Sitting of 3 December 1970

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

    Police
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Chief Constable on the level of police recruiting in Hampshire.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): 149 persons have been recruited to the Hampshire Constabulary in the first ten months of this year, compared with 129 in the whole of 1969 and 98 in 1968.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that the Hampshire Police have a creditable record of crime detection and that this represents a heavy load on the existing staff because of the difficulties in recruitment? Would he not also agree that, as in other parts of the country, it is totally unfair to exploit the sense of service and loyalty of the police and that it is high time that the country ensured that the police have adequate conditions of service and proper pay?
    Mr. Sharples: I am certain that no one in the House, least of all my right hon. Friend, wishes in any way to exploit the loyalty of the police. Negotiations about pay are now proceeding in the Police Council and it would be quite inappropriate for me to say anything about that. As a resident of Hampshire, I fully endorse the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Hampshire Police.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to anticipate a later Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rees-Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to encourage recruitment into the police force; what inducements he proposes to offer serving personnel to remain; and whether he will postpone the retirement age owing to the serious manpower shortage.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Recruiting by individual forces is being assisted by a substantial increase this year in national publicity; and in agreement with the local authority associations provision has been made for helping in some local recruiting campaigns. With regard to pay, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply already given today to Questions by other Members. As regards retirement, police officers may be granted extensions of service of up to five years in suitable cases. I doubt if a general change in the compulsory retirement age is called for.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend feel that he will be able to find a way of encouraging personnel who retire this year after 25 years' service to remain in the service, bearing in mind their pension provisions? Does he recognise that, quite irrespective of pay, the basis of recruitment depends upon attractive terms and conditions of service? Will he look carefully into those conditions to ensure that the police are able to obtain the type of assistance which all of us expect to receive in our commercial and general life?
    Mr. Maudling: Both of my hon. Friend's points are very important, and I can assure him that they are very much in the mind of the Police Council. It is important that I should say again that the problem is not only recruiting but wastage. In some ways the wastage of trained constables is a bigger problem than recruiting.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Home Secretary encourage the use of the Willink formula when questions of pay and conditions of the police are discussed?
    Mr. Maudling: If I answered that, I should be doing what I said I ought not

    1437
    to do, namely, make a statement while negotiations are in progress.
    Sir D. Renton: Would it not help if a special effort were made to recruit special constables, who can do much to help the police at times of great stress?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a different point, but I shall be glad to examine it.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the easiest and simplest way of getting all the police that the right hon. Gentleman wants for the Government to give them the 43 per cent. increase which they gave to the chairmen of the nationalised boards and people in the higher Civil Service?
    Mr. Maudling: That may be an easy and simple way. I doubt whether it is a wise way.
    Mr. Rees-Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inducements he proposes to offer to university graduates to encourage their recruitment into the police; and whether he will offer terms within the Metropolis enabling recruits to choose service exclusive to the Department of Criminal Investigation.
    Mr. Sharples: A graduate entry scheme introduced in October, 1968 offers the prospect of accelerated promotion to successful candidates. The suggestion that there should be direct recruitment into Criminal Investigation Departments for service confined to those Departments has been considered on previous occasions and has been rejected on grounds which remain valid.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the graduate entry scheme as it stands is a complete failure? It has not been taken up by the universities, and they find it unattractive. If we are to succeed, youth must be offered the service it wants. Is it true to say that detective investigation is the same as the general duties of the police force? The universities want the opportunity to defeat organised crime. Will not the Home Secretary look at this carefully and give them an opportunity of doing so?
    Mr. Speaker: Long questions mean fewer questions.
    Mr. Sharples: I do not accept that the graduate entry scheme has been a complete
    1438
    failure. I should like to see many more graduates coming into the police force. The matter raised in the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was examined carefully. Both the Working Party and the Royal Commissison came down firmly against the proposal of having a separate force and separate recruitment for the C.I.D. for very strong reasons. I think that those reasons were correct.
    Mr. David Watkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a return to the now sadly eroded standards of the Willink Commission would be an important means of encouraging police recruitment at all levels?
    Mr. Sharples: We are getting back to the subject of police pay, which is a separate question.

    Child Care Service
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the level of recruiting and the adequacy of training facilities for the Child Care Service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): During the 12 months ending 31st March, 1970, the number of child care officers employed by local authorities in England and Wales increased from 3,223 to 3,550, and the number of trainee officers from 368 to 444. The number of persons awarded the Letter of Recognition of the Central Training Council in Child Care was 519 last year, and will be about 660 this year. My right hon. Friend has approved plans to increase this to 850 in 1971–72, as a step towards a target of 1,100.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that there is still a great deal of concern in this important profession about the shortage of staff to do the work adequately in view of increasing responsibilities? Would he not also agree that if we are to have adequate staff for this important social job, conditions of service and pay must be given priority?
    Mr. Carlisle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the implementation of parts of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1969, will inevitably put further

    1439
    burdens on child care officers. It is estimated by the local authorities that their establishments at 31st March, 1971, will be 650 more than they were the year before, but there is no reason to regard such an increase as impossible of achievement. What the hon. Gentleman said in his second question clearly applies to all people in public work.

    Prisoners on Release
    Mr. Crawshawasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase he proposes in the provision of after-care services for prisoners on release.
    Mr. Carlisle: The strengthening of the probation and after-care service; the continuance of financial aid to voluntary organisations to enable them to provide various facilities, including an increasing number of after-care hostels; and the encouragement of experimental provision such as organised systems of retained lodgings.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these added facilities are most welcome? However, would he not agree that while the probation service has a salary structure which puts it at the lowest end of the professional workers, it will have difficulty in recruiting the right type of person for this work?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the extra provision of hostels. He will know that we have recently announced new targets for the probation service to achieve these ends and we hope that people will be forthcoming to enter the probation service.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my hon. Friend consider giving special Government aid to the After-care Trust of the Carnegie Foundation to help it in its work of providing hostels for alcoholic and homeless ex-prisoners?
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure my hon. Friend that, having seen it in only the last 24 hours, I am most impressed by the work being done with hostels for alcoholics. However, there are 1,000 hostel places supported by the Home Office with an annual grant of £150 for normal places and £250 for the more troublesome kind of resident, such as the ex-alcoholic.
    Mr. Cant: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in the number of child care officers has often been at the expense of the probation service? Will he at least attempt to remove the adverse differential between the pay for probation officers and that in the child care service?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am not aware that there is any evidence that justifies that statement, but it is one of the matters which must be taken into account when considering the future of the probation service.
    Mr. Crawshaw: On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman did not answer my supplementary question, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should give notice of their intention to raise matters on the Adjournment in the conventional form.

    Private Clubs
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he will take to control private clubs in London and other major towns and cities.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for further legislation on this subject.
    Mr. Hamling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tourist industry is of great benefit to this nation and that an awful lot of tourists are taken in by the confidence tricksters and thieves who run a lot of night spots in London and the other major cities?
    Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to what are often known as "clip joints", all I can say is that, of course, I am aware that complaints are made from time to time about the extortionate charges being made, but with respect I do not feel that this is necessarily a matter wholly for the law. It is a question of the exercise of the proper degree of caution by the individual who goes into them.

    Sunday Entertainment, Trading and Licensing
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

    1441
    he will set up an inquiry into the operations of laws relating to Sunday entertainments, Sunday trading, shop hours, and the licensing of premises for the consumption of intoxicating liquor.
    Mr. Maudling: I am considering the position on liquor licensing. I do not think that an inquiry is necessary to forward consideration of the other matters.
    Mr. Hamling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that he has a great reputation for being an apostle of freedom? In these days of the alleged permissive society, is it not true that a lot of old-fashioned restrictions still prevent the ordinary citizen from exercising quite a legitimate amount of freedom?
    Mr. Maudling: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member says. I hope to be able to make some contribution.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Could my right hon. Friend say whether he feels that he will be able to make a fairly early announcement of his views about licensing? Will he particularly bear in mind the great call in the country now for the family as a whole to be able to use the premises and also the desire of the industry to keep some reasonable hours with first-class management while at the same time obtaining that greater flexibility in the choice of those hours?
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of these considerations and hope to be able to put something to the House on this subject in the very near future.

    Police (Pay)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make provision for police officers to receive extra pay for working overtime, at night and on Sundays.
    Mr. Sharples: Police pay is in the first instance a matter for the Police Council.
    Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the police in Leicester and elsewhere do an excellent job in spite of being heavily understaffed? To ease that understaffing, civilians have been brought in at Leicester to do part of their work. Is he aware that those civilians
    1442
    are being offered shift allowances and pay for Sunday duties? Does he not feel that it is unfair to discriminate against uniformed police officers in this way?
    Mr. Sharples: While paying tribute to the Leicester police, as to all other police forces, I feel that these matters concerning pay and conditions must be properly discussed in the Police Council.
    Sir G. Nabarro rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 8, Mr. Davidson. Order—Sir Gerald Nabarro.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Speaker forgot my name.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is perfectly correct.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman take early steps to denounce as strictly undesirable the introduction of trade union rules into the police force?
    Mr. Sharples: This arises on a later Question, but I do not think that it arises out of this one.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on police pay.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the police pay negotiations.
    Mr. Maudling: An offer made by the Official Side at a meeting on 30th November of the Pay Review sub-committee of the appropriate Police Council committee was rejected by the Staff Side. Negotiations have not been broken off and I understand that a further offer may shortly be made by the Official Side.
    Mr. Price: Is it not clear that, whatever the reason and whoever is to blame, police pay is shockingly low? A police constable with 15 years' service and an average-sized family has take-home pay of about £80 a month. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of men who joined after the war will soon have completed 25 years' service and will be opting out in large numbers?
    Mr. Maudling: The latter point is very much in the minds of all concerned. It would be wrong for me to comment on these matters while negotiations are in progress.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware of the present state of morale in the police and the feeling that, because of the Government's view on pay rises in the public sector, they will be pushed to the back of the queue, and that the effect on morale is a great encouragement to criminals and crime in general?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view about the state of morale in the police forces. The Government have made it clear that they intend to strengthen the police forces.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Although it is right not to intervene while the talks are still going on, and although I recognise the danger of inflation as a result of unnecessary wage increases, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the whole nation will expect a fair deal to be given to the police?
    Mr. Maudling: I am well aware of the width and strength of feeling on this matter.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called revised offer was completely unacceptable to the staff side on Monday because it was not a true revision at all but merely a rearrangement of the original offer which left some police officers worse off than they would have been under the original offer?
    Mr. Maudling: As I have said, I understand that the offer was rejected and that a further offer may shortly be made.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I think that the police should be treated as a unique body and I want them to get the maximum that they can? I hope that we do not have to argue about this matter either with my right hon. Friend or with the Treasury.
    Mr. Maudling: After many years' experience, I always dislike arguing with my hon. Friend. I think that the general feeling in the House is that the police forces are in a very special position and there is a general desire that they should be strengthened.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly likely that the increase in the number of police officers in England and Wales this year will be only half the average increase achieved over the last five years and that only a very substantial injection of resources can enable the number to come anywhere near establishment strength?
    Mr. Maudling: There may be later exchanges on that matter. Recruitment has recently been showing a very encouraging improvement, but I agree that there is a long way to go.

    Criminal Justice Act (Committal Proceedings)
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Justice Act to enable committal proceedings to be reported as of right.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend does not think that the time has yet come to reconsider these provisions.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both he and I have expressed certain criticisms of those particular Sections of the Act, well intentioned though they were? Is he further aware that as recently as last week Lord Justice Edmund Davies criticised the working of the Act? Does he not think that the time has come—to obviate any feeling on the part of the public that the important facts are being hidden from them—for an inquiry to look into the working of this part of the Act?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am still aware of the views that I and the hon. Gentleman expressed during the Committee stage of this Act. I would remind him that he did not then, as his Question does, ask us to enable committal proceedings to be recorded as of right. The argument then, of the hon. Gentleman and myself, was that the defendant should have the right to refuse publication rather than that he should have the right to require publication. My right hon. Friend feels that, since this legislation is still recent, we should allow further time to elapse before deciding whether it neds any amendment.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as the Act has

    1445
    run for about three years, the time has come when we should have a comprehensive review of its working?
    Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Criminal Justice Act as a whole, then I am sure that there are many parts of it which may need to be looked at again and which may need legislation in a future Session of this Parliament. Dealing with this particular point, I do not think that there is evidence that it is working against the interests of justice.

    Legal Aid Scheme
    Mr. Crawshawasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied as to the working of the Legal Aid Scheme, particularly in relation to criminal cases; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: In general, the legal aid scheme in criminal proceedings seems to be operating as intended. Legal aid in civil proceedings is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that when a person is called upon to plead in a higher court he is normally granted legal aid if he is not represented? Does he further agree that this is time-consuming for the courts and is unfair on the prisoner in that his counsel has to prepare a plea of mitigation in a complicated case without much time when the man is facing a long sentence of imprisonment? Would it not be better to grant him legal aid automatically when he is sent to a higher court?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think the answer here is that a greater proportion of applications for legal aid at committal are already being granted. I cannot give those figures, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a combination between those granted legal aid on committal and those granted it by the court of trial meant that in 1969, out of 40,000 people appearing for trial at assizes and quarter sessions, only 847 were unrepresented.
    Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to his right hon. Friend that many of us on this side of the House feel that it would be essential to extend legal aid to persons appearing before industrial
    1446
    tribunals under the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Carlisle: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employmeint. I will see that my hon. Friend's views are conveyed to him.

    Taxi Journeys (Heathrow—Central London)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries he has caused to be made, and by whom, to see that, in accordance with his regulations, all taxi journeys from Heathrow to Central London are charged by the clock.
    Mr. Sharples: The enforcement of this branch of the law is a matter for the police and the British Airports Authority.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the situation has improved, the inadequate provision and instruction given by the Airports Authority has resulted in large numbers of people who come to this country and do not know any different being the victims of fiddles on the part of a limited number of drivers?
    Mr. Sharples: I am aware that there is a problem. We have recently had the report of the Committee investigating the London taxicab trade which conducted a special investigation into the whole of the problem. It will be necessary for the report to be studied and for consultations to take place.

    Immigration (Assistance to Local Authorities)
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the allocation of additional funds to local authorities in areas of high immigrant settlement.
    Mr. Maudling: I shall shortly be issuing approvals for some £5 million worth of further schemes under the urban programme, which benefits areas of special social need, including many where there are immigrants. I also estimate that for the present financial year expenditure totalling some £6,300,000 will be approved for Exchequer grant under Section 11 in respect of the employment of special additional staff.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much this statement will be welcomed by citizens in areas of high immigrant settlement and in areas where the rateable value is particularly low? Is he aware that this is a compassionate measure which will receive a warm welcome?
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does this announcement mean that extra, new figures of money are now available or is it precisely based on the allocation of funds made by the previous Administration?
    Mr. Maudling: We have always made it clear that we were to continue with what I call the expanding programme.

    British Residents (Naturalisation)
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will facilitate the naturalisation of longstanding British residents who were formerly displaced persons from Eastern Europe and from countries that are now embodied in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Sharples: Any foreign national who has been living in the United Kingdom for five years satisfies the residential qualifications for naturalisation. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any need to make special arrangements for particular classes of people.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that all these displaced persons who came into the country after the war greatly contributed to the British economy and way of life? Will he ensure that when new legislation is brought into effect dealing with immigration, their requirements for naturalisation will be brought into line with those of new Commonwealth immigrants?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not think that there is any need to make any special provision, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case which he wishes to bring to my notice, I should be happy to hear from him.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Are the rules for aliens' naturalisation and the rules on registration for Commonwealth citizens to be changed in the expected Bill?
    Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people from Eastern Europe who are living in this country in a state of uncertainty and disquiet? Would he look into their position particularly sympathetically, and would he show the same liberal attitude towards those American citizens in this country who are here because they have refused to fight in the Vietnam war?
    Mr. Sharples: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question refers to a Question which is already on the Order Paper for answer later.

    Community Relations Commission
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of the Community Relations Commission.
    Mr. Maudling: For it to continue to carry out its statutory functions under the Race Relations Act, 1968. As already announced, the Commission is reviewing ways of strengthening its organisation and training arrangements. The results of this review should provide a solid foundation on which to plan the development of community relations work.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on appointing Mr. Mark Bonham Carter as the new Chairman of the Commission. Will my right hon. Friend point out to Mr. Bonham Carter that one of the most urgent tasks facing the Commission is to define the essential task of the Commission and, once he has done so, to make it known to the public?
    Mr. Maudling: I look forward to an early discussion with Mr. Bonham Carter about the future of the Commission when he has had a chance to get into the saddle.
    Mr. Freeson: In areas where local authorities are not making the best use of the urban aid programme, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of providing the Community Relations Commission with funds for specific project works in areas of stress?
    Mr. Maudling: It is important always to insist that the urban aid programme is for urban areas of special need and not solely for immigrant areas. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make, I should be happy to receive them.

    Students (Voting Entitlement)
    Mr. Woodhouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will legislate to ensure that students at universities, colleges and polytechnics should be entitled to be registered as voters only in their normal place of residence, and that that designation should exclude their place of study unless they have no other residence in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Sharples: I have nothing to add to the reply to a Question on this subject which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) on 29th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 176.]
    Mr. Woodhouse: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, whatever view one may take of the student vote in national elections—and personally I have no reason to regret it—its impact in local elections can cause very deep and great resentment, particularly when students are concentrated in one or two wards of a university city?
    Mr. Sharples: I appreciate the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. But the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal clarified the law on residence as a whole and it is this law which we may need to consider at some stage. It would not be possible, in considering it, to differentiate in the case of students.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman resist the view of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse)? Will he agree that there is no reason why students alone should be excluded from double residence qualifications when wealthy members of the Tory Party have them? It would be quite wrong to accept this suggestion at a time when the Government are rigging the qualification for candidates in local elections.
    Mr. Sharples: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend, it is the law of residence as a whole which we may need to consider.

    Prisons (Overcrowding)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
    Mr. Maudling: A major programme of new building is being implemented, and measures to increase the use of non-custodial penalties are under consideration.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. As non-custodial treatment depends so much on the probation service, I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the report in today's Press that many probation officers are having to take second jobs to make ends meet. Will he consider at least reviewing the conditions of service of probation officers?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is about overcrowding in prisons.
    Mr. Maudling: There have been some extremely interesting articles in the newspapers about conditions in prisons. The hon. Gentleman's second point is dealt with in a later Question.
    Mr. Dalyell: When does the Home Secretary hope to make an announcement on the non-custodial situation?
    Mr. Maudling: Not in the immediate future. I hope I am in order in saying that this was discussed yesterday in another place, and the discussion was very valuable.

    Assault on Police Officers (Trial by Jury)
    Mr. Waddingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to extend to persons charged with assault on a police officer the right to claim trial by a jury.
    Mr. Carlisle: The law relating to offences against the person is under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The review will include the law governing assaults on police officers.
    Mr. Waddington: Is not this an anomaly which arises out of a rather odd decision of the House of Lords in 1966 which must be put right? Is it not absurd

    1451
    that, whereas in all other cases in which the penalty on summary conviction is more than three months' imprisonment the man can elect trial by jury, in these serious cases where the penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment the man does not have the right to elect trial by jury?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right in saying that this arises out of a decision given by the Divisional Court in, I think, 1965 that offences under Section 51 of the Police Act, 1954 of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty are not triable on election before a jury. As I say, this whole subject is now being considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and this is one of the matters that Committee will take into account.

    Minors on Remand (Wormwood Scrubs)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many minors have been held on remand in premises within the precincts of Wormwood Scrubs in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Carlisle: Three in 1965, none in 1966, 16 in 1967, six in 1968 and one in 1969. These figures relate to receptions of persons under 21 years of age not already serving a sentence.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this causes a great deal of anxiety in my constituency? To be in Wormwood Scrubs is one thing, but to be a minor on remand in Wormwood Scrubs is another. Will the hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to ensure that minors are sent elsewhere than Wormwood Scrubs?
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, they are; they go to Ashford. The figures I have given are very small, and they relate to those on remand at Wormwood Scrubs who have normally been transferred from Ashford to the surgical or psychiatric centre in Wormwood Scrubs. There is also the question of the allocation wing for borstals in Wormwood Scrubs, but that is another question.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Bob Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to encourage chief constables to extend the system of foot patrols on the beat in order to arrest the ever-increasing rate of vandalism.
    Mr. Sharples: The deployment of police manpower is the responsibility of chief officers of police. I am quite sure they have in mind the importance of finding effective ways of checking vandalism.
    Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the public are becoming increasingly apprehensive about the ever-increasing, mindless vandalism that is taking place? For example, last Friday night my car was damaged by vandals during a 35-minute visit to my constituents. It not the only way to deal with this to put men on the beat where they are known?
    Mr. Sharples: I am well aware of the growth of vandalism, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I deplore this tendency. The growth of unit beat policing, which goes back almost to the village constable idea, is probably the best development, and this is taking place in many police forces. I welcome this.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman say why it was impossible for him to answer my Parliamentary Question about the number of policemen on duty each night in my constituency, and why he was unable to answer a similar Question from another hon. Member? Will he now answer those Questions or tell us why he cannot answer them?
    Mr. Sharples: If I remember aright, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the number of police available in particular areas at particular times. I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose those figures.

    Justices of the Peace (Loss of Earnings)
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated annual cost of paying the loss of earnings allowance for which provision is made in the Justices of the Peace Act, 1968.
    Mr. Carlisle: About £500,000 in a full year.
    Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a large part of that £500,000 represents loss of earnings to working men who can ill afford the loss which has been incurred in carrying out their duties to the public when serving as justices of the peace? Unless the 1968 Act is fully implemented soon, will there not inevitably be a detrimental effect on the composition of the bench, since working men will be unable to continue with those duties, and only those with private means will be able to serve as justices of the peace?
    Mr. Carlisle: Since the reply to the Question gave the estimated cost of paying the loss of earnings allowance, I accept that the vast proportion of the £500,000 I mentioned goes to that cost. As to the merits of the case, I cannot add anything to what was said in an earlier reply, that this matter is at present being considered but that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not yet in a position to make a statement.

    Immigrants (Securicor)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will discontinue the employment of Securicor in connection with the supervision of immigrants who are refused entry into this country.
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman say why Securicor should be promoted to being a subsidiary private police or immigration service? Would not it be preferable for the immigration service to employ its own people in this particularly sensitive area and to assume responsibility for training? If Securicor are to be employed, would not it be better for them to be in plain clothes?
    Mr. Sharples: This arrangement was carried out on behalf of the airlines at London Airport for 2½ years before it was introduced to the immigration service, and we have received no complaints about it.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Prisons (Terminal Leave)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working of arrangements for terminal leave from Her Majesty's Prisons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the scheme, which is about to be extended, makes as generous provision for home leave as is practicable in present circumstances. I am aware of the case which has caused concern to the hon. Gentleman and will write to him again about it.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that arrangements for terminal leave would be fairer if they were tied to the length of sentence rather than to the type of institution in which a prisoner by chance finds himself?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree that there is a distinction between those who are in a training prison or a local prison in the matter of qualifying for terminal leave. At the moment the pressure of resources, both in the prison service and in the probation service, is such that it would be impossible to extend the provisions for local prisons to bring them into line with those operating in training prisons. On the other hand, the Government have announced that from next January they will bring the threshold down and will allow more people within the local prisons to becomes entitled to home leave.

    Violence on Television
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement of policy on his Department's study together with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority on the subject of violence on television.
    Mr. Maudling: With my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, I recently met the Chairmen of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and was given an account of new machinery set up by each Authority with a view to strengthening arrangements for keeping the portrayal of violence on television under close control.

    1455
    I stressed my concern at the possible adverse effects of excessive violence on television, and I welcome the initiative taken by each Authority in setting up these arrangements, the operation of which I shall watch with interest.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Home Secretary realise that that statement will be very welcome in all parts of the House? Could he do something further to help by publishing a White Paper and collating the various investigations that have been carried out into the effects of violence on television in order to decrease public confusion in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider that, but the fact is that investigations so far have produced very little in the way of concrete conclusions. It is a very baffling problem indeed.
    Mr. Callaghan: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. This is a subject in which it is difficult to arrive at conclusions, but there is clearly a need for a continual and close watch on the activities of both the television authorities on the matter of violence. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), which I support, that a White Paper should be issued not only covering the existing state of studies but also containing the codes, which are not very well known, under which both authorities work, so that the public may know that the authorities themselves are observing the codes which they have laid down?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider that, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support in my concern about this matter. Frankly, I am entirely following the lead that was taken by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Conveyance by Road Regulations
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring the transport of butane, propane, and similar liquid gases under the scope of the Conveyance by Road Regulations.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend will shortly be inviting the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances to consider this.
    Dr. Gilbert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer. I hope he will bear in mind that recently there has been a series of incidents in crowded areas, including one in my constituency at the height of the shopping hours in which great loss of life was avoided only by the coolness and courage of the driver concerned?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the accident to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Durham Magistrates' Court (Photography)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of grave public disquiet concerning the photographing of certain persons by the police immediately outside or within the precincts of the Durham Magistrates' Court on 21st October, 1970, he will establish a public inquiry in addition to the investigation instituted by the Chief Constable of Durham.
    Mr. Sharples: An investigation has been carried out under Section 49 of the Police Act, 1964, and the Chief Constable of Durham has referred the investigating officer's report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any further inquiry is called for.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman agree to the publication of this report and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Sharples: No, Sir. It is not normal for a report of an investigation of this kind to be published. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether action should be taken.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that I raised this matter with his Department a few days after the event and would he not agree that, in view of the delicate nature of this matter for all who have detailed knowledge of the situation, we must be extremely careful in how we handle the matter?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, Sir. This is a matter which affects the hon. Member's constituency which he raised with me directly. I know that he realises the implications involved.

    Voting Machines
    Mr. Raymond Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any reports from his Departmental Working Party on the feasibility of using voting machines in both local and general elections; if he intends to publish such reports and in what form; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sharples: An interim report on aspects of mechanical and electronic aids to voting and vote-counting was submitted some time ago, and is being put in the Library. Voting machines would be extremely expensive, and my right hon. Friend does not believe that they would offer enough advantages to outweigh the radical change in our traditional voting methods which they would require. He has therefore decided against any further study of their use. He is, however, arranging for further investigation of optical mark reading equipment for reading and counting ballot papers, and he will inform the House of the outcome in due course.
    Mr. Fletcher: Did the working party consider the possibility that the cost of such machines might have been partly met by their being hired out to organisations, such as the trade unions and commercial organisations, which regularly conduct polls? In view of the forthcoming Industrial Relations Bill, would he not consider such machines to be a most effective way of conducting the strike ballot which will become compulsory when, unhappily, the Bill becomes an Act?
    Mr. Sharples: This whole question was considered in great detail, and I am sure that the decision reached by my right hon. Friend about these machines is right.

    Taxicabs (Maxwell Stamp Committee)
    Mr. Raymond Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consultations with the London taxicab trade on the recommendations of the Maxwell Stamp Committee, Command Paper No. 4483; and if he intends to introduce legislation based on the Committee's Report.
    Mr. Sharples: I cannot at present say how long consultations with the trade and other interests will take, or prejudge the legislation that may follow.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that legislation has become an act of urgency and, secondly, is he not aware that past precedent suggests that such legislation would be non-controversial and would go through this House and the other place quite speedily?
    Mr. Sharples: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that such legislation would be non-controversial; but I am sure he will agree that it is important for the Report to be considered properly, and also that consultations with those directly concerned should take place first.

  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister what number of staff he had in his office on 1st December, 1970; and how this compares with the number on 19th June, 1970.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Sixty-three on both dates.
  Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that from 1st July to 1st December this year he transferred no fewer than 148 Questions to other Ministers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Is he further aware that in comparison with that figure his predecessor in office in the same period of 1969 transferred only 59 Questions—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that this Question relates to the number of staff.
  Mr. Ashton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he transferred these extra Questions because he is short of staff or because he picks out the easy ones and passes on the others?
  The Prime Minister: One needs to look at these figures on a proportionate basis. It is true that in that period I transferred 26 per cent. of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman, the present Leader of the Opposition, in 1965–66 and 1966–67 transferred 28 per cent. It is

  1459
  true that in the period cited, in 1969, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition transferred only 17 per cent. of his Questions, but this was in his declining months when he had not the strength left either to transfer or to answer Questions.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he quoted for 1966 with such eclat included an exercise by his back benchers who put down 100 Questions to me, which had nothing at all to do with No. 10 Downing Street and which were properly transferred? On the main point, although I recognise the right of any Minister to transfer a Question if he feels that it is not appropriate, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any changes in practice as to the kind of Question he has answered compared with June? For example, is he now answering Questions about the appointment of Royal Commissions, which I used to answer, and other Questions?
  The Prime Minister: In regard to special exercises by back benchers, the right hon. Gentleman's own back benchers have also been carrying out exercises. I have not transferred those because, quite honestly, it has not been worth it. In regard to the practice, this has remained the same. The right hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. I am informed that when Questions were tabled on Royal Commissions which related specifically to a Departmental Minister's responsibilities and which he could have answered, the Questions in those days were transferred. Apart from the other point which was raised in Business Questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the practice remains the same, and that particular point is now being examined.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since some of us can remember the bad old days and the ways of the ancien régime—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions—in English.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: —the ancient régime, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister say whether he has improved on the rate of answering Questions over that of his predecessor, and whether the number of staff employed at 10 Downing
  1460
  Street to answer Questions has increased commensurately?
  The Prime Minister: There has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of Questions tabled to myself as Prime Minister and there has been a 42 per cent. increase in the number which I have answered. This is in comparison with those to whom I think my hon. Friend was really referring as the "old gang".

  WOLVERHAMPTON (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Wolverhampton.
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Wolverhampton.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent statement by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that the Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations represents a conversion to the view of his right hon. Friend on immigration and would he care to comment?
  The Prime Minister: I read my right hon. Friend's speeches with care and interest. But the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that my right hon. Friend alleged that my speech to the United Nations showed any change in policy on immigration. I think that my right hon. Friend was referring to that part of my speech dealing with the dangers of violence and civil war in other countries.
  Mr. Fraser: Did the Prime Minister see the television confrontation of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West? Will the Prime Minister say whether his reason for not going to Wolverhampton was, in the words of his right hon. Friend, that he was afraid of him, or that he was too busy in London cutting prices "at a stroke"?
  The Prime Minister: I have in the past paid visits to Wolverhampton, but I have no plans to do so in the immediate future.
  Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 18th June the electorate of Wolverhampton voted overwhelmingly for a Conservative Government, and that he would be very welcome there? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Wolverhampton can manage very well on its own without interference from Scotland?

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a retirement pensioner to the central policy review staff in the Cabinet Office.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave him on 17th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 394.]
  Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister afraid that such an appointee would bring home the fact of life that, for physical, medical, and other reasons, old-age pensioners are finding it increasingly difficult to shop around and that they are the hardest hit victims of his inability to halt price increases "at a stroke"?
  The Prime Minister: That question is not concerned with the Central Policy Review Staff. It is not proposed that this staff should be composed of representatives of special groups. This is quite natural.
  On the wider subject, I understand that that may be debated in the near future, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept his share of responsibility, under the Labour Government, for what was happening to old people.

  MINISTERS (VISITS TO CONSTITUENCIES)
  Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if it remains the practice of his Administration that all Ministers inform the hon. Member concerned when visiting industrial concerns in a constituency.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that my local paper carried a report that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had visited the telephone establishment in my constituency,
  1462
  and that I had had no notification at all? It may have been that the right hon. Gentleman cancelled it. Ought I not to have been informed?
  The Prime Minister: I am most anxious that this practice should be continued, as it has been under all Governments. I will do my best to ensure that it is. On seeing the hon. Gentleman's Question, I had inquiries made of all Members of the Government to ascertain whether they had paid a visit to an industrial establishment in his constituency, and I was informed that the answer was, "No". However, I am prepared to inquire further into the matter now that the hon. Gentleman has told me what is in his mind.

  ALDABRA ATOLL
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Aldabra Atoll in the Indian Ocean.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: At a time when David Barron of Shell, which, after all, is the biggest of our tanker owners, can express his public indifference towards a British naval presence in the Indian Ocean, has not the time come for second thoughts on this policy?
  The Prime Minister: We are not proposing to use Aldabra Atoll for a marine base in any way connected with defence in the Indian Ocean.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: But is the building of a base in the Indian Ocean under consideration?
  The Prime Minister: The position remains what it has been for some time under the agreement between the United States Government and the British Government in December, 1966; that is, that whether or how we would use these islands in connection with defence is kept under review by both countries.
  Mr. George Thomson: Will the Prime Minister either confirm or deny reports that the Government are now considering with the United States building communications facilities there at a cost of about £100 million?
  The Prime Minister: Any discussions between the United States and ourselves must remain confidential. But I should think that one would have looked at the figure of £120 million in connection with any defence expenditure with a very jaundiced eye.
  Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend look at the actual words used by the Chairman of Shell, because I think that the summary of them by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was inaccurate?

  FUEL SHORTAGES
  Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for dealing with likely fuel shortages this winter.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Eadie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's actions are doing very little to remedy the coal shortage? Does he agree that the publication of the Coal Industry Bill, particularly Clauses 6 and 7, which is regarded by miners as provocative, will stimulate a crisis of confidence in the coal industry?
  The Prime Minister: A debate on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill to follow Question Time. All these matters can then be discussed.
  Mr. Swain: Will the Prime Minister consider the proposal to set up a committee, with himself as chairman, and call the heads of the nationalised industries together—provided that he can find a room big enough for Lord Robens' head—to discuss the possibilities of a concerted fuel policy, not only for this winter but for next winter and the winter following, giving coal its rightful place in the fuel economy?
  The Prime Minister: We have set our face steadfastly against winter emergency committees.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in connection with winter fuel supplies, that deep-mined coal output fell by nine million tons in the 47 weeks to the third week of November, compared with the comparable period the year before, largely on account of industrial disputes? Is this not ample justification
  1464
  for the important Bill to be brought before the House this day?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it is widely recognised that there was a shortage of coal and that this was aggravated by industrial disputes in the industry. Perhaps these matters had better be left to be debated later today.

  MR. EMILE VAN LENNEP (OFFICIAL TALKS)
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. Emile Van Lennep the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in Paris on 12th November.
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his official talks in November with the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Van Lennep paid a courtesy call on me on the 11th November and we discussed the work of the O.E.C.D.
  Mr. Barnett: As the O.E.C.D. has forecast that in the next ten years Britain's rate of economic growth will be lower than that of most member countries and as this is clearly out of line with the right hon. Gentleman's election promises, will he now disagree publicly with that forecast?
  The Prime Minister: The forecast of this country's growth was made before the election, under the Labour Administration, and was widely discussed at the time. The object of this Government's policy, as I have constantly emphasised, is to get a higher rate of growth commensurate with getting on top of inflation.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister tell us what information he gave to the Secretary-General of the O.E.C.D. about controlling inflation and rises in prices, apart from his oft-quoted cliché of telling people to stand on their own two feet?
  The Prime Minister: We had a discussion about the various proposals which would appear in the Report of the O.E.C.D., which has been published, on

  1465
  the general subject of inflation. Some of these proposals we accept; others we dispute.

