, such as they are—they have been immensely improved but they are far from adequate—in the community, and the care, such as it is, in the community, as the focus of treatment for the mental patient, and the mental hospital as the place to which from time to time and for fairly short periods of a week or so he goes for assessment and more intensive treatment.
However, the pattern of progress from community to hospital and back again varies enormously from area to area according to innumerable local factors, making it abundantly clear that it is virtually impossible to arrive at the optimum policy, from the patient's point of view, unless the hospital catchment areas and the local authority areas are made coterminous, so that the local policy for mental treatment can be formulated and executed by an authority that can decide the priority of expenditure and staffing for hospital and community and general practice within the same geographical area. It is abundantly clear, from what has been said in this debate, that this applies particularly to the psycho-geriatric problem. If something like this is not brought about, I see these poor, feeble minded elderly patients becoming a shuttlecock between these three services.

719
Whatever balance of pros and cons there may be for the integration of the three parts of the National Health Service in other fields, in the mental health field the case for integration in coterminous areas is quite imperative and conclusive. Just as imperative and conclusive is the case for the integration of the social services for the mentally disordered, again within the same geographical area. Not only does it seem to me that the case for inclusion of the mental social services in area terms is well made in the Seebohm Committee Report, but so also is the case made for the psychiatric social workers to be concentrated in the local authority social service departments, once the integration of the three parts is achieved within the Health Service. I hope I make myself clear to the noble Baroness. Once that is done, it surely would be best for the psychiatric social workers to be employed in the social service department and seconded from there to the psychiatric hospital rather than vice versa, and rather than having their valuable and scarce manpower divided between two treatment agencies. It will be interesting to see how the Scots work this out because they will have to face it first. From the social service department and the local social service teams it should, I think, be possible in an increasing degree to second social workers on a part-time basis to general practice.
I should like to turn, and here follow the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, to the development of voluntary service in the mental health field. It is fashionable—though of course the noble Baroness knows too much about it to say so—to say that the main role of the voluntary organisations in social service is to plug gaps in the Welfare State; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, there are certainly plenty of them, and big ones, in this field. That is not at all the main aim of the voluntary service. The main role of all voluntary service and voluntary organisations is to give the lay citizen larger and larger opportunities for bringing into being, and keeping in being, the kind of compassionate society which we all want to live in. The main role of voluntary organisations is to prevent our society from being shaped and moulded by the professionals and the bureaucrats
720
because we are too indifferent or lazy to fashion it ourselves.
I do not mean any disrespect in this to the professional servants of the Welfare State. The British Welfare State, and particularly the mental health and welfare services, are as good as any in the world, and I join my tribute to those that have already been paid to the professionals working in them. But the professionals in the mental health and welfare services, as elsewhere, are paid not to do our work of caring for us, but to help us, as lay folk, to look after our families, friends, and fellow citizens more effectively, and to bring into the community more enlightened attitudes and higher caring skills. It is not the case that citizens are there to be gathered in to make good staff shortages in the statutory services. If my view on this is accepted, and I hope it is, it follows that the aim of any institutions, any part of the Welfare State, is to maximise voluntary service and to spread professional expertise as far and as wide as it can be got to go, not only to doctors, patients and social workers' clients bat to the families, friends and neighbours with whom the patients and tile clients live and work. That this is capable of being realised is shown by the report that the King's Fund have produced on the organisation of voluntary work in hospitals.
This movement, building on what had already been done by the Red Cross, W.R.V.S., the Leagues of Friends, and so on, and starting originally at St. Thomas's among the general hospitals, and Fulbourn at Cambridge among the mental hospitals, with the appointment of a full-time organiser in 1963, has led by now to the involvement of up to 400 volunteers in a single hospital. This produces 25,000 to 40,000 hours of voluntary help per annum, so in fact it does plug a manpower gap in a big way. However, that, I think, is not the main point. A voluntary organiser who can do this brings among patients and nursing staff a great mix of antique dealers, actresses, train drivers, computer programmers and all sorts of people, in their spare time; it brings into an otherwise detached and isolated community all this varied contact with the outside world. This is good for the hospital community and good for the community outside, and

721
it is this great two-way process of knitting together which it is the main aim of the voluntary movement to promote. I very much hope that the publication of a document setting all this forward will encourage it to develop beyond the thirty or forty hospitals in which it now exists.
Finally—and I apologise for going on so long, but I think this is an extremely important subject—I should like to turn to the suggestion, which the Conservatives have had in their manifesto since the last election, of an inspectorate for the whole National Health and Social Security Service. It is very strange that the Government are taking so long to see the virtue of this proposition. They have accepted the idea that health and social security should be combined in one Ministry, and this is part of the same packet. One would have thought that when the Ombudsman was established—but, to the dismay of all, without powers to look into the Hospital Service—the alternative of an inspectorate for the Hospital Service would have been adopted. One would have thought that when Sans Everything and the Ely Report were causing so much concern, the advantages of having an inspectorate would have been even plainer. Exactly how it would be constituted, to whom it would report, to whom it would be responsible, are things that could have been discussed. There are plenty of models to refer to: the Police have their inspectors; the children have their inspectors; the Probation Service have also; but most apt of all is the greatly respected H.M. inspectors of Schools, to whom the whole education service, both statutory and independent, owes so much.
Speaking for myself, I am sure that the inspectorate, in contrast to the Hospital Advisory Service, which is not at all the right thing, should be independent of Whitehall, independent of local authorities. Its report should be published and available to the Press, and its aims should be to enlighten and form public attitudes by getting the firm facts to help the public to judge for themselves how the whole thing is going on and whether they are getting value for money, to appreciate what is being done in the service, to judge its efficiency and to judge the efficiency of the statutory and voluntary services and their partnership. Such an inspectorate would not be
722
in any way responsible for policy, or for dealing with complaints, or for conducting research; but its activities over a span of time would be of immense assistance, I believe, for those who were responsible for policy, who had to deal with complaints and who had to put research in hand.
It is a constant surprise to me that there is so much defensiveness about this proposal, because, after all, people who are doing their best—as the great majority are—have nothing to fear from being inspected. Those who are doing their best will have their service publicly recognised. The people who want to do better and to get ideas from other areas, will have everything to gain from the reports published by the inspectorate. The people who are not doing their best ought not to be allowed to continue without being spurred on. No one to-day questions the appropriateness of exposing the activities of management and company directors to the scrutiny of the shareholders; in fact, the idea is now to have them open to the scrutiny of their work force as well. So I should have thought, as shareholders of the National Health Service—which is what we all are—that we had every bit as much right to help keep an eye on the whole show and see how it is going, and no more so than in this field of mental health where so much is changing, where so much experiment and evolution is in hand, and where through community care there are so many opportunities for personal services to some patients, and so much danger of neglect and isolation to others.
I make no apology for labouring this point, and I do not press any particular detail. But, like Professor Townsend, who is well-known to Members on the Benches opposite and to others who have seen their hopes for the British Health Service eroded, if not dissolving, I see no hope for any further advance in the services, no hope for due recognition of what is being done, and no hope of more enlightened attitudes to mental health, without a very radical change in the style of leadership that we are getting now; a much more ruthless facing of the hard and very serious facts of financial stringency and staff shortage which confront us; and an end of the unnecessarily defensive attitude in Ministries and statutory authorities. To set up a strong, experienced, independent,