  MINISTRIES (MERGER)
  Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to merge the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that neither competition nor shoping around has resulted in prices being reduced "at a stroke" as he promised? Instead of merging these Ministries will he take the opportunity to sack one or other, or both?
  The Prime Minister: I think that both these Departments are necessary. In the reorganisation of the structure of Government one examined the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the proposed Department of Trade and Industry—and other Governments have done this before—but it is right that they should both deal with their own spheres.
  Mr. Evelyn King: In view of the fact that during the lifetime of the previous Administration the retail price index rose by 35 per cent. would it not be seemly if, on this subject, hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little mute?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is very wise advice.
  Mr. Peart: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has declared openly and categorically that he wants to increase prices?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has made his position clear—
  Mr. Peart: Yes.
  The Prime Minister: —and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it has been grossly exaggerated by his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Any change that is being made in the form of agricultural support is one which enables the British farmer to expand production—which is what the right hon. Gentleman failed to enable him to do when he was Minister of Agriculture—as well as enabling
  1466
  taxation to be reduced and social service benefits to be increased.
  Sir D. Renton: Will my right hon. Friend consider transferring to the Minister of Agriculture the responsibility for taking the detailed decisions about food imports so that the Minister can ensure that the policy for which he is responsible is coherently carried out on his own responsibility?
  The Prime Minister: This is an important question, and it is very largely tied up with the anti-dumping provisions. These are operated by the Department of Trade and Industry because they involve international trade agreements and practices, particularly under the G.A.T.T. We must also take into account the fact that when the present price support system is changed over to the levy system, it will be impossible to dump or to get under the levy, and this is one advantage of the new system.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter I wish to raise concerns the Answer to Question No. 1 to the Prime Minister about statistics relating to the number of Questions which have been transferred to other Ministers.
Many of us have tried to put down Questions about how many Questions have been transferred, but the Table Office has ruled such Questions out of order. Questions on this matter were ruled out of order by your predecessor who, on 20th July, 1964, said that not only could Questions on why a transfer had taken place not be asked, but that statistics relating to Questions transferred could not be given. The then Speaker went back to a precedent of 1901 for his view and said that the information was to be found by looking at HANSARD. The HANSARD of 1901 is very different from the HANSARD of today, taking into account the amount of the business of the House.
In view of that, would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to transfer every Question put to him, and virtually to do away with Questions? And if he did that we would not be able to question him about why he had transferred them. Would he then not even have to say why he bothered to transfer them? Would

1467
it be in order, in view of this, simply to put down Questions addressed to the Government, because no one knows with which Minister the Question is going to end up?
In view of the 158 Questions that have been transferred and the farce that is taking place and the obstructionist tactics being adopted towards back benchers, can you, Mr. Speaker, not revise this earlier Ruling of 1964 and examine the position again?
Mr. Speaker: I commend to the hon. Member the Ruling to which he referred of 20th July—
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I commend to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) the Ruling of 20th July, 1964, which I read carefully this morning. It is a very long Ruling. It goes into the whole matter of transferred Questions and summarises in one sentence the position about transferring Questions. The transfer of Questions is a matter purely for the Minister. Mr. Speaker has nothing to do with it, and I am not prepared to change the carefully worded and elaborate Ruling of my predecessor four years ago.
Mr. Buchan: Would it not be better if all the Questions to the Prime Minister were transferred to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? This would have the advantage that we would know Government policy six months before it was enunciated?
Mr. Speaker: I doubt very much whether the hon. Member himself believes that that is a point of order.
Mr. David Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I bear in mind that your responsibility for Questions is limited to compliance with the rules of the House. I am also aware that any Minister can refuse to answer any Question. My point of order relates to a Question that was tabled in connection with a Royal Commission. It appeared on the Order Paper, and it was later transferred by the Prime Minister's Department to another Minister.
That surprised me, because I had understood from Erskine May that
1468
"Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected …"
Hon. Members: Reading.
Mr. Clark: I was merely quoting Erskine May to keep the matter in order. To save time, I shall not quote any further, but Wade and Phillips confirm the strong impression which I think most constitutional scholars have. It is clearly understood that the Prime Minister is responsible for the establishment of a Royal Commission. On looking through HANSARD, I find that most Prime Ministers have accepted this convention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, did so on many occasions. The last occasion on which he did so appears in HANSARD, Volume 799, columns 1570 to 1571, when my right hon. Friend answered a Question about a Royal Commission on a matter directly related to the responsibility of another Department, and this procedure was following by his predecessors in 1963 and 1955.
I have tried to show that it is a convention of the British Constitution, derived from the Royal Prerogative, that the Prime Minister accepts responsibility—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clark: I am trying to put the case to Mr. Speaker. Many of us on this side of the House are interested in democracy and the Constitution. Under the Royal Prerogative, Prime Ministers have accepted responsibility for Royal Commissions. Furthermore, the acceptance of this responsibility by the Prime Minister has been a custom of the House. By refusing to accept a Question about a Royal Commission—not by refusing to answer it—has not the Prime Minister broken the rules and the custom of the House, and has he not broken a convention of the British Constitution affecting the working of this House? Should he not make a statement to the House on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has submitted his point of order courteously and clearly. May I remind the House that every mining constituency Member is anxious to take part in the debate that lies ahead of us.
The simple answer to the hon. Member's point of order is the one that I gave

1469
to the previous point of order. It is in order for a Minister to transfer Questions. The Speaker has no power to interfere in that transfer, and the Speaker is not in a position to comment on the constitutional or unconstitutional propriety of a Minister, or even the Prime Minister, so transferring a Question. I hope that we can get on.
Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To save time, could not the Prime Minister help us? My hon. Friend has put a simple important point to you relating to the responsibility of the Prime Minister for matters concerned with the appointment of a Royal Commission. Would not a short statement by the Prime Minister accepting this responsibility solve the matter straight away?
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Faulds.
Mr. Faulds: I was afraid that you might overlook me.
Mr. Speaker: I never overlook the hon. Gentleman; I occasionally overhear him.
Mr. Faulds: I am only too willing to make another contribution to your study. Do not the Prime Minister's difficulties in answering Questions arise from the fact that that particular right hon. Gentleman has the pretensions of an amateur in politics as in piano playing?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and it was not very remarkable.
Mr. William Price: Would it not help the House and perhaps save time, Mr. Speaker, if you could persuade the Prime Minister to place a list in the Library of those Questions which he is prepared to answer?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, like every hon. Gentleman for the last 100 years, learns which Questions a Prime Minister transfers when he transfers them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Supply (7th Allotted Day): Motion to take note of the Fifth Report, and the relevant Observations, from the Estimates Committee in Session 1968–69, on the Inland Revenue Department.
Motions on the Agriculture Schemes and Orders and of the Restriction on Agreements (Estate Agents) Order.
TUESDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Highways Bill.
Motions relating to Consular Relations and Immunities and Privileges Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 9TH DECEMBER—Supply (8th Allotted Day): Debate on a topic to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
THURSDAY, 10TH DECEMBER—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Orders, on Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments, on the London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations and on the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order.
FRIDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 15th December.
Mr. Harold Wilson: With regard to the Industrial Relations Bill, do the Government intend to move that its Committee stage be taken on the Floor of the House? On a broader question, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that last week I stressed to him the importance of a debate on foreign affairs before Christmas. I believe he will find that, on the occasion of the previous Prime Minister's first visit to Washington, the House insisted on a debate before he went—in fact, we had two or three on defence and foreign affairs. Would it not be appropriate, since we have had no debate on foreign affairs of a general character since the Gracious Speech, that before the right hon. Gentleman goes to Washington the House should be able to discuss foreign affairs and, in the

1471
course of that debate, to express the concern to which I referred last week about recent developments in Vietnam?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I am delighted to have his confident assurance of the triumphant conclusion of the Second Reading of this Bill. Obviously, there could be no question of where it went until it had successfully gained a Second Reading. As for the Committee stage, the Government have very seriously considered the fundamental importance of this Bill and all the issues which are involved. They have decided that the Committee stage of this Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] Yes, on the Floor of the House: I hope that I have made myself quite clear.
On the second point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, the question of a foreign affairs debate, I have felt it right, in response to what I know were the wishes of the Opposition, to have two full days for Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill. This has made it difficult to fit in a foreign affairs debate in this period. However, I note that the Opposition have not chosen a subject as yet for their Supply Day on Wednesday, 9th December. I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels as to the possibility of such a foreign affairs debate, fitting in with the Foreign Secretary's programme as it must on this occasion as always in the past. But there can be discussions.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer to my first question. [Interruption.] I have thanked him because I thought that he went to a great deal of trouble to meet the Opposition on this point. But on the foreign affairs debate, do I understand that the talks he has in mind would be with a view to possibly giving up Government time on Wednesday so that we could have a Supply Day later? If so, we would want to talk about it. But surely he is not proposing—I do not think he was proposing—that out of a Supply Day we should find time for a debate on foreign affairs which it is clearly the Government's duty to give?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the second point, I was making the point that if we were
1472
to have a debate next week, bearing in mind the two days on the Industrial Relations Bill, it would probably be sensible to have it on the Wednesday, particularly since the Opposition have not so far picked a subject for a Supply Day. In the past, there has been a reasonable convention in the House that where there have been two days of a foreign affairs debate the Government have found one day and the Opposition have found the other. I have participated in those arrangements. I am prepared on this sort of basis to discuss through the usual channels whether this could be satisfactorily arranged on this occasion. But I should make it clear in doing so that I have not consulted my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I would naturally wish to do so in accordance with normal precedent.
Mr. Turton: On what day next week will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster be coming to the House to make a statement on his talks next Tuesday at Brussels? Will we have the opportunity of a debate after that statement?
Mr. Whitelaw: Subject to correction, I think almost certainly on Thursday, 10th December. As to a debate, I am afraid that if we are having one on foreign affairs I could not at this stage promise another on the Common Market. A statement after the negotiations is, I believe, the right answer at this stage.
Mr. Peart: I had the impression today, in view of the reply to a supplementary question, that the Prime Minister was looking into the matter of transferring Questions, especially those concerning Royal Commissions. I hope that that is firm and that the right hon. Gentleman, probably next week, might be able to tell the House the result of that inquiry.
Mr. Whitelaw: I understood the position to be that my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that there has been no change in normal practice. What my right hon. Friend was referring to was whether the Prime Minister should answer Questions relating to the speeches not only of members of the Cabinet but of those Ministers inside one of the new major Departments. We have undertaken to consider this very carefully.
Several Hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that there is an important debate ahead on the coal industry.
Mr. Nott: May we have an opportunity of a full day's debate on yesterday's announcement by the Minister for Aviation Supply on the airbus? While we wholly appreciate that the Government probably could not have made any other decision in the circumstances, nevertheless it has far-reaching financial and industrial implications. We should very much like the figures and an opportunity to debate the matter.
Mr. Whitelaw: I fully recognise the importance of this subject, but I am afraid that it would not be possible for such a debate next week.
Mr. George Thomas: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 146, dealing with the conduct of the Secretary of State for Wales?
[That this House, being aware of the assumption of quasi-judicial responsibility by the Secretary of State for Wales in connection with the public inquiry into the proposal to establish a gunnery range at Pembrey, deplores his refusal made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Llanelli on 25th November to give an undertaking that he would not consult with the Ministry of Defence, a party to the inquiry; and demands that the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales be referred to the Council on Tribunals.]
In view of the fact that this is a very serious censure on the Minister concerned, that the great majority of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have added their names to the Motion and that it is a matter of some discussion in the Principality, will the right hon. Gentleman allow us time to discuss this, since the Secretary of State himself is not a Welsh Member?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman raises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is following exactly the practice which has been followed for many years. However, I would have thought that this Motion was eminently suitable for discussion in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. John Wells: Could Monday's debate on agriculture be so arranged that
1474
it can range widely enough to include the statement which was made last week by the Secretary of State for Social Services about National Insurance regulations for occasional work in agriculture and horticulture, which is absolutely vital now; to embrace the widespread unrest which is felt among the horticultural community about Eastern European imports; and to enable us to ventilate the entire subject of horticulture and agriculture, since this would give great satisfaction in these industries, the members of which want these three topics debated urgently?
Mr. Whitelaw: In view of the technicality of my hon. Friend's question, I am only too relieved to be able to tell him that what will be in order in the debate is a matter not for me but for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Shore: Further to the need for the right hon. Gentleman to find time for a debate on the Common Market before Christmas, is he aware of the growing concern that is felt about this issue, that it is quite wrong that there should be total silence in this House about it and that it is not good enough merely to say that statements and answers are regularly given on the subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can fairly say that there is silence in the House on this matter. As was promised by the previous Administration, and as has been carried out by the present Government, whenever my right hon. Friend returns from any negotiations, and more frequently than that, he makes a statement in the House and is subjected, and properly so, to considerable questioning. I do not see, therefore, how the right hon. Gentleman's accusation of there being total silence on the subject can possibly be substantiated. I am afraid that I could not promise a debate on this matter before Christmas. I can only say that I have noted the views of hon. Members and that, naturally, the question of such a debate is one which I am certainly prepared to discuss through the usual channels.
Mr. Redmond: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 164, entitled "Conduct

1475
of the Leader of the Opposition (No. 2)":
[That this House notes with sorrow the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to restrain his Party from deliberately promoting the break up of parliamentary proceedings during the debate on the Reform of Industrial Relations, thus attempting to frustrate the clear will of the electorate.]
Is he able to find time for this Motion to be debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: My only comment about noise at the end of parliamentary debates is that I was extremely grateful for the generous hearing which the House gave me when I replied to the debate last Monday night. I can only hope that the same generous treatment will be accorded to all hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House in such circumstances.
Mr. Dell: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 171, which stands in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends, regarding the confiscation of savings of investors in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? Has he also seen the comments which some of his hon. Friends made in the debate last Tuesday on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Capital Reconstruction) Bill, which was sponsored by the Government? Will he arrange for this Bill to be debated before Christmas?
[That this House condemns the action of the Government in refusing assistance to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and compelling it to place before Parliament a Bill which confiscates the saving of large numbers of small investors in the Board, who regarded it as equal in security to a local authority or Government investment, and who, if the Bill becomes law, will see repayment of their bonds deferred for two years and the nominal value reduced by 30 per cent.; declares that, as a matter of public faith, the Government, having taken over supervision of the running of the Board, should also provide funds necessary to enable it to regain viability and thus continue its vital service to the economy of Merseyside and the North-West.]
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I should make a correction to what the right hon. Gentleman said. The Bill concerned was sponsored by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and not by the Government. This matter was debated last week. A statement was also made last week. I am afraid that I could not provide time for it to be debated next week.
Mr. Marten: Further to the questions which my right hon. Friend has been asked about providing time for the Common Market to be debated before the Christmas Recess, is he aware that it is not really a question of silence as much as a lack of information? Is he aware that that is why it would be right for there to be an urgent debate on the subject, at which time we might be able to draw from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy more information about what is going on?
Mr. Whitelaw: We undertook that whenever there were negotiations, my right hon. Friend would give the fullest possible information to the House. A week or so ago the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition reasonably asked me if it would be possible to have even more statements made to the House. I arranged for such a statement then, and there have been several other statements. We have had every intention of giving as much information as we possibly can, and this will continue.
Mr. Loughlin: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to Motion No. 161 which stands in my name and the names of 120 other hon. Members and which deals with the plight of old-age pensioners?
[That this House, noting with great concern the ever-increasing cost of living and, in particular, the enormous and continuing increases in food prices, and alarmed at the effect of such increases on the aged and those living on fixed incomes, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to increase substantially retirement pensions forthwith and to offset any delay due to administrative problems by making an interim payment on a once-and-for-all basis before Christmas 1970.]
As this Motion refers to the possibility of an interim award being given before Christmas, may I ask the right hon.

1477
Gentleman to change the business for next week to enable us to discuss it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I fully recognise the considerable importance of the Motion, but I am afraid that I could not arrange for it to he debated next week.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about the question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) about Monday's agricultural debate. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety over a wide sphere of agriculture, and not only about the three points which my hon. Friend raised? Will he use his best endeavours to see that Monday's debate covers the widest possible sphere of agriculture?
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not fully understand the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I am as anxious as are my hon. Friends to see that all relevant matters are reasonably discussed in the debate, but it would be wholly improper for me to try to say what will be in order in such a debate. That must remain a matter for Mr. Speaker and for nobody else.
Mr. Bob Brown: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have seen Early Day Motion No. 170 entitled "Justice for the Disabled".
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to seek to exempt all disabled persons on local authority and employment exchange registers from all prescription, dental and optical charges and to provide a tax allowance for clothing for disabled people who have heavy wear and tear from such aids as calipers and crutches.]
Is he aware that although the disabled are extremely grateful to the Labour Government for facilitating the passage of the Measure which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), they are extremely concerned about, for example, the question of a clothing allowance for the disabled? Will he provide time soon for this matter to be debated?
Mr. Whitelaw: All hon. Members recognise the immense importance of this subject. I have no doubt that opportunities
1478
will arise from time to time for it to be discussed; but I am afraid that I am unable to find time for it to be debated next week.
Mr. Jennings: In view of the apparent reluctance at any time to have a free vote on the question of our entry into the Common Market and in view of last night's magnificent free vote—[Interruption.]—may I ask my right hon. Friend to provide time for there to be a short debate on whether or not this House should have a free vote on the Common Market issue?
Mr. Whitelaw: Matters concerning voting in this House are for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—and, of course, the Opposition Chief Whip. It is sometimes decided, as it was on a matter like B.S.T. last night, that it is reasonable for there to be a free vote. It is interesting to note—I say this without meaning any offence to anybody—that B.S.T. was brought in on a whipped vote and went out on a free vote. As for other free votes, that must be a matter for decision in each case. Perhaps I am entitled to say, in view of the considerable experience which I have had in this matter, that the issue of a whip by any party to its Members, and particularly by the Government to their Members on a matter of Government policy, is something which has long been understood in the House as being an expression to those Members of the views of the Government on the particular matter under discussion.
Mr. McElhone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the greatly increased fears of many people in South-West and Central Scotland about the Holy Loch base? Is he prepared to allow time for there to be a debate on the resiting of this base?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and others, some of who have approached me, on this matter. I have been in consultation with both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland on this issue. I am afraid that I could not offer time for it to be debated next week.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: While, when answering questions about finding time for a debate for the Common Market issue, my right hon. Friend has properly

1479
and courteously said that arrangements have been made through the usual channels, may I ask him to bear in mind that on this subject the usual channels are as one, which means that the normal pressures which would come through the normal channels are, understandably, not being brought to bear with the same degree of pressure? In these circumstances, will he think again and agree to provide time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to discuss this subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: Having had some experience of the usual channels, whatever may be their particular views on any issues—I make no comment on that—I have found them over the years to be very responsive to the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House, irrespective of their own views.
Mr. Marquand: When does the Leader of the House expect the next White Paper on the future projections of public expenditure to be published? Can he give an assurance that he will have a two-day debate on this when we return after the recess, because a one-day debate would be totally inadequate and would be a bad precedent.
Mr. Whitelaw: At this stage I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer as to the date when the White Paper will be published. I note what he says about a two-day debate. I think that I said during the debate on procedure that as a principle for the future the Government absolutely accept that there should be a two-day debate. Circumstances were somewhat different this year in view of the debates we had already had and I could not guarantee it this year, but I guaranteed it for the future. I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that assurance.
Mr. John Morris: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in answering questions from myself and from my hon. Friends last Monday about the future ownership of the steel industry, said, "I shall make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so"? Is it expected that there will be a statement next week or before Christmas about the ownership of the steel industry.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have no reason to suppose that there will be a statement next week.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: As the question of the Common Market is a vitally important and burning issue, and as in February three days were allotted to a debate and in May two days were allotted to a debate, will the Leader of the House consider arranging for us to have at least a one-day debate, if not a two-day debate, on this very important subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot go further than what I have already said.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the official announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Services that from June until October social welfare benefits depreciated in purchasing value by 2·2 per cent., which on an annual basis is 6·6 per cent.? As hon. Members on both sides have promised to look after the sick, the disabled, the unemployed and retired pensioners, will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange a debate on Motion No. 172 which sets out these facts and which would give hon. Members on both sides an opportunity of declaring themselves on this issue?
[That this House notes that on 1st Deccember, 1970 the Government announced that between June and October, 1970 the poorest section of the population, on welfare benefits have seen the purchasing value of their benefits depreciate by 2·2 per cent., due to the rise in the cost of living; observes that whereas early in November, 1970 the Government gave to certain civil servants on salaries of £9,800 per annum increases, both retrospectively and in advance, totalling some 43 per cent., at the same time they refused to grant increase in benefits to the sick, disabled, unemployed, and retired pensioners; and, as these are having their benefits reduced by 6·6 per cent. per annum, is of the opinion that, before the chairmen of the nationalised boards and higher-paid civil servants receive in January, 1971 a third increase of as much as £2,500 per annum on salaries of £17,500 per annum, all welfare benefits should be increased.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the importance of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot at this time promise a debate, but I am sure that there will be opportunities in the months ahead to raise these matters.
Mr. Walter Johnson: In view of the unsatisfactory and evasive answers to Questions on transport matters, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on transport before the recess? If this should not be possible, can I have an assurance that no decision on transport matters will be made before the recess and that the Government will bring matters before the House before decisions are taken?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to endorse his view that the answers to transport questions were evasive. As for any future policy, I will certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned to what the hon. Gentleman says. If there is to be a statement on these matters, it will be made to the House.
Mr. Dalyell: As an Anglo-American decision may be reached before 12th January, and as the Prime Minister has revealed that no one has told him the awful truth about the costs of building bases on coral limestone in the Indian Ocean, could we at least have a statement on costs and what the Government are doing in the Indian Ocean before 18th December?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think that he has necessarily drawn the right conclusion from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answers.
Mr. Swain: Is the Leader of the House aware that since he became the Leader of the House he has been about as charitable to the Opposition as a churchwarden with a two bob piece on a piece of elastic? Will he consider between now and ten o'clock this evening whether he will give permission for the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have gone as far in that direction as I would wish for one day.
Mr. W. Baxter: Does the Leader of the House recognise that many people in Scotland will be very disturbed at the fact that he has turned down the opportunity to discuss the question of the siting of the Polaris base? People in Scotland are very concerned at the great danger to the people of Scotland and this is a matter of great urgency which should be discussed in the House at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly call the attention of my right hon Friends concerned to what the hon. Gentleman says.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.6 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Since its publication, public comment on this Bill has in the main concentrated on Clauses 6, 7 and 8—the Clauses concerned with the non-colliery activities of the National Coal Board. I have no doubt at all that the anxiety which has been expressed to me by some hon. Members opposite is absolutely genuine, but I can at the outset assure them and the House that there is no justification for the wildly speculative interpretations which in some quarters have been put on these Clauses.
  The Coal Board has moved a long way since it was created in 1946. It is now engaged in a wide range of non-mining activities. Some of them—like brickworks, coal-sale depots, coke ovens, farms and housing—were carried on by the privately-owned collieries before nationalisation and were included among the assets vested in the Board by the 1946 Act. But since then diversification has increased, so that the activities now include processed fuels manufacture, builders' merchants, district heating, retail coal distribution, chemicals, North Sea Gas and hotel reservations. Some of these are in the form of wholly-owned ancillaries carried on by the Board; others are wholly or partly owned trade undertakings which include partnerships and equity participation in private sector companies. Between them they made a net contribution last year of some £15 million to the Board's profit before interest. This more than off-set the operating loss on colliery account.
  In developing its non-colliery activities the Coal Board has been acting within the wide powers conferred on it by Section 1 of the 1946 Act. From what I have said it is evident that these activities are now of considerable significance to the management and finances of the Coal Board. They are also, therefore, of major interest to Government and to this House. Over the years, the coal industry
  1484
  has gradually spread further away from its original base, and in the interests of proper accountability Parliament should know where this process has got to. We need to be informed about the strategic plans of one of our major public sector industries, and we should know the extent to which the large investment of taxpayers' money in coal is being buttressed by or even extending into diversified activities.
  The first step in this process should be taken in connection with the Board's published accounts. A great deal of information is already given, but in order that legitimate public interest may be satisfied and to demonstrate the extent, if any, to which cross-subsidisation occurs, the state of affairs of the Board's subsidiaries should also be disclosed in as full and comprehensive a manner as possible. Clause 8 would give powers to ensure that this was done.
  Clause 6 provides for a review of all or any of these activities to show the extent to which they draw upon the resources of the Board, the benefits they bring, and the way they fit into the Board's plans for the future. Since it is nearly a quarter of a century after nationalisation, it is absolutely right that we should now take stock of the point that has been reached. No decision has been taken by the Government concerning any of these activities. We want to be able to judge the position of each against a proper assessment of their value in the interests of both the Coal Board and the taxpayer. It is only in that way that my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy himself as to whether or not the activities concerned should be retained for the effective discharge of the Board's duties. Only then, after full consultation with the Chairman of the Board, will he be in a position to use the powers provided for in Clause 7.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: Will disclosure in the case of the financial affairs of subsidiaries of the Coal Board be greater in extent than that required for other companies under the Companies Act?
  Sir J. Eden: I think that normal commercial practice should be observed here and that this is what we should wish to do. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a move to secure much

  1485
  greater disclosure of the affairs of subsidiaries of companies, and I think that it is right that we should also expect our public sector companies to move in the same direction.
  Mr. Richard Kelley: Is it the Government's intention to find out what unprofitable enterprises are conducted by the Board with a view to taking them away from the Board so as to improve its financial position?
  Sir J. Eden: There are two points here. I made it clear, and I meant what I said, that no decision has been taken by the Government in relation to any one of these activities. What the review will do will be to show up which are of benefit and which are no longer of benefit to the Board as a whole. I think that that is the right way to proceed.
  A certain amount of attention has been directed to the powers in Clause 7, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will know that there is nothing new about these powers in connection with the nationalised industries. Diversified activities of nationalised industries have long been recognised as posing special problems. Previous Labour Governments have introduced various powers in this area. Powers to require the Boards to review and report on the organisation of their activities were included in the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, and the Transport Act, 1968. Further than that, powers to give directions to discontinue or restrict certain activities were also included by the previous Government in the Iron and Steel Act and in the Post Office Act, 1969, and were first introduced by the earlier Labour Government in the Transport Act 1947.
  Clause 7 merely repeats for the purpose of the coal industry what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite thought fit to apply to a whole range of other public sector industries.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright rose—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Minister to decide to whom he gives way.
  Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that there is no objection to the Government wanting reports from the various subsidiaries. What worries hon. Members on this side of the House, the National Coal Board and the mining industry as a whole is the ulterior motive behind the Government's asking for these reports.
  Sir J. Eden: There is no ulterior motive behind it. I am putting the position fairly and clearly to the House. I cannot do more.
  Mr. John Cronin: We on this side of the House take the Minister's point that these powers have existed before, and we accept his assurance that no decisions have been made. Will he bear in mind that his party's election manifesto made it clear that the Government's policy would be a progressive reduction of State involvement in the nationalised industries, and that the hiving off of what were called peripheral activities was one of the methods by which it should be done.
  Sir J. Eden: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that we are taking these powers for the purpose of the coal industry.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: I am not.
  Sir J. Eden: But I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that there is to be no hasty action of any kind.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: The Government are going to do it slowly.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is important, but there is a parliamentary way of interrupting.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) need not brandish his hand at me to raise a point of order.
  Mr. Eadie: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I feel strongly about this. Since you said that there were parliamentary ways and means of trying to get the Minister to give way, we must have a Ruling from you on the manner in which the hon. Gentleman is conducting the debate. He

  1487
  says first that there is no ulterior motive. Then he confesses that there was no hasty decision. Will he say whether he is prepared to hive off the profitable sections of the industry?
  Mr. Speaker: This is the kind of point which I imagine will be made in the debate by the hon. Gentleman or some of his hon. Friends.
  Sir J. Eden: That was a very good point of order. If I might proceed on this point, as I have already indicated, we need to have powers to have this review and to take stock of the position that the industry has reached. What hon. Gentleman opposite must face is the fact that in these last two years the financial results of the Board have been disappointing. At the end of March 1969 the accumulated deficit was about £8 million; at the end of March, 1970, it was £34·5 million. Higher wages, mounting costs, the unofficial strike of October 1969 and the slow down in the rise in productivity have all contributed to this. It was hoped that recent price increases would have enabled the Board to break even on revenue account this year. But the unofficial strike last month put an end to that. It is virtually certain that the Board will exceed the existing statutory limit of £50 million on the accumulated deficit. Some action, therefore, has to be taken to ensure that there is no breach of the statutory obligation. I have given close study to the various courses that have been suggested to me. The Government have concluded that the right step to take is that which is proposed in Clause 3. Parliament is therefore asked to extend the limit on the accumulated deficit from £50 million to £75 million, subject to later alteration either upwards or downwards by affirmative Resolution of this House.
  Clauses 4 and 5, giving the Board powers to borrow in foreign currency and to provide technical assistance overseas, are similar to those already given to some other nationalised industries. Foreign borrowing provides a means of improving the structure of the nation's debts by enabling the Government to obtain foreign currency to replace short-term borrowing with medium- and long-term borrowing. In this way, our debt structure can be improved without increasing the level of overseas debt.
  1488
  I turn now to Clauses 1 and 2. The primary purpose of this Bill and the chief reason why it is before the House today is to enable the Government, by Order, to extend for three years beyond March 1971 certain schemes designed to mitigate the social consequences of contraction in the industry.
  Clause 1 extends to the end of March 1974 the power to contribute, on a tapering basis, towards the N.C.B.'s expenditure arising from the redeployment of manpower and the closure of uneconomic pits. This expenditure involves payments on account of redundancy, loss of prospects and premature retirements, and removal and resettlement expenses. The overall limit has been raised to £24 million—£2 million higher than that provided for in the previous Government's Bill—to take account of increased costs.
  Clause 2 will extend the power to make schemes for payments to miners becoming redundant during the three years up to the end of March 1974. The related provision under the Coal Industry Act, 1967, for the payment of premature pensions will continue to apply, and that continuance is not affected by the Bill one way or the other. I emphasise that at this stage all that is being sought is the power to extend the schemes. And there is no difference here between the intention of this Government and that of the previous administration.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference between the effect of Clause 2 and the corresponding provisions in 1967 and the 1970 Bill which never became law. Why has he included in his Clause a subsection referring to only those miners made redundant until March, 1972, when the Secretary of State, apparently, will have power to lay an Order before the House? Will he be more precise about this and explain exactly what is meant by the Clause? Are we talking about three years or about only one?
  Sir J. Eden: I fully understand that point, and I think that many people are confused about it. In fact, there is no difference whatever between what is being proposed here and what was proposed in the previous Bill. As I understand it, the previous Government intended to conduct a review during the first year of operation and to bring in a new scheme from

  1489
  1972 onwards. This is the intention of the present Government, and I shall try to spell it out a little more clearly if that will help the hon. Gentleman.
  The existing scheme will, therefore, run on for one year and be reviewed during the course of that year.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, that is the point.
  Sir J. Eden: During the course of that year it will be reviewed. Had there been opportunity to conduct a complete review between the election and now, and to table Orders and all the rest, it might have been possible to bring in a new scheme straightaway. But that was not possible, and I do not think that it was even expected by the previous Government, though it may have been.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Sir J. Eden: I must press on, if hon. Members will allow me.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister has not explained.
  Sir J. Eden: During the course of the review, both the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers will be fully consulted. As in the previous Bill, which was debated earlier this year, the qualifying age limit is being omitted. This is in order to give the widest choice of options in preparing any further scheme. To give some idea of the cost involved, if the existing scheme were to be continued over the three-year period, Exchequer expenditure would total about £25 million.
  At a time when each item of public expenditure is under the closest scrutiny, these provisions are not ungenerous. But I am sure that it is wholly right that we should help in this way to ease the situation which faces men, many of whom have given the best years of their life to the industry, when their own pit is forced to close.
  Happily, the rate of pit closure seems to have passed the peak. The number fell to a very low level in 1969–70, and fewer still are expected this year. Many of those that will close will do so because of the natural exhaustion of their reserves. Indeed, this is likely to be the position for some years to come, and I cannot see the rate again approaching the level
  1490
  reached in 1967–68 and 1968–69. In these circumstances, there is no justification for seeking to compensate the National Coal Board for losses incurred as a result of deferring pit closures at the Government's request. It was, in any case, an extremely unsatisfactory way of helping the individual, and the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was rightly critical of the high cost of the scheme in relation to the benefits.
  Instead, the Government will provide help in a much more cost-effective way by stimulating development in the assisted areas, by making greater use of the means available under the Local Employment Acts, and by the imaginative package of improved training measures announced in a Written Answer on 4th November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  In the previous Bill, there was another Clause—that extending the power to subsidise extra coal-burn at power stations—which in present circumstances of supply and demand cannot be justified. If the situation ever does change back to conditions of substantial surplus, then the Government will, of course, take whatever action then seems necessary to deal with it. But I see no early likelihood of this happening.
  Mr. Robert Woof: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our main job here is to ensure that there is no more redundancy than can possibly be helped. He will recall that, earlier in the year, one of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) came to an agreement and understanding that the Central Electricity Board should burn about 3½ million tons of Durham coal per year at the new Tilbury B power station. May we have an assurance that, in the present tug-of-war of competition, that agreement will be honoured?
  Sir J. Eden: I shall say a word about the energy scene in a few moments, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's question may be answered in that way.
  I was saying that in the present circumstances the retention in a Bill of power to subsidise extra coal-burn cannot be justified, and I see no likelihood of any early change in the pattern of supply and demand.