723
wide-ranging inspectorate is the first step to put this position right. I readily acknowledge that it will be a bold step to take, but I am sure it is overdue. This is a nettle still waiting to be grasped, but it is an agency which could do a tremendous lot to help us and to give this service the honour which is its due.
7.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I think that all of us who have been in the Chamber through the long hours of this debate will recognise that our discussions here today are welcome, certainly to Her Majesty's Government; and I would say that in some senses the debate is even overdue. All our thanks, and mine in particular, are due to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for the most thoughtful and moving way in which he introduced his Motion. It has also given us an opportunity to hear from the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, for the first time, and I join with other noble Lords in congratulating her on what I think we all agree was a most effective, informed and compassionate speech. This House, as I have learned in the last three years prides itself on the specialist knowledge of its Members and on the contribution they can make to particular topics in debate. In Lady Loudoun we clearly have a most valuable new addition to our counsels and I hope that, having overcome what to all of us is a considerable hurdle, she will now feel able to contribute freely and easily to our deliberations.
It is right that the services for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped should be the subject of public interest and concern, and it would be surprising if this were not so. It would also be surprising if these services were not at times the subject of public criticism. I am sure that all those people who are responsible for these services, in whatever way and at whatever level, and who are anxious to develop them, welcome informed and constructive criticism, for it is in this way that we can measure our achievements, that we can make improvements and can extend further as the frontiers of knowledge, in this relatively new field of the care, the treatment and the rehabilitation of the mentally ill, advance.
724
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who is always so wise in his thought that it would be fair to conclude from the debate that public attitudes have changed much more in the last ten years towards the acceptance and treatment of mental illness than they have to the needs of the mentally handicapped, who require support, help and care, of various kinds and in different degrees, from their earliest years right up to and into adult life. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, in what I think we all recognised as a typically practical, forthright and constructive speech setting the whole tone of our debate today, confirmed the view that I think all of us now hold, that the worst of the stigma of mental ill health is disappearing from our society, although clearly we still have some way to go until we see throughout the country the kind of constructive and positive attitudes which all of us would wish to see, including social acceptance of mentally ill members within the community itself.
As I have listened to the debate three main themes seem to have emerged from the many speeches that have been made. First, there has been the general discussion flowing from the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on changes in attitudes and the need for further change. Then several of your Lordships have dealt with the effect and consequences of those changes, including certain criticisms of services for long-stay patients and especially for the mentally handicapped. both children and adults. Finally, many of those who have taken part in the debate have spoken from knowledge, and very frequently from their own personal experience of the services, of the kind of action they think we should provide in order to develop more effective services in the future.
My Lords, in a debate of this kind it is clearly impossible for me to deal in detail with every topic that has been raised. My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe dealt generally at the outset of our debate with the therapeutic revolution that we have seen beginning in this field of mental illness, and with general aspects of the development of services within the community for the mentally handicapped. I will of course study with very great care the Record of the debate and will consider the suggestions which noble Lords have put to me. But in replying to-night I shall in

725
the main confine my remarks to those aspects of the services for the mentally handicapped which are causing us such concern and I shall try to indicate to your Lordships how the Government are trying to tackle them. I do this on the basis that most of us seem to have agreed during our discussion that the greatest changes, both in attitudes and in services, are now required in this field of our national and community health and social services. I think we should consider the developments that are needed for the future in the context of past achievements, which to my mind are more significant than the black spots which have claimed so much interest in the last six months. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, talked about resources. I do not want to labour the point with figures, especially at this late hour, but in financial terms the rate of progress is this. In the last five years the Government have raised the annual rate of spending on local health authority and hospital provision for the mentally ill and the mentally subnormal by, on average, about 8 per cent.
My Lords, in trying to form a balanced view of the achievements in these services I shall do as I always do and try to begin at the beginning, and start with the children. In this field we are coil cerned with children whose care, treatment and training must surely be at the heart of our pattern of services for mentally handicapped persons of all ages. Several noble Lords have spoken about the changes that have already taken place, and my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies gave the House at the outset of the debate certain facts and figures. But I am not sure, my Lords, when we think of the changes that have taken place, particularly in the last ten years since the passing of the Mental Health Act, and when we talk about the inadequacy of our services for community care, that everyone realises that it is the local authorities who to-day already care for the majority of mentally subnormal people—just under 100,000, compared with some 64,500 in hospital. In the child population, local authorities are, now making day and residential provision for about 28,000 children, compared with the 7,000 in our hospitals; and there are 20,000 children in junior training centres, including 3,000 of some of the most severely handicapped children
726
for whom our society needs to provide in special care units.
Great advances have been made, too, since the setting up of the training council for the Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped, in training staff to work in the training centres; and it is these junior training centres, with which many noble Lords will I am sure be familiar, that have shown that these children are not ineducable. It is on this basis of achievement that the Government have decided that the training and education of these children should become the responsibility of the education service. This decision is one which I believe will be welcomed, and has been welcomed everywhere, especially by parents. Those noble Lords who have had the unenviable task from time to time, as I myself have had, of telling parents that their child must be excluded from school, will know what it will mean to parents of handicapped children to feel that their children will in future be able to benefit from the whole range of educational services and not be cut off from them under this ugly term "ineducable". I entirely agree with the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, when he told us what a tragedy it would be if this new generation of youngsters, many of whom are better trained and socially much more competent than their predecessors, were to end up in large, long-stay hospitals because there was nowhere for them to live when their parents grew old—and this is a point I should like to develop a little later when I come to talk about changes needed in services in the future.
There have, of course, been vast improvements, too, in our hospital services, although I am only too conscious of the amount of public interest and concern that has recently been focused on our long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped. Over the past ten years, six virtually new sub-normality hospitals have been built, and there have been improvements and additions, as several of your Lordships know, to a great number of the existing ones. Unfortunately, the new provision has not always been reflected in an increase in the number of available beds, because some of these new buildings have admittedly had to be used to replace unsatisfactory accommodation and to relieve overcrowding. But all noble Lords have pointed out in their speeches that the day-to-day care

727
of patients in our hospitals depends almost entirely on nurses. Nurse staffing and nurse training are clearly the critical factors in providing better services and conditions of work. Between 1949 and 1967 there was a large increase—some 47 per cent.—in the nursing staff of sub-normality hospitals; but their numbers are still quite insufficient in view of the heavier work-load imposed on them by the increasing severity of handicap with which they now have to deal. I hear this story from nursing staff wherever I go, and it is clearly a factor that we shall have to take into consideration as we plan our services for the future.
The expansion of the local authority services has enabled many more of the less seriously handicapped to remain in the community, while previously they would have required community care. As a result, the proportion of those in hospitals who are severely disabled has risen. I do not think there is a single Member of the House who is familiar with cur hospitals who would not confirm this particular trend in terms of level of disability, particularly in the field of the multiple handicapped in some of our long-stay hospitals. Furthermore, this is a problem which several noble Lords have mentioned as one that will be with us in the future, in that higher survival rates among those born with serious handicaps have increased the number of patients who will continue to live into old age. It is also quite true to recall at this point that whereas the number of staff in some hospitals in some parts of the country is sufficient to enable nurses to provide no more than the basic care for patients, it is absolutely essential that this scarcity should not be allowed to inhibit new ideas in training which nurses are now receiving for this difficult and taxing work.
To-day, nurse training in this field is oriented towards the development of the patient's full potential—his self-confidence, his self-help and his self-reliance—and the aim of nurses, in association with all the other professions concerned, must surely be to develop in each patient the maximum social independence of which he is capable, to prepare him to return to the community wherever possible, or to enable him to live as full a life as he can within the supported community of the hospital. But it is quite
728
clear, from the changes we have already seen in the services, that further changes in nurse training will be required if we are to develop, and indeed to reflect, the concept that the care of the mentally handicapped in the future will extend beyond the conventional hospital. In a few moments I shall be saying something about the immediate steps we hope to take to improve conditions in our hospitals—a point on which I have been questioned by several noble Lords—and I have made this reference to nurse training at this stage because I am quite convinced that this is one of the areas where we need to see that there is rapid development in the immediate future.
Turning now to the question which has been the subject of so much discussion during the debate—namely, what are we doing now?—I think I can best answer in the context of what action my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I intend to take. I would also say that we see these measures as an earnest of the Government's intent to improve the existing services and to develop new ones. My Lords, immediately following the publication of the Ely Report, which has been spoken of at some length to-day, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set up a small, expert working party to advise and assist us in tackling problems which had been revealed in the existing services and to help us plan for the future. I am very conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, asked me what had happened since the Report, and I am equally conscious of the time at which I am speaking. I would therefore, if she is agreeable, only tell her at this stage that some 38 of the 45 recommendations have been carried out. I am more than happy to give details of what is happening on the remaining seven.
Ely was, whether we like it or not, a watershed both in policy and in thinking in this field. In addition to setting up the working party we have reviewed and are reviewing the whole question of dealing with complaints, with the object of ensuring that anyone—patients, relatives or staff—who wishes to make a suggestion or a complaint should know how to make it and feel free to do so in the confidence that it will be properly and fairly considered on its merits and without fear of victimisation. If you were to ask me