  1491
  Looking ahead over the next five years or so, the total demand for energy will almost certainly grow. This is a notoriously difficult area in which to forecast, and it is impossible to be firm about the future level of energy requirements and the shares of individual fuels. I see no joy in tying myself to any particular figures. I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand that. Recently, a number of factors have combined to increase pressures on the demand for coal. The difficulties experienced with Magnox reactors have required the use of extra coal in conventional stations. Other difficulties with new large generating sets and delays in the construction of new power stations have meant that older coal-fired stations have been kept going for longer than planned. This quite exceptional pressure is not likely to continue much longer especially as reports from the electricity industry indicate that the particular problems are being overcome.
  Mr. Eadie rose—
  Sir J. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must press on.
  As we have been moving from a two-fuel towards a four-fuel economy, we have also swung within a three-year period from a major surplus of coal and an easy fuel oil position to one of shortage of coal and a tight fuel oil position. Two things stand out from this experience. One is that short-term uncertainties are inseparable from this sector of the economy. The other is the overriding need for flexibility in our sources and use of energy. But longer-term, whatever steps are taken to deal with immediate problems, there is no doubt that coal will continue to be a major supplier of our energy needs.
  The position for this winter and next winter, however, is worrying—worrying, that is, for the coal industry's customers. As I told the House at Question time on Monday, stocks of coal are now so low as to give cause for serious concern. Undistributed stocks at about 7½ million tons compare with nearly 20 million tons a year ago. Hon. Members will be well aware of the difficulty many of their constituents are experiencing in obtaining supplies of solid smokeless fuels.
  1492
  Other forms of solid fuel also are in short supply. Foundry coke, for example, is in some cases down to two or three weeks' supply. Potentially serious difficulties could be experienced at power stations, where stocks are over 2 million tons down on one year ago—and even at that time some power stations ran short of coal. An already serious position has been made much worse by the recent unofficial strike, which is likely to have caused the loss of 3 million tons of coal for this winter.
  The prospect for next winter also looks bad.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Sir J. Eden: I must continue. The hon. Gentleman may have a chance to take part in the debate that follows:
  As the prospect for next winter also looks bad, special action must be taken.
  Mr. Swain: With regard to the 3 million tons of coal to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, in answer to a question on Monday he said that it was 2½ million tons. There has been no unofficial strike since Monday, so where has he got the other 500,000 tons from?
  Sir J. Eden: The figure of 2½ million tons referred to the immediate consequence of the strike. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it takes some time after a strike to get the pits back into full productive capacity again. That is where the extra 500,000 tons will come from. I am advised that the total effect of the strike is about 3 million tons of coal lost this year. For next year there is not much greater joy. In these circumstances special action must be taken.
  As the House knows, the C.E.G.B. has applied for consent to convert four coal-fired power stations—West Thurrock, Kirkstall, Padiham and Portsmouth. The N.C.B. accepts the need for these conversions. I have explained this situation to the National Union of Mineworkers and have carefully considered their views. I have however come to the conclusion, against the background of the prospective coal shortage, that the only sensible course is for the C.E.G.B. to be authorised to go ahead with the conversion of West Thurrock, Kirkstall and Portsmouth, which can contribute a saving of over 1 million tons of coal in the crucial winter of 1971–72. In the case of West Thurrock,

  1493
  the conversion will be to natural gas but will be on a basis which will permit reversion to coal firing should circumstances require it. The West Thurrock position will be almost exactly comparable to Hams Hall C.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me one intervention from this side of the House. I am grateful to him. Will he take this opportunity publicly to confirm the figure issued by his Ministry for the loss of coal owing to disputes during the 47 weeks ended 21st November last? That figure is 3·064 million tons. Will he now confirm the figure, as it was missing from his reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) a moment ago?
  Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to a situation created by earlier industrial unrest. But as he knows, I was dealing with the situation that immediately arose as a result of the recent strikes.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Spot on.
  Sir J. Eden: I have mentioned the conversion of the three power stations, Kirkstall, Portsmouth and West Thurrock. Kirkstall and Portsmouth are to be converted to oil, and not to dual-firing. Those are decisions taken primarily in the interests of the clean-air policy. There have been an enormous number of protests about excess smoke emission from those two stations. The West Thurrock decision is primarily taken because of the prospective coal shortage. That power station is to be converted to dual-firing with gas, which is the best form of dual-firing in the circumstances. Padiham would not contribute to coal saving in 1971–72, and I am therefore deferring my decision to see how the situation develops.
  But these measures will not in themselves be sufficient. In the Government's view, it would be indefensible to deny consumers the opportunity to supplement and safeguard their supplies from other quarters. Accordingly, with effect from 5th December, imports of coal, coke and manufactured fuels will be allowed. Consumers and merchants will then be free, under open general licence, to secure any supplies that may be available overseas. This will also help to protect the longer-term
  1494
  home market for solid fuel. I should make it clear now that the Government intend to review this decision not later than March, 1972, in the light of the supply-demand position then obtaining.
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has found the excuse to do this. Fair enough. During the early days of nationalisation there was the same importation of coal and the industry had to pay the cost. Is the hon. Gentleman charging to the industry the extra cost of importing the coal?
  Sir J. Eden: The coal imported will be sold on the home market at a price which covers the cost of the import, the cost of the supply.
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman must give a straightforward answer.
  Sir J. Eden: No doubt the price of the coal which may be available from overseas will have some effect on the total amount likely to be brought into this country.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Sir J. Eden: I have answered the question quite clearly.
  Hon. Members: Answer!
  Sir J. Eden: Let me underline what I have said. There is no question of subsidising the price of coal imported.
  The Government have taken these decisions in the light of the present and prospective coal shortages. We have, of course, paid close attention to the views of the N.U.M. We are well aware of its anxieties about the future. But we must also take into account the anxieties of the coal industry's customers. Key sectors of our economy, like the makers of steel or the manufacturers of motor cars, are finding it increasingly difficult to rely upon existing sources of supply. And the needs of a wide range of smaller users, down to the housewife and the pensioner, are stretching the resources of the trade.
  The Government have a duty to the consumer and the taxpayer as well as to the miner and the coal industry. We are discharging it through the measures I have announced and through the Bill, which I now invite the House to support.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Dingle Foot. [Laughter.]
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard you allude to the former right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. Would you not correct that and call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who does not bear the Christian name "Dingle", mercifully?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that my slip of the tongue was so obvious that no one in the House would think it worth while bothering about it.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I hasten to assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will never hold it against you. [Laughter.]
  I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while welcoming the proposals now made for continuing some of the previous Government's arrangements for providing essential assistance to the coal industry, refuses to give a Second Reading to a Bill which withdraws other forms of legitimate support and gives powers for the sale of profitable assets of the National Coal Board, thereby impairing confidence in the future of the industry and the long-term guarantees to which those working in it are entitled."
  Perhaps at the start, before I come to the speech of the Minister for Industry, I might address a word to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope I do it without any sense of patronage or anything of the sort, for I have not any right to show any. When this House treated Mr. Frank Cousins, who happened to be close friend of mine, in the manner in which it did treat him, I thought that it was the House of Commons that demeaned itself, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying to the right hon. Gentleman that I am strongly opposed to any idea that this House should be used as a kind of bearbaiting garden. It would be quite wrong for us to do so.
  I am strongly in favour of what I describe as the "politics of persuasion", and that is why I am a supporter of Parliamentary institutions. I am in favour of, if necessary, fierce but audible argument, and I trust that that is the way in which the affairs of the House will be conducted. I think that in the next eight or 12 months, for reasons which I shall indicate, we are in for some difficult and angry times in this country. I think it
  1496
  all the more important, therefore, that in this House we should seek to preserve proper methods of debate. I say that now because that is what I feel.
  Perhaps I might also, before proceeding, address a word to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
  Sir G. Nabarro: You will get it back in a moment.
  Mr. Foot: That is one of the troubles. We always know that in any coal debates the hon. Gentleman acts as a kind of tollgate and we have to stop and pay our money to him before we can proceed with the discussion. So I think that I might deal with it in advance in order to dispose of this matter at the beginning so that we should not have our proceedings interrupted at a later time.
  When the hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself in some Questions about coal and other matters to remind the Government of their election pledges and of what they said before 18th June, as he has on a number of occasions, he has sometimes reminded me of the story of John Wilkes who, in his old age, once walked around the streets of London and was greeted by a fruit seller in Covent Garden with the old familiar cry, "Wilkes and liberty". John Wilkes turned round upon her and said, "Shut up, you old fool. That is all over long ago".
  That, of course, is what some members of the Government would like to say to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. I am sure that they would put it in much more delicate language. They would probably say that, whilst they put every value on what he has to say, he could not expect an appropriate answer, at any rate for some months. They would probably phrase it in such terms as that, but it is in that spirit that I propose to treat his interruptions in these matters.
  Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the time-lag which the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to, I inform him, instruct him, that on the very matter which has arisen in the debate I have long urged my right hon. Friends that all imported fuel should be put on general open licence—and what South Worcestershire says today the Government will do tomorrow.
  Mr. Foot: And a more damning indictment of the Government no one could ever find. I do not suppose that any member of the Government would like to take credit for taking his policies from the hon. Gentleman. However, that finishes the hon. Gentleman from the proceedings. Now I come to the Bill and to the speech of the Minister.
  Perhaps first I can say a few words about the Clauses in the Bill upon which there is general agreement—not complete agreement, because we wish to examine the Bill, if it ever reaches the Committee stage, most carefully, and my hon. Friends who are miners are best qualified to examine the provisions about the continuance of the redundancy payments, the redundancy scheme generally, and the premature pensions. All these are matters we will wish to investigate to see whether there is any danger of the scheme being weakened. Indeed, we wish to strengthen the scheme. There is no reason at all why these payments should end after three years. We think that there should be an extension of them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Union of Mineworkers has put forward to him proposals of this nature and some of those proposals will be pressed in Committee.
  Then there are one or two other Clauses to which we have no objection, assuming that there is no sinister implication in them. There is the Clause which raises the statutory deficit of the National Coal Board. We have no objection to that, as long, as I say, it is not associated with any other part of the Bill.
  Sir J. Eden indicated assent.
  Mr. Foot: I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that it is not associated with any other part of the Bill, and therefore we welcome it.
  I must say that I thought, from the dulcet manner of the hon. Gentleman's introduction, that he was going to withdraw Clauses 6, 7 and 8 before we got any further. He seemed to be so ashamed of them. We will come to that, but before doing so I want to refer to the much more serious remark he made about how the Government propose to deal with the present situation of coal stocks and in the industry as a whole.
  1498
  Strictly speaking, that does not concern the Bill because it is notable that the hon. Gentleman did not use a single sentence in his speech, as far as I can recall, to explain how the Bill will assist the position either of coal stocks now or at Christmas, or at the following Christmas or at any time. He did not relate what he was proposing to the failure to incorporate in the Bill the two Clauses in the Labour Government's Bill about coal burn and the closure of pits. He did not relate that to how it is proposed to improve coal stocks at a later date. Of course, it can be argued that the demand for coal is so strong that those two provisions are not now necessary, but that is no reason to remove them from the Bill. The Government could have retained them in the Bill if they had wanted to show their good will towards the miners and the coal industry.
  Much more important, however, are the measures the hon. Gentleman has announced today, in particular, the measures about the conversion programme and, much more serious still, the proposal about coal imports. He did not explain very carefully and clearly what is the exact procedure that is to be followed. That is one of the reasons why instead of introducing it in a Bill which has nothing to do with coal imports he should have made a statement to the House outlining the scheme exactly. We hope that by next week at least the Government will have worked out their scheme and will make a statement to the House about exactly what measures are to be applied in carrying the scheme through.
  Are the merchants going to be left to compete with one another to import coal? Are they going to scour Europe and elsewhere in order to buy up the coal wherever they can? That is a fine way of pushing up prices.
  Mr. Swain: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) try to elicit from the Minister any answers on the discussions which have taken place between him and the National Carbonisation Association, because that association is searching the world to try to buy 300,000 tons of coal? Has the Minister given permission in advance for this coal to be imported by the association?
  Mr. Foot: We will have to seek answers to all these questions.
  If the Government wished to announce a scheme for the import of coal, particularly when not merely this country but the entire world is short of coal, contrary to the prophecies of most of the experts three years ago, they should first have made a statement to the House. If it is the proposition that merchants are to be let loose to scour a world which is short of coal in order to buy it up, that will be a fine way to push up prices. The Government pretend to look after the customers and not after the merchants who will be purchasing the coal, but if they are concerned to look after the customers and if we are to have any kind of import scheme—and we have not agreed to that—which will bear investigation, they should have allowed the National Coal Board to conduct the purchases, but without having to bear the expense as it has had to do on previous occasions.
  The hon. Gentleman's explanation has not been at all satisfactory. What he has done by his announcement today is greatly to intensify the damage which the offensive parts of the Bill were already doing. Before I come to the provisions of the Bill, I want to refer to the context in which these proposals are advanced.
  The situation is critical. When we had the last coal industry debate we tried to warn the Government, although they did not heed us, of how dangerous the coal situation was when on a ballot 55 per cent. of the miners voted in favour of strike action. We tried to warn the Government by what a narrow margin the country had escaped a national coal strike. The events which have since occurred have underlined the seriousness of the situation for this Christmas and, perhaps more, next Christmas.
  The reason is that the simplest fact about coal is that we cannot get coal without miners. The test of the Bill is whether it will assist us to get miners who feel that they are having a square deal in the industry. I must say without sentimentality that my first memory of an association with the mining industry was that when I was a journalist many years ago I went in the early 1930s to the
  1500
  tiny offices of the Miners Federation, which at the time were just off Tavistock Square. A year or two later, I went to Haworth, where there was a strike which was designed in the end to secure the aim of one miners' union.
  What has happened in recent weeks has been the imposition of heavy strains which have put the miners' union into a cruel dilemma which miners have to face more sharply than any other section of the community. Their level of wages has been declining when compared with those of most other industrial workers, and miners are now fifteenth or sixteenth in the list. When they strive, as they did with their wage claim, to remedy that situation, they are told by the Coal Board, by the Government and by all the newspapers, "You must not do that; you must not strive to remedy a situation where your wages are falling behind those of others, because if you do you will throw some of your fellow miners out of work and risk the success of the industry." I put it to the House that there can be no crueller dilemma for a man than to be told that if he fights for the kind of wages he regards as his right he may throw some of his fellow miners out of work. It is this cruel dilemma which has imposed the agony in the coalfields over the past few weeks.
  Personally, I do not blame the different sections of the miners' union for the different views which they have taken in trying to solve that dilemma. It should be the task of the Government, particularly a Government saying how serious the coal situation is, to make sure that a Bill introduced in such critical circumstances will encourage the production of coal by giving a sense of fairness and justice to the miners. In many respects this Bill does the opposite.
  The hon. Gentleman has added to the dangers by his announcement today. On top of what has happened in the coalfields over the past month, on top of the Bill being thrown at the miners, by the announcement of the ending of the restrictions on the import of coal, not for a period merely of two or three months but to March, 1972, the Government are asking for fresh trouble in the coalfields. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] No, I am describing what miners in my constituency say to me about these matters, and I have every right to do so.

  1501
  The hon. Gentleman tried to present Clauses 6, 7 and 8 in moderate terms. He said that the Labour Party had exactly the same Clauses in nationalisation Bills. The first lesson of that is that we may have to be more careful next time. However, the second answer is that instruments in different hands may be used for different purposes. A knife in the hands of a skilled surgeon is quite different from the knife in the hands of a bunch of bandits, and that is what the situation is.
  Our interpretation of these hiving-off Clauses is not the interpretation which only wild revolutionary Socialists have placed upon them. The Economist of 28th November said:
  "It was made clear this week that, when the Bill gets through Parliament Lord Robens will be directed to list all the non-mining activities which the Government would like to put on the market. As chance would have it, these non-mining activities, which account for £131 million of the N.C.B.'s £840 million turnover are profitable."
  As chance would have it!
  "A total of £11·1 million came in from them last year—despite the fact that one of the largest subsidiaries, brickmaking, lost £340,000 because of the building slump."
  Many other brickmaking firms lost money, too, but that is beside the point. The Economist goes on:
  "There are some attractive titbits in the N.C.B.'s non-colliery cupboard. With a total capital of £122 million, the non-coal activities show an average return on capital of 33 per cent. for the coke ovens, 10·3 per cent. on processed fuel plants, 2·7 per cent. on housing, and 13·2 per cent. on 'other activities'. The Government would be wrong to compel forced sales of any of these."
  This is The Economist; this is not some revolutionary magazine; it is the businessman's Black Dwarf. The first name which appears on this Bill is that of the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He is primarily responsible for it. I sometimes wonder what is his philosophy on this question of hiving off, about subsidiaries not directly associated with the main operation. He told us in the debate on the White Paper the other day that one of the reasons for considering this matter was that he thought that these subsidiaries or lesser operations might distract the attention of management from its main occupation.
  I wonder whether that is the kind of speech he delivered when he was a member of the board of B.P., whether perhaps he said to the board, "Gentlemen, I am
  1502
  sorry to have to interrupt your proceedings, but I wish to make it clear that, looking through the balance sheet of B.P., I discover that we have some attractive tit-bits. I think that the existence of these attractive tit-bits is distracting the attention of management from its primary business of fixing oil prices and that therefore we shall chuck them out." If that was the speech that the right hon. Gentleman delivered to the B.P. board, maybe that is why it let him go and why we have seen him rise on the stepping stones of his dead self to higher places.
  I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in that he is at least consistent. Despite all his changes of position and the rest, wherever he may move he sticks to his philosophic doctrine, rigidly, consistently, that the shoemaker must stick to his last. Is that the principle on which business is run—I.C.I., Unilever, all these great industries? Why is it that a nationalised industry which happens to be operating a whole series of lesser ventures, all or most of them based on some coal-based product, should be denied the right to conduct the same kind of operations as a private company? The right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend to us that the Clauses are such that we need take no notice of them; he seemed to be ashamed of his own Clauses. I do not know whether he is ashamed of his own party manifesto but that would be a further advance in the right direction. The manifesto said:
  "We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries."
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Foot: I suppose we must listen to the "hear, hears" even if we do not have to tolerate any further interruptions. It may well be true that the Government are adopting this policy. That is why not merely widespread suspicions but something like certainty has arisen that what the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are proposing to the Coal Board is a profound change in policy.
  What would happen if those Clauses were carried through and put into operation? They would give to the Secretary of State powers over the operations of the Coal Board quite different from those that he exercises over the rest of nationalised industry. It would give the right hon. Gentleman the power to intervene

  1503
  day by day, the power to direct how those operations should be organised, whether they should be sold off, what might be the price that could be accepted. Under these Clauses he could do it all and without any reference to Parliament, so far as I can understand, even without any regulations.
  If we let this Bill go through in this form the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will have the power to instruct the Coal Board to produce its report within a certain period, and they will then have the power to say, "You must sell off these, sell off that, cut down this operation, alter that one." That will be day by day. Instructions of that nature can be given until the whole of the subsidiaries are removed.
  The right hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that he is not seeking to introduce some fresh policy. Of course, if he succeeded in removing all these profitable enterprises from the Coal Board, either the price of coal would have to be put up further on that account or the taxpayer would have to pay out more. In the end the government would have achieved this: they would, having lopped off all these profitable enterprises, be able to turn to the Coal Board and say, "Ah, you are not making much money. That is how nationalisation works." They are trying to deny to the nationalised industries implements, methods and joint ventures which every other major organisation in the world is able to operate.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be carrying out all his manoeuvres over the next 12 months, surveying the coal industry in detail, demanding that it gives a report, and then deciding what action to take. Then, at the end of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it says, and I do not know whether it was put in as a joke:
  "EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICE MANPOWER
  No increase in public service manpower is involved by the Bill."
  All these investigations, all these judgments about what is to happen to the profitable aspects and the ancillary parts of the Coal Board—all these surveys will take place without a single extra person having a look at it. I almost brought to this House today—I do not know whether other hon. Gentlemen have seen
  1504
  it—the magnificent chart which sets out the members, the officers and names of the people in this mammoth new organisation headed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is a fabulous chart. I was almost going to bring it to the House and show it but I understand that there is a rule of the House against bringing in grotesque objects.
  If we look at this object, in the very bottom right-hand corner we discover one single chap—I think that he is an assistant to an assistant to an Assistant-Secretary; I am not saying anything against him personally—who is the first man who deals exclusively with the subject of coal. He is the chap who is to advise, or maybe the Government will ask Aubrey Jones to do it in his spare weekends. It is a ludicrous proposal for the right hon. Gentleman to put forward. This is a Government of businessmen coming along and saying that this is the way in which a great industry of this nation should be conducted.
  Who will buy these profitable parts of the industry? Of course there will be plenty of candidates; they will make some money out of it. I hope that hon. Gentlemen read the article in the Sunday Times last Sunday in which it gave some indications of those who might be eager to buy particularly the North Sea gas holdings in which the National Coal Board—and it has as much right as anyone else—has engaged and has investments of a considerable amount of money. We want to know what will happen to them. Supposing they are put on the market. Who will be the buyers? The Sunday Times pointed to the answer when it said:
  "And it could well be that, if Davies orders the State Mines of Britain to sell off its chemical interests, the most interested and aggressive bidder will be the State Mines of Holland."
  I must say that it is a remarkable thing—these super-patriots of the Tory Party are willing to sell off the country as Charles II did. This will be back to the days when the Dutch sailed up the Medway. My right hon. Friend talks of taking us back to the '20s or '30s, but he speaks with remarkable restraint. It is much further back than that. It would make us the laughing stock of Europe if we were to attempt to sell off highly successful operations conducted by British

  1505
  industry so that foreign capital might be able to come in and take it over.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the new licences were issued in 1965 I made it a condition that the American oil companies involved should take the National Coal Board in with them and that Amoco should concede to the Gas Council 50 per cent. of the share in the new licences? Therefore, the licences held by the Coal Board and the Gas Council were from American companies. I take it that if the Government carry out their policy they would revert to the American companies?
  Mr. Foot: I suppose we shall have to examine questions of that sort in Committee, if the Bill reaches Committee, if the Government proceed with these Clauses. But I hope that as a result of this debate they will withdraw the Bill. However, I am not too confident about that.
  Sir G. Nabarro: They will get into a lot of trouble from me if they do that.
  Mr. Foot: That is the least of the Government's worries.
  In the next few weeks the Government will receive from every major organisation in the coal industry demands that they should withdraw these offensive Clauses, but they will not perhaps yield to them because their attitude to the National Coal Board is part of a general strategy of attack on the nationalised industries, cheered on by some of their followers, which is extremely dangerous for the country. [Laughter.] These are not laughing matters. I wonder what hon. Members think will happen in the next 12 months in the coal industry, the steel industry and other industries in respect of which the aim of at least some members of the Government is to lop off the more profitable parts and to make them engage in examination of all sectors of their industries and report to the Government.
  There have been plenty of examinations of the National Coal Board. Most of them have given the Board a clean bill of health. I do not say that one could not make criticisms; it would be absurd to say that. But the Board has a fine record in many respects, as most of the
  1506
  investigations have shown. But a different kind of investigation is being projected with the impetus of the Conservative Party manifesto behind it. A major objective of the Government's policy is to dismember these great publicly-owned institutions.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Foot: If the Government proceed with that policy, they will spread a dangerous demoralisation throughout the nationalised industries. Fewer and fewer people will want to manage them. These are industries which must conduct highly delicate operations of transformation and change. In some of those industries—for example, the steel industry—it is more than ever necessary that people should have confidence in the men conducting the operations.
  Instead of being able to get on with the job of producing more coal, steel and electricity, the essential fuels which the nation requires, the management of these great organisations will have to spend a large part of their time fending off attacks from the Minister and his two assistants—these popinjays in office who think that the parrot cries of the Conservative Central Office can be transposed into serious legislation. They do not seem to know what damage they are doing to one industry after another.
  One of the purposes of this debate is to try to stop this process before it goes any further. It is my belief—and I expressed it in the previous debate, but everything which has occurred since has inclined to confirm me in my gloomy prophecy—that we are in for fierce and angry times in this country. It will be difficult to preserve what I talked about at the beginning of my speech—the politics of persuasion. I want us to preserve the politics of persuasion, the supremacy of Parliament and the obligation of Governments to secure the consent of the people who work in the great industries with which we are concerned. What the Government have done by introducing this Bill is to jeopardise still further the consent of the great mass of the workers in the coal industry who have recently lived through some bitter weeks but who face the prospect of further bitter weeks next year if the Government pursue their policies.

  1507
  I hope that the Prime Minister, who some say is the author of these policies, will reconsider the course on which he is set. He has some considerable qualities. He has great resolution and determination. But he seems to think that any display of magnanimity is a sign of cowardice and that obstinacy is courage. He has shown no sign of imagination about the kind of troubles towards which the country is heading.
  We can say of this Government that no Government in British history have shown themselves so smug so soon. The Prime Minister shows the same confidence in his own rectitude as Neville Chamberlain showed in the last few months before Munich. The right hon. Gentleman may lead this country towards an industrial disaster comparable almost to the diplomatic disaster which happened when we had Conservative leadership of that type. That Tory majority was determined to pursue its rigid aim and to listen to no other voice. It was contemptuous of the politics of persuasion. But when the disaster was almost upon us there were enough Tories who revolted against their leadership to save the country. Perhaps in the year or so ahead some hon. Members opposite will show the same courage to save the country as some Tories showed in 1940.
  5.18 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down."] I hear an hon. Member opposite inviting me to sit down. I listened in almost total silence to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is leading for the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will espouse the cause of democracy which was pleaded for so abortively by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and will listen to a speech which will be anathema to him. I support the Second Reading and oppose the official Opposition Amendment, moved so eloquently and rhetorically but, of course, non-factually by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
  The Conservative Party is dedicated to reducing the area of public ownership. That was a major issue at the last General Election. In the context of the coal industry, this Bill is the first opportunity we have had to put that important policy into effect. There have been many exchanges
  1508
  during the last few months about the delay in presenting the Bill. A Bill of this kind was brought to the House by the Labour Party at the end of March, 1970, it was given a Second Reading on 9th April, 1970, and was then lost seven weeks at its disposal to complete Labour Party was too dilatory in the seven weeks at its disposal to complete the remaining stages of the Bill. Very properly, the Conservative Party seeks to re-enact those provisions of the Bill which deal with redeployment in the mining industry and welfare and other payments on account of redundancies as mines are run down, which is inevitable, and we have always supported those policies. It is appropriate and propitious that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale should be enacted at the earliest possible date.
  I will give my own view of the coalmining situation today. The manpower of the industry has been run down in 16 or 17 years from almost 700,000 men to approximately 285,000 men. It is proper that special provision should be enacted by Parliament to deal with such a dramatic fall in manpower. What we, on this side of the House object to are the subterranean activities of the Board—
  Mr. Peter Hardy: They are all subterranean.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman who shouted at me, "They are all subterranean" acknowledges his own crass and chronic ignorance. I have in mind a Coal Board activity called International Reservations Limited. What have reservations in hotels to do with the mining of coal, pray?
  Mr. Hardy rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not give way. I will give way to a responsible spokesman opposite, but not to irresponsible soap box orators.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman should have shown the courtesy of giving way to my hon. Friend. I am sure that anybody on this side of the House could have corrected him. The National Coal Board, because it is one of the biggest industries in the country, has a complex computer system. The Board decided, so as to use the system to the

  1509
  maximum, to use the computers for this purpose. Instead of being criticised it should be congratulated.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On the contrary, I have the facts here. I never come to the House with scraps of information, as the hon. Gentleman does.
  The Board has made an investment of £200,000 so far in a computerised hotel reservation system. When I discovered this I wrote to Lord Robens asking for an explanation why he was doing this. His reply was that a large I.B.M. computer used for nearly 300,000 miners' wages was not fully occupied. That computer is hired. He has hired a computer which is vastly too big. He could hire a computer of the correct size to deal on an economical basis with miners' wages and other activities within the Board. He has no reason whatever to invest public moneys in a computerised hotel reservation system for which there are already alternative and adequate facilities.
  This House does not vote moneys for the Board to invest in activities of that kind which the Board has never declared. I discovered this by chance, and when I wrote to Lord Robens asking for the particulars he replied with the full details which I revealed, thus causing the newspapers to take up the story.
  Sixty-one members of the Labour Party have put down a critical Motion demanding the resignation of Lord Robens. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made no reference to the leadership of the Board. I wonder why not, when 61 coal mining and other trade union members opposite have announced that they have no confidence in the Chairman of the Board. Why is the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale running away from the actions of his colleagues? Is he ashamed of them? Lord Robens' appointment ends on 31st January—
  Mr. Skinner: Thank God.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, "Thank God". I hope he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and asks his leading spokesman why he did not allude to the chronic misdeeds of Lord Robens in the coal industry. Good leadership of the industry is of critical importance to the country.
  1510
  I return to the issue of non-coalmining activities which I certainly want to see hived off. The Board has a subsidiary called National Coal Board Computer Power which sells computer time. The investment in it is about £200,000. It is an I.B.M. computer, hired, not bought, and if it were too big it could be traded in for a smaller one to operate more economically. It costs about £80 per hour and it should be occupied for 24 hours daily. In fact, the loading of that computer is less than 30 per cent., and the hotel reservation organisation in which Lord Robens has made the investment is losing money heavily. The requisite services already exist in private enterprise computer firms, and Lord Robens made this investment secretly, without reporting it to the Minister or the House of Commons or by making a public statement. Had I not learned of these talks circumstantially and revealed them it would never have come to light. The Bill deals with precisely a situation of this kind.
  Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum reads:
  "Clause 7 empowers the Secretary of State to direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any non-colliery activities, dispose of any part of such undertaking and any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them, or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them …".
  This does not necessarily apply to all the non-coalmining activities. The Board's coke ovens make a profit. They could not do anything else but make a profit. But many of these non-coalmining activities are losing money and should be sold to people who will make profits out of them. An example is the Coal Board brickworks, which lost quite a lot of money last year.
  Mr. Swain: Darwin would describe the hon. Gentleman in pursuit of his theory as a hybrid schizophrenic. He is arguing against his own party's policy on housing over the past two years. Before he leaves that section of his speech—he is wandering about like a blind man in a fog—assuming that this Bill had been one to denationalise coalmining, would he have supported it?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene at length, and I hope he will allow me to reply. I will give him the exact figures. I have not

  1511
  come here ill-equipped. Coal production in 1969–70 before charging interest made a loss of £4·430 million; coke ovens made a profit of £7·490 million; carbonisation secondary by-products' plants lost £89,000; processed fuel plants made a profit of £1·978 million; brickworks lost £340,000; and so on.
  Mr. Swain rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot give way any more. There are a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite who will want to have the oportunity to take part in this debate. The hon. Gentleman will under this Bill have absolute discretion to question the Minister about denationalising by open public sale of non-coalmining activities. [Interruption.] I never advocated denationalisation of coal mines—for one simple reason. Nobody would buy a coal mine today, because the coal industry has become utterly deranged due to bad leadership and Socialist nostrums. I support absolutely the Clauses of the Bill which give the Minister discretionary powers to hive off and sell non-coalmining activities.
  Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many years ago the Labour Party settled its policy on the question of confiscation or compensation? Is lie telling the House that the policy of the Conservative Party is to confiscate and have back-door nationalisation?
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, Sir. There will be no confiscation and no back-door nationalisation. What there will be is perfectly open and democratic sale of non-coalmining activities which at present are owned by the Board. I regard that as exact pursuance of the Conservative Party policy enunciated at the last General Election and advocated by every Conservative candidate throughout the country, namely, to reduce the area of public ownership. If there is any doubt about coalmining areas supporting this policy, I should only mention that the biggest swing to the Conservatives throughout the whole of Britain was at Cannock, Staffordshire, where a Labour majority of 11,500 in 1966 was turned into a 1,500 Conservative majority. [Interruption.] I am delighted to find my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)—
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Member will not be here long!
  Sir G. Nabarro: —who has surely booked his seat in this House for many years to come, warmly supporting me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): I think that we have tended to cross the line a little. The House should give a better hearing to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in return the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech and not be too much prompted by the other side.
  Mr. Swain: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you ask the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to stay within the confines of the Bill? I cannot see that the loss of the Labour seat at Cannock bears any relation to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: They were passing references. I think that the hon. Gentleman understands what I have said to him.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your admirable protection.
  I return to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who seemed to work himself up into a great fury about the Conservative Party's announcement today that it proposes to allow imports of fuel on open general licence. I warmly support that policy and have advocated it myself for many years past for the reason that there ought to be absolute freedom for industry, trade, commerce and the householder to select the fuel they require for a particular purpose, the fuel that is most economic and most efficient for their individual needs.
  Mr. Concannon rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am trying in the interests of the Labour Party not to take too long, but if hon. Members continue to interrupt me every 10 seconds I shall be here for ever. I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Concannon: This is an important point. I asked the Minister when he opened the debate whether if imported coal were to be used we were to go back to 1950 and 1954 when the mining industry had to pay the difference between

  1513
  the price of imported coal and the selling price?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I will answer the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will allow me to complete my speech and thus allow other hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: What about apples.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No, apples are not related to coal. I will deal factually and honestly with the question that was put to me. I have with me a newspaper quotation headlined,
  "Miners angered by decision to import smokeless fuel",
  which reads:
  "A decision by the National Coal Board to import French smokeless briquettes made from Welsh anthracite in face of the acute shortage of smoke-free fuel in the United Kingdom has infuriated miners' leaders."
  The date of that was 13th April last. It was in the Financial Times. The permission to import was given by the Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) did not get up then and object. The fact is that because of the incompetence of the Labour Government over their six years in office, we ran out of solid smokeless fuel.
  Mr. Concannon: Now answer my question.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have answered it. I will go further back and give the hon. Member the facts and answer the question he put to my right hon. Friend earlier, because I was sitting here on these benches in 1956 making speeches during coal debates about coal imports. I will give the exact figures.
  In the year concerned we brought in 13 million tons of foreign coal, which was mostly American. The import-landed price into the country was approximately £6 a ton. The drain on our balance of payments was of the order of £80 million in the full year. The Coal Board was responsible for reselling that coal because the imported price was substantially higher than the average pithead price of equivalent bituminous coal in this country. Therefore, the Coal Board suffered a dreadful trading loss in the year concerned. Those were the facts. Nobody is disputing them. Hon. Gentlemen
  1514
  opposite can go away and look them up.
  The situation this time when coal is imported will be entirely different. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will correct me—[Interruption.] Please let me continue. My right hon. Friend who is sitting here listening to me will correct me if I am wrong—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is here listening to me and will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. Under open general licences a large number of private traders will participate in the imports. There will be no monopoly of imports by the National Coal Board.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies)indicated assent.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad to see my right hon. Friend nods assent. If the Coal Board wishes to import and resell coal it may do so, but most of the coal will be imported by private traders. They will pay for it, they will shoulder the risk, they will settle the resale margins, they will sell to the merchants, and the merchants will sell to the consumers. Thus, no loss will be entailed by the National Coal Board due to private merchants importing the coal—[Interruption.] I am going to ask my hon. Friend, to whom I shall give way at once, whether he will rise now and say that in broad principle what I have stated is exactly correct.
  Sir J. Eden: I willingly accept my hon. Friend's invitation. My hon Friend is absolutely right. His statement of the position is absolutely what it will be.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend. Thus, any fears that the Coal Board's accounts will suffer financially, as they suffered 15 years ago, through large-scale imports of coal are entirely fanciful, fantasy, and utterly wrong.
  I re-iterate that the policy of the Conservative Party is to allow absolute freedom of choice to consumers of fuel, and that must include the right and the discretion to buy imported fuel in preference to home-produced fuel if they desire to do so.
  I come to my last point. We shall suffer dreadful deprivations this winter

  1515
  due to shortages of solid smokeless fuel. When the Minister winds up I should like some reassurances on this account. I have a long-standing interest in clean air policy and the reduction of atmospheric pollution. In fact, the 12 sponsors of the Clean Air Bill of 1955 contained six Tories, five Labour, and one Liberal. The second sponsor of the Bill, after myself, was Lord Robens, then the Right Hon. Alfred Robens and a number of other senior Members of this House backed it. But in voting the Bill through in 1956, every Member knew that its success would depend on adequate supplies of solid smokeless fuel. We all knew that to be true. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), who was here in 1955 and warmly supporting me in these endeavours, nods assent from the benches opposite.
  The breakdown of the clean air policy is due simply to the incompetence of the National Coal Board. Over the last 15 years tens of millions of pounds sterling have been invested by the Board in research and development to find appropriate types of solid smokeless fuel, some called "Bronowski bullets" in the early years of this research—
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Where is he?
  Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend asks, "Where is he?". He was one export from this country which I warmly commended and supported. He left—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly recall that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has made this speech before. I have the HANSARD report here. As a new Member, may I ask whether it is in order to repeat speeches within a short period?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is in order provided that the repetition is not too long and is made as a passing reference.
  Sir G. Nabarro: There is no repetition whatever of my earlier speech. What the hon. Gentleman apparently remembers is my reference then to "Bronowski bullets". That is the vernacular, of course. I was pleased to see the back
  1516
  of Bronowski, who spent most of his time televising and not carrying out his duties—[Interruption.]—as the Chief Scientist of the National Coal Board.
  What I am trying to draw to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they hate this kind of thing being rubbed in, is that the horrible failure of the Board to produce a solid smokeless fuel is the cause of the abdication of smokeless fuel policy and the reduction in the number of smoke control areas which has now been authorised by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The gravity of this position was brought out in my right hon. Friend's reply to me on 25th November, when he said:
  "The present number of premises subject to suspension is 848,413, which represents 18 per cent. of the total number included in smoke-control orders over the whole country …. The situation does not call for amendment of the Clean Air Acts but depends upon the shortage of solid smokeless fuel that the Government inherited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 385–6.]
  This Government inherited the situation from the Labour Government which, notwithstanding the huge sums of money voted to the Coal Board, failed to produce the solid smokeless fuel. There was not a word of that from Ebbw Vale in his opening speech.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a number of occasions I have heard the hon. Member for Worcester, I think it is—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—
  Mr. William Price: The rest of Worcestershire does not want him.
  Mr. Loughlin: —has referred to my hon. Friend simply as "Ebbw Vale". Surely it is customary to refer to each other as "the hon. Member" or the "right hon. Member". It really is obnoxious to have this kind of behaviour from a windbag like this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should think that that more or less cancels it out. At the same time, it is true that the hon. Gentleman ought to refer to other hon. Members as hon. Members or right hon. Members. I am sure that he will do so.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis:: Further to that point of order. Is it in order for my hon. Friend to refer to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South as "obnoxious", even though it may be true?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I rather inferred that it was not, by saying that it cancelled out what he was alleging had been said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). We must be careful how we address each other in the House. We should observe proper decorum. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his wide experience of the House, will realise that it is better to refer to hon. Members by their names. I uphold the point of order which has been raised.
  Sir G. Nabarro: As always, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Speed it up.
  Sir G. Nabarro: At least that is more than I shall get from Gloucestershire, West—I am sorry; the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—who is notorious for his ignorance in all matters relating to fuel and power.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Fuel and power is not the only matter about which I am notoriously ignorant.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I said the hon. Gentleman is notoriously ignorant. It is true of parliamentary procedures.
  Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Get on.
  Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman did not interrupt me so frequently, I should have concluded my speech by now. The hon. Gentleman dislikes intensely having the deficiencies and failures of the National Coal Board rubbed in. I continue to rub them in. The hon. Gentleman will dislike this even more. The National Coal Board is the biggest fraud and failure since the South Seas Bubble. It is likely to prove even worse in the years ahead.
  1518
  I return to the question of solid smokeless fuels. The Labour Party arranged—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been looking at the Bill, and I do not see very much about solid smokeless fuel. If the hon. Member can point out to me that part of the Bill which deals with that subject, I shall be able to say whether it is in order to discuss it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I direct your attention to Clause 7 which
  "empowers the Secretary of State to direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any non-colliery activities …."?
  That is what I am coming to. From your encyclopaedic knowledge of fuel and power matters in Nantwich and elsewhere, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that there are many proprietary premium solid smokeless fuels, among them Rexco and Coalite, the raw material of which is the bituminous coal bought originally from the National Coal Board. Also, the board itself carries out the process of rendering solid fuel smokeless, and markets its own smokeless solid fuels, such as Phurnacite and Stovesse, and others, all in competition with Rexco and Coalite, which are processed by private enterprise firms.
  Having regard to the total failure of the National Coal Board to produce solid smokeless fuel in adequate quantities, which has already resulted in the abdication of nearly one-fifth of the clean air policy in this country, would it not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend now to consider asking the Board to hive off the processes of producing its brands of solid smokeless fuel and hand them over to private enterprise, which manifestly can do the job, which manifestly the Board cannot do, so much so that my right hon. Friend has been obliged to continue the policy he inherited of exporting Welsh anthracite DUFF to France, so that the French processors may turn the DUFF into solid smokeless fuel, and ship this back to our country in order to prevent the total collapse of the clean air policy in Britain?
  All that was arranged by a Labour Government, thus confessing their total incapacity and inability to support clean air policy—and to protect the interests of

  1519
  the National Coal Board, that incompetent creature to which I have alluded.
  For all those reasons I await eagerly the Committee stage of the Bill, when no doubt the Opposition, led by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, will move the deletion—
  Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is mis-pronouncing Ebbw Vale.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am beginning to think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are children. The hon. Gentleman, who has been in this House for a few weeks only, might learn to observe parliamentary courtesies.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale does not like having his own rhetoric hurled back at him, with compound interest added. He made a speech today designed to rabble rouse outside the House. He made a speech today designed to exacerbate strife in the mining and other industries. The hon. Gentleman has not forgotten his soap box days. The hon. Gentleman is a parliamentary rabble rouser of the first order. His speech had no objective purpose whatever. When, in Committee, he tries to delete Clauses 6, 7 and 8, I confidently predict that the whole of the Conservative Party will vote against him with enthusiasm and relish. For the benefit of my party in the House and throughout the country, I repeat that a fundamental of our General Election policy which gave us that victory on 18th June was the simple purpose "to reduce the area of public ownership" and that is what Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are designed to do.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Why?
  Sir G. Nabarro: For being a thorough-going Tory, which is what I like about him. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House will do best if it gives the hon. Member, who is obviously anxious to come to the end of his speech, a chance to do so. There are a large number of hon. Members with first-hand experience of this industry who wish to speak, and, as Mr. Speaker has frequently said, interjections
  1520
  prolong speeches. I think that in their own interests it would be better for hon. Members to hear the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in silence.
  Sir G. Nabarro: In case my earlier words of wisdom were lost on certain hon. Members, I propose to repeat them in my peroration. For the last 20 years—now as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and before that as the hon. Member for Kidderminster the adjoining constituency—I have been pleading with the House that in the interests of efficiency, of economy, of progress and of objectivity it should reduce the area of public ownership. That policy is now being pursued, and I see the implementation of it, in part measure, for the coal industry in Clauses 6, 7 and 8.
  I hope that the House will reject decisively the official Opposition Amendment, moved in such discreditable terms by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and that the whole of my party will unanimously support the Second Reading of a Bill unamended which I see as the epitome of Conservative Party policy at the last General Election.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. George Grant: I ask the House for its usual normal indulgence and understanding for this my maiden speech. On another occasion it would have been uncontroversial, but as a miner proud to represent the Morpeth constituency that would be asking the impossible on an occasion such as this.
  Perhaps I might remind the House that the first miner to come to Parliament represented the Morpeth constituency. I refer to Thomas Burt, way back in 1874. Since that day many miners have held this seat with distinction. My constituency is on the east coast of Northumberland, and its natural beauty has to be seen to be believed. It has an unrivalled stretch of coastline, rugged woodlands and quaint coal villages. Morpeth itself is a delightful old market town.
  The heart of the constituency is the town of Ashington, which used to be known as the biggest colliery village in the world. The area has paid a heavy price with the run-down of the mining industry. Then years ago there were 14 pits in my constituency. Today, there are only four. At the time of nationalisation

  1521
  there were 50,000 miners in Northumberland. Since that time, 53 pits have closed. Today, there are only 16 pits in Northumberland with a total manpower of 14,000. Of the remaining 16 pits, some are nearing exhaustion.
  In view of these facts, it is hardly surprising that the most urgent problem in the area is the need for new industry. The coming of the Alcan smelter to Lynemouth and Glaxo to Cambois is most welcome, but both are capital intensive industries under construction. There are three times as many men employed as there will be when these projects come into production next spring. With further pit closures imminent and the present male unemployment running at the rate of 10 per cent., immediate Government action is a necessity. More financial assistance is needed, not less.
  Much was done by the Labour Government to improve the environment and to rebuild a new infrastructure. Local authorities have been flat out to improve the area's potential. Thousands of acres of land are crying out to be developed, communications are good, with good access to Newcastle Airport. Blyth Harbour can now accommodate 20,000-ton ships. The Geordie is renowned as an industrious and responsible worker. These people have contributed to the economy of this country with blood, sweat and, yes, tears. It is morally wrong, socially unjust and economically illogical that these men should be thrown on the scrap-heap. I ask the Government for urgent, immediate remedial measures.
  The mining industry has made an operational profit since 1947. In the first 10 years, the National Coal Board was not allowed to build up reserves because of Government financial restrictions. At that time, with the exception of Poland, British coal was the cheapest in Europe. The National Coal Board was propping up British industry, both private and public. The miners accepted this position because they believed in nationalisation, that the rôle of nationalisation should be in the national interest.
  The National Coal Board was held responsible for the cost of importing coal, subsidence compensation and compensation to the old coal owners. Following the Ridley Report in 1952, the Coal Board
  1522
  went to capital and development expense to provide the nation with the estimated 250 million tons. In 1955–56 the miners were ridiculed and condemned because they would not accept Hungarian and Italian labour. In 1957 the position had changed. Where was the Government's planning?
  During those 10 years the miner was second in the industrial wages league; today he is sixteenth. In the years after 1957 coal stocks mounted and a vicious programme of pit closures was carried out. The social consequences were of secondary importance. There was no Government assistance until 1964. Miners' wages drifted. Wage applications were met with the reply from the Coal Board, "There is nothing in the kitty. If you press for increases, there will be more pit closures." On the miners reluctantly accepting this position, 300,000 miners lost their jobs in 10 years.
  Despite the miners' warnings that too many pits were being closed, today the country is short of coal. Should it be any surprise that the miner is now demanding a fair wage for a dirty, dangerous and hazardous occupation? Should it be surprising that in some areas there is a shortage of manpower? Morale in the mining industry is at a very low ebb. It is not that industrial relations are bad.
  I have served my working life in the pits, with long service as a union branch official and conciliation officer. As chairman of the Ashington Branch, I represented 4,000 men. As chairman of Ashington Federation, I represented 11,000 men. As an arbitrator, I represented the county of Northumberland. Before coming to Westminster, I worked at the coal face. If there are two things that I can offer this House, they are a first-hand knowledge of the coal mining industry and a first-hand knowledge of industrial relations.
  I can say without hesitation that industrial relations in mining are a lesson to other industries. How could any industry run down at such a rate and at the same time make such impressive strides in increasing productivity without first-class industrial relations? The real lesson to be learned from the past has its roots here in Westminster. For too long the mining industry has been a political football, with

  1523
  Whitehall planners and politicians succeeding only in steering the industry way off course.
  The industry needs a morale booster, a capital reconstruction. This shocking piece of legislation seeks our approval for the Government to sell off the profitable linked activities of the Coal Board, and we are asked to give the Secretary of State dictatorial powers to perform these sinister measures. I know what the Northumberland miners and the miners of the country will say; indeed, I know what every hon. Member on this side will say: a resounding "No" to this shoddy attempt to denigrate a great nationalised industry.
  The coal industry in the North-East pioneered a new process for making foundry coke by blending different types of coal. It has supplies of a scarce product for many years ahead. Without it, foundries making components for the motor industry could in time run down or come to a standstill. It is a triumph of technical achievement by the coal industry that the coal blending plant is at work at Lambton Coke Ovens in Durham. Is this one of the highly successful activities that the Secretary of State wants to take away from the mining industry?
  What is the future under the Bill of other coke oven plants in the North? The employees want to know and this House wants to know. Does the Secretary of State intend to call on the Coal Board for a report on the traditional linked coke ovens? If so, does the Minister intend to set up a carbon copy of the N.C.B. in Whitehall to sift the information and advise him?
  The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes the laughable comment that no increase in public service manpower will be involved. Who, then, will duplicate the work which the N.C.B. was set up to do? Although the Bill is one of the shortest on record, it leaves a volume of unanswered questions. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt be posing these because we want the answers. This may help us to know exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind for the future of this industry of 300,000 people.
  I have described the mining industry as a political football. I now see the ball at the Minister's feet, but the right hon.
  1524
  Gentleman is standing there with a knife in his hand. I ask him to think very carefully indeed before he makes a move.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I rise reassured by the statement of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that this House is not a bear pit—though he may have used the phrase "bear garden". It is also not a bull ring. I will not, therefore, follow the red cape which he flourished, with the word "Munich" written on it, in front of us. I was not in the House before the war, so I cannot speak at first-hand of the part played by his party at Munich, though I understand that it was not very honourable.
  It falls to me, as a comparative newcomer, to congratulate the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) on his first intervention in this House. It is a privilege which I accept with great pleasure, for he spoke with obvious sincerity and first-hand knowledge of the problems under debate today, something which the House always welcomes.
  His speech, though controversial, was none the worse for that, and I am sure that the points he made will be taken up by other hon. Members. I am equally sure that the House will await with great pleasure and eager anticipation contributions from him on this and other subjects.
  I do not have his advantage in that I do not speak with first-hand knowledge of the problems of the coal industry. However, hon. Members who have such knowledge will concede that it would be a rather one-sided debate if it were limited to those who had actually worked at the pit face.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. and learned Gentleman would have a job finding anybody on his side of the House with first-hand knowledge of working at the pit face.
  Mr. Rees: I am not so sure.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Morpeth and all those who work in the pits. As I have had occasion to discover in East Kent, these are people with a rare quality. I pay tribute to the mining community on a different score, too, in that they provide first-class recruits for the Armed Services.

  1525
  I also pay tribute—this tribute has not been paid so far today—to the management of the National Coal Board. It has always struck me that those involved in the management of the nationalised industries must acquire not only commercial skills but political skills as well. Possibly this is a reflection on the nationalised industries.
  I am not, however, able to pay tribute at all levels to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers, or to the staff of the union. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale expressed his adherence to the politics of persuasion. My hon. Friends are equally dedicated to that concept, but I recall one application of the politics of persuasion which occurred during the recent unofficial strike in the East Kent coalfield.
  About 50 members of the Snowdown Colliery turned up for work during that unofficial strike. They were ushered into the canteen and harangued for half an hour by members of the N.U.M. and they were told that they might be expelled from the union, and thus lose their livelihood, if they went to work. How that could be justified during an unofficial strike I fail to see—and how that could be classed as the politics of persuasion I also fail to see.
  Mr. Concannon: What would happen to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he was issued with a three-line Whip by his party but failed to abide by it?
  Mr. Rees: I would certainly not lose my job—
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. and learned Gentleman would certainly be harangued.
  Mr. Rees: —or my constituency. I do not know how much the hon. Gentleman knows about the working of the Whips' Office on this side of the House.
  I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what is known as "peaceful picketing" because it has struck me as a euphemism, particularly in relation to the leaders of the N.U.M. For example, I wonder if Mr. Martin regards what was done to him as peaceful picketing? I have no intention of going into the whole question of the union in relation to the future of the industry—
  Mr. Concannon: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman continually, but I must ask him if he
  1526
  saw a Written Answer which was given to me last Thursday on this subject by the Home Secretary. I was told that the right hon. Gentleman had written to police chiefs in the areas concerned asking for the number of prosecutions that had arisen through violence and so on during the picketing that had occurred, and I was told that his inquiries had resulted in no information being provided.
  Mr. Rees: I have two comments to make about that. First, the police, for whom I have the greatest respect, are at present a little reluctant, perhaps a little too reluctant, to involve themselves in what they regard as industrial matters. Secondly, I was told by a lot of moderate members of the East Kent coalfield that they were threatened—Snowdown voted by 240 to 140 to stay in—that if they attempted to go to work bus loads of people would be brought in from other coalfields to stop them working. They were so convinced that such action would be taken that, being a minority group, they were not prepared to risk going to work.
  Mr. Concannon rose—
  Mr. Rees: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice. I will not give way again. I accept that his experience in a different part of the country, may have been different from mine.
  I come to the central problem of wages, because the hon. Member for Morpeth rightly stressed that the wages of the mining industry have dropped to sixteenth place in the league table. It is always difficult to evaluate what a particular job commands. For this reason I have always been, and still am, against any sort of formal wages policy—simply because I do not think there is any arbiter who would command sufficient respect to tell me or anybody else what my or anyone else's job deserves.
  One reason why wages in the mining industry have fallen behind what they were, in terms of value, in the nineteenth century is possibly because primarily the N.C.B. has been running at a loss since the war. One of the principal reasons for this is the fact that the N.C.B. has been carrying so many uneconomic pits. To be frank, one cannot have it both ways If one asks a nationalised industry to

  1527
  provide a sort of outdoor relief service, one cannot expect that industry to pay the same sort of competitive wages that private industry is paying.
  They used to say in the nineteenth century that the British Empire was a kind of outdoor relief for the upper classes. I am not certain whether, in the twentieth century, the unions have not adopted the same principle and are treating the nationalised industries as a sort of outdoor relief for their members. [Interruption.] If they do this, they cannot expect keenly competitive wages.
  In any event, it is to be hoped that the contraction of the coal industry has nearly reached its limit. I welcome the Clauses in the Bill which provide solace and some sort of cushion for those who suffer in this process of contraction. I hope that in my part of the world, in East Kent, the contraction has reached its full limit and that there is now an assured future for the three remaining pits in the area. There is, after all, an insatiable demand for coking coal and the coal which they produce meets this demand. Nevertheless, for those parts of the country which are not as fortunate and for which the process of contraction will continue a little further, these Clauses are to be welcomed, and they are just as generous as provisions in previous Measures to cushion the shock.
  I turn now to Clauses 6 and 7. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale exclaimed rhetorically, "Why should not a nationalised industry have the same powers as private industry?" I will explain why as it appears to me, a convinced adherent of private enterprise. It is because nationalised industry is not exposed to the same risks as private industry; it is not subject to the same market pressures.
  If a private enterprise company takes on more than it can manage, if it takes over companies that are not in its compass and fails to run them properly, if it cannot turn them into profitable ventures, the price of its shares will fall and sooner or later someone will take either the company or parts of it over. That cannot happen to a nationalised industry. A nationalised industry can only come under pressure from the Government to review the various ranges of its activities and see what fits into its main avowed
  1528
  purpose and what is profitable or not profitable.
  It cannot be over-emphasised that the main purpose of the National Coal Board is to win coal. Translating that into the language of a company lawyer, the principal objects clause in the Board's Memorandum of Association states that its object it to win coal. Everything else is peripheral. But in spite of that, the Board, like other nationalised industries, has become a conglomerate.
  A conglomerate is not in itself to be ridiculed, despised or criticised. On 10th November last year there was a debate about the rôle of conglomerates, in relation to the reference to the Monopolies Commission of the proposed De la Rue-Rank merger by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) on the ground that it was a conglomerate merger.
  I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman then said. I shall attempt only to paraphrase what he said, because he spoke at some length. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were two possible objections to conglomerates. The first was that a situation might be found where efficient enterprises in a corporate organisation are supporting inefficient ones and that that privilege, if it can be called such, is denied to single-purpose companies. The second objection—this is the point on which I fasten especially—is that the inefficiency of the inefficient segments of such a business may be concealed, may be cloaked behind the efficiency of other parts of the business. This is the principal objection to conglomerates.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead intervened today to ask the Minister if the Board would be subject to the same rules as to disclosure as in private industry under the forecast Companies Bill. I hope that the Board will be subject to exactly the same rules—no more, no less. That is how I read Clause 6. In other words, we do not want the Board to go on perpetuating or concealing unsuccessful enterprises.
  Hon. Members opposite have suggested that the purpose of these Clauses is to compel the Board to sell its more profitable sidelines. The accounts of the Board for 1969 show that in half the areas there were unprofitable sidelines which were not

  1529
  classed as the winning of coal and the losses amounted to about £250 million.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that everybody on this side will be considerably relieved if they know that the purpose of the Bill is merely to compel the Board to sell only those parts of its business which are unprofitable?
  Mr. Rees: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am in no position to give any such assurance. As the Minister said, these Clauses enable there to be an overall review of the Board's activities. The Board's principal activity is to win coal. It was not set up primarily to run a brickworks, nor even to take an option on North Sea gas. Why should it be involved in the activities of its competitors? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is not its primary purpose.
  I pay tribute to the management of the Board. It is very good. We have much expertise in Britain that probably cannot be paralleled in Europe, but we do not have all that much expertise. Very few big industries either in the private or the public sector have much managerial expertise to spare. I should like the Board to concentrate its expertise on the winning of coal and leave the rest to private industry. Private industry may make a failure of it, but if it does it will carry the can and will be judged by the market.
  We are here to judge the Board as the principal supplier of solid fuel in Britain. That is why I welcome the Bill, because I hope that it points the way to the day, which may not be so far distant, when the Board will be an entirely commercial organisation winning and selling coal at competitive prices.
  The Amendment asks for long-term guarantees for those working in the industry. It is right that those who hazard their lives and livelihood in the industry should have some assurance that there is a future for them. I am convinced that the best long-term future for those working for the Board lies in turning the Board into a competitive entity primarily concerned with the winning of coal.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. and learned Gentleman deploying this point. Can he name one
  1530
  commercial company in the solid fuel field which has not diversified as part of its commercial activities and as part of its commercial production?
  Mr. Rees: It is difficult to talk about companies in the solid fuel field, because obviously they are operating on the fringe of a national monopoly. That is possibly why they have been forced to diversify. It is commercial sense for a company which is operating in the shadows of the National Coal Board, when its supplies may be at jeopardy because it is at the mercy of a monopoly supplier, to diversify. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's analogy is fair.
  In any event, I look forward to the day when the Board turns itself into a completely commercial organisation paying possibly even more competitive wages than it does now and able to offer those who work in the industry a much more assured future than it can at the moment when it is staggering under a deficit and when its activities are diffused over a wide range and do not bear directly or exclusively on its primary purpose.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches will help.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Beaney: I never weary the House with speeches, but on this occasion, because of my 40 years' experience as an underground miner, I must join issue with the Government on this matter.
  The late Professor Tawney taught me one thing to apply in all aspects of my public life. He said, "It is not solely a question of whether a project works. It is also a question of whether it is right, whether it is just".
  The Bill, in its application to my people, is neither right nor just. It has come as a very severe setback to those employed in the industry. The Labour Government's Bill, which was unfortunately killed off because of the General Election, contained a Clause dealing with the additional costs which the Central Electricity Generating Board might incur in using coal instead of alternative fuels. That existing subsidy will end next March. Had it been continued by this Bill, £30 million would have been made available to continue the subsidy for a further three years.

  1531
  There is no similar Clause in this Bill, and its omission is bound to create disquiet in the mining industry. That disquiet will be greatly increased by the additional Clauses, and above all by Clause 7, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) drew attention. That Clause has been introduced for one purpose. It is the so-called "hiving-off" Clause. It gives the Minister power to direct the National Coal Board to discontinue or restrict any of its non-colliery activities and to sell off all or part of any of its subsidiary undertakings.
  It appears that the Government are animated by some doctrinaire determination to reduce the scope of every one of our nationalised industries. They seem to hold to the dogmatic belief that if a nationalised industry has made a success of an activity and is making a profit out of it it should be hived off and given away to private industry. A Bill has already been introduced giving the Government power to compel our two Air Corporations to hand over some of their most profitable assets to a new private airline formed by the merger of Caledonian and British United Airways. Today, it is the turn of my industry, and I will resist it to the utmost.
  The ancillary activities of the National Coal Board played a most useful part in helping the industry's finances. In the year ending March, 1970, sales of coal amounted to £726 million while sales of other products and services brought in £100 million or about 12 per cent. of the total. The profit made in these activities before interest payments was over £13 million, and that compares with an operating surplus of £28·6 million from colliery activities. Of that £13 million, £7½ million came from the Board's coke ovens and another £2 million from its processed fuel plants. It is true that the Board's brickworks made a small operating loss last year, but that was due to the depressed state of the building industry.
  Mr. Fred Evans: May I remind my hon. Friend that a recently published expert piece of advice into the public sector in industry reveals that between 1958 and 1968 the increase in productivity in the public sector was 68 per cent. compared with 44 per cent. in all
  1532
  manufacturing industry and a still lower percentage in the private sector of industry? The small loss in the brickworks is more than offset by the research going on in the coal industry which will ensure greater profits in the future. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but this point should be made in answer to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), because the fact is that thieves have their hands in the public till and they will empty it unless we are careful.
  Mr. Beaney: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that telling statement. I made this point about the brickworks to be fair and just. I had already made reference to the areas in which the coal industry made a profit, and it was only right and proper to accept that there was a loss on the brickworks.
  The remaining ancillary activities cover a wide range. They include the Board's coal depots, its farms, its estates, and a number of joint undertakings with other firms for the production of various chemicals and building materials. The Board is also engaged, jointly with the Continental Oil Company, in the explorations for North Sea and Irish Sea gas. Sales of gas from the Viking field will begin in 1972, and the profits will go to private investors if the Government hive off this undertaking.
  Some of these activities, like the coke ovens, are long standing. Others, like the production of North Sea gas, are more recent ventures. The Board has simply been making use of its technical knowledge and its existing organisation to expand into other industries which in one way or another are closely associated with coal.
  Mr. Richard Marsh: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Continental Oil Company, with which the N.C.B. is associated, was itself developed from the Continental Coal Company. If the Government take out the National Coal Board, presumably there is no objection in leaving Continental, which was originally an American-based coal company.
  Mr. Beaney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Coal Board has engaged in a process of diversification which is being followed by almost every large

  1533
  company in private industry. Can anyone deny it? It is already being done, and those doing it include the Board's principal competitors. All the major oil companies have expanded into the production of chemicals in a large way since the war. Chemicals already account for about 13 per cent. of Shell's total sales, and the company's investment programme this year is planned to double the output in chemicals. British Petroleum is also expanding into chemicals.
  The Coal Board is not alone in expanding into other industries. Coal companies in foreign countries have done the same. The Dutch State Mines, and German and United States coal companies are examples. What is wrong with the National Coal Board of Great Britain doing the same?
  Why deny to coal what is done on a much larger scale by the oil companies? If it is right for the oil companies then it must be right also for the National Coal Board. The Prime Minister has repeated over and over again his doctrine of freedom and responsibility. He wants to create an environment in which people take their own decisions and are responsible for the consequences. The doctrine was applied to the nationalised industries in the Conservative Party's programme for 1968. It was entitled "Make Life Better', and it said:
  "We shall let the managements get on with the job, and stop messing them about with damaging political pressures and detailed interference by a government department."
  They have turned completely round now. Why?—to suit the private investor. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wants to get rid of "lame ducks" wallowing
  "in a soft sodden morass of subsidised incompetence".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th Nov., 1970; Vol. 805, c. 1212.]
  If the Coal Board is to be deprived of its profitable ancillary concerns under Clause 7, it will have greater need for increased Government subsidy. Surely, that is the logic of it.
  The Coal Board's expansion into associated industries does not create a danger of monopoly. On the contrary, it increases the competition in such industries as building materials and chemicals.
  I warn the Government that if they persist with Clause 7 they will do the
  1534
  gravest possible harm to the coal mining industry. It will do more than financial damage. It will inflict a serious blow at the morale of my men. Let it never be forgotten that, in spite of the great growth of mechanisation in our industry, the greatest factor is still the employment of men.
  This is a sinister Bill devised to cloak the avarice and greed of those who would exploit the resources of the National Coal Board and give them to the private investor. It will never have the approval of those who work in the mining industry. I warn the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did, that they will rend the mining industry in two. They will create such a situation that there will be no men to man the bridge.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Beaney) spoke with great eloquence, feeling and knowledge of his industry. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not altogether follow him in what I have to say.
  For my part, representing a constituency which is still very much a mining one, I welcome the Bill. It represents a realistic appraisal of the problems and potential of a vital industry, and it gives proper recognition to the services of those who have given their working lives to it. I am particularly glad to see the Bill's opening provisions. It is right that in the context of any industry in which not a day's work was lost through pit closure protests society should recognise its obligation to the miners. The provisions for redundancy payments should, indeed, be at the top of the list, for these men, to the hazard of their daily calling, have had added by society a hazard to their security.
  I am glad also to see the Clauses to which hon. Members opposite take exception, for they seem to me to be essentially fair and unprejudiced in approach. I have always believed that nationalisation should be made to work properly and that, where denationalisation is unrealistic or undesirable, it would be shortsighted to hive off profitable and directly connected ancillary activities. On the other hands, there seems little case for extending the industry's powers or for

  1535
  keeping what is not directly related or strictly necessary.
  I say all that because I have a firm believe in the industry and in its future, as I hope to prove in a moment or two. But a realisation of the industry's true potential depends upon so many factors—on stable labour relations, on realistic pricing, on increased productivity, on attractive prospects for the young, and on there being no shortage of fuel. I shall deal with one of those factors in particular, productivity.
  One of the problems facing this industry is the problem of producing more coal and keeping the cost down. The average cutting time per shift is about two hours ten minutes at present, and it is right that the industry should be aiming, as it is, towards about four hours. This would be a significant improvement, considering that about four tons per minute are regularly produced and considering that about 55 per cent. of the cost of a ton of coal is accounted for by labour costs.
  In my view, there is something alarming in the figures of the Annual Report. The increase in output per man-year between 1968 and 1969 was 9·7 per cent., but the increase in the year ending 30th March, 1970 was down to 0·6 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Figures are fallible. Let me come to that point. No one would begin to pretend that any one factor could be responsible for this alarming drop, but I have had brought to my notice a fact which makes me wonder whether everything is being done to help the miners to increase productivity. We must not allow ourselves to be complacent even when the National Coal Board has an annual operating profit as a matter of course.
  The story which I am about to unfold is, I suggest, disturbing, and it must make us all wonder whether everything is as right as it could be on the mechanisation front. I hope that the Minister will investigate the matter which I am about to put to the House. It concerns the point of the pick. For many generations, miners used a double pick mounted on a wooden shaft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really?"] This implement could be reversed when one point became blunt and, because it was double-ended, only half the number or weight of picks which
  1536
  would otherwise have been required had to be carried the long distance to the coal face.
  Today, the hard slog with the manual pick is, mercifully, becoming part of history, and picks are now mounted on sophisticated machinery which cuts away at the coal. But I am amazed to find that the simple device used in our grandfathers' time has no place in Britain today, although it has been profitably adapted in the United States, in Australia and behind the Iron Curtain. In Britain, however, the picks or cutter-bits used on the high horse-power machines are all single-ended.
  The advantage of a double-ended pick—hon. Members opposite know much more about this than I do—is that not only is it a more efficient instrument but it is safer. A blunt pick can cause explosions and dust. Those of us who come from mining districts are acutely conscious of the problems of pneumoconiosis and so forth. The Coal Board has not been blind to the dangers of the blunt pick. I have here an extract from the Colliery Guardian of November, 1968, in which attention is drawn to a scheme to minimise the disadvantage of the blunt pick.
  It is one thing to minimise the disadvantage, but it would be far better—
  Mr. Fred Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am left wondering what on earth single-ended and double-ended picks have to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Cormack: I hope to show in a few minutes what they have to do with the Bill, if the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of listening to what I have to say.
  It would be far better to have a double-ended pick than to make do with a blunt one, the dangers of which have been minimised. As one eminent mining engineer told me only yesterday, the advantage of the implement would be similar to that which would accrue to the motorist if we could have tyres that could be turned inside out when one side was worn through. And no hon. Member would think of using a one-sided razor.

  1537
  Double-ended picks have been in use in the United States for some time. They are covered by a patent applied for in the United States by the General Electric Company of New York in June, 1965. It might be said that here is a case of another industrial nation developing a simple and highly effective technique earlier than us. But I find that the patent for an identical pick was applied for in this country as long ago as 1964. Here, then, we have something used extensively in the United States, Australia and other countries which is not available to British miners in spite of the fact that the National Coal Board was given the chance to have it six years ago.
  I hope that I shall not be accused of having brought an offensive weapon into the Chamber if I now produce the thing about which I am talking. I hope that hon. Members opposite, many of whom have such a long and intimate knowledge of the industry, will listen to what I have to say about it. I can assure them that it is said in a constructive spirit, and I believe that the suggestion I am putting forward is realistic and sensible. The pick that I have just held up would fit the standard type of machine used in most of our mines. I have checked that.
  I have an extract from the Engineer, a technical publication, dated June, 1967, three years after the patent was filed, which describes the pick in detail. It says how it is being used in many countries, and ends with the significant sentence:
  "We understand that the N.C.B. does not at present use this tool."
  Why? In July, 1969, a Select Committee questioned Lord Robens about patents, and he replied there was difficulty over one which had been granted to an employee. I rather think that that is the patent which concerns us here. There are rules concerning employees' patents, but it should not have been beyond the wit of the N.C.B. to settle the matter some time during the past six years. There can be no excuse for a situation in which, six years after a patent has been applied for, for a device important to one of our major industries, it is not yet in use.
  I urge my hon. Friend to look into this as a matter of extreme importance, in the hope that a little common sense
  1538
  can be injected into what seems a remarkably doctrinaire approach by the N.C.B. A more practical attitude to patents valuable to its output would enable the coal miners of this country to be as well equipped as their colleagues in Europe and across the seas.
  It might be suggested that the cost factor is important here. In case that objection is raised, I should like to give a few figures. One of the picks I have shown costs 25 per cent. less than two single-ended picks. Bearing in mind that the N.C.B. spends £2 million or £3 million a year on picks, that is a significant figure. And of course about £4 million is devoted to research, which has not yet produced for us this simple but highly effective device.
  I am not trying to get things out of perspective. I have dwelt on this matter at length because I believe that it is important to the industry and relevant above all to considerations of safety. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will investigate the matter.
  When the Bill goes to Committee, as it will very shortly, one of the things that will have to be considered is whether the N.C.B.'s accountability to the Department and Parliament for progress in mechanisation is sufficiently covered in this and other legislation. The Committee will also have to consider whether the Bill gives the Board sufficient borrowing power and whether it might not be well for it to be given the power to go to the City to borrow money as well.
  This notwithstanding, I support the Bill and endorse it wholeheartedly, because I believe that it provides guide lines which take proper and realistic account of the industry, those who pay for it, those who are served by it, and above all those who work in it.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: I shall not deal with the historical review of the double-ended pick by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I agree with his statement that denationalisation is unrealistic, but that was about the only thing he said with which I could agree.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. Some of the

  1539
  contributions from hon. Members opposite suggesting that the National Coal Board should concentrate on the production of coal come ill from supporters of big businesses, which continually seek to diversify to protect their capital.
  I support the Amendment to refuse to give a second Reading this miserable, niggardly, doctrinaire, little Bill, a Bill designed to denigrate publicly-owned industry in this country by giving effect to the bigoted Tory policy of introducing private enterprise wherever profits can be made and leaving the public sector to become the lame ducks of the industrial scene, to be rescued by the taxpayer. How such flogging off of the profitable and lucrative offshoots of the coal industry can possibly save public expenditure is beyond the comprehension of all save those completely blinded by Tory dogma.
  We are inclined to the view that the purpose of Clause 3, extending the amount of the Board's accumulated deficit from £50 million to £75 million, with power to the Minister to increase that sum to £100 million, is specifically provided to allow for such future hiving off of activities as the Minister may order under Clause 7. I shall return to that aspect of the Bill later, but would comment now that the Minister's bland assurance this afternoon that Clause 7 holds nothing sinister was very soon exploded by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) when he stated the real purpose of the Clause. No doubt the Minister will be unable to resist the pressures of his hon. Friend.
  In my constituency we have the Frances pit, which is the oldest working pit in Scotland, where my father worked for a number of years before 1926, and the Seafield colliery, the largest new pit in Scotland, which is breaking productivity records nearly every week. Since the coalmining industry in this country is almost 95 per cent. mechanised, there is almost bound to be a slowing down of the increase of productivity in it.
  The miners in my constituency have suffered grievously in recent years, particularly in Buckhaven and Methil, and in Methilhill, which is now part of the Kirkcaldy constituency, mainly as a result
  1540
  of the terrible Michael colliery disaster in 1967, when over 2,000 jobs were lost, and the closure of a number of pits—the Wellesley pit in Methil and the Randolph and Lochhead. There are now 16 men under 55 years of age and 245 over 55 registered as redundant miners at the Leven exchange in my constituency. At the Kirkcaldy exchange the figures are four men under 55 and 99 over 55, of whom about 80 are over 60 years of age. They have little hope with the present level of unemployment of ever securing a job. For this reason, I welcome Clause 2, which continues the humanitarian provisions for redundant miners first instituted by the Labour Government in the 1967 Act. I regret, however, that the Government are not taking the opportunity to amend the scheme with a view to accepting improvements which were suggested by the N.U.M. to the last Government.
  One of the exclusions from the Bill which I very much regret is the provision in the 1967 Act for compensation to be paid to the gas and electricity industries for the extra coal burnt at power stations and gas works. In the past, that provision has meant the consumption of about seven million extra tons, thereby keeping 15,000 miners in employment, or the equivalent of saving 15 pits from closure.
  While it may be argued that, because of the present supply position, such financial assistance to the gas and electricity industries is unnecessary, nevertheless it would have been prudent of the Government to include such a provision in case the demand for coal should fall within the next three years—although that is something that no one can foresee at present. For example, in Fife, there are the two large coal-burning power stations of Kincardine and Longannet, in addition to a number of others. The N.C.B. has long-term contracts for the supply of coal to these two power stations, but it is also within my knowledge that more than tentative proposals have been considered by the East of Scotland Electricity Board for the possible conversion of them both to oil burning.
  I am particularly pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) here, because the Secretary of State earlier this

  1541
  year indicated that he had had no representations from the Electricity Board for such conversions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board has been considering this at a very high level more than just tentatively or even for contingency planning. One of the reasons stated by his right hon. Friend was that the Board had to be prudent and make such contingency plans. I must state definitely, however, that, in my opinion, this is more than contingency planning and that I would not be in the least surprised if such representations are received by the Secretary of State before long. In the absence of the power to compensate the electricity and gas industries for extra coal burnt, which will spur future claims for conversion to oil, the jobs of thousands of miners in my constituency and other parts of Fife will be jeopardised.
  Following this, there has been the Government's decision to allow the import of coal. That decision can only sour the men in the coal industry and exacerbate the relations in that industry. This multimillion pound British coal industry is still the largest of its kind in Europe but its future is dependent on a firm foundation for its forward planning. The industry must know where it stands for a reasonable period ahead. It should know what help it can expect from the Government, but this Bill does the opposite and eventually will throw the industry into chaos—all this at a time when it was past the worst and over the hump, largely due to the support it received from the last Government. The industry has adopted new techniques with the co-operation of the miners and it was geared to gain its proper share of the energy market. But the Bill now creates doubt on that score.
  Finally, I return to the most wicked part of the Bill, Clause 7, which gives the Minister power to direct the National Coal Board to divest itself of its profitable undertakings. The assets of the Board's diversified activities are worth about £131 million, and include coal distribution, gas and oil exploration, estates, farms and coal by-products such as gas, benzole, crude tar and processed fuels. Last year, these assets returned a profit of over £13 million to the Board.
  This plunder of the Board's profits by private enterprise, encouraged by the Government, will take place just at the time
  1542
  when, as a result of the Labour Government's support for the industry, the morale of the miners was beginning to show considerable improvement. Now, as a result of this infamous Measure, the future of the industry is again being brought in jeopardy by the Government. Craftsmen will leave the industry as more and more of the lucrative profit-making subsidiaries are hived off. The coal industry, though becoming increasingly capital-intensive with the enormous increase in power loading, is still a labour-intensive industry and is absolutely dependent upon a good flow of recruits, which will obviously be hindered by the effect of the Bill.
  The Bill, far from boosting morale in the industry, will do the very reverse by re-creating the fear and uncertainty which so bedevilled it in the past. The Government will live to regret the passage of this dogma-ridden Bill carving up one of the major essential industries of the country, an industry which has proved to be the backbone of Britain in both war and peace.
  7.6 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: I certainly join with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Boroughs (Mr. Gourlay) in his reference to the very difficult time which we have had in the county of Fife, particularly in the Levenmouth area, arising out of the closure of Michael colliery, and I pay my tribute to the hard work he has done, which has now assured the working of the Michael colliery from the Frances colliery.
  In supporting the Bill and saying that I do not believe that the Opposition have got on to the mark with their Amendment, I think that many of the questions the hon. Gentleman has posed are really answered by the facts we are up against. A report in the Glasgow Herald this week said:
  "A campaign to recruit 600 miners to the coal industry in Scotland has been made necessary because of the expansion of the Longannet complex of mines serving the new coal-fired power station on the Firth of Forth."
  The East of Scotland Electricity Board, on page 9 of its report, states that coal supplied to it in the year 1968–69 totalled 5½ million tons, rising in the last financial year to over 6 million tons, an increase of 12½ per cent. in the amount of coal burnt. It is due to the decision taken by