729
what I found the most disturbing feature of the Ely Report, it was that the nursing staff who complained about conditions had to go. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in a speech which I felt was somewhat at odds with the general tenor of this debate, was very critical of the Government's decision to establish the new hospital advisory service for the regular visiting and scrutiny of all hospitals, starting with our long-stay hospitals.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point? I was not critical. I said that it did not, in my view, constitute any sort of substitute for a full-blown inspectorate.
BARONESS SEROTA: Well, my Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, means by a "full-blown inspectorate", but I hope we can come to that in a moment. We decided to establish this new service, which clearly is not the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, would like to see. I must confess that I found some of his remarks difficult to follow. if there was an urgent need for an inspectorate in the National Health Service I am surprised that this is the first occasion that he has brought the matter to our notice. But, in addition to appointing the Advisory Service—and I will say a word about that in a moment—at the same time, because of the urgent nature of the situation which the Report on Ely revealed, we immediately called all Regional Hospital Boards into consultation and asked them to undertake an urgent, comprehensive review of the conditions in our long-stay hospitals. The Director of the Advisory Service was appointed on November 1. Although I know that all Governments are slow. I would submit to the House that, in view of the major policy implications of the setting up of such a new service in relation to the National Health Service, this was very quick work.
The Director will arrange for teams to visit the hospitals not only to disseminate information on new, improved methods of care and treatment and training and provide advice to those working there, but also to convey from the staff concerned—and we regard this as equally important—particularly from those working at ward level, their views direct to
730
the Secretary of State. The teams will be concerned not only with physical conditions in hospitals but also with their organisation and management. The Department of Health, the Regional Hospital Boards and individual hospital management committees will also be concerned with organisation in the hospital itself, and we hope that this promotional service, if I may put it that way, will enable those working in the Service to make the best possible use of the resources available.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his belief that what he called a "full-blown inspectorate" should be the organisation that we should set up at this moment of time and in this situation. I, too, am very familiar indeed with the working of the children's inspectorate at the Home Office and the educational inspectorate at the Department of Education and Science. I think that if you were to ask either of those two bodies to-day what kind of role they see themselves as playing, they would say, "Promotional, advisory, consultative". And not the noble Lord's "full-blown inspectorate", which I regard as a rather "old hat" way of raising professional standards.
Initially this new service, as I have already indicated, will concentrate on the long-stay hospitals and will be concerned both with work inside the hospitals and with its relationship to the general practitioners, the local authorities, the general public and the community it serves—in fact, with all aspects of the health and social needs of the patient. We have at the same time given a great deal of thought to the development of a proper and clearly understood complaints procedure. The House will be aware from my recent Written Answers to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now preparing new guidance to hospitals on the handling of complaints and will also be consulting the professional staff and others interested in this matter as well as in the idea of a Health Commissioner, on which we feel it is essential to have the views of the staff before final decisions are taken about the kind of structure that we should set up. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that these questions of complaints procedures and all that is involved, be it

731
through complaints procedures at hospital level or the introduction of a system of health commissioners, are matters very much in the forefront of our minds.
Clearly, a debate such as this is not complete without reference to nurses' pay and conditions. Several noble Lords have raised this question; and quite rightly. Since 1965 there have been two salary increases to nurses: one in 1965, up to 11 per cent.; and one last April, a salary increase of between 9 per cent. and 14 per cent. The last pay improvements cost the country £37 millions, and this comprehensive settlement should run until April of next year. I think I should remind your Lordships that in this last comprehensive review of the salaries of nurses, the "mental lead" of £50 was increased to £100 and extended to all grades of nursing staff in psychiatric hospitals, whereas previously it had gone only as far as ward sister level. The review body also recommended that paid overtime, which had previously applied only to students, pupils and nursing assistants in psychiatric hospitals, should be extended to all other grades in these hospitals up to and including ward sister and charge nurse. Both of those recommendations were implemented.
But in saying that, I am equally conscious that a new settlement is due to be negotiated by the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council for application as from next April. We are expecting the staff side claim very shortly and then negotiations will begin. In this context, those of your Lordships who are regular readers of the Morning Star will recently have seen a long article by the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing stating that they do not intend to by-pass the official machinery and to go round the Whitley Council in their activities. I say this because one is only too conscious of the level of public interest in this question of nurses' pay. We know the great affection in which the public hold nurses. I put the timing of the pay negotiations on record in this debate because I think it is a matter constantly in people's minds.
I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, as a member of his Regional Board, and also those noble Lords who serve as members of hospital management committees, for the efforts they have made since April 1
732
this year to re-allocate expenditure to give greater weight to the needs of our long-stay hospitals. It is not easy, my Lords, as those of us who have served on these bodies know, to change your allocations in the middle of a financial year, and this is what we had to ask Regional Boards to do in view of the very urgent and pressing problems which the report on the conditions at Ely Hospital revealed. As a result of their efforts—and I am only too conscious of some of the agonising decisions in which this must have involved them—the Regional Boards this year managed to devote some £2 million, which otherwise they would have used in other ways to improve conditions in our long-stay hospitals of all kinds. They have used it to recruit extra staff to develop schemes of staff training; to provide patients with personal clothing—a matter about which we are all concerned—and to provide lockers and better standards of decoration. As I have gone round the hospitals it has been possible to get some little idea of what this has meant to staff in some of our long-stay hospitals.
My Lords, this of course is only the beginning, and my right honourable friend has decided that a further £3 million, which represents an increase of 7·3 per cent. of the revenue estimates of the subnormality hospitals, will be made available to Regional Boards in the coming year to be used solely for improvements in subnormality hospitals. We are at present considering targets, immediate for the coming year, and continuous in terms of a five-year plan, so that we may guide and help hospitals where they need our help and show them the most effective ways in which these additional funds may be spent. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, is concerned about the whole range of immediate short-term measures. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford accused us of raising false hopes. I think I can do no more than give some kind of indication of the way our minds are going.
The Secretary of State and I have on many occasions spoken publicly and said that one of the things we can no longer tolerate is that less should be provided for food for the mentally handicapped than for other long-stay patients; and we are determined to close the gap that

733
exists between the standards of cost of provisions. This, my Lords, must be one of our top priorities. It will cost £1 million, but we shall be having discussions with Boards about making this money available. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is shaking his head, but those of us who talk to the staffs in our long-stay hospitals must be only too conscious of the fact that eating is one of the few pleasures in the lives of the mentally handicapped patients. I simply cannot understand why it is possible to make adequate provision for a mentally handicapped person for 26s. 5d. a week whereas it costs 33s. 10d. to provide an adequate standard of diet for a psychiatric patient. Mentally handicapped people are not ill, and we find this difference quite indefensible.
The other matters which we shall be discussing with Regional Boards who work out allocations of this additional money relate to staff and the use of volunteers. We must devise ways of lightening the burden on nursing staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, mentioned that they had inadequate domestic help. I think it also fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, pointed out to us, that they have inadequate medical help; the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave us the figures. We need more medical help in our long-stay hospitals; we need the help of a whole range of professional skills; occupational therapy; chiropody for the elderly; more help with the education and training and play facilities for our children in long-stay hospitals. We also need to initiate the new training schemes that I mentioned earlier, if necessary by the appointment of training officers, and we also need to do something about staff accommodation.
I have mentioned food as the first priority. The problems of personal clothing, which so many people have mentioned to-day, will present certain difficulties, as we all know; and we think that this kind of situation may perhaps be tackled over a slightly longer period—shall we say a two-year programme? I will mention our suggestions in relation to volunteers in a few moments when I turn to the need to encourage community involvement and participation in the work of our services in the field of mental health.
734
The other short-term measures include the building of two experimental demountable ward units, one in the North-East metropolitan region area and one in the Midlands, to see whether these buildings, which are comparatively cheap and quick to erect, can assist us in easing the overcrowding situation. So often, my Lords, it is not possible to relieve overcrowding because, let us face it, there is nowhere to care for the patients while improving and upgrading, and providing what all of us would regard as absolutely basic minimum standards of care. We have also commissioned a team of outside experts to undertake as speedy an evaluation as possible of various types of hospital buildings which have been used for the mentally handicapped and which have been completed in the last few years. We expect their first interim report in January.
I was delighted when the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, pointed out to us that we should not make the mistake of thinking that all improvements we wish to see simply require extra money. As she said, a great deal may be done without money. A great deal can be done to improve the quality of life of our patients. There is the whole question of the better day-to-day organisation of services within hospitals, and also the point which several noble Lords have stressed; namely, better communications between staff of different grades and disciplines. All noble Lords have agreed that there is a need to encourage even further development of closer links between the community and the hospitals. We need to encourage more help from voluntary bodies and relatives so that the patients may have outings and feel less isolated, and so that arrangements may be made for patients to go shopping and to go to their local stores. I must not give Lord Sieff's firm another "plug", but I think we all know where they want to go. There is another matter to which I attach very great importance; namely, that hospital management committees should look at the times of their meetings to see whether they cannot bring active younger members of the community into the work of hospital management and hospital visiting. These are some of the immediate steps that we have taken, and are taking, to remedy what we accept as defects in our present situation.

735
We are also very much involved in planning the services for the future. This clearly is a very complex operation and, as several noble Lords have said, it involves the reorganisation of our National Health Service and our personal social services—and indeed the restructuring of local government. The position of Her Majesty's Government on this question was, I think, made very clear in the Gracious Speech. After Christmas we shall be introducing legislation, following the report of the Seebohm Committee, and we shall also be producing a Green Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service and proposals on Maud. We accept—and I must confess that this was the only point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, with which I wholeheartedly agreed—that the personal health services, the personal social services and the reorganisation of local government are inextricably interlinked. It is in this context that the Government are looking at the future structure of these services. But whatever form the structure takes, it is clear from all that has been said today that effective services for the mentally handicapped will continue to require close co-operation among a whole range of services, however they are organised. I think that our aim and our thinking is to build on the fairly solid structure we have achieved in helping people to live outside hospitals, and especially to emphasise the need to develop preventive services for children.
My noble friend Lord Soper, from his great knowledge and experience in this field, reminded us that there will be a need for a considerable expansion in the provision of homes and hostels for children and adults. Local authorities have in prospect in their future planning some 2,300 residential places, but we think that this will need to be at least doubled. For adults they have over 4,000 residential places and plans to build by 1972 another 86 hostels, with an additional 1,860 places, but again a great many more places than this are going to be needed if we are to do what so many noble Lords have asked us to do—that is, to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and enable more patients to be discharged.
736
My noble friend Lord Soper made a plea for experimentation in this field, particularly with some younger groups, but I agree with him that hostels could well become a gimmick, if I may put it in that way. We need to provide a whole range of services and the more varied the range the more likely it is to meet the needs of individual patients. There are so many kinds of hostels, and if my noble friend and other noble Lords interested in this field can persuade people to try all kinds of experiments, I know that my right honourable friend and I will be deeply grateful.
I have mentioned the advisory group that we set up at the beginning of April to help us with planning both the short-term and the long-term strategies which we need to tackle the problem. One aspect of our consideration which has broken new ground is that we have had a two-day residential consultation (if I may call it that), with a whole range of people working in the services. It was very good, and I found the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, there, whether in his capacity of chairman of a hospital management committee or of treasurer of the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children, I do not mind. A whole range of people gave freely of their experience and knowledge, generally participating with Ministers in planning new services for the future. In a few weeks' time we are going to have a day with the nurses to do just the same thing. And when I say "nurses" I do not mean only matrons and chief nursing officers; I mean nurses from the ward level. Only in this way will we develop a realistic and practical policy. We cannot think out policy in the isolation of Alexander Fleming House. We are trying hard to get the views of as many people as possible on the kind of ways in which we should develop.
At the same time, we can develop on the solid findings of a number of feasibility studies which the Department has been undertaking. One is on the development of psychiatric services in a joint co-operative scheme with the Regional Hospital Boards, general practitioners and others concerned. A second is concerned with model services for the mentally handicapped and a third, perhaps even more ambitious, has just been started in the North Eastern Metropolitan area, where the object is to bring