  1543
  the last Conservative Government that the power station at Longannet is to be coal-fired.
  I know that there are real difficulties over the question of employment in the coal mines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has stated that an estimate of the number of male employees in the mining industry, expressed as a percentage of employment in all industries, shows that whereas 10 years ago in Scotland employment in the coal industry was almost 7 per cent., it has now fallen to about 3 per cent. It is, I believe, unrealistic to think that the provisions which were in the original Bill brought forward by the last Government are going to be needed in the coming years, and for that reason there is no justification for the Opposition objecting to those provisions being left out of this Bill.
  In considering the objections which have been made to Clause 7, I think that we are perhaps in danger of getting into parrot cries across the Floor of the House. There was a time when we on this side were apt to cry that everything that everyone did was to be nationalised. Now, we are getting a sort of parrot cry from hon. Members opposite that everything is going to be sold off. I do not believe this to be a true statement of the facts.
  Mr. Gourlay: While the hon. Gentleman heard the Minister for Industry, he has also heard some of his other hon. Friends indicate that this was part of the Conservative Party manifesto and obviously they are going to press the Government to implement the provisions of Clause 7.
  Sir J. Gilmour: It would be better if we tried to get away from the parrot cry approach and got down to discussing the sensible suggestions which have come from both sides.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Beaney) mentioned the merger between Caledonian Airways and B.U.A., but it was the Labour Government which refused a merger between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. in the belief that an element of competition was necessary. There is exactly the same philosophy behind the legislation which my right hon. Friends seek to introduce, and it is to make certain that we have a proper balance.
  1544
  That is what is behind Clause 7. The impassioned pleas and fears of Labour Members will not be justified by events, although no doubt this will all be argued in detail in Committee.
  My hon. Friend is to allow imports of coal. I wonder whether, particularly in the interests of Scotland, it would not have been better to remove the surcharge on oil, making oil and coal fully competitive? In places such as those which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs mentioned coal could be competitive with oil, but there are other areas, particularly in Scotland, where conversion to oil can be justified and where it would be in the interests of the economy and of employment, achieving the best for the country. I have a feeling that this is a nasty step for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take, and I hope that it will not be forgotten.
  I have pleasure in supporting the Bill and I am certain that it will get the Second Reading it deserves.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Harper: I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) on such a competent contribution to the debate. He brought with him a breath of fresh air which was badly needed. We have had the benefit of wisdom obtained from many recent years in the coal industry and, more important, at the coal face. We are fortunate to have my hon. Friend with us, and I trust that in the years ahead we shall have many more contributions from him in a similar vein.
  I have not had the opportunity to warn the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that I would refer to him, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so. There have been few debates on this subject over the last few years, but the hon. Gentleman has spoken in all of them. Although his material seems to be first class and he must spend much money on digging out the facts and figures, he does not have the serious demeanour necessary to a coal debate. A coal debate is serious and full of emotion. Hon. Members on both sides will have seen the seriousness and attention which is given to all who take part. The hon. Membere for Worcestershire, South tries, and he always succeeds, to change the atmosphere from that of the

  1545
  debating chamber to that of the vaudeville. He reminds me of the Morecambe and Wise show. I am not being disrespectful to those two gentlemen, who afford many of us much pleasure, but the hon. Gentleman ought to be more serious in his application to coal debates.
  One of the things which have struck me forcefully today has been the Minister's announcement that he was to allow fuel imports. In reply to a Question of mine the other day, he said that he was considering it, but I have a feeling that he already knew the answer.
  In order to understand the Bill, one must know the history of the industry since the end of the Second World War. Coal imports have played a vital part in that history. The National Coal Board was compelled to import coal because in the changeover from wartime to peacetime production we did not have the facilities necessary to meet the country's fuel requirements. The Governments of the time, both Labour and Conservative ruled that the Coal Board must buy the coal at foreign prices but sell it here at the price of domestic coal. This resulted in a loss of £70 million, which the Board could ill afford.
  That is only part of the story. When we nationalised the mines—I was not here at the time, but, with my hon. Friends who now sit below the Gangway, I was doing my little bit in the mines—we ran the industry as a Socialist concern, saying that as long as it broke even that would be satisfactory, that the problem was to build up the economy. That is what happened. Instead of being able to take advantage of the situation in the Tory manner by using the forces of the free market, we had tied prices and, in effect, tied wages for the whole of the period from the beginning of nationalisation on 1st January, 1947, to the late 1950s. The General Secretary of the N.U.M. was right to say that that policy robbed us of about £1,000 million, money which could have been used to get better conditions in the industry and to pay better salaries and wages.
  The position changed overnight, because in the late 1950s the Conservative Government said, as the Conservative Government now say, "Stand on your own two feet." Until the late 1950s coal was the only primary source of fuel, but
  1546
  since then there have been other primary sources, particularly oil, and later natural gas, with nuclear energy coming on the scene. We have therefore had the worst of both worlds. We were unable to take advantage of the very forces with which we had later to contend. Imports of coal cost £70 million and then we were robbed of £1,000 million.
  Is there any wonder that my hon. Friends and I are bitter about the sequence of events which has ended in this debate? Those in the pits who helped to build up the economy were not able to receive their due reward for their labours. At that time the miners were second in the wages league, but they are now 16th. The Tory Party wants it that way. The Tories are not bothered about the miners and their wages; They will be happy as soon as they can oust coal. But it is not as easy as that.
  Whenever the miners have made legitimate demands for wage increases, the Coal Board has said, "We do not have the money in the kitty; we have a deficit." Of course we have had a deficit. The reason is that the Ridley Committee of 1950 said that the coal industry would supply and the country would need 250 million tons by 1964. Money was borrowed on that requirement. But the country needed only about 150 million tons, and the money invested in order to obtain the extra 100 million tons was therefore unnecessary. It was money spent without return, and its loss was not due to the inefficiency of the miners or the inefficiency of the Board.
  I turn to the Bill. It is a pity that we are having to discuss it at all. It would not be necessary if the conditions which applied from 1947 to 1957 had applied since. We would have had plenty of money with which to finance our investment programmes. We would not have to pay the extortionate interest rates which we must meet year after year. We have made an operating profit in every year except 1947; yet we always end up with a deficit.
  We welcome the provisions for redundancy payments, which are similar to those in our Bill which, because of the General Election, did not reach the Statute Book. The only difference is that here redundant miners will receive help up to a maximum of £24 million. No one should imagine that that is any greater

  1547
  than the £22 million in our Bill. The rise in the cost of living and the fall in the purchasing power of the £ means that that £24 million will be worth our £22 million or even less. I do not think it is indelicate to say that prices are rising and that the value of the £ is lower now than in almost any period since the early 1930s under a Tory Government.
  The only difference is that those of 55 and over have been taken out. There is the power to make regulations, and we want to know why this has been done. Is there some ulterior motive behind it?
  Sir J. Eden: This is exactly the same provision as was in the previous Bill. There is no difference.
  Mr. Harper: I know but I want to go a little further than that. This Bill gives the power to do this by regulations. We want to know whether the same provision can be used to dynamise the redundancy payments. I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that a redundant miner is said to receive 90 per cent. of his take-home pay for three years. In reality after the first year, because of a complex formula by which the final sum is reached, he takes home less than the 90 per cent.
  We welcome the flexibility contained in Clause 3 and we take some consolation from the fact that the Minister has reassured us that this is not to be used to allow the N.C.B. to lose revenue as a result of an increase in wages or the hiving-off process. Clause 4 enables borrowing to take place in foreign markets. Why not borrowing at home, too? If this is linked with Clauses 6, 7 and 8 we shall have to oppose it vigorously.
  Much has been said about coal needing to be economic and needing to be sold at the right price. The most efficient coal-fired station is Ferrybridge "C" lying just over the border of my constituency. That costs 0·61 pence per kilowatt, whereas the most efficient oil-fired station is at Fawley, which costs 0·65 pence per kilowatt. This shows that coal can compete satisfactorily with oil.
  There is the uneasy situation in the Middle East, and everyone knows what has happened in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia and the restrictions placed
  1548
  upon us in Libya. Oil has risen 1½d. a gallon this year, which is equivalent to a rise of 13s. per ton of coal, and it might rise even more next year.
  We come now to the Tory philosophy behind the Bill. This is where I want to take up what the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South said. He let the cat out of the bag. This is a Tory Measure, and we all know it. With the powers of this Bill the Secretary of State will be able, when it suits the Government, to give a direction to the Board to hive off everything except its colliery activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has already quoted the Sunday Times. It also said:
  "The Chairman of the National Coal Board will be asked to draw up a shopping list so that the Government knows exactly what bits and pieces are available for selling off—of course taking good care to avoid loss leaders."
  There has been much talk about the profit on brickmaking, but I would point out that in making the bricks we use colliery shale and waste from opencast mining. This helps with the problem of dereliction. I wonder whether the Coal Board is entitled to grants in intermediate or development areas. If it is it could be very good. There are also the chemicals produced from coal-based products.
  Mr. Concannon: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the fact that the East Midlands coalfield made a profit in 1963–64, even after paying out over £257 million since nationalisation. It would not have been able to operate at anything like the scale it has done if it had not been for the brickworks.
  Mr. Harper: I take the point and I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken the point.
  Mention has been made of the computer. The Coal Board uses this, and its spare-time capacity is sold to outside users, especially local authorities. Other activities resulted in a profit of about £12 million after interest had been paid. This is well worth while, and we can well understand why a Tory Government wants to hive these off to private enterprise. If the Coal Board had to keep them and hive off the coal industry, how many takers would there be? Not many.

  1549
  There is the giant exploration franchise for North Sea gas which is sought after by outside companies. In the opinion of those of us who have worked in the coal industry, these activities are in support of its main products. I wonder whether these profitable activities are to be hived off "at a stroke"? It may happen, especially since the Government can work without reference to Parliament. What are we coming to? Is this the way to treat the industry? Is this democracy? Is this done in the name of justice? Is it right and proper? I trust that the Minister will answer these questions.
  There is nothing in the Bill about the selling price of assets. How will the Board dispose of its interests without its partners' consent? How will the rights and obligations of the parties be unscrambled? I hope that the Government will tell us. I ask them to come clean.
  Not much has been said about the coalburn. Many of us are being lulled into a false sense of security. This is an important matter, and it should be dealt with in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), when he was at the Ministry of Power, decided that repairs must be done to some of the more efficient power stations. This meant that smaller inefficient stations had to be brought into use and extended so that more coal was required. That got rid of the stocks, and two birds were killed with one stone. Sooner or later—and I hope that it will be sooner rather than later—the efficient power stations will be back on a full burn, and they will not need as many tons of coal. A surplus will accumulate, and consequently less demand.
  What will happen to the surplus if we import coal? The Minister says that coal will be imported, but not on the same terms and conditions as obtained prior to 1957. Will it be imported on long-term contracts? What effect will those long-term contracts have on the coal we are able to mine in this country? There should be in the Bill the Clause deleted from the Labour Government's Bill as a safeguard against a further rapid rundown of the industry. If the Minister had not shown his hand and told us that he intended to import coal, I would have asked him not to panic and make that
  1550
  decision. But apparently it has already been made.
  The importation of coal will exacerbate the situation and the miners will lose morale because they will see it as a retrograde step. Once miners leave the pit they rarely, if ever, go back. Shall we continue to witness the premature closure of pits? Nobody opposes the closure of a pit because it is exhausted. Are miners and their families to be shunted around the country like pieces on a chessboard, and are mining villages to be abandoned? Anyone who has lived in mining areas knows what all this is about. Apparently the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South does not.
  I am not against hiving off altogether. Some of the capital debt should be hived off.
  Mr. Skeet: Is it not true that we have written off £450 million of the Coal Board's capital debt already?
  Mr. Harper: It is true. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would learn not to jump on the table before the dinner is ready. I was about to make that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) wrote off more than £400 million. That was enough at that time.
  Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman wants more to be written off.
  Mr. Harper: Of course I do. The industry was robbed of £1,000 million. Therefore, it is entitled to more of the capital debt being written off. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who was at the Ministry at the time of the previous Bill, offered to give serious consideration to the writing-off of more of the capital debt. Even the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) has, I understand, given the unions a firm undertaking that he will seriously look into this point. Is anything being done in this respect?
  The Bill is a typical Tory measure and, apart from the retention of the Labour Government's redundancy payments proposals, it will do nothing to help people who depend upon the coal industry for their livelihood. There is no alternative industry. Localised unemployment is as high as 30 per cent.

  1551
  I hope that we on this side of the House will consider the Bill in Committee Clause by Clause with all the seriousness it deserves and will fight it line by line. If we do not do so we shall fail not only the industry and those who work in it but the nation. I am sure that future generations will curse the Government for their ineptitude and lack of foresight at a time when it was most needed.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: This is the third Second Reading of a Coal Industry Bill we have had in just over 1,100 days. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I am connected with the fuel industry.
  I should like to remind the House of a sentence which was uttered during the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill in 1967:
  "The measures outlined in the Bill are a deliberate distortion of the market trend to give coal the breathing space it needs to improve its competitive position, but there are real limits to the degree of distortion which is desirable or even possible in the society in which we live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 246.]
  I absolutely agree with that.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Me, too.
  Mr. Emery: It was said by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power.
  During any consideration of the coal industry since 1951 we have always heard the demand for a further breathing space and we have always been concerned to get the industry on a sound footing so that it can be self-sufficient. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and other hon. Members to say, "But we made a profit on production account". Any business which does not have any capital should be able to make a profit. But when capital is needed to run a business real problems arise.
  I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but I do not believe that any calm and sensible person would be considered unreasonable if he called the hon. Gentleman's speech today a piece of rabble-rousing. In the 40 minutes of his speech there were only about two minutes in which there was any persuasive argument. There was emotion, wit and great
  1552
  humour; I give the hon. Gentleman credit for that. But there was a complete lack of persuasive argument.
  What worried me about the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was that it was the type of speech which we expect to hear made by rabble-rousing people who do not believe that persuasive argument is the way to deal with these matters. It was the sort of speech which we hear more and more outside, suggesting that this House should not deal with the matters for which the Conservative Party was elected—for instance, industrial relations and the matter dealt with by this Bill, namely, decreasing the public sector holding. Hon. Members opposite should wake up to the fact that they lost the election. We were elected to decrease the public sector holding, and I will return to this later.
  The Opposition have put forward a strange argument. They oppose the importation of coal. I should have thought that they would have welcomed this. If we are not able to import coal in a period when there is a shortage, people will increasingly turn away from using coal and use other fuels. It is in the long-term interest of the coal industry that there should be supplies of coal available so that people do not convert to other fuels. The likelihood is that the price of imported coal will be greater than the price of N.C.B. coal. The price of coal will, therefore, be likely to rise and, although that would not be in the interests of the consumer, it would be in the long-term interests of the coal industry.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I am sure the hon. Gentleman was one of those who said at the election that if a Tory Government were elected they would keep strict control over prices in the public sector. In those circumstances, will he allow the price of coal to rise?
  Mr. Emery: What I said was that we must get rid of inflation. We shall never get rid of inflation as long as there are artificial controls over the pricing mechanism. I have said that over and over again.
  Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Gentleman being deliberately stupid? The argument is not about imports but about who will be the agency for controlling the imports and selling them. With his alleged knowledge of the market mechanism, does he

  1553
  not agree that there is a tendency for distributors, retailers and manufacturers to set up their prices all together by some magic telegraph which tells them what is the economic price?
  Mr. Emery: I do not agree with that. That answer has been given by my Front Bench and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
  The Minister for Industry will know that for many years in Opposition I pressed the Government to come clean with the updated figures for those given in the White Paper Cmnd. 3438. Estimates were given, but not very accurate ones. The Ministry has the updated figures. The Minister was not so specific as was the right hon. Member for Greenwich. I ask the Minister to consider making a range of figures—not too big a range—available to the House.
  There are two editions of the Bill, the March, 1970, edition and the November, 1970, edition. The March, 1970, edition contains the following sentence:
  "If the present arrangements were extended …"
  These are the arrangements for payments to supplement the income of mine workers—
  "… to March, 1974, the cost would be £14 million."
  The November, 1970, Bill contains the following sentence:
  "If the present arrangements were extended for three years to March, 1974, the cost would be £25 million."
  That is a heavy increase in cost. I realise that an increase in supplementary benefits comes into this and that in the March edition it is said that approximately £7 million of that amount would be met by supplementary benefits. The November Bill gives this figure as £14 million. Even so, there is still a difference of about £4 million. I hope that we shall have assistance from the Minister in explaining that.
  I do not much like Clause 8. When I was speaking from the benches opposite I asked that the accounts of the subsidiaries of the National Coal Board should be published as an appendix to or as part of the N.C.B. report. I still hold that view. Although I have immense
  1554
  confidence in my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, he will not always be the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—he will go up, he will be leaving there and running other Departments for many years to come. There will be no chance for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Instead of this being a permissive procedure at the discretion of the Minister, I hope that the Bill will be altered to make it mandatory that the accounts should be published.
  I am not happy about the provisions for technical overseas assistance. Similar provisions appeared in the Electricity Bill and the Gas Bill. I am all in favour of giving as much technical assistance overseas as the nation can afford, and I am all for making certain that experts in the coal, electricity and gas industries are available overseas. But the cost of this should be in one account and not hidden away in subsidies in this Bill or in any other Bill. We should be able to see what it amounts to. The costing of it should go to the Technical Development Department of the Foreign Office and should not be hidden away in the Bill.
  I said that I would return to the question of hiving off, increasing private investment in the nationalised industries and decreasing public holdings. The Government must beware. It is not right to hive off only those parts of the coal industry which are making a profit so that the taxpayer will have to bear the cost of running a coal industry so long as coal is being mined. That is a nonsense. We must make a sound judgment about what can be afforded. I hope that any such action would increase the private holding within the nationalised industries overall and not just in those sectors which happen to be profitable. Otherwise, we shall have to increase the Government subsidy to the nationalised industries, which is the last thing anybody in this House would want to do.
  I hope that the Minister in his reply will put into perspective some of the journalistic licence about hiving off that has appeared in the Press recently. I want to see further private capital going into the nationalised industries, not just a greater subsidy from the taxpayer, which is what will happen if all the profitable aspects go. I would agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract on this point. If powers are to be given to

  1555
  nationalised industries to borrow overseas—say, German money—why cannot the same powers be given to the nationalised industries to go to the City of London to borrow British money? In the past I have argued against overseas borrowing being used as a short-term balance of payments palliative. This is only putting a long-term noose round the balance of payments, and if better borrowing terms can be obtained then the National Coal Board should have the same right as any other industry to borrow money in the City of London. This follows through my philosophy about being able to inject more private capital into the public sector.
  I know that there are many other hon. Members waiting to take part in this debate and I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. The coal industry must realise that its productivity must rise at a greater rate than has occurred in the last few years. In the same way, there must be a fall in the amount of absenteeism.
  Mr. Skinner: Does the hon. Gentleman mean in this House?
  Mr. Emery: I think that we have had a fairly reasonably reasonable debate and I will not make political points across the Floor of the House. Miners must realise that excessive wage claims will price coal out of the market. If these points are not taken into account, then all the work that we are attempting to do in the Bill for the coal industry will come to nought. The real solution for the coal industry lies not in the hands of the Government, of Lord Robens or of the National Coal Board, but in the hands of the miners themselves. They are the people who can solve the problem.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) probably understands more than anybody on the Conservative benches what this Bill is about. We can understand why the Bill was so long delayed. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are responsible for all the anxiety and worry suffered by miners since 18th June until only last week. The Bill was in existence and could have been given parliamentary effect so that the anxiety of the miners would have been removed. But the Bill should not have contained Clauses 6, 7 and 8. There
  1556
  obviously must have been some internal argument about the Clauses, about what they meant, what they would do and how they were to be explained.
  I need hardly say that anybody who lives in a constituency such as mine in Durham must welcome the Clauses in regard to social and welfare matters. When the history of the last six years comes to be written it will tell of the social and industrial problems we faced and the part played by the Labour Government's redundancy scheme for miners in keeping industrial peace. I am sure that all these matters will then be better understood than they now appear to be understood by hon. Members opposite. Without such a redundancy scheme, many communities would have sunk back into the kind of poverty that many of them knew in the inter-war years as a consequence of policies carried out by hon. Gentlemen's forebears who were then on Conservative benches.
  The speeches made during this debate by hon. Members opposite having been heard it could be said that there is every reason to be apprehensive. The Conservative Party says that it is not anxious to hurt the Coal Board or the mining industry, but it does not want to see them getting anything out of their peripheral subsidiary interests. It does not want to see the Coal Board operating in any area of activity that is making a profit. If there is anybody with experience, running back to 1948, of having to face up to what has to be done with a loss-making part of an industry, it is the National Coal Board. It has had to close mines every year from 1948 because they were not paying. Does anybody believe that the National Coal Board, with its expertise, would carry on activities in these subsidiaries if it did not feel that eventually it would be profitable? The Board has the best experience of closing down unprofitable undertakings, and, of course, would close such undertakings, and we all know why.
  I should like to make reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is not at the moment here. He mentioned the figures in relation to the N.C.B. brickwork operations. Some private brickworks were closed last year. The National Coal Board may have lost

  1557
  money. However, hon. Members opposite may have to go down on their knees and thank the Coal Board for not closing its brickworks. It must be remembered that the Tory Party is committed to a tremendous housing programme for which tens of millions of bricks are needed if it is to honour its pledge in building houses and schools. If the National Coal Board had closed down its brickworks because they were making a loss, the Conservative Party in its task of carrying out a full building programme would find that the bricks it needed were not forthcoming.
  I cannot understand men like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. Import coal? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is not here. I did not know that I should have an opportunity of speaking in the debate—the Chair knows that I do not make approaches—so I could not warn the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has had a letter this week from the National Farmers' Union, which is concerned about an agreement with the Rumanian Government. What kind of reply will the hon. Gentleman send to the National Farmers' Union about imports from Rumania? Will he promise never again to get up in this House to protect the tomato, strawberry, plum and apple growers in his constituency? No one has resisted free imports more than the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. Why? Because he has a good farming community in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman parts company from his economic philosophy when it affects his constituency, but he would gladly apply it to other constituencies and to the mining industry.
  We have every right to be concerned about Clauses 6, 7 and 8. The figures submitted this afternoon show that there is a £15 million profit, which works out at about 10 or 12 per cent. on capital. It is a profitable industry. We know why it is likely to be handed back to private enterprise. It is lolly for the boys.
  There may be some disappointed politicians on the benches opposite who expected to be called to office and have not been called. It may be that their feelings can best be assuaged by making directorships possible for them by transferring profitable national assets. We know from experience that if right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front
  1558
  Bench were to lose their jobs tomorrow, they could go back to their directorships and even get new ones. Of course, the more there is of this kind of thing the happier the boys are because it really means lolly for the boys.
  Because of the coal industry's bitter experience and uncertainty about the future, the morale of the men is almost as low today as it has ever been. To hive off the profitable parts of the National Coal Board's activities and make it more difficult for it to break even is almost a crime.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not out of the wood yet. The Government have a long haul facing them if they are to bring this country round. They cannot bring this country round, they cannot get the unity which they should be seeking, if they do this to an industry which has in the past made the greatest contribution to Britain's greatness and is now paying a heavier price than any other section of our community.
  Therefore, I ask the Government to think again. This is not the time to make the divisions deeper. This is the time to try to narrow them. Not only the existence of the Government is at stake, but our existence as an industrial nation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will have second thoughts. I hope that they will not be so ideologically obsessed with this idea that, like lemmings, they must, as it were, rush ahead without giving any thought to what the end may be. If they make this compromise, they have a chance of showing to the miners that they, whom the miners do not have much to thank for, have changed their minds, that they do understand and are prepared to give the industry and the men in it a chance of better prospects. They can do that only by making clear that their love of what I call their philosophy is not so great that they are prepared to despise and reject the feelings of the 285,000 men still in this industry.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). However, I could not agree with his philosophy.
  We on this side believe that private enterprise has a contribution to make in a sophisticated society. The onus is on

  1559
  Governments to leave industry to private enterprise. If private enterprise cannot do the job, then it may be that Governments should intervene. What is the use of decades of education unless one can delegate responsibility to others and allow the State sit on the sidelines?
  I turn straightaway to Clauses 6, 7 and 8. Socialism is like the ratchet mechanism. Socialism can run only one way. The argument that we heard from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was that we must treat all nationalised concerns as though they were commercial enterprises. But they have privileges of their own. They have the right to write off capital. The Coal Board, for example, had the right to write off capital to the tune of £450 million. This privilege is not shared. Private enterprise cannot write off its capital; it goes out of existence if it ceases to be profitable.
  The National Coal Board also has the right to buy into private enterprise. But private enterprise has no right to buy into the mining assets of the National Coal Board.
  The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was wrong in assuming that the Continental Oil Company was a coal company buying in oil. It was the reverse. But no enterprise can come here to mine or extract coal in the United Kingdom. They are forbidden by Statute. That is why nationalised industries are not commercial institutions. They have sources of capital not available to private enterprise. Yet they expect private enterprise not to be allowed into this sphere.
  If we had the misfortune to have another Labour Government, what would the result be? The ratchet would move on further. More assets would be taken over. The ultimate argument would be that all industry in this country would be nationalised—at great loss to all of us.
  Mr. Alec Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that in 1970 private enterprise in this country is prepared to take over responsibility for mining coal?
  Mr. Skeet: I have already said that it is precluded from doing so by the 1946 Act. The law of this land does not allow private enterprise to go into mining unless it employs 15 men or less—[Interruption.]
  1560
  Why should these institutions be treated as commercial institutions when they are governed by different rules which are not fair to private enterprise?
  Let me deal with the N.C.B.'s interests in organic Chemicals. Staveley Chemicals Limited is 45 per cent. owned by the National Coal Board, along with other interests. It produces, inter alia, coal-based cyclohexane. It comes from natural benzole. I suppose the argument might be that this is pertinent to the Coal Boards' main business because although it is not "winning" coal it is nevertheless derived from coal.
  Moving to the next company Nypro (U.K.) Ltd., in which the National Coal Board has a 45 per cent. investment, we find that a rather interesting picture emerges. It is the only United Kingdom manufacturer of caprolactam whose plant was originally based on oil. Many people argue that this is the right base for it, but the company are putting up their production significantly by a new plant to be coal-based, drawing their cyclohexane feedstock from the first plant of Staveley Chemicals Ltd.
  I come now to the crux of the argument. Why should this be under the control of the State? They supply two companies, Courtaulds and British Enkalon, both of which want to shop on world markets, for cheaper feedstock but what do the board and this Company do? There was an import duty of 33⅓ per cent. later lowered to 25 per cent. At the moment there is a zero duty to the end of this year and they have asked the Government to have a duty imposed of no less than 16 per cent. arguing on the basis of higher output from the company's plant, coupled with substantial stocks and low demands from the United Kingdon consumers. Is it necessary to safeguard the interests of a part of the board's monopoly? Should we allow this, or should not we hive this off to private enterprise and let it run it competitively?
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I should like to get the hon. Gentleman back to the point at which he was referring to Clauses 6, 7 and 8 and his point that unless the law is altered, apart from the private mine with 15 men or so, nobody can mine coal in any great extent. Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman's review is that the Minister should add

  1561
  another Clause allowing private enterprise to mine coal on a large scale?
  Mr. Skeet: I was stating the facts. I am prepared to debate this at length with the hon. Gentleman at some future date. I am stating the law of the country, and it has not been changed since 1946. The situation would change if they allowed the electricity industry to have private investments, and if they allowed them to own their own collieries it might be more efficient.
  The next one is Phthalic Anhydride Chemicals Ltd. in which the Board has a 45 per cent. investment. This substance comes from coal tar naphthalene, but it may be argued that it is advisable to extract this from ortho xylene which is oil based and not coal based. But here again we find that the state investment has a significant protection. What is the import duty here protecting the company, and should we have it? There is a 23 per cent. protection imposed, and what I am saying is that if this was left to private enterprise the rate of duty could be lowered.
  Now I come to another one. It is one that we have not had so far. It is Vinatex Ltd. which produces suspension grade P.V.C. and P.V.C. compounds and in which the board has an investment of 22·5 per cent. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is well informed about this. This has no connection whatsoever with coal. Its feedstock is not even coal-based. The original idea—this is in association with the Continental Oil—was that the vinyl chloride monomer was to be produced by the companies concerned, but they abandoned the project and all the feedstock now comes from I.C.I. Vimatex holds only 7 per cent. of the P.V.C. market of 330,000 tons, and the captive use for the products will only reach 15 per cent. by 1971. What conceivable argument can there be for the retention of this by the board? Its developments are expensive. The plant has already doubled its capacity, and I think that this is a ready reckoner for being returned under Clauses 6, 7 and 8.
  I have dealt with a few chemical companies. I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate—
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the previous Conservative Government allowed the National Coal Board to acquire interests in ancillary undertakings. There was the British Creosote Company in 1955, the Yorkshire Tar Corporation in 1954, and Thomas Ness Ltd. in 1957. Was that wrong?
  Mr. Skeet: Those are closer to the centre of activity in coal chemicals, but I have given examples of industries which have no link with coal. If there is a link between some of the industries that I have mentioned and the National Coal Board, I shall be interested to know. These operations need not be done with taxpayers' money, but can be left to private enterprise.
  Mr. Varley: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is consistent with what he is putting, and I appreciate the point but, by the same token, does he say that Rolls-Royce should not have had the money that it was given the other day? Does he believe that the steel industry, when it was privately owned, should not have had money for development, or that Cunard should not have had money for the Cunard liner, and things of that kind?
  Mr. Skeet: Many of these things will be dealt with at length in Committee upstairs, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity of dealing with them. Many of the industries have a right to go abroad, where they can raise the money at a lower rate of interest than here, and they have done it. There are one or two singular cases, but when dealing with Rolls-Royce one is getting into millions. When dealing with Vimatex there is nothing like that, and these are some of the peripheral interests that can be spun off.
  What has been happening about the Continental Shelf? The N.C.B. is associated with Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd., in the Irish Sea. So far the drilling has been rather unsuccessful, and I assume that money has to be found for that unsuccessful drilling and that this will be a charge on the Board.
  I come next to another interest that has already been mentioned in the House today. I am referring to the Viking Field, and that is to be operated in conjunction with Continental Oil (U.K.) Ltd. That

  1563
  covers blocks 49/17 and 49/12. There are also discoveries on block 49/21, and further south with Trinidad Canadian Oils Ltd. on block 47/13. What conceivable connection is there between the mining of coal and the exploration for and production of natural gas? There is no connection whatsoever. As one hon. Member has said, this is a pattern of a conglomerate. One might as well suggest that the board should produce sardines from the North Sea. This is an entirely different field from its main endeavours. If North Sea drilling is so chancy, it should be left to private companies. They can do it. We should not operate through a system of this nature which can be very unprofitable. The consortium will have to find £50 million for the development of the Viking Field of which £25 million will come from the Board. Where will the Board find it? It has made a net loss in the past year. Presumably it will borrow from the taxpayer.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot see why the Board should take part in drilling and exploring for natural gas. Is he not aware that because of the mines situated offshore, especially in the northern part of our coalfields, extensive drilling techniques have been developed which could be used and indeed have been used for this exploration?
  Mr. Skeet: If there is any validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument they would do the drilling alone instead of in association with oil companies. The oil companies are the operators in most of these cases. They provide the technique and the sleeping partner is the Board which must supply its share of valuable cash from the taxpayer. The Board does not distribute or sell natural gas and it has to go to another State corporation to get 2·8 pence per therm or something of that order to make it worth while.
  Another example is the Dutch State Mines. Its total production of coal 10 years ago was 11 million tons, but it has now fallen back to 4 million tons—and it will be entirely out of coal by 1973. Charbonnage de France in France has gone extensively into chemicals. While the National Coal Board has been thinking about other things seriously valuable opportunities have gone under the bridge.
  1564
  I am liberal in my thoughts. I am prepared to endorse the getting of coal and to support the National Coal Board doing it even in Australia. That is hewing and getting of coal. But mines abroad could be profitable and would be within the main business of the Board—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member can be woken up. We have been dealing with Clauses 6, 7 and 8, and it is important that we should deal with these things.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that my right hon. Friend was a director of B.P., or had been. I wish that the hon. Member could get his facts right. My right hon. Friend has never been a director of B.P.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shell."] No, Shell Mex and B.P. B.P. has only a 40 per cent. interest in this Company. The hon. Member indicates assent. If his hon. Friend makes a blunder of this magnitude, it can discredit many of the arguments that he has used today.
  But I want to be fair to hon. Members. I know the reason that the National Coal Board has done so badly in past years. I have here a simple, rather grotesque sample in this Chamber, which I took out of my boiler this morning [a lump of rock]. This is a clear indication why the National Coal Board is not selling its products. This is part of the reason why we have such enormous losses. In one shovel, I picked up six pieces like this.
  I take the point about miners working down the pits. I know all about this—I once fought a constituency in a mining area. From a ton of fuel oil one uses the last drop. With natural gas one uses the last therm. If one buys from the National Coal Board one's pays for one's coal and for one's rock. Is this right? Is it helping productivity and the profitability of the industry?
  Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member said that he wanted to be fair. May I ask him to be completely fair and declare any interest that he has in oil?
  Mr. Skeet: Yes, I will be perfectly fair. I have no interest in oil that I should declare to this House. If I had an interest to declare, I know the Rules of the House and I would declare it. But I know one thing—28 or 30 hon. Members are associated with the mines.

  1565
  Have they in turn declared their interests on this occasion? Not a bit of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are known."] So the clear answer to the hon. Member is, "No, sir"'
  I fully endorse the Bill. This is the beginning of reason. This is what the country wants—a certain disengagement from industry by the State so that some of the money which is now being squandered can be returned to the taxpayers. These are the people who want to spend their money and not have it wasted.
  I also endorse earlier Clauses of the Bill. I should be happy to see a little more money spent on ensuring that valuable people do not go on the scrap heap, and to see that they lead useful lives hereafter. I endorse the Government's regional policies, which I regard as particularly sound.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: After that amazing speech, the Minister of State must be wondering whether he has more to fear from the opposition of hon. Members on this side or from that of his hon. Friends. This is the first opportunity I have had of hearing the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I have no doubt that he believes what he said. He said it so powerfully that I had difficulty in hearing what he did say. I would, in a friendly way, try to remind him that hectoring or haranguing Members of Parliament does not help. This is a debating chamber and not a Nuremburg rally.
  The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) largely redeemed some of the other amazing speeches made by hon. Members opposite. I do not agree with what he said, but he said it in a responsible and reasonable manner, and he had a serious argument to put. He was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he accused him of rabble-rousing—
  Mr. Skeet: That is exactly what the hon. Member was complaining about—
  Mr. Ogden: My speech in my way; the hon. Member's speech in his way. He has much to learn and he will have friends to help him learn it—
  Mr. Skeet rose—
  Mr. Ogden: No, I will not give way.
  1566
  The hon. Member for Honiton claimed that my hon. Friend was making rabble-rousing speeches which were a danger to parliamentary democracy—
  Mr. Skeet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has made an imputation about my making rabble-rousing speeches which are a danger to democracy. This is the very criticism that we have been making of the inflammatory speeches of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I think it would be pertinent if the hon. Gentleman withdrew that remark.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is not a point of order. May I remind the House that many hon. Members have sat here throughout this debate? Unnecessary interruptions do not help them to be called.
  Mr. Ogden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try again to say one word in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. He and I are from different parts of this Labour Party. When I came to the House, I thought that I was a Left winger. I have been pushed by circumstances so far to the right that I have come to think that there was only Woodrow Wyatt between me and the extremity of the Right.
  If the Commons of England takes such legislative action to deprive the people of England of their fundamental democratic rights to earn their own living, even I, on the Right of the Labour Party, must think what action I can take outside the House to oppose whatever legislation is coming along.
  This has been the worst coalmining debate that I have heard in six years, when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) can turn the House into a farce, when the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who might have shown knowledge of the industry, spent 75 to 85 per cent. of his speech trying to tell mining Members who have spent years in the industry why a one-ended or doubled-ended pick should be used.
  If the hon. Member for Cannock thinks that that is the most important item before the House tonight, no one else will agree with him. Anyone with any knowledge of the matter could have

  1567
  suggested that there might be difference between a coal mine in the United States which is 400 to 500 feet deep and the conditions that we have here with pits 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 yards deep. The answer is simply that his pick does not work in United Kingdom pits. In other words, he should not bring offensive weapons into the House of Commons.
  As one who is sponsored by the N.U.M., an interest which I have declared in every coalmining debate since 1964, I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that while under Labour the efforts and aims of legislation were to help coalminers and the industry through the 'seventies, the aim of legislation nowadays, under the Conservatives, is to weaken the industry, yet to keep it alive just long enough for the profitable parts to be hived off. On 18th June there may have been a few in the coalfields who could not tell the difference between Labour and Tory policy in this matter. By tomorrow morning they will all be aware of the differences.
  The Minister will recall that shortly after his appointment he invited mining-sponsored hon. Members on this side of the House to meet him in his office. We offered him any help that we could give with legislation designed to support the industry and any opposition that we could provide to legislation which we thought would harm coalmining.
  This Measure provides a little good at the cost of a great deal of harm. The good is contained in Clauses 1 to 5. The harm is in Clauses 6 to 8. Much of the information which the Minister wants in Clauses 6 and 8 he could get simply by asking the Chairman of the N.C.B. to provide it. He must be aware that a responsible Minister going to the head of a nationalised industry would receive that sort of response. The trouble is that the information required under Clause 7 is a threat in that we do not know what will happen to it.
  For six years—I pointed this out in the last debate on coalmining—the cry of hon. Members on both sides was, "How can we burn the coal we already have?" In 1969 the cry became "Where can we get more coal to burn?" Now we must import coal, and, unfortunately, it is uncontrolled importation. We have free, unfettered, private importation of coal.
  1568
  If this is planning of any kind, I do not understand it.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith rose—
  Mr. Ogden: I will not give way. The right hon. Lady has been absent for almost the whole debate.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I have been here for over three-and-a-half hours.
  Mr. Ogden: In that case I apologise to the right hon. Lady, but I still will not give way.
  It appears that this type of importation is to be allowed for two or three years, and then a review will take place. On 5th December importation will start, and we gather that in 1972 there will be a review. Why is the Minister waiting for at least two years before beginning to review the situation? Presumably contracts will be made for two or three years, and it might be preferable for him to review the situation, say, every 12 months. He would then have more control over the importation of coal.
  The basic cause of the present trouble in the industry is simply that over the years the country has refused to pay the insurance cost, as it were, for having large stocks of coal. That was the insurance price for which my hon. Friends have been asking for a long time. Unfortunately the country, the Government and the consumers would not accept that cost. They are to be blamed and not the miners, for the present shortage of energy fuels of all kinds, not just in this country and in Europe but throughout the world. It seems that we are in for a hard winter. The real time of test, however, will come not during this winter but during the following one.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the loss of coal tonnage available at the pithead, and remarks about this have been linked to industrial relations. They are, of course, talking about the loss of coal on the surface, since obviously the coal is still below ground. Either way, coal is lost, and that is a fact.
  I do not like unofficial action against the advice of a union. I have said this before and I have made it clear to the miners in my part of the world. When unofficial action is taken it usually means that there is something wrong with the internal communications of a union, that

  1569
  the union is not doing its job properly or that, for one reason or another, people who should be accepting their share of responsibility in supporting their union are not doing so. I do not like unofficial action, but I can understand the unofficial action which has been taken.
  The National Union of Mineworkers is a good union. It is a national union, although in some respects it is a federal organisation. The danger is that the national organisation will be split back into federal, area and local unions. In the circumstances, the leadership shown both nationally and locally has been remarkable.
  The Minister for Industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale made completely different but responsible speeches. They at least seemed to appreciate the Bill's importance. It is the most important Bill affecting the industry for six years.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who usually stays in his place a long time during these debates, made the type of speech that he did. His speech today was not up to his usual standard. One of my hon. Friends has suggested that the hon. Gentleman made the same speech today as he has made on previous occasions. The hon. Gentleman did not do so. When the hon. Gentleman was in opposition he made no claims for outright hiving off of the profitable parts of the Board's assets. He always claimed then to be the friend of the miners. He told the House in those days that some miners had been generous enough to present him with a miner's lamp. He should read the instructions on the base of the lamp before making that claim again.
  I particularly resented the hon. Gentleman's bitter and vehement attack on the Chairman of the Coal Board. I also deplored the criticism made by some of my hon. Friends in Early Day Motion No. 156, calling for Lord Robens' resignation because of some of his statements. I thought that call was ill-timed even in the context of Lord Hall's exercise at the Post Office. It was also ill-judged. I regret that my hon. Friends, particularly the miners amongst them, allowed themselves to forget the close relationship which has existed between the miners' group and Lord Robens during his term
  1570
  of office. If hon. Members on this side wanted to tell Alf Robens what they thought of him, the door was open to them to go and tell him.
  The Chairman of the Board is in a dilemma. His term of office is to end shortly. No one knows whether he is to be offered reappointment. Something may have come up on the tape whilst I have been talking. In two months' time either Lord Robens is reappointed or a new chairman must be appointed. Lord Robens knows through the Bill what the new chairman will be expected to deliver. Part of his responsibilities will have to be handed over to the opposition. Unfortunately, we do not know who the other candidates for chairman will be. We might be faced with the choice of Lord Robens continuing or A, B, C or D being appointed. I prefer the devil I know rather than the devil I do not know. Although we might do better, we could certainly do much worse than Lord Robens.
  I want to compare the policy of the Conservatives in opposition with their policy in Government. The Conservatives have always claimed that they are not opposed to nationalised industries as such but that they are opposed to the fact that the nationalised industries are able to compete on what they call unfair terms with private enterprise. That has not been my experience. I have always thought that nationalised industries are more hampered because they are nationalised and responsible to Parliament than other industries are.
  Even if the House were to accept the claim which the Conservatives made when they were in opposition for equal competition between private and public enterprise, that is not now the Government's claim. The Government's claim is for unhampered private enterprise and a hampered and restricted public sector.
  The Government base their argument on the thesis that it is the Board's task to produce coal. They say that the Board's duty and the industry's responsibility stop at the pithead. What happens to the industry's product after that is not the Board's responsibility, now say the Conservatives. Their programme is to remove by legislation all the other assets.
  If diversification is good for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their own

  1571
  business interests, if it is good for private industry—I hope to show in two respects just how good it is for private industry—there is no reason why it should not be good for public enterprise.
  I have in mind two local companies. The first, the Granada group, controls about 57 cinemas, bingo halls, a television rental business, several clubs and, in addition, is concerned with the sale of electrical appliances, confectionery, catering and motorway service areas. Part of the second company bears the name "Ogden Tobacco Company". I refer to the Imperial Tobacco Company. One could hardly imagine a more diversified private enterprise. Concerned basically and originally with the tobacco trade, it is now moving into all sorts of other ventures. It manufactures Golden Wonder Crisps, H.P. Sauces, Smedleys canned and frozen foods, glass bottles, plastic products and woollen textiles.
  If the Government ask only for equal competition, they cannot complain if the nationalised industries want to be diversified. At present, the National Coal Board is involved in chemical byproducts, North Sea gas, bricks and building, and computers. Indeed, its computer network is extremely important. It is involved in coal distribution and a number of joint ventures. They are all there, and they support the main coal-getting operations of the Board. If one then talks about disposing of some of the Board's land, there are obvious difficulties.
  We are told that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has a great deal of responsibility for the provisions set out in Clauses 6, 7 and 8. He is the eminence grise, the power behind the throne, the orgre, and the man behind these terrible suggestions. When he replies to the debate, he may confirm or deny that. In the last few weeks, we have seen phase 2 of the Government's economic policy. They may claim that they have a mandate for it, but in my view people did not appreciate the sort of mandate that they gave right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they elected them. In B.O.A.C., the Post Office, steel, the atomic energy industry and now the coal industry and the threatened hive-off, they are gradually showing their policies.
  1572
  The Minister of State said that the main reason for and chief purpose of the Bill was to provide in Clauses 1 to 5 for aid and assistance. He said that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 were afterthoughts which the Government could achieve in the form of an additional powers Bill later, if necessary. As it stands, the Bill will produce no additional coal, but it will cause tremendous difficulties and upsets throughout our coalfields. It will create big divisions and great dangers. If it is the aim of the Government to help the coal industry, they can best do it within the next few days by withdrawing Clauses 6, 7 and 8. If they do not, in Parliament and outside the Bill has to be opposed.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: I listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) with great interest, especially when he was discussing the extension of nationalised industry. One big difference, surely, must be that in the case of a private company it is the investor's money that is at risk when firms diversify. In the case of public industry it is the taxpayer's money. The Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, chaired by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), said that Governments do not yet understand how to manage the nationalised industries, even after 25 years.
  In my few remarks, perhaps I may say a word or two on behalf of the consumers, since I know that the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) was attempting to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech to make a point on their behalf. In human terms, the effect of a fuel shortage on people living in the country is considerable, and it is the reason why various provisions have been included in the Bill to deal with fuel shortages, the conversion programme and coal imports.
  Perhaps I might refer to the situation that exists in my constituency. There are people who can afford to take in their coal during the summer months; they can afford the money and they have somewhere to store it. There are others who can take their coal in only three or five sacks at a time. But there is a third group who can afford to take only one sack or bag a week; they cannot afford more

  1573
  financially, and neither have they the storage room. In the main, these are old people, and it is about them that I wish to speak.
  Such people are utterly dependent on the weekly visit of the coal dealer, depending on solid fuel not only for their hot water and their heating but, in some cases, for their cooking, too. The big coal merchants will not serve these people for they find that it is not worth the candle; it is not economic to do it. So it is left to the small dealer, perhaps one man, or one man and his brother or son, with one or two lorries, who goes along each week, performing a vital service within the economic system.
  These small dealers supply the people whose need is greatest, the old-age pensioners, but it is the small dealer who has been hit by the fuel shortage. He is dependent on the British Fuel Company, a nationalised distribution company. In my constituency, several of these dealers have had their supplies completely cut off. One such dealer has 200 old people dependent on him, and these old people were without solid fuel supplies for three weeks until I intervened. This is a grossly unfair situation.
  The explanation is that there should be a contract; if a dealer has no contract, his supply can be cut off. In good times, he is not asked for a contract; the big distributor wants to get rid of the coal. Only in bad times does one hear about the need for a contract.
  The situation is such that in my constituency—it must apply elsewhere, too—over the past few weeks many old people have had to scrape and scrounge for what fuel they could get. This is wrong. In a crisis of this kind, a national fuel crisis, there ought to be fair shares for all.
  The British Fuel Company is acting within its rights according to its regulations regarding contracts. But the British Fuel Company is a very large nationalised organisation, and we all know that large organisations become rigid, inflexible and impersonal. One might say that they almost become inhuman.
  I have spoken of the distribution problem. Distribution is not a colliery activity, a mining activity. It is one of the diversified activities, and for the reason
  1574
  I have given, if for no other, I welcome the powers under the Bill which call for reports on such activities.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: The important feature of this debate is its timing. It has occurred just after a national catastrophe has been narrowly avoided. I refer to the possibility of a generalised strike in the coal industry. If there had been such a strike, it would have been an economic disaster. The nation's economy is in a wretched state, there is no expansion of industry, there is increasing unemployment, and there is a growing lack of confidence.
  Nothing could have been worse than a coal strike at this time. It would have caused a run against sterling and would have plunged us into grave economic difficulties. Therefore, it is vital at a time like this that miners' morale should be raised to the maximum. Yet in the speeches of the Minister and other hon. Members opposite and in the Bill there is everything to upset them, to provoke them, arouse all their suspicions and make them feel anger and distrust for the Government's intentions.
  It is extremely important that the coal industry should be raised to the maximum state of efficiency. There cannot be efficient production unless the mine workers are working with the real wish to keep production going as fast as it can. During the past few years the miners have been working under very difficult conditions. The industry has been run down in that period from 700,000 workers to a little over 250,000. This alone has necessitated the miners' showing almost superhuman restraint. When we consider how their wages have dropped to around 16th place in the comparative wages scale, we can understand why they feel considerable bitterness.
  We must bear in mind how those wages are earned. The mining profession is certainly dangerous and difficult, and it incurs immense social disabilities. Miners have to live in isolated villages away from all the pleasant amenities of life. Yet their pay is not comparable with that of miners in the United States or the Soviet Union in terms of the standard of living it gives them. Therefore, it is not surprising

  1575
  that a general strike in the mining industry was only narrowly avoided.
  The miners have had considerable provocations, apart from that produced by the Bill and the Minister. It is they and their families who have been hit by the increases in the school meals charge, the withdrawal of the milk subsidy, the council house rent increases, the health charges, the dental and ophthalmic charges, the increase in prescription charges from 2s. 6d. to 4s., and the withdrawal of the benefits in the three waiting days.
  Therefore, any sensible Government would have done something to reassure the miners on this occasion. But the Bill on the contrary arouses considerable suspicion, largely because of Clause 7. I do not think that anyone could object to Clauses 6 and 8, but Clause 7 makes it quite clear that it is the Government's intention to hive off the profitable part of the subsidiary companies attached to the mining industry. It has been suggested that the Government may want only to dispose of the unprofitable parts, but I wonder who would buy them. I think that we can take it that the Minister intends to live up to the Conservative Manifesto at the last General Election, which said that the State's interest of nationalised industries would be decreased by hiving off parts of those industries. It will be the profitable parts.
  There have been various arguments from hon. Members opposite that there is no real reason why the National Coal Board should have these diverse interests. But there is a touch of hypocrisy about that, because hon. Members on both sides of the House know that diversification has now come to stay in industry of all types. It is common for businesses to buy themselves into their competitors. It is common enough for shipping companies to buy interests in airlines, their competitors. It is common for firms to buy interests in companies which distribute their products or supply them with commodities. Why should the National Coal Board be deprived of these elementary commercial rights in its efforts to make the industry profitable? I suggest that the reason is that the Government have an ideological fixation about reducing the power, scope and efficiency of the nationalised industries.
  1576
  Clause 1 suggests that the Government will pay only certain limited sums towards the social costs of closing pits—two thirds, one half and one third of the Board's expenditure for this purpose during the next three years respectively. But social costs brought about by national policy should be placed on national expenditure and should not fall on the Board. In the original Bill introduced by the last Government, Clause 3 would have ensured that the losses incurred by the Board for delaying colliery closures were reimbursed. That provision is missing from this Bill. It would have been helpful and would have cost very little had it been retained, and it certainly would have allayed anxieties among quite a few miners.
  Again, there is no provision for subsidy for extra coal to be burnt by the electricity boards. Such a provision was included in the last Government's Bill, and it is regrettable that it is not in this one because, again, it would not have involved very large sums of money.
  There is no attempt at a capital reconstruction of the industry. In 1965 there was a capital reconstruction by the Labour Government and £415 million of debt was written off. There is a good case for writing off more of the Board's debt. It is carrying a very heavy burden of interest rates of about £35 million a year. Since, ultimately, the nation is responsible for the Board's deficits, it is surely no more than a bookkeeping item to write off more of the debt and raise morale generally in the coal industry by enabling the figures to show pluses instead of minuses in the profits figures.
  The real trouble we are up against is the Conservative bigoted ideological conception that the nationalised industries must be reduced in scope. But I think that even the general public are getting rather sick of this. I think that everyone realises that these constant attacks by the Conservative Party on the nationalised industries are merely impairing their morale and consequently their efficiency. What is more—and even more important—I think that the general public realise that they as taxpayers have to subsidise this Conservative ideological concept. The time has come when the Conservative Party should attempt to have more sort of tolerance of the ideas behind the nationalised industries.

  1577
  After all, even the Government of President de Gaulle took no steps to denationalise the Renault motor works. Even this nationalised firm was allowed to live in peace by the extremely Right-wing Gaullist Government. So, even though the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry have been captured by the Right-wing of the Conservative Party—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Cronin: —we hear the authentic voice—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Of Toryism.
  Mr. Cronin: —of the dinosaurs of the Tory Party. Even if they have captured the responsible Ministers, I ask the Government to pause and give some thought and to remember that the nationalised industries, particularly the coal industry, are of vital importance to the fragile ailing economy of the country.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: When this Parliament reassembled I was one of the first Members on the Government side of the House to ask, and even demand, of my own Front Bench that we had this Bill without delay. I was one of those Members in the last Parliament who from the Opposition side supported the Labour Government on the Bill which they were to introduce, for, as the House knows, I speak as someone who knows something—I will not say I know as much as many Labour Members—about the mining industry, coal mining, the coal economic problem, and the miners' problem.
  This afternoon and this evening the House has not been treated to the type of responsible debate on the coal industry which we have had in the past few years. We have not had so many speeches from the heart, from the passion and experience of coal mining Members, and I have listened intently not always agreeing that they are accepting the full economic arguments and the pressures in the industry, but respecting that they know what they are talking about, for when a Member says that he has been digging coal for 40 years I respect that he knows what he is talking about.
  We are looking at a problem which is both human and economic. We have to
  1578
  marry the two factors if we are to be responsible. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), whose speech, of course, delighted us as a parliamentary performance, and who, of course, has wit and command of phrase, perhaps second to none of any Member, and who, of course, can bring Members through the doors at the end of the Chamber when his name is shown on the television screens, should not have made a responsible or constructive speech about what to do about this economic and human problem which the country faces as we run down an industry. I know that he knows, because he comes from a mining constituency, and we know that he knows, because he has taken part in every mining debate. But this afternoon he was irresponsible. I was saddened because he led the House in irresponsibility on a most important subject.
  I did not think that the hon. Member represented the miners' views even about the recent unofficial strike. I spoke to miners at the time, and I did not hear miners concerned about what might be in the Bill. They were concerned about their pay packets. I heard them concerned about whether to accept an award from the National Coal Board or to go for another £2 a week. I did not hear miners talking about Clause 6, or 7, or 8 and about what might be done to limit or extend the activities of the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Ogden: They did not know. They have many qualities, but they are not clairvoyant.
  Mr. Crouch: Of course they are not clairvoyant.
  The Bill is designed to help with the rundown of a major industry. I have been interested to see the rate at which it has been running down in the last three years. There has been a trend which has been little different. Lord Robens has given the Government and the Labour Government a figure of about 30,000 or 35,000 men a year leaving the industry. In 1967–68, because of deferments in the previous year, it reached a peak of 57,800. In the following year it came down to 55 pits closing and only 46,000 men leaving the industry.
  Last year the closures were somewhat delayed and the number of men leaving the industry was 23,000. That still

  1579
  amounts to a very important human factor, of which the Bill takes note. There is an acceptance on the other side of the House, expressed perhaps grudgingly, that the Bill recognises the human factor and the social obligation to ease the situation which occurs when men are asked to retire early, sometimes with no other employment. It is easy to talk about early retirement at 55 but a man is in the prime of life then and has learned a trade and a craft.
  When the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was Minister of Power he gave evidence before the Select Committee of which I was a member. He said that the industry need a ring of protection around it. It had that ring and still has it. I ask the House to take note of the fact that the ring of protection is still there. The right hon. Member also said that by 1975 that ring of protection may have to go. Coal is protected today by a tax on oil of £2·4 per ton, costing industry £60 million a year. It is protected by Government moneys and National Coal Board moneys coming behind the industry to the tune of £40 million a year. The protection is there, and there is an understanding of the human factor. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on recognising these factors and on recognising the economic factors that we must face as a nation.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I cannot let the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) go without comment. My grandfather spent 52 years in the coal mining industry and eventually died in that industry. He told me two things about Tories. He said, "If they cannot beat you they will try to make you soft". That is precisely what we have heard from the Conservative side of the House tonight. There has been no answer to the critical problems of the industry, just a continual diatribe and false sympathy for the plight of the miners and the mining areas.
  We were told by the Minister that the primary purposes of the Bill were welfare and economic. He was followed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others of his hon. Friends who have told us that they liked the Bill because it has good Tory Clauses. At least they were honest. While part
  1580
  of their Party was ascribing the election victory to their compassion and consideration the rest of the party was ascribing it to denationalisation. The only conclusion that we can draw from this set of circumstances is that they still do not know why they won the election.
  We have had many references to Clause 7 and our attention has been drawn to various aspects of the Bill. There was first of all a statement that the Government wanted more cost-effective methods of providing employment by working through the Local Employment Acts rather than keeping open unprofitable pits. This is absolute nonsense and we shall see this clearly as the years pass. In the last financial year the Local Employment Acts accounted for £89 million worth of development expenditure. In 1963–64 they accounted for £35 million worth of development expenditure. Even the cheapest economist in the land—and I expect that there are a few on the benches opposite—will tell us that there are basic reasons for attributing this growth in local employment expenditure to the industrial development Act introduced by the Labour Government. We cannot allow the destiny of the 40,000 miners in Wales and other miners throughout the country to depend on the charity and discrimination of the Local Employment Acts.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) on his most impressive maiden speech. He reminded the House that the first miner Member, Thomas Burt, came from his constituency. The number in the miners' group in the House has ebbed and flowed since then. It now stands at about 20, and I am very proud to be a member of it. I am very pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth to it. He made the plea that miners should not be thrown on the scrap heap. I agree with him. He said that before he became a Member of the House he was working at the coal face. I did not have that opportunity because I was working in the mining industry in another sphere. My hon. Friend made a well informed speech. I am sure that he will be a most valuable Member of the House and will contribute a great deal to our future debates.

  1581
  We all know why the Bill was delayed and why the Bill presented by the last Government—an agreed Measure which was welcomed by my hon. Friends—has taken so long to reappear. Basically this is not the same Bill. In only one respect is it anything like the Bill which the Labour Government presented, namely, Clause 2(1) dealing with redundancy payments. Even here we have doubts about the intentions beyond 1972. I wish to probe the Government on this matter when the Bill goes to Committee and a little later in my speech. I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to reassure us on this matter.
  The rest of the Bill represents almost a completely new piece of legislation. It misses out the absolutely crucial parts of the Labour Government's Bill and introduces new provisions which are damaging to the Coal Board's viability and lays the ground for selling some of the Coal Board's most profitable assets.
  Coming after the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill last week, this Bill should be called the Hiving-Off (No. 2) Bill. No doubt—and we have this on the authority of the Financial Times—when it comes to the steel industry we shall have the Hiving-Off (No. 3) Bill, when it comes to the railways we shall have the Hiving-Off (No. 4) Bill, and then we shall come to the gas and electricity industries.
  The origins of this Bill are shrouded in mystery to a great extent. After the election my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House when the Bill on the coal mining industry would be presented. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the Bill would be
  "to lessen the effects of contraction in the coal industry on miners and the mining community after the existing powers expire at the end of March."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1741.]
  I do not know about that, but that was the interpretation of the Leader of the House at that time. What we have today is really one subsection in a 10-Clause Bill. On the following Thursday, 23rd July, again my right hon. Friend asked the same Question and the Leader of the House said:
  "I made clear in a full answer last week exactly what we were to introduce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 775.]
  1582
  The Leader of the House said in July exactly what was to be introduced, one subsection out of a Labour Bill and the 10-Clause Bill which we now have before us.
  I am not for a moment saying that the Leader of the House tried to mislead the House. I know that he is an honourable man, and in the last five months he has earned the respect of the House. But somebody has misled somebody. Was the Leader of the House misled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry misled by the Minister for Industry or his Under-Secretary? If we read in the newspapers what he said about this, it would appear that his two hon. Friends who are leading for the Government today are the hiving off hawks and the right hon. Gentleman is the dove.
  There are other reasons for the delay in producing the Bill. We have just averted a stoppage in the mining industry which would have been crippling to the economy. Even so, about 55 per cent. of the men voted to strike. Had the Bill been published in July, as it could have been, in the form in which it is now, undoubtedly more than 55 per cent. would have voted for strike action if they had seen what an attack was being made on the coal mining industry.
  The 1967 Coal Act proposed specific measures which were then warmly welcomed by the House, by the two hon. Members leading for the Government today and by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) whose impressive speech I remember listening to at that time.
  I come now to Clause 2. Following the publication of the Bill, reports appeared in the newspapers last week that the redundancy scheme may be amended in 1972 to make it less favourable than it is now. There may be reasons for taking the redundancy even further before 1974. About 70 per cent. of the coal mining industry is located in assisted areas—special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas—and in the most economically vulnerable areas the production costs are highest. The Government's regional policies will make the position worse. I know that it is difficult to make a judgment at this stage. Week after week we hear right hon.

  1583
  and hon. Gentlemen say that they believe that their economic measures will be effective in the regions, but we are waiting to see the results, and only time will tell. We do not believe that the Government's policy will be so effective as was the Labour Government's policy.
  To underline my point, between 1959 and 1969, in Scotland, the proportion of male employees working in the coal mining industry declined by nearly 60 per cent. Yet, thanks to regional policies, and particularly to regional policies as practised from 1964, with the measures for special development areas to assist places like Scotland, that decline was cushioned. This is reflected in the unemployment figures. A similar story can be told about other coal areas.
  We all agree that the position of coal mining areas is extremely difficult. In development areas the position has been helped to a remarkable extent because of the Labour Government's regional policies, but if there is any weakening of these regional incentives then the redundancy scheme in Clause 2 could be extended. The National Mineworkers' Union has strong views on this subject. It has already met the Minister for Industry and is trying to obtain a meeting with the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will be able to meet their views.
  It is important that we take seriously the fact that if a coal miner is declared redundant at 55 he may never get another job. If the Government abandon effective regional policies—and from what we have heard so far we are not encouraged by what they are doing in this direction—it will be a sorry look-out for any miner in future.
  There are two matters which have been raised in this debate which require further explanation from the Under-Secretary of State in his reply. They have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). Why have the Government discarded the provisions in the Bill put forward by the Labour Government relating to extra coal burned in power stations? The position of supply and demand in the coal industry when the Labour Government introduced their Bill in April was largely the same as it is today. The hon. Member for Bournmouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who was then leading for the Opposition, made no complaint at all—
  1584
  in fact he generally welcomed the provisions, as did other hon. Gentlemen. Therefore, we shall want to probe this matter further, and it will come as no surprise to the House if I say that if the Bill reaches Committee stage we shall seek to put that provision back in the Bill.
  The other matter in which we are interested is what I consider to be the stupid action by the Government in leaving out of the Bill the provisions for compensating the National Coal Board for a deferment of a colliery closure. It is the highest folly to discard this valuable short-term measure. Many of my hon. Friends could cite villages in which the pit is the only source of employment and whose closure would be catastrophic. We thought that the provision about compensation was extremely useful and in April it appeared to receive unanimous support in the House. In discarding such a provision the present Government are disregarding the report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries which welcomed the provision and encouraged the Government to continue with it. This again is something that in Committee we shall attempt to put back in the Bill.
  It is obvious to every Member of the House that the coal industry is extremely important. It is important to employment, to regional policy and to our balance of payments. The Labour Government were determined to achieve a prosperous, viable and modernised coal industry with a good future. When the coal industry was debated only a few weeks ago, on 29th October, I thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also believed this since he expressed similar views on behalf of the Government.
  What deeply worries me and my hon. Friends is the Government's intention to undermine the coal industry. We had the announcement today by the Minister for Industry about coal imports and his decision to go ahead with power station conversions. We shall certainly want further information on these matters. I say frankly, but in the kindest way, that it would have been better for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House to make the statement about imports than to take the opportunity of making it when introducing the Bill, because he could then have been questioned more closely about

  1585
  it. As I say, we shall certainly want more information on this matter.
  The House knows that about 70 per cent. of our electricity is generated from the coal—much higher than our western European competitors—and there is not a shred of evidence that our energy costs, as a proportion of industrial costs, are higher than those of our competitors in Western Europe. For example, the energy costs in France and Germany as a proportion of industrial costs are 1 to 2 per cent. higher than in Britain. So the Government should know that we shall want to know what is in their mind on this matter, and particularly on the point about coal imports up to 1972, which is quite a long term commitment in the context of what has been happening in the mining industry over the last few years. We are told that fuel is in an elastic sort of situation. But we have seen some violent fluctuations in the coal industry in the last few years. We think that this matter ought to be looked at more closely.
  There have been suggestions that the heavy oil duty ought to be abolished. I did not hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), but I can understand his point of view, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury that the heavy oil duty was primarily a protection for coal. I do not think that the heavy oil duty was originally imposed for this kind of protection. I have checked the records. I know that the Minister for Industry, in April, said that it was primarily introduced as a protection for coal, but that is not the case. I am sure that, having been in his present office for a short period, his officials will have told him that this is not the case.
  On this point I should like to quote from the Budget Statement of 17th April, 1961, introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) when he said:
  "… I consider that for revenue reasons heavy oils should now bear some duty …. These are my proposals for raising the £80 million, to which I referred earlier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 818–9.]
  I do not deny that the duty helps the coal industry, but it also helps indigenous natural gas and nuclear power. The House should understand that the original purpose of the tax was to raise revenue,
  1586
  and it now contributes about £100 million a year to the Exchequer. That is not an amount to be sniffed at. It is about two-pence on the standard rate of income tax, or something like that.
  Nobody would deny that the nationalised coal industry has undergone tremendous changes since 1947. The aim of the last Government was to see how far we could bring about a modernised coal industry in a four-fuel energy economy which would have a long term viable future—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has been missing from most of the debate since he made his speech. Now he may interrupt if he wishes.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have been here for about 60 per cent. of the time. The fact that I had to speak for rather longer on this occasion than I usually do was due to the insubordination and lack of discipline of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Varley: That being the nature of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I wish that he had stayed out for this speech.
  The Bill seeks to give the Government power to take away the profitable parts of the Board's activities and to undermine the Board's chances of the financial stability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, everybody knows that modern industry seeks to diversify its activities. This is true of publicly-owned as well as privately-owned industries. My hon. Friend quoted the Sunday Times article on this matter, but there is one other section of it which I should like to read to the House.
  On the question of the Dutch State Mines, Mr. Poole says:
  "Most interestingly, D.S.M.'s really big deals recently have been done in conjunction with Royal Dutch Shell—the arch capitalist corporation and the model state socialist set-up—combining, in a vast new chemical complex in Limbourg (more jobs for redundant miners) and now in the ambitious and hugely expensive centrifuge project for producing cheap nuclear fuel. It is an example"—
  and these are the important words—
  "that Whitehall could usefully have a closer look at, before the N.C.B.'s non-coal future is finally sealed."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, what a situation there would be if the Government decided to sell off the profitable parts of the National Coal Board's

  1587
  ancillary activities and we got an aggressive bidder such as the Dutch State Mines? This could happen if the Secretary of State decides to instruct the Board to sell off its profitable undertakings. We could find the Dutch State Mines bidding for the Board's assets. What is more, the Secretary of State could do this without, as it were, coming to the House and presenting another Bill. Under this Measure he could take that action without even presenting an Order to the House, and I think that that is utterly disgraceful.
  Coal still provides about 50 per cent. of our energy needs, and it is an absolutely vital industry. Very few industries can match the phenomenal increases in productivity that have taken place since this industry was nationalised, and when the Minister comes to the House and talks, as he did, in softly, softly terms about this being just a matter of taking stock, he is not only assaulting the livelihood of miners, in the sense that the Government want to hive off these profitable enterprises, but he is insulting the intelligence of the miners, because they can see through this Measure.
  The Government would be well-advised to try to win the co-operation of the miners, rather than to try, as they are doing, to invoke their hostility. That is what the Bill does, that is why my hon. Friends have put down this Amendment, and that is why I shall ask them to support it tonight.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I join the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in congratulating the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant) on his maiden speech. It was a very well-phrased and effective speech. I know his constituency well, and I know the concern which he feels and which is felt there for the coal-mining industry and for the future of that part of the world. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Alcan smelter is likely to provide a suitable base load for coal in that area. I think the House will agree with me when I say that we look forward to hearing from him again, and that we enjoyed his maiden speech.
  1588
  I should just like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), because he specially asked me to refer to this, that the matter of the double-ended picks seems to be one that he should take up direct with the National Coal Board. I do not believe that this is a matter in which it is right for Ministers to intervene.
  I turn to the questions about the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. This Government have continued in existence the last Government's scheme. We intend to review the existing scheme during 1971 with a view to bringing in a new scheme after March, 1972. There is, so far as I know, no change whatever between the position of the present Government and that of the last Government.
  In order to clear up any misunderstanding, the best thing I can do is quote from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) moving the Second Reading of the last Coal Industry Bill:
  "I can assure the House that we have no intention of making any change of substance before March, 1972. We propose to renew the present scheme broadly in its present form for an extra year from March, 1971, and its form and operation for men becoming redundant thereafter will be reviewed during the course of 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 769.]
  That was the position of the last Government, and it is the position of the present Government. Therefore, the House can take it that on Clause 2 there is no difference at all between the past and present positions.
  The Government believe that it is right to pay the full cost of this scheme, as well as paying the mineworkers' pension of 30s. a week for the years between the end of the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme and the miner reaching the age of 65, when he gets a retirement pension. We believe that it is the right policy to concentrate Government help upon the victims of industrial change or decline, that it is a much better concept to try to help individuals than to try to help that nebulous concept, an industry, without being much more precise about what one is trying to do.
  I believe that this scheme for the early retirement of mine workers has relieved a great deal of hardship. It is the only

  1589
  special scheme of this kind in existence in Britain today, and it is a scheme designed especially for the special circumstances of the mining industry. I believe that it is an earnest of our good intentions to help the victims of industrial change, and that it is the right place to concentrate the money which is available for this industry.
  Mr. Swain: After eulogising the Clause which provides pensions and benefits for redundant miners, would the hon. Gentleman tell us why it was that from 1957, when his Government started the rundown in the mining industry, to 1964 they made no attempt to introduce such a scheme?
  Mr. Ridley: I am quite prepared to pay credit to the Opposition where it is due. The Labour Party introduced this scheme, and we supported it. If we are going back through history to try to score little points like the hon. Member is trying to do, we shall get nowhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) asked me why the cost had risen. There are four reasons. First, wages have increased in the mines, and the benefits under the scheme depend on actual earnings at the time of redundancy. Second, a defect in the earlier estimate has been corrected by making allowance for possible future wage movements during the period 1971–74. Third, to forecast the numbers of men aged 55 and over is very difficult. Fourth, the mineworkers' pension of 30s. a week has been increased to that figure from 20s. All these factors have made the gross cost of the scheme go up, though the net cost will be only £4 million more when other State benefits are considered.
  There has been a transformation of the situation in relation to the supply and demand of coal in the economy. There is, clearly, need for a very different policy at a time when coal is not in short supply compared with when there is a shortage. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and others seem to think that it would be appropriate to continue now at a time when there is a desperate shortage of coal the measures which were brought into effect to increase coal burn and to defer pit closures, whereas the reverse case now obtains.
  1590
  Pit closures will now take place only if the pit is grossly uneconomic or if there has been an exhaustion of the coal. Even in times of surplus production this power was not a great success. The Leader of the Opposition announced the closure of 16 pits at the N.U.M. Conference at Scarborough in 1967, but it was never quite clear what the motive for that sudden decision was.
  The result was that it cost the taxpayer £80 per month per job temporarily saved, a total of £2½ million. It produced an extra 500,000 tons of coal which was not required, at a loss of £4 10s. a ton for each ton produced. Commenting on this, the Select Committee said:
  "Your Committee have every sympathy with the view of the National Coal Board, that if a closure programme has been agreed it is best to stick to it. Since the Board works by a means of production plans for collieries carefully integrated at Area level … it must follow that if a closure is deferred other than in accordance with an integrated plan, the losses sustained are going to be very high, and higher than they would be if the deferments were incorporated into the operational plan when it was made."
  Thus, the Select Committee ruled against this power. Indeed, perhaps it would be hard to prolong the agony by three or six months, and that is why the Government were right to leave this power out of the Bill.
  I come to the question of the extra coal burn powers. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said, the Select Committee supported the use of this form of subsidy at a time when it was desired that power stations should take more coal than they would otherwise have taken. Indeed, as a member of that Committee, I remember how it was believed that it was the right way to deal with the matter, having decided to take that action.
  In fact, 12½ million tons of coal was burnt in power stations which might not otherwise have been so burnt, and 1½ million tons at gas works. This cost an extra £21 million. This power ceased to be used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1969, and it has not been necessary since because the situation has changed and we have a shortage of coal.
  There is, therefore, no need whatever to use this power now. It has been pointed out that we would sympathetically consider reintroducing it if

  1591
  necessary, but it must be a corollary of having this power at times of a surplus of coal that, in times of shortage it is not needed at all.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: The hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed a readiness to reintroduce this power if it were necessary. He knows very well that a special Bill, were this necessary, would be very difficult to get through. Why can he not accept Amendments in Committee, have the power, and not use it unless he is persuaded that it is necessary to use it?
  Mr. Ridley: Nobody can see sufficiently far ahead to know what the future will hold. Clearly, as far ahead as one can see it will not be needed. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be much better if it were never needed again. I very much hope that it will not be. We have given that undertaking to reassure him on the point he raised.
  Moving to the subject of conversions—I am trying to pick up all the points that were raised—the Labour Government converted five English power stations from coal and two Scottish power stations. This Government have so far approved six conversions in England. I understand that two applications for conversions are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friend has deferred the decision on the Padiham power station. No application has been received for converting Tilbury, so that question is not being considered. West Thurrock and Hams Hall were both converted to dual firing; these were two of the biggest power stations. Therefore, if the situation should change, this allows for extra coal to be burned in power stations.
  It is inevitable at a time when coal is short that power stations should be converted—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Gentleman to address the House against the background of a multitude of private debates.
  Mr. Ridley: It is inevitable that when coal is short this policy will have to be pursued, and I should have thought that hon. Members opposite, who quite rightly tried to increase coal burning at a time of coal surplus, would agree that at a time
  1592
  of coal shortage coal burning should be reduced. This also is a perfectly natural and logical consequence of the situation.
  The same applies to opencast working. We are now in conditions of short supply. In 1965 6–7 million tons were produced. In 1970 8 million tons were produced. For 1971 the estimate is 10 million tons. Obviously we want to get what we can from opencast production, because this is a contribution to keeping the markets of the coal industry by keeping some burners of coal in industry who would otherwise change to burning other fuels. If there is a surplus again in the future, we can revert to more restrictive measures. There will always be a limit on the amount of opencast coal that can be mined, because, apart from the questions of amenity and agricultural use of the land, there are the social considerations which must be borne in mind before a decision can be taken [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I say that it is difficult for an hon. Gentleman to speak against a multitude of background debates.
  Mr. Ridley: In this same spirit I invite the House to consider the question of imports. It is natural that in a condition of short supply we should look towards importing. The British Steel Corporation is very short of coke and coking coal. Merchants are short and many other industrial users are short. Even the Board itself may be tempted, possibly, to seek to import coal. I cannot understand why the Opposition find this so surprising and why the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) seemed to think that this was some betrayal. After all, if coal is short, the only conceivable way of meeting the shortage is to allow it to be imported.
  Decisions as to what should be imported and where it should be found will be in the hands of importers. They will pay the cost, and if coal is dearer abroad, obviously they will buy less, and that in itself is a measure of support for the coal industry. No one will bring in large quantities of high-cost coal at a time when coal at home is a great deal cheaper. That in itself is a protection for the home coal market.
  It will have the effect of keeping for the coal industry a larger amount of the markets which it holds at present. If the

  1593
  level of consumption can be maintained by filling in with imports, it will have the effect of keeping a greater share for the coal industry.
  Mr. Michael Foot: There is nothing about importing coal in the Bill. We asked the Government to make a statement at the beginning of next week on the subject. Will the hon. Gentleman now deal with the main topics which have been raised, the chief of which is the hiving-off proposals, and make sure that he does not talk himself out on that subject?
  Mr. Ridley: I would have thought that to announce the decision on imports today, so giving hon. Members an opportunity to debate them, was about the best way in which they could possibly have been announced. I was asked about this by many hon. Members, and it is only right and courteous to reply to the points made in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seems to take this question of imports very much to heart. If he were in charge of these matters, would he refuse an open general licence to import coal, either special or general coals, at the present time?
  Sir G. Nabarro: And smokeless fuels.
  Mr. Ridley: Or smokeless fuels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) says. The hon. Gentleman opposite got extremely cross about this matter, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be interested to hear him vouchsafe an opinion on whether coal should be imported at a time of shortage or whether those consumers seeking to buy it should go without.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am very happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I said earlier that if the Government want a discussion about the import of coal, they should make a proposal to the House to discuss it. We on this side would be happy to do so. That is the normal procedure of this House when an administrative change of this nature is proposed.
  What I sought to do in my remarks was to deal with the matters in the Bill, and we are waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do the same. However, we quite understand the
  1594
  difficulty, because we know that he takes his policy from his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention must not be a second speech.
  Mr. Ridley: I have never known the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale so shy about giving an answer to a question. His reticence to come clean since his newfound promotion to the Front Bench makes it clear that the Opposition would have had to do the same as we are doing. Therefore, all the hot air and wind that he gave out can be suitably abandoned in future.
  I want now to move to the review of the peripheral activities. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that in their Transport Act and their Iron and Steel Act exactly the same powers were concerned. There was no question of an Order having to be laid before Parliament before any direction was given to the Steel Corporation or the transport authorities to divest themselves of any activity. There is no difference between the two provisions either in form or in parliamentary presentation, so I do not believe that the Opposition have any grounds for complaining about this.
  It is 23 years since the National Coal Board was first created. Its peripheral subsidiaries are of a haphazard nature. We lack information about the true value of the assets of the subsidiaries. We have no information on the importance of the subsidiary activities to the mainstream activity. We do not know about their profitability because we do not know about the value of the capital assets. What my right hon. Friend proposes is that the Coal Board should make a review in order to discover both the industrial logic and the profit and loss on the capital employed in all the subsidiaries.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No, I have stood enough.
  We have a good precedent for asking for this review and information. I quote here from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its Report on the National Coal Board, Session 1968–69:
  "Your Committee believe that ancillary activities should not be continued indefinitely

  1595
  unless they show a good return on the capital employed. In some cases, such as that of the brickworks and the coke ovens, the Board might be losers if they ceased the activities because they would lose outlets for products from the mines. This fact should be taken into account"—
  [Interruption.]
  "in assessing the return on capital, but it should not be used to circumvent the requirement that the capital should be profitably employed.
  "Your Committee are not impressed"—
  [Interruption.]
  "by the financial performances of the brickworks and the subsidiary companies (taken as a whole) judged by this yardstick. Even the coke ovens and the processed fuel manufacturing concerns are yielding low returns on capital employed, and Your Committee hope that the performance of all these activities"—
  [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. All those hon. Members on both sides who are muttering expect to be heard when they speak.
  Mr. Ridley: That Report was signed by the hon. Members for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), Don Valley (Mr. Kelley), Ince (Mr. McGuire), Consett (Mr. David Watkins), and by other hon. Members opposite. I was just reading the concluding words:
  "Your Committee hope that the performance of all these activities can be improved."
  I take it that those hon. Gentlemen who signed that Report then will be joining us in the Lobby tonight in support of Clauses 7 and 8. If they signed that Report, why cannot they subscribe to the principle now?
  It is wrong for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to try to present the proposed review as lopping off all the profitable activities. Indeed, half the activities are not profitable. We have not prejudged for one moment what action will be taken with any of them. It is wrong for the
  Opposition to pretend that the Bill withdraws support for the coal industry. All that has happened is that we have changed from a period of a surplus of coal to a period of shortage, and it is obviously appropriate to take different measures, to remove protections and to remove bans on imports to deal with that situation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) rightly pointed out, the Government have not only a duty to the coal industry; they have a duty to the consumers of fuel and the people who cannot get coal in the present circumstances. Our policy will have the effect of allowing us to emerge with a highly mechanised, highly efficient industry in the future which will have prospects as good as any industry could have. Hon. Members opposite have indulged in a piece of special pleading in the speeches which they have made this evening which is not worthy of them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Hon. Members: Look at the time!
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point of order. The Question is, That the Question be now put.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 290.