737
together the services for the mentally handicapped and those for the mentally ill.
All these discussions covering the points I have mentioned, and many more, form part of the Government's major reappraisal of all aspects of the services for the mentally handicapped. We hope to complete this wide-ranging study by early next year, and we shall be publishing a policy statement for public discussion soon after the publication of the Green Paper. I can assure the House that we are determined to tackle these problems and not to neglect them or, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, sweep them under the carpet. I hope that the account that I have given to the House of the measures we have taken and intend to take and the special injection of funds which we are making available in the coming year, will testify to our determination in this field.
Many tributes have been paid to-night to the work of the staffs of our services to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I am most grateful for all that has been said by noble Lords, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for his kind comments about the work my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are trying to do. We have been visiting hospitals and local authority services extensively up and down the country during the last few months, and wherever we have gone we have been deeply impressed by the concern for the patients, by the personal kindness and by the stamina, which seems to us to be the special characteristic of the staff of mental hospitals. As our knowledge of the difficulties has increased by seeing them actually on the spot, although admittedly from what I call the "V.I.P. catwalk", so has our regard for their work increased and so, too, has our determination increased to create a situation which will enable them to do their jobs better. If this debate has done nothing else, we see it as yet another step forward in arousing the public conscience to the stresses to which those who work in our mental hospitals have been subjected.
I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the workers in all the voluntary organisations, such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough. the Women's Royal Voluntary
738
Service, the National Association of Mental Health, the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children and the Spastics Society, to mention just a few. These organisations have laboured in this field for a very long time and as the noble Baroness reminded us, in the past the voluntary organisations have pioneered many of our social services. We believe that they will need to continue to play an active role not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, to fill the gaps in the statutory services and to mobilise enough resources to provide this additional and, I think, necessary impetus for continued development, including experimentation in the forms of care, but also, above all, I would say, to enrich the quality of the services offered. I think all of us believe that there is in the public a vast amount of good will, which can be of immense practical assistance in the struggle with these problems.
I was in a large long-stay hospital on Monday morning, a hospital which has great difficulties and a considerable degree of overcrowding and concentration of patients with multiple handicaps. It was perhaps the most cheering thing that morning for me to hear that a group of boys was coming from a local school to help in the wards. The staff told me that at the beginning, when they heard that the boys were going to come, they wondered what on earth they were going to do; but they found that when they came they were prepared to do anything, and to do it with pleasure. That, I think, is a fair illustration of the kind of reservoirs of help that exist, and, I would say, particularly among the young. That is why, again, we feel that one of the first short-term measures, one of the ways in which this new injection of money can be used, is to extend the scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred, and have paid voluntary organisers.
My Lords, various other questions have been raised, including scientology and a whole host of others. I hope that, in view of the time, noble Lords will allow me to answer them individually. In the last resort, and in conclusion, one conies back to the point of Lord O'Hagan's Motion namely, "public attitudes". I see this debate as part of a much needed wider campaign to help the handicapped,

739
a campaign in which Government, both central and local, hospitals, voluntary associations, individual volunteers, staffs, relatives and parents must work together to improve the service. The community as a whole, as so many noble Lords have said, must accept its responsibilities for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and neither deny them nor hide them away in isolated institutions.
I am beginning to feel that, when the day comes when there is not a single local protest about the setting up of a hostel in a residential area, and when there is not a single child or adult in our long-stay hospitals who never receives a visitor, then we really will have changed public attitudes. I thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and all who have taken part in this debate. I hope that it will serve a useful purpose.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she kindly inform me whether the Government have considered, or will consider, what I asked for; namely, a certain amount of monetary help to those who have their children at home?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is aware that this is a matter that we have under consideration, and one to which I may say without giving away any secrets, the Government are very sympathetic. I must ask him to await the publication of the Government's new Social Insurance Bill, and to look there at some of the provisions suggested in it.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not really know what to say. I, at least, after all these hours cannot take in any more. So may I just thank all speakers most sincerely, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion?
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

EGYPT AND COMPENSATION FOR BRITISH ASSETS
8.15 p.m.
LORD COLYTON LORD COLYTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make a Statement on the failure of the Egyptian Government to honour the terms of the Financial Agreement of 1959 concerning British subjects in Egypt.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary or proper that, in raising this issue afresh, I should disclose an interest as a former Chairman of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. Nevertheless, I do so, and most wholeheartedly, as this is a cause which is very close to my heart. It is one which I fear, unlike the great and important issues which your Lordships have been debating this afternoon, has been swept under the carpet. Whatever view one may take of the events of the Suez Canal Zone in 1956, one thing is perfectly clear; namely, that among the principal sufferers were the members of the British community in Egypt, many of whom were deported at 24 hours' notice, and most of whom had their property nationalised or sequestrated.
The Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, as my noble friend Lord Trevelyan, who was my colleague on the Board, will know, was set up in 1957 to rehabilitate those British nationals expelled from Egypt. It was, however, subsequently entrusted with the additional work of making ex gratia loans to British subjects who had suffered expropriation or sequestration on the basis of the value of their assets up to a maximum of £10,000 each. These actions were no doubt undertaken in the light of the Government's Statement at the time that the Suez operation had been taken in order, among other things,
"to protect the lives and property of British Nationals in Egypt."
In this context, I would say that, as a result of the untiring and devoted pressure by the late Lord Killearn, repeated assurances were given by Her Majesty's Government at the time that the Egyptian sterling balances of £128 million frozen in London would not be released before British nationals had had their assets restored to them or had received compensation in full.
Here one must differentiate between British property in Egypt which was actually nationalised—or, as it was termed, "Egyptianised"—on the one hand, and property which was merely sequestrated; that is to say, was turned over to the Sequestrator General, as Custodian of Enemy Property, pending a settlement on the other. The former, nationalised property, was largely property belonging to large companies and to commercial firms. The latter was the property of private individuals, rich and poor.
On February 28, 1959, a Financial Agreement was signed with what had then become the United Arab Republic, designed to restore friendly relations between Britain and the U.A.R. In consequence of this, the U.A.R. paid £27½ million in full and final compensation for Egyptianised property and for certain losses arising as a result of sequestration measures. It was also clearly stipulated that British assets which had not been acquired outright by the U.A.R. but had merely been sequestrated would be restored within a period of three months to their owners or agents. In return, Her Majesty's Government undertook to release the frozen sterling balances, which, after deduction of £28 million belonging to the Sudan, and certain commercial debts, amounted to £75 million. This was carried out within a few days of the signature of the Agreement, and the money was used by the U.A.R. to settle debts which it had incurred in other countries.
Her Majesty's Government used the sum of £27½ million paid by Egypt to compensate the owners of Egyptianised property, albeit at a considerable loss to many of the claimants. But so far as the owners of sequestrated property were concerned, a long, heartbreaking and largely fruitless battle then began to regain what was left of their possessions in Egypt. The administrative difficulties created by the U.A.R., and the ingenuity of their officials, were apparent right from the start. It soon became clear that, even where token releases were made, the U.A.R., by pleading inter alia lack of funds for effecting transfers across the exchange, would not be meeting its obligations. This distinction immediately created inequalities between those categories of British subjects who had been fortunate enough to have all
742
their assets Egyptianised, and whose claim could therefore be promptly established and met, and those whose assets the Egyptian Government merely claimed to have temporarily sequestrated. The latter—and these are the people whose cause I am pleading to-night—were placed in circumstances of particular difficulty, because even at that juncture discriminatory measures were being enforced against British nationals who had held permanent Egyptian residence visas, and who were not granted re-entry permits, even of a temporary nature, to enable them to go there to wind up their businesses. There is no doubt whatever that there was definite discrimination against members of the Jewish community.
As a result of failure to secure implementation of the 1959 Agreement, further discussions were held in 1962. In the main, these confirmed the clauses of the 1959 Agreement, with the object of properly carrying out the Agreement. Her Majesty's Government at the time agreed to lend the United Arab Republic the funds necessary to effect cash transfers of up to £E.5,000 per person. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government set up a Grants Committee with the object of assisting those British nationals who were destitute, or who had fared particularly badly at the hands of the U.A.R. When we consider these arrangements, my Lords, and the problems created by the transfer across the exchange, it is ironic that when the Tiepolo ceiling, which was discovered in the Egyptian Embassy in South Audley Street, was sold at Southeby's for half a million pounds, that was immediately placed on the external account and at once made transferable to Egypt. As a result of these events, many who had qualified for an ex gratia loan from our Board at the time of the Suez operation and were still in difficulties were assisted. On the other hand, pressure was brought to bear concurrently for substantial repayments out of the ex gratia Treasury loans. My own impression at the time a may be wrong about this) was that these repayments would be required only when full repayment of the losses by these persons had been made. What actually happened was that in many cases the amount of the loan was automatically withheld from any compensation received. It is known that in many cases little or no