  Division No. 41.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Albu, Austen

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Booth, Albert

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Ashley, Jack

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bradley, Tom

  Coleman, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Baxter, William

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)

  Beaney, Alan

  Buchan, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Cronin, John

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Prentice, Rt. Hon. Reg.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lambie David

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lamond, James

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lawson, George

  Richard, Ivor

  Delargy, H. J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Doig, Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lever Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Roper, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Driberg, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Eadie, Alex

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ellis, Tom

  McCann, John

  Sillars, James

  English, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silverman, Julius

  Evans, Fred

  MacColl, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fernyhough E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Foot, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ford, Ben

  McManus, Frank

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Swain, Thomas

  Ginsburg, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Golding, John

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tomney, Frank

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Wallace, George

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Watkins, David

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitehead, Philip

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Murray, Ronald King

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Padley, Walter

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Paget, R. T.

  Woof, Robert

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Astor, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bell, Ronald

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Balniel, Lord

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  1598

  1599

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Blaker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Body, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mudd, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Murton, Oscar

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Braine, Bernard

  Havers, Michael

  Nieve, Airey

  Bray, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Brewis, John

  Hay, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Heyhoe, Barney

  Normanton, Tom

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Nott, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bryan, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Osborn, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Peel, John

  Percival, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clegg, walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cooke, Robert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Coombs, Derek

  James, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Redmond, Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Crouch, David

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Curran, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dance, James

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dean, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Royle, Anthony

  Dixon, Piers

  Kirk, Peter

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Scott, Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Eden, Sir John

  Lane, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fidler, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Soref, Harold

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

  Speed, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Spence, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sproat, Iain

  Fortescue, Tim

  McLaren, Martin

  Stainton, Keith

  Foster, Sir John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fowler, Norman

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stewart-Smih, D. G. (Belper)

  Fox, Marcus

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

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

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. S. M.

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stokes, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Madel, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple, John M.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gower, Raymond

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Trew, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Molyneaux, James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  1600

  1601

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Worsley, Marcus

  Waddington, David

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Walker, David (Clitheroe)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Wall, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mellish.]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 289.

  Division No. 42.]

  AYES

  [10.15 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dunn, James A.

  Lambie, David

  Albu, Austen

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamond, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Latham, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ashley, Jack

  Ellis, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Baxter, William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Beaney, Alan

  Foot, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McCann, John

  Booth, Albert

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  MacColl, James

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Golding, John

  McElhone, Frank

  Bradley, Tom

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McGuire, Michael

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackie, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, East)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)

  Hamling, William

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marquand, David

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cohen, Stanley

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Conlan, Bernard

  Horam, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mendelson, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Millan, Bruce

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  John, Brynmor

  Murray, Ronald King

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Orbach, Maurice

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Delargy, H. J.

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Padley, Walter

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Paget, R. T.

  Doig, Peter

  Judd, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kinnock, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Pendry, Tom

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Pentland, Norman

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Sillars, James

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ali Saints)

  Prescott, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wallace, George

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Small, William

  Watkins, David

  Probert, Arthur

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

  Weitzman, David

  Rankin, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Whitlock, William

  Richard, Ivor

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n. R'dnor)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Roper, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Woof, Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Tinn, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Tomney, Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. J. D. Concannon and

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Hiley, Joseph

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dean, Paul

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Astor, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Holland, Philip

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dixon, Piers

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hordern, Peter

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornby, Richard

  Balniel, Lord

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Jame Patricia

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Eden, Sir John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bell, Ronald

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Feil, Anthony

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biffen, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fidler, Michael

  James, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Jessel, Toby

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Foster, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fowler, Norman

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Braine, Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Brewis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kilfedder, James

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gardner, Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Bryan, Paul

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kirk, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Carlisle, Mark

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Channon, Paul

  Gower, Raymond

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gray, Hamish

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Green, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grieve, Percy

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

  Clegg, Walter

  Grylls, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cooke, Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Loveridge, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McLaren, Martin

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Critchley, Julian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Crouch, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Crowder, F. P.

  Havers, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Curran, Charles

  Hawkins, Paul

  Madel, David

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Dance, James

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  1604

  1605

  Marten, Neil

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Mather, Carol

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maude, Angus

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Redmond, Robert

  Temple, John M.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mitchell, David (Bastingsoke)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Moate, Roger

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Molyneaux, James

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Trew, Peter

  Money, Ernie

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Rost, Peter

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Royle, Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Mudd, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Murton, Oscar

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Neave, Airey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wall, Patrick

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Sharples, Richard

  Walters, Dennis

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Normanton, Tom

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nott, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Osborn, John

  Soref, Harold

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)

  Speed, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Spence, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stainton, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Peel, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Percival, Ian

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stokes, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Mr. Hector Munro.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide further finance for the National Coal Board in respect of pit closures, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required for the making of grants (within an aggregate limit of £24 million) to the Board towards expenditure of the Board for any of the three financial years 1971–72, 1972–73 and 1973–74, being relevant expenditure within the meaning of section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965 (payments in respect of workers' redundancy, premature retirement etc.); and

  (b) any increase in the sums so payable under the Coal Industry Act 1967, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the classes of persons who may be eligible for redundancy payments under a scheme under section 3 of that Act;

  1606

  (2) Any increase in the sums which, by or under any enactment, are issued out of, or paid into, the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) increasing to £75 million the limit of the amount of the accumulated deficit on the Board's revenue account at the end of any financial year of the Board, or allowing the limit to be increased by order of the Secretary of State, but not to more than £100 million,

  (b) extending the power of the Board to borrow otherwise than from the Secretary of State (within the aggregate limit imposed by section 1(3) of the Coal Industry Act 1965, as amended by section 1(1) of the Coal Industry Act 1967) and enabling the Treasury to guarantee repayment of sums so borrowed and interest thereon.—[Mr. Ridley.]

  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I do not wish to disappoint the Prime Minister and to delay the proceedings, but, in view of what has been said on Second Reading, there are one or two questions which it is essential to raise on the Money Resolution. One of the main points of discussion during the debate was concerned with why the Government have left out of the Bill two Clauses which

  1607
  were incorporated in the Bill introduced by the previous Government earlier this year, the Clause concerning compensation to the National Coal Board for postponing the closure of pits, and the Clause about the coal burn being undertaken by the electricity authorities. It has been evident from the discussions on Second Reading that we would wish to put down Amendments on those two subjects in Committee, and the Government must be fully aware of that.
  Moreover, the Under-Secretary of State in response to questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told the House that if circumstances arose in which it was desirable, because of a change in the demand for coal, to re-establish the provisions which the previous Bill contained about providing for extra coal burn, the Government would be willing to consider such measures. That makes it all the more important that the Money Resolution should not be drawn so as to exclude discussion on these subjects in Committee.
  If the spokesman for the Treasury can give the House the assurance that such Amendments are not excluded, I will accept the assurance at once and that will satisfy my request, but if the Money Resolution is drawn in such terms that those two topics are excluded, then the Government would be guilty of a form of sharp practice. It was evident from the speech of the Minister for Industry who introduced the Bill that he knew that these were matters of major controversy between the two sides. If the Government have taken precautions in the Money Resolution to prevent us having these discussions, particularly if they gave no indication to us of that nature during Second Reading, the nature of the discussions in Committee will be altered.
  I hope the Government will now make it clear that the Clauses which were in the Labour Government's Bill will be admissible for presentation to the Committee and will not be affected by this Money Resolution. Right up to the time when the Bill was introduced the indication given to the House and to the country was that the Conservative Government would introduce the same Bill in general terms as the Labour Government had introduced. We have argued this matter
  1608
  on Second Reading, but I hope we shall have from the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which I have asked and that we shall be assured that these critical matters will be available to be discussed in Committee. If he cannot give us that assurance, then both he and the Government will be treating the Committee shabbily. I trust he will be able to acquit himself of any such charge.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is being most disingenuous—
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am either ingenious or ingenuous.
  Mr. Ridley: Even with his ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman could have seen that there is no power under the Money Resolution for moneys to be advanced towards the cost of extra coal burn nor towards the cost of deferring pits which have been temporarily reprieved. Indeed, it would be an odd Government that included in their Money Resolution power to make expenditures on items that were not included in their Bill. I do not think there could be any precedent in the history of Parliament when a Government have put into a Money Resolution powers greatly widening the scope of the expenditure that may be incurred under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, not be surprised to learn that the Money Resolution covers precisely the sums in the Bill and does not cover the sums to which he has referred.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman's statement is most deplorable. This could well have been done. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that two of the major topics of discussion in all coal industry Bills introduced in this House have concerned questions of coal burn and assistance to the National Coal Board to deal with pit closures. These two topics have been of foremost interest to hon. Members from mining constituencies. The Government well knew that—and if they did not know it before, they know it after today's debate. Yet they have introduced the Bill in a form that will prevent these matters being voted on in the House of Commons. [Interruption.]

  1609
  The hon. Gentleman says "Ah. But the Clauses having been excluded from the Bill, how could we incorporate them in the Money Resolution?". The way to deal with that proposition was to have made it clear that the Government would incorporate the Clauses in the Labour Government's Bill but they would hope to delete them from the Bill itself later. What they have succeeded in doing by this manoeuvre—because it is no better than that—is to remove this matter from the direct vote of the House. That is how I understand the hon. Gentleman's answer. The Government's action will mean that in Committee we will not be able to have a direct vote on the question of coalburn and whether that should have been included in the Bill—
  Mr. Ridley: Amendments?
  Mr. Foot: Such amendments would be excluded by the Money Resolution. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not shuffle off his responsibilities on to Mr. Speaker in this matter.
  1610
  The hon. Gentleman may think that these are laughing matters or matters related only to parliamentary procedure. They are not. They are matters that concern the health of the mining communities. These are two Clauses on which the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Industry met the miners' unions. Did he tell them that he was not merely contemplating not including these measures in the Bill, but was going to frame it in a way which would prevent us having a debate on these matters? It is a shabby way for him to use the House of Commons. More important, it is a shabby way to treat the mining industry.
  The Government had better see whether they cannot devise something better. If that is how they wish to have the affairs of the coal industry discussed in the House of Commons, they will not merely do injury to the House of Commons; they will do grave injury to the relations between themselves and the mining community.
  Question put and agreed to.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Order 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 1537), dated 19th October, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be annulled.
  This Prayer seeks to annul the Order which establishes the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has left. If he had been here I should have wished to assure him that the Prayer is not to get rid of the person occupying the position of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although some people might think that this would be an uncovenanted blesing in addition to the advantages which I seek to draw to the attention of the House. That is not the object of the exercise. It would perhaps be an additional benefit if we are successful in persuading the House that the Order should be annulled, but that is not the intention behind the Prayer. I hope to persuade the House that the Order is defective and that the Government should take it back and replace it with a new Order.
  The Order transfers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, among many other matters, responsibility for the control, limitation, and reduction of aircraft noise; whereas the White Paper, as I pointed out on 3rd November at col. 921, makes it clear that this responsibility for the control, limitation and reduction of aircraft noise was intended to be transferred, with all other forms of pollution control, to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Clearly this was the intention set out in the White Paper, Command No. 4506. But the Order which purports to implement the proposals in the White Paper in this respect fails to do that.
  Can anyone doubt that the proposal in the White Paper was right? Can anyone doubt that one powerful Minister should be responsible for all matters of environmental pollution without exception?
  It was an enlightened White Paper in this respect—I am not making any other qualification—and in my constituency I said that if the Government did this I
  1612
  would praise them in this House. I hoped to be able to praise them. I was, therefore, taken aback when I found that the Order setting up the new Department failed to carry out what seemed the clear intention in the White Paper.
  There is no exception in the White Paper to the statement that the Minister will be responsible for noise pollution among other forms of pollution. It does not say "except aircraft noise". It says "all" other forms of pollution. If I am right in thinking that this was the intention, who can doubt that the Order, which locates the responsibility with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is wrong and should be looked at again?
  Was it a mistake perhaps? I thought so until, on 29th October, I asked the Prime Minister about it, and in a Written Answer, at column 199, he made it clear that whatever may have been the original intention in the White Paper published earlier that month, by that time second thoughts, and as I shall argue wrong second thoughts, had prevailed. Why? Presumably on the same grounds that had been deployed to deprive the citizen of his right to sue aircraft operators. This is not a party issue. The decision of 1949, which deprived the citizen of the right to sue aircraft operators—a grave loss of a proper right which should rest in the citizen—was a decision of a Labour Government, and it has been maintained since then.
  They were the same grounds as those which persuaded my right hon. Friends to allow responsibility for limiting aircraft noise to rest in the hands of the Department which is mainly responsible for creating aircraft noise. This is the job of the Department of Trade and Industry. There is nothing wrong in that. The incidental and sad consequence of expanding our trade must necessarily be to increase the quantity of aircraft noise over the country, and it does not lie in the hands of the Department to limit that for which it is responsible for increasing.
  It is said that the limitation of aircraft noise is expensive. This is true. As the Minister put it in answer to a Question that I asked on 9th November suggesting that certain limiting action should be taken:
  "… it would impose losses on airlines, the airport and the economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 18.]

  1613
  The consequence of improving any amenity always entails the possibility of economic loss. That is something that we have to face.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no duty to limit aircraft noise if that conflicts with his primary duty to maximise trade, and the argument against locating this responsibility in this Department is that the minor duty of limiting noise conflicts with the major duty of maximising trade. So long as we have responsibility for limiting aircraft noise located with two men and a boy in an odd department in the Department of Trade and Industry, we shall not have creative conflict, and the real issue here is that the Government have decided not to provide the necessary machine to bring this about.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is the wrong Minister to be responsible for pollution problems of any sort. All other forms of pollution lie correctly with the Minister responsible for that area. The problem of aircraft noise alone has been allowed to remain in the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry.
  People say, "Let us talk about the problem, and not about the machinery of Government". We cannot talk very much about the problem tonight but, even if we could talk about it all night, noise will get worse and worse until we establish a situation in which decisions about it are taken, not within the Department, but between Ministers of equal power and authority. This is the key to the whole question. The decision must rest with Ministers of equal power and authority, Ministers with conflicting responsibilities and conflicting duties. We need a creative conflict to solve or even to ameliorate the problem of aircraft noise.
  Some people think that if men of goodwill can only get together, all problems can be solved, but we know that this is not true. There are genuine conflicts of interest. These are not even straightforward questions of right and wrong; there are clashes between the necessity to increase the nation's trade and the equal necessity to enable the citizen to enjoy his life in reasonable peace. We must provide administratively for the reality of that clash.
  1614
  Why should aircraft noise be the only form of pollution outside the protection of the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is the Prime Minister afraid that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) would overpower the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) so much that the economy would suffer, that the Knutsford duck would not hold his own in Cabinet discussion? Surely the right hon. Member for Worcester could be trusted not to take too much advantage of his right hon. Friend's lameness? The Prime Minister could always help with a verbal splint.
  But this is not a party matter. It is tempting to think that it might be a question of personalities, but it is not. There are strong arguments—which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will repeat tonight—that aircraft noise is only an aspect of the operation of aircraft. I hope that he will take the Order back, but I am afraid that he will tell us that the Department with operational responsibility should also be responsible for noise control, that the noise makers are the best judges of noise limitation. This is apparently the argument that has produced the Order in defiance of the White Paper and of the experience of other forms of pollution.
  Whenever have the polluters effectively controlled pollution? Countervailing forces in the community have always been needed, and this is my argument. The Department of Trade and Industry is—inevitably and properly—a pollution Ministry, and that Department and that Secretary of State should not have the responsibility of being the judge for the community in their own cause. It is not fair to the Secretary of State or to the community.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: All hon. Members who have the same problem of aircraft noise and the same duty to our constituents will have followed what the hon. Member has said. But the answer must be not what any particular Minister thinks but a corporate decision of the Cabinet as to what level of noise would be tolerable to citizens living in range of airports. I agree that in many constituencies the level is far higher than can be tolerated, but the hon. Member will agree that it must he a Cabinet decision.
  Mr. Jenkins: I agree that it is a Cabinet decision. I am asking that the forces within the Cabinet should be more fairly balanced. At present the matter comes for Cabinet decision having been determined departmentally. I am seeking to establish that there is a Minister responsible in the Cabinet for this matter so that a more balanced argument may be adduced within the Cabinet.
  I do not rely on my remarks to persuade the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) of the correctness of my case. He may care to hear some words of his Town Clerk, Mr. Waldram, who is also the honorary secretary of the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council. This official of Windsor—
  Dr. Glyn: The Royal Borough of New Windsor, please.
  Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows his area better than I do. Perhaps he also knows the views on this issue of his Town Clerk.
  Dr. Glyn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly know the views of my constituents.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that those views are the same as the views held by many of my constituents, the main one being that we should do something, between us, about this problem of noise; and I am suggesting a more effective way of dealing with it.
  I received this letter from the town clerk on 5th November, and hon Members may have copies also. In fact, it was addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment—as it should have been, since it deals with pollution. Mr. Waldram is the secretary of this large and influential body, the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council, which has representatives not only from Windsor but from most of the London boroughs. It is a body of increasing importance which has studied this matter with the excellent technical assistance of the Chief Health Inspector of Windsor, Mr. Holmes. Mr. Waldram's letter stated:
  "Since the publication and putting into effect of the Government White Paper Cmnd. 4506 on the Reorganisation of Central Government, I have been asked by my Council to put forward once again their suggestion that the problem of the disturbance and nuisance caused by the noise of low flying
  1616
  aircraft approaching and leaving airports, the monitoring of the noise created by these aircraft, and research into the effects of such noise, should be transferred to the Department of the Environment and not continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, formerly the responsibility of the Board of Trade.
  My Council feel very strongly on this matter and are supported in their contention by Paragraph 31 on Page 10 of the White Paper referred to in which it is stated that 'The Department will concern itself with, amongst other things—noise pollution, a matter which they are prepared to pursue locally, regionally, nationally and in some cases internationally'."
  That is the Department of the Environment. The letter went on:
  "This, to my Council's way of thinking, is precisely the way the problem of aircraft noise should be dealt with, and they feel that your Department is the appropriate Department to undertake this task.
  My Council quite appreciate that there are technical problems involved in the control of aircraft in flight which are within the scope of the former Board of Trade, now the Department of Trade and Industry, but they feel that it is unfair to ask the same Department on the one hand to have full responsibility for the development of the aircraft and air travel industry, and on the other hand to have responsibility for the control of aircraft noise, so that one section of the Department could be in conflict with another."
  I could not have put it better myself. The letter said:
  "So far as technical knowledge is concerned, it seems to my Council well within the bounds of possibility that technical problems could be sorted out by co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Trade and Industry.
  I am therefore asked by my Council to press very strongly indeed for the problems of aircraft noise to be transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment, which in our view is the appropriate Department to deal with the problem.
  Copies of this letter are being sent to all Members of Parliament whose constituencies include local authorities in membership of my Council."
  That is a pretty wide area covering the whole catchment area of London Airport (Heathrow).
  Mr. John Nott: The hon. Gentleman is being much too kind to the Government and is over-simplifying the matter. If he had any responsibility for Concorde's noise, he would know that his letters on the matter would be passed first to the Department of Trade and Industry, then would be sent by the Department to the Ministry of Aviation

  1617
  Supply, then back to the Department of Trade and Industry, whereupon they pause for some weeks, and then they go back to the Ministry of Aviation Supply. So there is a third Department involved. Would he bear this in mind in pursuing the most excellent cause for which he is noted?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reinforcement. I did not pursue that point because I want to leave some time for other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Naturally, as I am of a kindly nature, I did not want to rub it in too much. I will leave that to hon. Members opposite, who I trust will be as much of a thorn in the flesh of their Government on this as I was of my Government. I hope that there will be some hon. Gentlemen who will perform that very necessary rôle, until we achieve the change which is essential.
  I urge the Government to take the Order back or even give us an undertaking that they will reconsider the point. If they do that, I will urge my hon. Friends not to divide. If the Government will not give such an undertaking, although I will not divide the House, because I have given an undertaking in order to persuade the Government to give us this opportunity, I am not at all sure that I can answer for hon. Members on either side who believe, as I do, that a wonderful opportunity to redress the balance in favour of the citizen on the ground—in favour of amenity—is in serious danger of being lost tonight.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has raised a question of considerable importance, at any rate to everybody who lives within earshot of a British airport. I want to press the question a stage further than the hon. Gentleman did.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the Department of Trade and Industry is the right Department to be concerned with aircraft noise. He argued that this Department has a vested interest in the promotion of aircraft noise and that to put it in charge of controlling aircraft noise was rather like putting a dog in charge of a butcher's shop. The
  1618
  hon. Gentleman may be right, but I shall suspend my opinion on the merits of that argument until I have heard the Minister.
  I do not mind whether the Department of the Environment looks after the question of aircraft noise or whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry looks after it provided that I know how this Department is to treat its rôle.
  I want to know exactly how the Secretary of State proposes to use the power that we are giving him to concern himself with aircraft noise. I hope that we shall get from the Government a plain statement about that. Will my right hon. Friend take the position that he is concerned about the noise and its effects on people living round airports, or will he take the position that he must concern himself only with the expansion of trade and that, if people living within earshot of airports have to suffer seriously, that is too bad and little can be done? I am not sure what position he will take, and therefore some questions must be put to him so that we can discover the yardstick that he proposes to use.
  By way of ascertaining what is in his mind and discovering how he will use his powers, I want to refer to a concrete case rather than deal with generalisations. It is the case of the community living alongside London Airport in the village of Longford. It is a small village a mile or two from the airport, and the eardrums of its inhabitants are being assailed day and night by aircraft noise. I want to hear from my right hon. Friend what action, if any, he proposes to take about the grievance that I put to him by way of a test case.
  I have received a letter from the chairman of the Longford Residents' Association. The village is a long-suffering place. Its inhabitants have been assailed day and night by aircraft noise, and I recognise, as they do, that little can be done about it. But some things can be done, and I want to know whether my right hon. Friend is prepared to do them.
  The chairman of the Longford Residents' Association writes that aircraft noise in the village has reached crisis point, during the last week or so, because of the extension of No. 1 runway at London Airport, which runs behind the village, being used for take-offs in an

  1619
  easterly direction. The result is that, because the runway extension is used for this purpose, the consequences to the people living in Longford are very serious. The chairman says:
  "The conditions we are experiencing now have turned the village into a bedlam of noise and vibration which can cause lasting suffering … Not once during any stage of the preparation for this extension to the runway has there been any discussion or consultation with the residents, and, since it has become operational, not one scrap of protection in the form of blast screens or earth banks has been provided or, so far as I know, has ever been thought of."
  I again put the question to my right hon. Friend: does he regard this state of affairs as satisfactory? Is it satisfactory that no consultation of any kind was held with the residents of this village before a new assault was made upon their eardrums?
  When this Statutory Instrument is accepted and my right hon. Friend becomes responsible, will he make it his business to see that in future there shall be no addition to the noise volume of London Airport without consultation with the people who will suffer from it? We are entitled to clear answers to these questions. We want to know how the Minister will use his powers.
  As every hon. Member with a constituency adjoining an airport knows, it is very difficult to get information about noise control. It is even more difficult to get anything done about it. We have all had that experience. I want to know whether we are to fare better under the new régime, with the Secretary of State responsible, than we did under the old régime when the Board of Trade was responsible.
  On the answers to these questions, I, and, I think, some of my hon. Friends, will make up our minds about the merits of the matter. I have raised a constituency case as an illustration, but this is a problem which concerns a great many places elsewhere, too. It is by no means a localised problem. It is of far greater range, extending to everyone who lives within earshot of London Airport. In the village of Longford, the inhabitants are being used, and have been used for a good many years, almost as guinea pigs for a scientific experiment to discover how much noise the human eardrum
  1620
  can stand. Now this experiment is being taken a stage further.
  Does my right hon. Friend accept this extension? If he does not, what steps will he take? Until something is done—I hope that it will be done quickly—the conditions of life in the village of Longford will be intolerable. Some of the people living there now find that they cannot sleep there any longer and they have to move away at night. Some of them find that life is simply not tolerable. It has been very near to intolerable in the past, and now the limits of tolerance have been passed.
  We are entitled to ask my right hon. Friend to tell us how he proposes to use his powers of regulation of aircraft noise, and, in particular, what yardsticks he proposes to apply. How does he intend to measure the limits of the tolerable in noise around London Airport and other airports?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I remind the House that this is a debate of limited duration. It seems that a number of hon. Members have an interest which they wish to express. I hope that they may have opportunity.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I shall not detain the House for long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I recognise, as a Front Bench speaker, that I ought not to take up back-bench time. I wish to give an illustration of the difficulties which the Order presents for many people.
  Last summer, there was an inquiry into Luton Airport, which adjoins my constituency, undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In the course of his rulings and decisions on that matter—it was a request for planning permission for expansion of the airport—he indicated that the noise level was already undesirable, and, further, he considered that there should be the closest possible scrutiny of any increase in aircraft movements. However, an increase of aircraft movements of 42 per cent. in night flights alone has been announced for the coming year.
  The Board of Trade, which is responsible for the consultative committees established under the Civil Aviation Act, 1968, and which is responsible for giving

  1621
  clearance to these aircraft movements, appears so far to have taken no action. Thus, on the one hand, we have the Secretary of State for Environment recognising that a serious situation exists, and, on the other hand, we have the Board of Trade, apparently, taking no action about it.
  I put the point in the strongest possible terms. The Board of Trade, which set up the consultative committees which are responsible directly to the Board of Trade, so far appears to be quite unwilling or unable to take any action in the matter.
  I make one final point, since I see the Minister shaking his head. At an earlier stage, when the Board of Trade was approached on a similar matter, it did take certain action. First, it set up consultative committees, and, second, there was an attempt to reduce the noise created by night movements by, for instance, preventing training flights and the running of aircraft on the ground. None of that seems to have been taken further in the last few months.
  I give that example to illustrate how dangerous it is for functions to be divided in the way which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: I shall be brief; I wish to refer purely to the question of the Concorde test flights.
  When I originally sought advice on which Ministry I should send my complaints on Concorde tests to, I was told that the responsibility lay with the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore, I forwarded my complaints about damage from supersonic flying to that Department. However, they were then passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply. I waited for some time to receive an answer, and having received none I made inquiries through my right hon. Friends and was told that this was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I waited, and about a week later received answers from the Ministry of Aviation Supply.
  Why is it not possible for one Department to be responsible for the whole question
  1622
  of noise pollution, whether from aircraft noise in general or Concorde supersonic testing? It is wrong that the Ministry of Aviation Supply and the Department of Trade and Industry, which are sponsoring the aircraft industry, should be judge and jury in their own case. I see no reason why they should be excluded in a special way, when every other Department is subject to some sanction from the Department of the Environment.
  I do not want to delay the House, but I should like to quote one example of the effect of supersonic flying over my constituency. The Minister may say that this is an infrequent occurrence. There have been only four or five supersonic test runs over my constituency, but I have forwarded over 200 letters of complaint to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply about the matter.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is to answer the debate, but this confuses me even more, because my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sitting beside him are the only Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry from whom I have not yet had any communication on the subject. Understandably, I am trying to end my confusion.
  My example concerns constituents who live near Helston, in Cornwall. They were carrying on their business quite quietly one day when Concorde came over their house. My constituent states in a letter:
  "My home, in which my wife and I have lived for the last 30 years, is one of the old traditional Cornish cottages, of which it is a good and much-praised example. The roof is typical of these old Cornish houses, i.e. it is of considerable thickness, of very small slate bonded by mortar and maintained by periodical coatings of cement wash, which results in a rigid surface, which if undisturbed has almost unlimited life and withstands the severest storm of wind and rain."
  I shall not read the whole letter. It tells how Concorde flew over and, according to builders' estimates, did £405 18s.-worth of damage to the roof. The whole roof was destroyed, and it must be rebuilt. My constituent, very reasonably, is also putting in for £100-worth of damages for the repair of his cottage and

  1623
  £200-worth of personal damages. He says, and I very much agree:
  "This incident is not an accident in the same sense as storm and tempest, or even a crashed aircraft, are an accident, but the direct and foreseeable result of a deliberate risk taken by the British Aircraft Corporation and the Aviation Ministry in the course of testing not only its flying capabilities but also the effects of its supersonic flight at ground level."
  Through the post this morning I happened to receive the sonic bangs exclusion clause from my insurance company for my own house in Cornwall. I can remember so often being told by very knowledgeable right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they formed that magnificent Government whose memory—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is spoiling it."] I am sorry.
  The British Insurance Association is perfectly well able to assess the likelihood of damage from this cause. It has excluded any kind of liability for damage caused by supersonic testing and supersonic overflying of my constituency.
  Could my right hon. Friend answer these simple questions? Why is it that we cannot have one Ministry responsible for environmental matters to include pollution from aircraft noise? If that is not possible, can he clarify whether he is responsible, as Minister for Trade, for this matter, whether the Secretary of State, as his overlord is responsible, or whether the Minister for Aviation Supply is responsible? Who has responsibility? Why was the matter not clarified at least three months ago?
  11.16 p.m.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I appreciate the fact that a large number of hon. Members would like to speak, but unfortunately this is a short debate.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has spoken, quite rightly, of his feeling that the Department of Trade and Industry and its predecessor Departments have not done enough to tackle the problem of aircraft noise. He suspects that the civil aviation industry is so powerful that its representations prevail in the minds of Ministers over complaints from individuals about aircraft noise. If this were the case, there would
  1624
  be grounds for saying that responsibility for civil aviation and for control of noise should be separated. Otherwise, so the argument would run, the Minister responsible for civil aviation is judge and jury in his own cause and amenity considerations take second place to the development of civil aviation. But surely the truth of the matter is that no industry can prosper, nor can any policy of developing an industry succeed, if that industry is increasingly at odds with its neighbouring social communities. The fact that my right hon. Friend is responsible for civil aviation by no means renders him insensitive to the social problem of noise or unwilling to give it proper priority. Indeed, as the target for all the protests, we are hardly likely to be allowed to lapse into a state of indifference.
  The other day, at Question Time, I caused some merriment when I said, in agreeing with one of my hon. Friends, that one of the most disappointing features is the fact that, in so many of the letters one has to write—and one has many hundreds in the Department—it is an almost impossible task, however hard one tries and whichever Secretary of State is responsible, to give the sort of answers people want; indeed, it is often almost impossible.
  There is, indeed, a need to maintain the right balance between considerations of amenity and the interests of civil aviation. This need is not new, nor is it affected by the setting up of the Department of Trade and Industry. Not only present Ministers, but successive Ministers of this and previous Administrations, have had to face exactly the same problem of trying to strike a balance in this field. Much has been done already on the amenity side of the balance.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: But the problem which faces all of us concerned is that this is a deteriorating situation. It is getting worse. What we are seeking is a reversal. What we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do, and so far he has not done it, is to give some indication that, under the present Government, such a reversal and improvement in the situation is for the first time possible.
  Mr. Noble: I will be honest with the House, as I always try to be, and say that I do not believe that it is possible

  1625
  to make an improvement. I have said in answer to every letter and on every occasion I have been asked in the House that, for the next three or four years, until aircraft are redesigned, I cannot honestly say that I can see an improvement. I am sorry about it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Noble: I am sorry but I cannot answer the debate, and I cannot be honest with the House, if I get into arguments about whether I think there is going to be an improvement. At Heathrow, for example, a variety of measures have long since been adopted and remain in force.
  Dr. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Noble: Time is very short and I am unable to give way if I am to say all I want to say, and the debate will end al 11.30.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. It was my impression that we had an hour and a half for the debate. Am I not right?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate has to close at 11.30.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Member will appreciate my problem.
  These measures include severe restriction of the number of movements of aircraft between 11.30 p.m. and 6 a.m.; the monitoring and restrictions applied on noise from aircraft taking off; a steeper glide slope for aircraft landing than is internationally recommended; concentration of aircraft movements whenever possible in an east-to-west direction so that they fly over less populated areas, noise insulation schemes and so on.
  Such measures impose considerable penalties upon the industry. Airlines are not able to expand as rapidly as they would like in an industry with a major growth market open to it. Airports also are unable to maximise the use of facilities in which vast sums of money are invested. These measures imposed to protect amenity, as part of the process of striking a balance between amenity and commercial interests, are, therefore, costly in straight financial terms.
  1626
  Most of the measures I have mentioned for the protection of amenity—the glide slope, east-to-west operation, noise monitoring and so on—are in fact an inseparable part of operating techniques. Several of these measures cannot be implemented except through the air traffic control system and all are subject to the overriding considerations of safety. The scope for such measures is limited by constraints imposed by the air traffic control system and, I must emphasise again, by the paramount need for safe operation. It would therefore be a retrograde step, or even downright impractical, to divorce responsibility for operating techniques from control of noise, by assigning the latter to a separate and necessarily inexpert Department. This would inevitably result in interdepartmental procedures over noise abatement becoming slow and cumbersome. Time would be wasted in disposing of impractical suggestions, while potentially practical measures might not be properly explored.
  Mr. Nott rose—
  Mr. Noble: There is not time to give way.
  Mr. Nott: On a point of order. May I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether my right hon. Friend can say something about those living on the ground around airports instead of speaking about the safety of aircraft and the British aircraft industry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Noble: If my hon. Friend would not interrupt me, I might be able to get to that later. If hon. Members keep interrupting me, I shall not be able to answer what is a major debate in a short time.
  The result would be to fragment what is now an integrated function and this would be inconsistent with the Government's general policy on organisation set out in the recent White Paper (Cmnd. 4506). Rightly, this is not a matter of party political differences. I think it is the case that the hon. Member for Putney put similar arguments forward while the last Administration was in office. The fact that responsibility for civil aviation

  1627
  was combined with responsibility for aircraft noise, then as now, shows that the previous Government reached the same view and, I suppose, for much the same reasons. This is far from saying, however, that the Department of the Environment has no part to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as having direct executive responsibility for such things as clean air, and inland water, also has a co-ordinating responsibility right across the board. This is to ensure that other Ministers with executive responsibilities can take full account of the Government's general policy towards the environment. This is really the nature of the relationship between my right hon. Friends the two Secretaries of State.
  The interface between their responsibilities is evident, for example, in the relationship between land use planning and civil airport development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as part of his final responsibility for land use planning, would obviously seek to ensure that a new airport development was not such as to create an unreasonable nuisance to the surrounding neighbourhood. He would also seek to ensure that fresh building development did not take place in the immediate environs of an existing airport, where a new community would be exposed to unreasonable aircraft noise. Both my right hon. Friends and their Departments are already in close touch with each other on such matters.
  It is by no means always the case that civil aviation interests have their way at the expense of amenity. The most recent example is a proposal which was put forward for a runway extension at the Leeds/Bradford airport. A public inquiry was held. Authority to proceed with the extension was refused, to the bitter disappointment of the civil aviation interests concerned and of their customers. I therefore see no reason for anyone to suppose that the balance of the decision-making process is tilted against social considerations.
  I should like to answer one or two points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Putney asked that decisions in these areas should be taken between Ministers of equal power and authority. I will not try to distinguish
  1628
  between my two right hon. Friends. They are both of great power and I believe, of great authority.
  Mr. John Silkin: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is doing everything it can to bring these conflicting dilemmas into some sort of order. Is this not really a case of an appeal from Caesar unto Caesar—although the comparison does not really hold good today?
  Mr. Noble: I do not think so, at least not in my experience over the last few months. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there is probably no single subject in the Department of Trade and Industry in which people are more deeply involved trying to find solutions.
  May I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) about Longford? The people there have suffered considerably over the last fortnight because No. 5 runway, the southern runway, was out of order. If the wind was from the west then all the take-offs went straight over that village and they have had a very tough time. I am glad to say that the runway is back in operation and if the wind is from the west then the village may suffer a little less. We have asked the Chairman of the British Airports Authority to look particularly at this village to see whether anything can be done to help in sound insulation.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) asked about Luton. This is not the responsibility of the Department. The number of aircraft that take off from there is a matter for the Luton Corporation. I have met many delegations from her constituency and from others. The Department gives all the help it can in a number of ways, trying to minimise the noise nuisance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) read a letter from his constituent about the damage to his roof. I have the greatest sympathy. I also live under the Concorde route. I know these things vary and that peoples' susceptibilities to noise vary greatly. For two of the last three possible flights I was working in my greenhouse and I am sorry to say that not one pane of glass was broken. I would say to those who live under the Concorde route that they

  1629
  are having, at least, a limited amount of interference with their quiet and pleasant life, unlike many of my hon. Friends who live close to London Airport or other airports where noise is a continuous problem.
  To sum up, every conceivable practical means that we can devise or of which we

  TENANTS (ILLEGAL EVICTION AND HARASSMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having selected this subject for debate this evening to enable me to raise the serious problem of the illegal eviction and harassment of tenants of privately rented property.
  hear we shall pursue in the Department. We are not in the least—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 104.