743
benefit accrued to the claimant beyond the cancelling of his debt to the Treasury.
We now come to a further stage, when a number of nationals whose assets were purported to be released in 1959 found that they had subsequently been either disposed of by the sequestrator, and the proceeds of the sale set aside, or re-sequestrated. In the case of some 150 to 200 British nationals, these further measures of sequestration and discrimination took place. They were imposed under municipal legislation, and I should have thought (although I am no lawyer) that that entirely contravened international law, since the Financial Agreement of 1959, as an international treaty, would automatically override any municipal legislation. Repeated protests and requests for information by Her Majesty's Government between 1960 and 1967 were ignored, but meanwhile the process of spoliation, confiscation, and maladministration went on unchecked. The value of the property thus affected is estimated to have been between £20 million and £35 million in 1956. According to an Answer which was given in another place by Mr. Rogers on February 9 of this year to Mr. Wall, these losses have brought down the estimated value of such property to £11 million, In many cases losses have accounted for more than 50 per cent. of the value of the property. I will not detain your Lordships unnecessarily, but I could quote from statements by the Prime Minister in 1959, and indeed from other statements in this House, where it has been said that Her Majesty's Government would if necessary provide further contribution from public funds to meet the cases of those who were in particular distress.
As a result of the failure of the Egyptian Government to implement in full either the 1959 Agreement or the 1962 Agreement, further conversations took place in 1967. It is apparent from a further exchange of Notes between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Republic dated April 24, 1967, which were published, that this matter of the applicability of municipal law was something on which both Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government appeared to be unwilling to accept responsibility for any further losses. It is believed that at the time the only reason why the Government
744
of the United Arab Republic agreed to this exchange of Notes was in order to claim before the International Monetary Fund that the U.A.R. intended to respect its financial obligations. The forebodings of the claimants were made known to the Foreign Office at the time, but once again its seems to be the case that the rights—I will call them rights, and not just interests—of a minority have been sacrificed either in the interests of expediency, or in the so-called wider public political interest. If it is right to sacrifice someone's rights in the national interest, then surely the Exchequer should adequately compensate those who suffer losses as a result. As things stand to-day, some property which Her Majesty's Government know to be British property has not even been included in the schedules to the various annexes of the Agreement. I could give your Lordships numerous examples of further injustices and hardships arising out of these events. The hour is late, and I do not wish to detain you unduly, but I would remind you that the Foreign Compensation Bill of October 31, 1962, provided for the payment out of monies provided by Parliament of additional compensation in respect of claims arising in connection with certain events in Egypt. Under this Bill, Parliament can—as it sees fit so to do—make available further amounts, and replies given in the other place by Ministers at various times show this to have been done, so there is no problem on this score. Thus the machinery and the enabling Acts exist.
Meanwhile, I should draw your attention to one further development. The Government of the United Arab Republic has signed an Agreement with the Swiss Government concerning the liquidation of Swiss assets in the U.A.R. worth £E5 million. This Agreement, containing a most-favoured-nation clause, was followed by similar Agreements, on the same basis, with other Governments—those of the French, the Greek, the Lebanese and the Italians. All these Agreements were far less favourable to the claimants than were the original 1959 and subsequent Agreements with the British Government. I understand that the Government of the United Arab Republic is now maintaining that in the light of these fresh Agreements it cannot improve on the terms so far as British claimants are concerned, and it appears to be seeking to present

745
Her Majesty's Government with a fait accompli so far as British assets are concerned. I must insist that British claims cannot in any circumstances be regarded in the same light as these other claims. British assets were sequestrated and have been under U.A.R. custody since 1956, while nationals of other countries were free to dispose of their assets at will.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships any longer. There are so many other issues which could be mentioned: the highly vexatious and, indeed, intolerable conditions under which British nationals are given access to the blocked balances in their banks in Egypt; the limitations on what they can draw; the refusal of visas to enable them to enter the country; the fact that if one does not draw during one year one loses £1,000, or whatever it is, for that year and cannot accumulate, and so on. It is a tragic situation and there are people—not merely rich people but many poor people—who are suffering from the results of these events at the present time.
A practical suggestion which has been made is that the Treasury might purchase these blocked accounts from their owners and make use of the funds for official British purposes in Egypt, or, if thought preferable, might dispose of them to the Egyptian Government on a Government to Government basis. The total value I believe now does not exceed much more than £10 million, and at least the owners would secure some sort of tangible immediate benefit. The same applies to the securities held by these unfortunate people in Egyptian banks. Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to press for immediate permission to be given as of right to these individuals to dispose of their securities, so that the proceeds of the sale cart be added to the liquid funds in the blocked accounts and perhaps again used, taken over, by Her Majesty's Government as I suggested just now?
It really appears that, unless Her Majesty's Government recognise that the United Arab Republic has no intention of making genuine restitution, they must themselves accept moral responsibility for doing so and take active steps to put an end to this protracted interlude. I notice in a Press report of September 4 from Cairo, regarding the interview which the present Chancellor of the Duchy of
746
Lancaster had with President Nasser on that date, that there was a reference to the fact that it was possible that the question of compensation to British nationals had been raised. There is a gleam of hope, and I hope that the Minister who is going to reply will be able to give us some encouragement to think that action will now be taken. But I believe that, come what may, justice must be secured for these unfortunate people who have suffered for 13 years through no conceivable fault of their own.
8.33 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has already dealt with some of the points I intended to tackle. My final position, however, is slightly different from his. I trust, therefore, that both he and other noble Lords will forgive me if I cover some of the same ground. I speak as a private citizen. I have never been directly involved in formulating official policy, nor, except for eight years as a war-time soldier, in carrying it out. I am involved to-day simply and solely for one reason, and that is that my father was so deeply interested, and indeed personally committed, in this cause. I have turned up most of the relevant passages in the OFFICIAL REPORTS—at any rate those in print—covering the years 1956 to 1964, which were the years in which he was vocal, and it is remarkable how steadfast, and indeed persistent, he was in his efforts to right not only what he regarded as but what was a glaring injustice.
Apart from his work and influence behind the scenes dealing with the leaders of the dispossessed British subjects and with various Government Departments, he took a very active part in this House in debates and Questions on a great number of occasions. OFFICIAL REPORTS which I have superficially looked at show well over thirty substantial interventions between 1956 and 1959, and as many again after 1959. He would be very gratified to know that I still receive appreciative letters arising from this crusade on his part. Mr. Mosseri, who first brought this unsatisfactory situation to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and myself, has now, I understand, taken over the mantle of Colonel Moore. The name of Colonel Moore was bandied about, sometimes rather unkindly I am sorry to say. I think his

747
work was absolutely fantastic and he deserves a very honourable mention for his efforts during those years. As I say, to some extent I think that Mr. Mosseri has taken over his mantle, and he speaks not only for himself but for all other dispossessed British subjects. At this point it would be only right and proper for me to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, who was a colleague of my father before the war at the British Embassy in Cairo, and who not only has raised the subject this evening but in those earlier years—especially in those earlier years—between 1956 and 1959, played a valiant part, and I should think a very uphill and sometimes a rather frustrating part, too, as Chairman of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board.
When we are complaining about the 1959 Agreement, I think it is very hard for us now—or it is for me, at any rate, because I was not here—to recollect how grim a situation existed before 1959. As a Back-Bencher, I speak to-day not against any particular Government, but I speak for the rights of the citizen against all Governments. As I see it, a British subject resident in a foreign jurisdiction is, or should be, entitled to expect two things from Her Majesty's Government: first, that they should give him their full support and protection against arbitrary and/or illegal action by foreign Powers; secondly, that if through their actions and through no fault of his own his person or his property is put in jeopardy, they should themselves assume full responsibility for what they cannot recover on his behalf—I assume (I do not know what the legal basis was) that this was roughly the background and the justification of war damage payments during the war.
Of course, we all know that this is not so. In this age the individual counts for little in his own country, and even less abroad. This is an age not only of large battalions but also of large corporations. We have therefore, willy-nilly, to accept a situation wherein Governments, or at any rate the British Government, act under prerogative and not as agents for their subjects. This may sometimes seem unfair to individual subjects, but in the main it has worked, and continues to work, to their advantage.
748
The situation arising from the Suez action was intended to be regulated once and for all by the Agreement of February, 1959, but, unfortunately, it is rather more complicated than that. As I see it, the problem—it is still a problem—may, like Gaul, be divided into three parts. The first and second parts follow directly from that Agreement and the subsequent Exchange of Notes relating to it; that is to say, the Exchange of Notes published in 1962. The third part concerns events which have all occurred since 1959. some of which were covered by the 1967 Exchange of Notes, also now published. The first part of the problem concerns the compensation in this country in sterling of those who, between 1956 and 1959, had either lost their property completely through "Egyptianisation", which one might more reasonably call "nationalisation", or whose sequestrated property on return under the 1959 Agreement had suffered physical damage or monetary loss.
My earlier remarks about what British subjects might reasonably expect of Her Majesty's Government could well apply here. Indeed several speakers in another place during the key debate of March 16, 1959, obviously considered that in the special circumstances—and I think the phrase which was bandied about was "sui generis" which I believe means "in special circumstances" — Her Majesty's Government should take over full responsibility for any part of such losses which it was not able itself to recover from the Egyptian Government on behalf of the hapless British subjects. During that debate of March 16, 1959, at col. 150 in Hansard, the Prime Minister did not commit himself fully to that view, but in an earlier debate on April 11, 1957, at col. 1296 of Hansard, he had indicated that he was indeed thinking of full compensation. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government can argue that it obtained an exceptionally good bargain, better than had ever been obtained before in such cases; that it has been generous, first by supplementing the Sterling Compensation Fund, and secondly, by introducing an open-ended procedure for dealing with claims. So although one may well feel that it is not enough, it is still a great deal better than what might have been; and for that one must be grateful.

749
Speaking now about the Sterling Compensation Fund, I would inform your Lordships that to-day only 500 files out of some 6,500 are still outstanding, while out of a total of 9,000 claims, 8,500 have been settled. A validated claim for £5,000 has received £5,000; one for £50,000 received £40,000 and one for £500,000 received £265,000. The total claims so far are £107 million sterling; claims validated are £70 million sterling, and claims paid are £34 million sterling. Over and above the original £27½ million sterling paid by the Egyptian Government in 1959, Her Majesty's Government have contributed £6½, million so far. They have also provided interest-free loans totalling some £7 million to £7½ million sterling in anticipation of payment of claims. Moreover, they have provided some £2½ million sterling in outright grants in cases of hardship, and of course they have paid the servicing of the Compensation Fund and the servicing of the agents acting in Egypt on behalf of British citizens—better treatment than ever before, for which we must all be grateful.
But one could still say, and I do still say, that it is not enough. I am strengthened in this view by the statement of the Attorney General yesterday in another place concerning the agreement with the owners of the "Torrey Canyon". You will see that at col. 199 he said—or at least your Lordships will see when copies of Hansard are available—and I quote:
"The owners have agreed to make available a sum up to a total of £25,000"—
sterling—
"for the purpose of compensating these claimants"—
that is to say, private claimants—
"in both countries"—
that is, France and England.
"This sum, on the basis of the information available to the two Governments, should be sufficient for that purpose, but if the cost of settling these claims exceeds this sum the two Governments have agreed to indemnify the owners against any excess"—
I repeat "any excess"—
"in their respective countries'.
I do not know what "sui generis" means; I do not know what is a special case. I do not know whether the "Torrey Canyon" is a special case. But if ever there was a special case where the plight
750
of the British subject resulted, rightly or wrongly, from the actions of his Government, I should have thought the case of the British subjects in Egypt in 1956 was such a case.
The second part of the problem concerns the restoration of sequestrated property to its rightful owners. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has dealt with, and indeed is the main subject of his Question. Here the situation is less satisfactory and, to me at least, less clear. The total involved was estimated by Mr. Macmillan in 1959 as 130 million pounds, which I believe to have been 130 million Egyptian pounds, of which some 50 million (which I take also to be Egyptian pounds) was the property of one corporation and was negotiated independently with the Egyptian Government by them. Of the balance, which is now, translated into sterling, the equivalent of some £60 million, it was estimated that roughly some £10 million related to land, £10 million to buildings, £30 million to various forms of personalty, £5 million to goods and £5 million to plant. Those are very rough figures. On the face of it the latter categories, or at least the last two categories, would seem to be the most likely to suffer physical damage. But in the hands of any bureaucracy a lot of depreciation can occur in such circumstances. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, because I do not know, but I can guess: one cannot assume that all concerned have always been meticulously careful to maintain the value of the assets entrusted to them during sequestration. That, I think, is an understatement.
An actual loss (direct or indirect) can, as explained earlier, justify payment from the Compensation Fund in London. However, it is perfectly clear that there have been endless delays and prevarications in making restitution of sequestrated property. In my eyes the "simplified procedure" which was introduced in 1962 still looks to be one of the most complicated I have ever seen. One may be quite sure that the sequestration itself in 1956 did not take very long and was not subject to any formalities. A short time ago many claims were still in suspense or had been turned down, very often without good reason. This applied not only to goods and property in Egypt; it applied to balances in banks

751
and documents in banks, in Egypt or abroad, and there was no limit to the number of obstacles placed in the way of the rightful owners.
There was also the problem of charges made. In the 1959 Agreement there was an allowance of a very large sum of money, your Lordships might think—£2½ million—for the charges of the sequestrator, if you please. It seems that the sequestrator was now saying that he had overspent and wanted some more. Anyway, it is clear that any number of technical and legalistic reasons and obstacles have been introduced, simply and solely to make life difficult for the claimants, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said. And, of course, when restored these assets are frozen. The quota of sterling exchange allowed for repatriation of capital is pitifully small. Starting from now and trying to work backwards down the records, I am not quite clear at what stage who was allowed £E5,000, equivalent to £3,750, and at what stage that was reduced to £1,000; it is all very complicated; but in any case it was pitifully small, bearing in mind that in 1957 Egyptian sterling balances in London totalled some £93 million sterling. I cannot quite relate this to Lord Colyton's figure of £128 million, which I am sure is correct. In 1956 I believe it was £111 million; in 1957, £93·3 million; in 1959 at the time of the agreement just under £70 million; and after we had reached this Agreement we finally handed £41 million back. Earlier we had given them £400 million for fighting the war on their behalf, but that is a long time ago. Certainly Egypt has a balance of payments problem; we know that. But the Treasury have been extremely helpful in accepting promissory notes and in other ways. Nevertheless, in 1964 Egypt defaulted on her contractual obligation under the Agreement to provide £750,000 sterling in exchange for the repatriation of British-owned assets.
Turning now to the third part of the story, I must say that this is to me the least satisfactory and the least clear of all. It seems that in 1961 a new round of sequestration was initiated and in 1962 a new round of nationalisation. The Egyptian Government has now agreed, as I understand, once again to restore sequestrated property, or, where it has
752
been sold, the proceeds thereof. There is, however, this time no provision for damage or monetary loss arising during the period of sequestration. And of course we all know that property can be neglected, and even more so that forced sales can be extremely damaging.
Concerning the property nationalised in 1962, so far as I know no facts or figures are available, at least not to me. I hope, therefore, that the House, and the Minister who will be replying, will forgive me if I stray slightly outside the terms of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and ask for information about all that has been happening, or not happening, in Egypt to British-owned property since the signing of the 1959 Agreement.
8.53 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, having been Ambassador to Egypt in 1956, I am naturally concerned that everything possible should be done for those British citizens who suffered as a result of Egyptian action after the Suez affair and who are still in need. I have a great admiration for all that the late Lord Killearn and the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, did on behalf of the British citizens concerned in helping to get them considerable relief, after I myself had been able to achieve very little for them on my return from Cairo.
I know also that since those days succeeding Governments and my successors in Cairo have made great efforts on their behalf and have helped them to a considerable extent, but not, as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has shown, with complete success. I also realise the limitations of action possible on behalf of British citizens who suffered, with Egyptians and nationals of other countries equally, from the subsequent round of sequestration and nationalisation. But I hope that every further effort possible will be made to help those who are still in need as a result of the first sequestrations. In particular, I hope that further efforts can be made to induce the Government of the United Arab Republic to honour Article V.I(b) of the 1959 Agreement, the undertaking that they would give favourable consideration to applications for further transfers into sterling in excess of the transfers up to £E5,000. I believe that they have not yet

753
done so, presumably in view of their shortage of foreign exchange. I also trust that if there are still people who have not been able to get even their £E5,000 over the exchanges, they will be helped to get their rights under the Agreement at last. I trust that everything possible will be done to ensure that the inter-Governmental Agreements are carried out in full in every particular
8.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I appreciate the quite special interest which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, have in this absolutely wretched matter, and I admire the continued interest and concern which has been shown by the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan. I only wish that it had been possible for the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, to delay a little, just a day or two, before raising this Question, so that either my noble friend Lord Shepherd or my noble friend Lord Chalfont would have been able to answer. They of course have a more detailed knowledge of the business and a more immediate responsibility for these affairs. However, I shall endeavour to set out as clearly and as fully as possible what is the present position.
Ten years have passed since the Financial Agreement of 1959 referred to in this Question, and it will be unnecessary for me, after what has been said, to take up further time with a discussion of the merits or demerits of that Agreement or of the series of supplementary Agreements which followed it. The difficulties which have arisen in recent years appear to fall into three main categories: first, the difficulties and delays over the release of the property; second, the restrictions on transferability to this country; and, third, the fresh problems that have arisen out of the measures of sequestration which have been taken by the U.A.R. Government, quite separately from and subsequent to the events of 1956 to 1959.
The 1959 Agreement provided for the speedy release of sequestrated property to the owners. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, have said, on the U.A.R. side the process was hampered by administrative confusion and red tape which resulted, in many cases, in long delays. Nevertheless, this task is now
754
almost if not quite completed so far as the 1956 measures of sequestration are concerned. The few cases which remain to be dealt with have been held up because of difficulties and complications peculiar to each case. The U.A.R. undertook in Article V of the Agreement of 1959 to permit transfers of up to £E5,000 on account of assets which had been released from measures of sequestration, to those British subjects who had ceased to be resident in the U.A.R. The U.A.R. promised also to give "favourable consideration" to applications for further transfers in excess of that sum.
The provision for transfers of up to £E5,000 has been largely fulfilled, but some transfers have still to be made. A joint account for this purpose was set up in a London bank and put in funds by the U.A.R. This account now has a balance of nearly half a million pounds (I am not sure whether there is any connection with the amount the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, quoted for that ceiling), and this will probably be sufficient to meet all the sterling transfers still due. It has of course been a disappointment to everyone that the U.A.R. authorities have not seen their way to approve transfers over and above these limits. Those with funds which remain blocked in the U.A.R. naturally resent being denied access to their remaining assets. But I understand that even before 1956 a similar restriction of transfers of over £E5,000 existed in the U.A.R. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, nods his head in agreement.
The grants made through the Egyptian Grants Committee have gone some way to mitigate any hardship. Opportunities do occur from time to time for these blocked balances to be sold for convertible currency to persons who are specially authorised by the U.A.R. authorities to buy them. It is also possible to use up to £E1,000 a year from blocked balances for personal expenditure on visits to Egypt. The Government have deplored, and still deplore, this continued denial of access to these assets. I can assure the House that the Government will not overlook any opportunity of securing an improvement in the transfer facilities.
The third kind of difficulty arises from the delays in releasing property of certain British subjects which was resequestrated in 1961. Some British subjects who had

755
had their property taken in 1956 saw it taken once again under the measures of sequestration imposed under Proclamation 138 of 1961. I should add, however, that this proclamation was not restricted to United Kingdom nationals; it applied to many persons of other nationality, including some U.A.R. nationals. Annex B to the 1967 Exchange of Notes was designed to secure the release and return of this property, or the sale proceeds if the property had been sold while under sequestration. The first problem in this connection is the confusion which has existed in the U.A.R. sequestration departments concerned with this Proclamation 138 sequestration. This confusion still appears to exist, but it is gradually being sorted out and there has been better progress during the course of this year. During the last few weeks a Working Party of United Kingdom and U.A.R. officials has met in Cairo to discuss ways and means of speeding the release of these assets. There is no simple solution. The Embassy work very closely with agents and the sequestration department and are ready to examine every individual case. They are concentrating on getting a speedy release of the assets readily available in any particular case, so that any transfer of sterling which may be due can take place without waiting for a settlement of problems attaching to other assets of the person concerned.
Other delays have been caused by legal formalities connected with some of the property which had been sold, under Government decree, while under sequestration. The buildings which were sold need to be registered in the names of the buyers, usually State-owned insurance companies, and the formalities have been protracted. But this Working Party which I mentioned has been seeking ways and means of simplifying these formalities. It should now be possible to ease them in cases where property was owned by a single owner; the formalities cannot easily be waived in cases where a building was owned by several persons, particularly—as was sometimes the case—by joint owners who were of different nationalities. The Embassy are
756
continuing to pursue these questions with the U.A.R. authorities.
My Lords, some dissatisfaction has been expressed at the prices at which some of these properties were sold. For the purposes of these sales the properties were valued according to a set formula, and it is not possible to dismiss out of hand the formula that was used. It is in fact used by the Egyptian Government for valuation of properties for the purpose of assessing estate duty. In some cases the valuations produced have not seemed unreasonable to the owners themselves. In other cases, and particularly with private villas, the valuation has been low. The U.A.R. authorities maintain that their valuations must stand, and they point out that they have been accepted by other Governments who have reached agreements relating to similar properties.
We have made repeated representations at all levels in Cairo with a view to settling these problems of the property re-sequestrated in 1961, and we shall continue to do so. We believe from the discussions in the last few weeks in Cairo that the Egyptian Government are anxious to settle these questions as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord spoke about the repayment of loans. I must say that I could not quite understand the point he made there, because Her Majesty's Government have always made it clear that in demanding repayment of the loans made they would always take into account not only the amounts recovered but also any evidence of continuing hardship. We shall continue, I assure noble Lords, to make every effort in Cairo to maintain and improve on the progress which has been made in recent months.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons: That they concur in the Resolution communicated to them on Tuesday, November 4.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.