  Division No. 43.]

  AYES

  [11.32 p.m.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Pentland, Norman

  Booth, Albert

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Prescott, John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoredith & F'bury)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kerr, Russell

  Varley, Eric G.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

  Latham, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Driberg, Tom

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Mr. George Cunningham and

  Evans, Fred

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Nigel Spearing.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  NOES

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Green, Alan

  Percival, Ian

  Astor, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Pounder, Rafton

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Biffen, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Blaker, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Redmond, Robert

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bray, Ronald

  Hunt, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  James, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kinsey, J. R.

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

  Channon, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Soref, Harold

  Clegg, Walter

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spence, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Coombs, Derek

  Loveridge, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Corfield, F. V.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Crouch, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Curran, Charles

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Maude, Angus

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Trew, Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, David

  Fidler, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fowler, Norman

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fox, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Goodhew, Victor

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gorst, John

  Osborn, John

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Gower, Raymond

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  The Rent Act, 1965, made it a criminal offence to evict a tenant without a court order, or to harass a tenant by threats, by withholding services or interfering with the peace or comfort of the occupier of residential premises.
  Hon. Members will have noted from the Press recently, particularly from the Observer and the Sunday Times of 15th and 22nd November, that in certain areas of our cities, particularly but by no means exclusively in London, illegal evictions and harassment are constantly

  1631
  occurring. It is difficult for most of us who own our own homes, or are the tenants of local authorities which regard the provision of housing as a social or legal responsibility, to imagine the difficulties, anxiety, apprehension and insecurity under which millions of families live.
  About 16 per cent. of the population are tenants of private landlords, protected by the Rent Acts. Most of those landlords observe the law: they accept fair rents or controlled rents, in spite of the fact that their houses would be more valuable with vacant possession, and make no attempt to evict the families who live in them. But a substantial and I am afraid an increasing number of landlords are taking advantage of the ineffectiveness of the law, the difficulty of securing convictions and the total inadequacy of the penalties, to make large profits from criminal activities.
  The profits that can be made from this kind of gangsterism are substantial. To quote from the Sunday Times of 15th November:
  "A house full of controlled tenants can fetch £2,500. But with vacant possession the same house can be sold for as high as £12,000."
  No wonder it is worth while for landlords to employ "winklers"—which is the term in current use, meaning men who evict families from their rightful homes—and pay them large sums to harass tenants, to bully, threaten, cajole and make life intolerable for them until the tenants, frightened even to go to work and leave their families and children alone, give up and leave the landlords to their profits.
  Unless action is taken speedily, my fear is that the illegal activities of a minority are liable to infect the law-abiding majority, and that the one household out of every six who live in private landlord accommodation could face similar risks such as those which have been described recently in the Press.
  The actions we are taking to prevent eviction and harassment are quite ineffective. The Minister in reply to a Question I tabled said on 21st July:
  "Between the coming into force of the Rent Act 1965, on 8th December 1965, and the end of 1969 there were 574 prosecutions for illegal eviction, 383 of them resulting in conviction, and 656 for harrassment, 347 of these resulting in conviction. The average fine imposed
  1632
  was just under £20. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed in five cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1970; Vol. 804 c. 80.]
  In Islington alone there were 2,000 complaints within that period, in Kensington and Chelsea over 1,300. Many of the complaints were trivial—frivolous perhaps—but a certain number of people thought it necessary to go to the town hall to seek advice about their legal entitlements to protection under the Rent Acts and only a tiny minority resulted in prosecutions. And Islington has one of the best records of any borough in the country.
  The fines imposed were £20—for a profit that could amount to £500 for every room involved! No wonder a landlady in a case reported in today's Daily Telegraph said "It was worth it". The case quoted in that newspaper was exceptional in the fact that the landlady in question was fined £50 instead of the average £20. In that case the woman concerned was incensed by the fact that the Rent Tribunal had reduced the rent of the family from £4 to £3 7s. 6d.
  The landlady smashed all their windows, tipped ink and disinfectant over clothes, bedding and cupboards, threw toys through windows and smeared lard on the stairs. The mother and two-year-old twins returned to the flat one day and saw broken glass littering the front steps and had to climb the lard-covered stairs to get in. Ink, salt, brandy and disinfectant had been tipped in cupboards, over bedding and clothes, in a teapot and kettle, and the floor was flooded with water.
  For that attempt to evict the family in question the landlady was fined £50. That is just today's shocking example. In my own area of Notting Hill, in Islington, in every area where property values are rising exceptionally fast, landlords wanting to cash in are adopting similar methods. The stress and hardship that this causes is appalling. Any hon. Members who have experience of trying to sort out the problems of families who have been evicted, legally or illegally, will know the state of shock and bewilderment in which they find themselves. Legal evictions are bad enough, but they can be prepared for because the families know that they are coming. But illegal evictions cannot be prepared for. The families which suffer them have usually lived through the

  1633
  apprehension and fear hundreds of times before they happen. It is not surprising that many families crack under the strain.
  We can take steps to prevent this kind of thing happening. First, we must reduce the number of evictions which occur by taking action before they happen, not afterwards. Here the rôle of the police is vital. They could and should act to preserve the status quo when an eviction is threatened. They should encourage landlords to allow families whom they have wrongfully evicted back into occupation until the matter can be resolved by the civil courts.
  At present the attitude adopted by the police is wholly negative. They will act only to prevent a breach of the peace. But apparently—this is confirmed by the Superintendent of Notting Hill police station—the police take the view that to remove a tenant's furniture out on to the street is not conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and they do not intervene in those circumstances.
  The police are the only agency available at nights and at weekends when evictions take place, and they are the only instrument which can be effective in stopping evictions. It is essential that they should be requested to take the steps which are needed.
  I can understand that the police do not wish to be involved in disputes of this kind where both parties assert rights which are for the civil courts to resolve, but they are the only body which can do it.
  My second proposal is that magistrates' courts should be enpowered to grant ex-parte injunctions to prevent evictions and, after hearing both parties, to restrain harassment. I urge that it should be the magistrates' courts, not the county courts, as magistrates' courts sit on Saturdays. The procedure is quicker, and the order made by the court will be served by a police officer, not the court bailiff. The magistrates' courts are more used to complainants appearing in person than the county courts. The magistrates' courts also have responsibility for enforcing Sections 30 and 32 of the Rent Act.
  The injunction procedure which I am advocating already exists in the High Court and the county court; but it is
  1634
  hopelessly difficult. I have had experience of using it successfully on more than one occasion, but it is an exhausting procedure to get the injunction to operate. To use it quickly is almost impossible for the average tenant. He goes to the police, and if a magistrates' court injunction procedure existed the police could guide him to it. That injunction procedure should be available to both the tenant and the local authority.
  Thirdly, and finally, the penalties must be more severe. To evict a family from its home should be treated for what it is—a quite atrocious offence. There can be mitigating circumstances. There are bad tenants as well as bad landlords. Where the landlord and tenant have to share the same house there will often be friction and problems. It should be possible legally to evict a bad tenant, whether his accommodation is furnished or unfurnished. But when a landlord is turning a family out of its home illegally simply to make a commercial profit, society should express its abhorrence.
  The London Boroughs Association has recommended that penalties should be stiffer. I urge that the maximum fine for illegal eviction should be £2,000 for a first offence, with a minimum of £200 in the absence of "special circumstances".
  Only by treating these offences for what they are—serious crimes for gain against the families concerned, analogous to robbery with violence—will we prevent the suffering, anxiety, and distress from which so many families are suffering.
  11.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I think that the House would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on raising this evening an exceedingly serious and important social problem. I think that all hon. Members are aware of the importance of the topic that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I know that he has been interested in these matters for a long time, and that he has given evidence to the Francis Committee. This committee is considering the whole working of the Rent Acts, and I shall see that the attention of the committee is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks when it is considering what its report

  1635
  should be on these extremely important and difficult matters. I assure the House that ever since they took office the Government have been concerned about these problems, and that they will continue to worry so long as there is any indication that harassment of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is occuring anywhere in the country.
  It is crucial that both tenants and landlords are aware of their rights, and the House may be interested to know that one of the first actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment took on being appointed to his office was to review the proposals for a campaign to draw the attention of tenants to their security of tenure rights, and it was decided by my right hon. Friend to strengthen this campaign by stepping up the expenditure allotted to it by nearly 60 per cent. Perhaps hon. Members have seen some of the advertisements that have appeared in the Press. I hope and think that they will have some good effect.
  I must point out to the House that one difficulty is that this is a field in which my right hon. Friend has no direct powers. Under the Act passed by our predecessors, harassment of a residential occupier with intent to make him give up occupation, and eviction of a residential occupier, without a court order for possession, were made criminal offences, and local authorities were and are empowered to prosecute for them.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, and indeed as he has said, it is open to any tenant to protect himself by civil action. An injunction requiring the landlord to restore the status quo—which must be sought in a county court, not a magistrates' court, can usually be obtained quickly, and it is also open to the tenant to proceed for damages against the offending landlord. The Act specifically provides that the fact that the landlord has been prosecuted for one of these offences shall not prejudice any civil proceedings in respect of the same offence.
  I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for injuctions to be obtainable in a magistrates' court, and not only in a county court. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, and I am not, but I am advised that to have such
  1636
  an injunction would be totally unprecedented. All I can say is that in reviewing the Francis Committee's Report I shall draw the attention of the Law Officers to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to suppose that I necessarily accept what he has said, because I understand that there are considerable legal difficulties in having this procedure, but I shall have the matter studied.
  What is incontrovertible and must worry the House is that the prospect of tackling unaided the unfamiliar processes of the law must be very daunting to many tenants. It is, however, a matter on which local authorities may be able to give some guidance. Some local authorities have already made special arrangements to help and advise private tenants in difficulties with their landlords.
  My right hon. Friends and I are exceedingly anxious to see the establishment of housing aid centres throughout the country. If and when it becomes possible to establish such centres, I hope that this sort of advice will become much more widely available. Subject to anything that the Francis Committee recommends, I have it in mind to explore with local authorities the possibility of their advising tenants how to set about this course of action.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman would like to know what information we have on the use made of the provisions in question since they came into force, on the nature of these offences and on the circumstances in which they are most likely to occur.
  From the coming into force of the 1965 Act to the end of 1969 there were about 570 prosecutions for illegal eviction, 383 of them resulting in convictions, and some 650 for harassment, 347 of them resulting in conviction. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed in six cases, the sentence being suspended in one.
  The hon. Member may have noticed a slight discrepancy between these figures and my answer on 21st July. That is because we have been checking these figures once more and there is a small error which I now want to set straight. The figures I have given tonight are the most up to date we have.
  In 1967, when the Act had been running for more than a year, the Ministry

  1637
  and the Welsh Office made a survey, with the aid of a number of local authorities, of the functioning of the provisions. The authorities which helped included all the London boroughs, a number of county boroughs, including Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and a selection of urban and rural district councils. So it included the vast majority of authorities covering areas in which housing pressures were very great, as well as a small number in which they were not very great.
  The authorities were asked for information not only about prosecutions but also about complaints and for comments on features emerging from complaints and offences. The findings of this survey were consolidated in a report which was placed in the Library and is available to hon. Members.
  Although that report is now three years old, additional material emerging since these offences suggests that its conclusions are as valid as when it was made. The most important, if the most obvious conclusion, was that complaints of these offences and the offences themselves are largely factors of housing stress. Both complaints and actual offences were more frequent in the great conurbations and in London—where the situation between inner and outer London could be distinguished.
  The House will not be surprised to learn that these offences are more common in the inner than in the outer London boroughs. Of the eight London boroughs which reported more than 300 complaints in the period covered, all but two included districts listed in the Milner Holland Report as having 10 per cent. or more of all households overcrowded. There can therefore be little doubt that harrassment and illegal eviction are largely a product of housing shortage.
  The second conclusion was that by no means all these offences spring from the motive of gain. This undoubtedly operates and is a product of housing shortage. It is offences due to this motive—getting tenants out for purposes of profit—which can be called morally as well as legally criminal and this is what the 1965 Act is basically aimed at. But the offences can also be committed possibly by people who are themselves hardly less victims of housing shortage and the
  1638
  situations to which it gives rise than those against whom they offend. These are the people who find themselves compelled to house—perhaps to share bathrooms and lavatories with—other people with whom they cannot get on, and who perhaps are not paying rent or are otherwise behaving in such a way as to cause understandable distress to their landlords or to other tenants.
  I was glad that the hon. Member, in his very fair survey, pointed out the problems of bad tenants as well as bad landlords. A point to which many local authorities drew attention was the frequency with which investigation of complaints revealed landlord-tenant squabbles in which the tenant was not necessarily the only injured, or indeed the most injured party, and the number of such cases in which accommodation was shared.
  The Metropolitan Police tell us that, out of 1,104 complaints of these offences in their district in 1968, 793 related to premises with a resident landlord.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: There is one other source of great anxiety which is being experienced in my borough, where a landlord obtains very little interest for the equity, because he has a substantial first, then second mortgage and then decamps, having made a substantial profit at the expense of the tenants, who are then themselves evicted by the building society. Is this a matter which the Francis Committee will be investigating?
  Mr. Channon: I said that I would draw the Committee's attention to this debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will, therefore, be studied by that Committee, and I am sure that careful note will be taken of what he and other hon. Member's have said on this whole subject.
  Another factor disclosed by the survey was the ignorance of many landlords of the obligations the law impose on them and the protection is gives their tenants. This ignorance was one reason why, many authorities found, the sending of a warning letter to a person said to be harassing a tenant or contemplating an illegal eviction often settled the matter. The offender or potential offender just had not realised that he might be breaking the law.

  1639
  The Ministry has since produced a small leaflet entitled "Landlords and the Law" which briefly explains to landlords how the law affects them, and copies of this have been supplied to local authorities, citizens' advice bureaux, rent officers, rent tribunals and others for issue to landlords who seem to be in need of the information. Extensive publicity has also been directed to informing tenants of the protection the law gives them; security of tenure was indeed the main theme of the Department's recent campaign on this subject. Tenants' rights to security of tenure, and the protection given them against harassment and eviction without a court order, are also among the matters which, under the Rent Book (Forms of Notice) Regulations, 1965, must be set out in the prescribed terms in the rent books which must be provided for weekly tenants.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to penalties and I have certainly taken note of his remarks. I await the recommendations of the Francis Committee and, when they are received, the matter will be examined carefully. The maximum penalties for these offences under the 1965 Act are, for a first offence, a fine of up to £100 or imprisonment for up to six months or both, and for a second or subsequent offence a fine of up to £500 or imprisonment for up to six months or both. The use the courts make of these penalties is something on which I cannot comment. The penalties laid down by the Act are, however, among the matters which we have asked the Francis Committee to study; and should they recommend any change my right hon. Friend will of course give their proposals very sympathetic consideration.
  A minimum penalty would be wholly contrary to the well-established principle in the administration of criminal justice in this country that Parliament should indicate the comparative gravity of the offence by prescribing the maximum penalty which it considers appropriate but, subject to that maximum, that the courts should have complete discretion to determine the penalty for a particular breach of the law, having regard to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
  Any attempt to administer justice in a vacuum by requiring the imposition of a
  1640
  standard minimum penalty without regard to the circumstances could not fail to cause injustice and hardship. No matter how grave the type of offence, there will always be cases in which the extenuating circumstances are such as to make the imposition of a standard penalty inequitable. Nevertheless, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend studies the hon. Gentleman's comments in connection with the recommendations which the Francis Committee may make.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the rôle of the police in these difficult cases. These are, of course, matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have, however, consulted him and I understand that the police, if called by either party to the scene of an eviction, will intervene if there is any risk of a breach of the peace or of a criminal offence of any kind being committed. They have been asked by my right hon. Friend to warn a landlord in such cases that he may be in breach of the appropriate provisions of the Rent Act and that they intend to report the facts of the case, as far as they have been able to ascertain them, to the local authority. I hope that this has the effect in many cases of restraining landlords or tenants from any untoward action.
  I appreciate, however, that hon. Members may feel that in such circumstances the police should take more positive action to protect the tenant from eviction. I will explain why the police cannot go further than they do. The problem is quite simply that a constable who attends such a situation often has no way of knowing the rights and wrongs of the situation. It is not clear to him, and cannot be clear, who is in the right in a situation in which an alleged landlord and alleged tenant are making allegations against each other. The constable cannot know at the time whether there is anything in the suggestions that the offence of harassment has been committed.
  We are here in a situation where complex issues relating to landlord-tenant law are involved. The facts of the situation are often contested and it would be quite wrong for a constable to appear to take sides when there has been no opportunity for proper investigation of the allegations made. It seems to my

  1641
  right hon. Friend therefore, that it is better that when these unfortunate and sometimes tragic situations arise, machinery exists for persons, more knowledgeable than the police in this difficult branch of the law, to look into the facts of the situation and do what they can in due course to settle the problems that have arisen. It is, therefore, no wish of the police to appear unhelpful, but if they were to intervene positively before the facts are known they would be open to very justifiable criticism.
  If any member of the public feels that the police had acted improperly, either because they had intervened in a way which the complainant feels is unjustifiable or have failed to intervene in circumstances in which the complainant feels that the police could justifiably exercise their powers, then there is a statutory procedure for members of the public to lodge a complaint.
  In conclusion, I would stress that these offences are by no means general throughout the country. In most parts of the country, indeed, they are practically unknown. The hon. Gentleman says that they are increasing. That is not borne out by the figures. Even in the conurbations there are, we must remember, hundreds of thousands of tenants who are on perfectly satisfactory terms with their landlords. But where these offences are prevalent, which is broadly where pressure on housing is extreme, they constitute a very serious problem; and we intend to do all we reasonably can to eradicate them. It will be extremely difficult to do that. Nevertheless, the real answer to this problem is the overcoming of housing shortages. I do not believe that we shall ever cure the problems of harassment or illegal eviction until housing shortages are overcome.
  The policies already announced by my right hon. Friend, which hon. Members opposite may disagree with—the extension of the fair rent system, which we hope will help to make the letting of dwellings less unattractive, and the provision of rent allowances which eliminate the friction that may arise where many tenants are unable to pay the rent because
  1642
  they have not got the money—will have a great rôle to play in curing the problems of illegal eviction and harassment.
  We are engaged in a genuine revolution. There may be a disagreement about whether we are engaged in the right revolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can understand that. The Government's aims are exciting. They are designed to promote fairness—fairness for the tenant and fairness for the landlord. It is no use one side of the House trying to be fair to tenants and the other side trying to be fair to landlords. That way misery lies for both parties, and I believe that the House should responsibly reject that course.
  We are trying to provide a realm of housing finance which will be fair to both sides. If we achieve that, as I think we will, I believe that the problems of harassment and illegal eviction will dwindle. If and when we cure the problem of housing shortages they will dwindle even faster, but that will be extremely difficult.
  Where illegal eviction and harassment take place, they are disgraceful offences which no right thinking person can condone or tolerate. Hon Members on both sides are in agreement about this matter.
  We shall carefully study what the Francis Committee recommends about this very important problem, and I hope that we can tackle this problem together. I hope that there will not be substantial differences between both sides of the House as to the measures needed to tackle the problem. Whether there are or not is irrelevant, because what we must do as a House is try to deal with the whole problem of housing and put it on a fair and equitable basis; and, where disgraceful actions, either by landlords or by tenants take place, it is the duty of the House, and one from which the Government will not shrink, to try to stamp out the practice which we find both obnoxious and hateful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Emergency Services (Volunteers)
  Emergency Services (Volunteers)
  Civil Defence Services
  Civil Defence Services
  Motoring Offences (Prosecutions)
  Motoring Offences (Prosecutions)
  Kenya Asians
  Kenya Asians
  Dr. David Pitt (Membership of Community Relations Commission)
  Dr. David Pitt (Membership of Community Relations Commission)
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Harassment of Tenants
  Harassment of Tenants
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Cosmetics
  Cosmetics
  Enzyme Washing Powders
  Enzyme Washing Powders
  Parole Scheme
  Parole Scheme
  Parked Vehicles (Removal)
  Parked Vehicles (Removal)
  Northern Ireland (Ministerial Consultations)
  Northern Ireland (Ministerial Consultations)
  Police Road Safety Teams
  Police Road Safety Teams
  Unexploded Missiles (Disposal)
  Unexploded Missiles (Disposal)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  "World Youth"
  "World Youth"
  Oakwood Hall, Romily
  Oakwood Hall, Romily
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Borstal (Minimum Age of Committal)
  Borstal (Minimum Age of Committal)
  Young Offenders' Establishments (Religious Worship)
  Young Offenders' Establishments (Religious Worship)
  Industrial Disputes (Picketing)
  Industrial Disputes (Picketing)
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Prisoners (After-Care Services)
  Prisoners (After-Care Services)
  Northern Ireland (Investment Grants)
  Northern Ireland (Investment Grants)
  Sir Arthur Young
  Sir Arthur Young
  Police, Oldham
  Police, Oldham
  Metropolitan Police (Strength)
  Metropolitan Police (Strength)
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Murder (Length of Sentence)
  Murder (Length of Sentence)
  Mrs. G. Shankar, Derby
  Mrs. G. Shankar, Derby
  Police (Trade Union Activities)
  Police (Trade Union Activities)
  Liquor Licensing Law
  Liquor Licensing Law
  Criminal Investigation
  Criminal Investigation
  Dismissed Criminal Cases (Costs)
  Dismissed Criminal Cases (Costs)
  Alcoholics (Treatment)
  Alcoholics (Treatment)
  Shop Acts
  Shop Acts
  Cross-Channel Ferries (Passports)
  Cross-Channel Ferries (Passports)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Fixed Penalty)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Fixed Penalty)
  Charitable Organisations (Profits)
  Charitable Organisations (Profits)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Firemen (Pay)
  Essex University (Fire)
  Essex University (Fire)
  Police (Chief Constables' Pay)
  Police (Chief Constables' Pay)
EMPLOYMENT
  Miner Dispute (Conciliation Service)
  Miner Dispute (Conciliation Service)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Trading Centre, St. Helens
  Trading Centre, St. Helens
  Armed Forces (Officers' Pay)
  Armed Forces (Officers' Pay)
  Contract Cleaning Industry
  Contract Cleaning Industry
  Medical Research Council (Staff)
  Medical Research Council (Staff)
DEFENCE
  V.T.O.L. Aircraft (Crews)
  V.T.O.L. Aircraft (Crews)
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
  Polaris Base
  Polaris Base
  Royal Air Force, Germany (Married Quarters)
  Royal Air Force, Germany (Married Quarters)
  B.A.O.R. (Married Quarters)
  B.A.O.R. (Married Quarters)
  Recruits (Discharge)
  Recruits (Discharge)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Light Press Work)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Light Press Work)
  Far East (Detention Quarters)
  Far East (Detention Quarters)
  Royal Navy (Recruits)
  Royal Navy (Recruits)
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Belfast (Missing British Soldier)
  Belfast (Missing British Soldier)
  Northern Ireland (Subversive Posters)
  Northern Ireland (Subversive Posters)
  Malta (Military Equipment)
  Malta (Military Equipment)
  Portsmouth Dockyard Employees
  Portsmouth Dockyard Employees
SCOTLAND
  Storm-Damage, Glasgow
  Storm-Damage, Glasgow
  Island of Barra (Landing Strip)
  Island of Barra (Landing Strip)
  Cumnock (Health Centre)
  Cumnock (Health Centre)
  Hamilton (Pelican Crossing)
  Hamilton (Pelican Crossing)
  Polaris Base
  Polaris Base
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Foreign Visitors)
  National Health Service (Foreign Visitors)
  Reciprocal Agreements (United States of America)
  Reciprocal Agreements (United States of America)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Population
  Population
  Speech Therapists (Pay and Conditions)
  Speech Therapists (Pay and Conditions)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
WALES
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  Trunk Roads (Expenditure)
  Mid-Wales (Growth Towns)
  Mid-Wales (Growth Towns)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Welsh Development Corporation (Grant)
  Welsh Development Corporation (Grant)
  Industrial Development, Llanbadarn
  Industrial Development, Llanbadarn
  Cardiganshire (Population Trends)
  Cardiganshire (Population Trends)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Oil Tankers, River Mersey (Communication Assistants)
  Oil Tankers, River Mersey (Communication Assistants)
  Consumer Credit (Report)
  Consumer Credit (Report)
  Scotland, Wales and Northern Region
  Scotland, Wales and Northern Region
  LOW INCOMES
  LOW INCOMES
  FOOD PRICES
  FOOD PRICES
  INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY
  INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY
  VIETNAM (VISIT)
  VIETNAM (VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (TALKS)
  ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (TALKS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  HAEMOPHILIACS (VEHICLES)
  HAEMOPHILIACS (VEHICLES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission Woodlands (Naturalists)
  Forestry Commission Woodlands (Naturalists)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Airbus
  Airbus
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Museums and Art Galleries (Charges)
  Museums and Art Galleries (Charges)
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Crafts
  Crafts
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Ports (Lorry Delays)
  Ports (Lorry Delays)
  Heavy Vehicles (Vibration)
  Heavy Vehicles (Vibration)
  South-West Development Area (Winter Relief)
  South-West Development Area (Winter Relief)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licence Evasion
  Television Licence Evasion
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord MacDermott—Took the Oath.

LIFE SENTENCES AND RELEASES ON LICENCE
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the case of Stephen Szabo who has been condemned to a life sentence of imprisonment for a second time in ten years; how long he served for his conviction for murder in December, 1960; why he was not deported on release as recommended by the trial judge; and whether they will ensure, since the abolition of capital punishment, that a life sentence will in future approximate more closely to its nomenclature in cases where the convicted man, if released, is likely to become again a danger to the public.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Government have noted details of this case with deep concern; Szabo was released on licence nine years after being sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1960; he was not deported because there was no country which would accept him. The Government regard the protection of the public as the paramount factor in considering the release on licence of prisoners serving life sentences.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that Answer, which I think is reasonably satisfactory. May I ask him whether the Government have noted a similar case, reported in the Daily Telegraph on Monday last, in which Christopher Duffy was released after serving ten years of a life sentence, was convicted
640
of burglary a short time afterwards, and has now been sent back to prison?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. I should like to add a little more information to my original Answer because it relates to the procedure by which prisoners who are sentenced to life imprisonment are released. Full account is taken of reports from the prison authorities, medical authorities and the local review committee. The Parole Board give their opinion, and the views of the trial judge and of the Lord Chief Justice are obtained. All these factors are taken into account in considering the release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord add to that information by indicating what proportion these two regrettable cases are to the total numbers who have been released on licence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there were 109 persons sentenced to life imprisonment last year, 1969, and the number of murderers released was 27. That gives a partial answer, although not, I think, the full statistics for which the noble Lord is asking, which I will send him.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the case of Donald Ferguson Forbes who has been condemned to a life sentence for a second time for murder; how long he served for his conviction for murder in 1958; how long he had been at liberty before committing the second murder; why he was permitted to marry in gaol and whether there were any children by that marriage while Forbes was undergoing imprisonment; why he was released under licence; and whether they will ensure since the abolition of capital punishment that a life sentence will in future approximate more closely to its nomenclature in cases where the convicted man if released is likely to become again a danger to the public.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONa: My Lords, I must beg your Lordships' indulgence, as mine is a lengthy Answer.

641
As this is a Scottish Question we give rather better value for coin than perhaps the English do. The answer is, Yes, my Lords. Forbes served 11 years and 8 months of a life sentence following his conviction for murder in 1958. He had been at liberty for 54 days when he was arrested and charged with the second murder. In 1958, while under sentence of death, with the permission of the then Secretary of State, Forbes married a woman who was four months pregnant, allegedly by him. The child died three days after birth.
Forbes was released on licence in May last on the recommendation of the Parole Board for Scotland and following consultation with the Lord Justice General and the trial judge. The release took place before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was in office, but he understands that there was nothing in the very full reports on the prisoner's conduct in custody to suggest that he would again act violently if released. Arrangements were made for his employment and place of residence and he was placed under the supervision of a local social worker.
My right honourable friend's main concern in considering the release of any life sentence prisoner is the need to safeguard the public, and where he considers that public safety is likely to be endangered he will not contemplate release however long the prisoner has been detained. As your Lordships will know, he has referred the whole question of the penalty for murder to a committee under Lord Emslie, a High Court judge, which is now collecting evidence.

PAKISTAN DISASTER: RELIEF OPERATION
3.10 p.m.
EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the facilities of No. 200 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport (Hovercraft) was considered for the relief operation in Pakistan.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My
642
Lords, the use of this unit has been considered, but in the view of those on the spot the hovercraft offers no significant advantage for this operation over helicopters and small boats which can more readily be deployed and operated in the disaster area.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but can he say whether any trial exercises have been made in the air freighting of hovercraft as emergency forces?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, I do not think I can say that without notice. But, of course, hovercraft take up a lot of room, and in this particular case we thought it easier to use the small craft and helicopters which were available in the Far East rather than use the capacity of the aircraft in this country when we could fill them—and did fill them—with the necessary food and clothing.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the aid that we have furnished for those who required help arising from the disaster in East Pakistan, can the noble Lord explain why our forces have been instructed in a rather discourteous fashion to leave East Pakistan? Can he explain the reason for that?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to some Press reports from West Pakistan which have suggested that our forces are not welcome. I think it must be for the Pakistan Government to explain their attitude, and the attitude of their Press, and not for me. All I can say is that I think every Member of your Lordships' House must be very proud of the way our forces have behaved.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

DECIMAL CURRENCY: THE 50p PIECE
3.12 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the reason lately announced for abolishing 10s. notes as legal tender,

643
namely, that the notes are getting worn out, is not evidence of their popularity, and whether they will not cause 50p notes to be issued to circulate beside the 50p pieces.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government see no good reason on grounds of popularity for issuing a 50p note, but good reasons, on grounds of economy, for not doing so. I should perhaps explain to my noble friend that the reason why these notes are so worn is simply that those remaining are rather old. In the past, the average length of life of a 10s. note was only about 5 months, but in fact no new notes have been issued by the Bank of England for over a year. It is expected that the 50p pieces will have a life of about 50 years and the replacement of the note by the coin results in a saving of several million pounds to the taxpayer.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask him three supplementary questions: first, whether he has not heard that many charities who appeal through the B.B.C. lament the disappearance of the 10s. note because it can so easily be put into a registered envelope and posted? Secondly, whether some people do not find the 10s. note more easy to distinguish from florins than the silver pieces? Thirdly, whether, admitting the long-term economy inherent in the silver pieces, there would not be a short-term economy in these times of financial difficulty from printing notes instead of minting coins?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as regards the charity point put to me by my noble friend, I would say that certainly the Treasury have no evidence of any decline in contributions to charity as a result of the withdrawal of the notes. On the question of recognition, I must confess that to begin with I found some difficulty in recognising this particular coin—in fact I gave it as a tip on one occasion when meaning to give a florin. But, like most of us, I am getting used to this rather odd object chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, and my noble friend Lord Erroll. As to my noble friend's third point, I have made it clear that to issue a note instead of a coin would mean giving up substantial economies and would also cause additional cost and difficulty to all
644
those who handle cash in the private sector—banks, shops, transport undertakings and the rest.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that up to about one month ago one could still get brand new 10s. notes from the post office in the Central Lobby, and if what the noble Earl says is true they could only have come from a private printing press?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, does not the argument for economy apply just as much to the £1 note? So why do we not go over to coins for that as well as the 10s. note?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think it does apply to a certain measure, but I am told that the average life of the £1 note is eleven months, as opposed to five, so the economy is not so substantial.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, did the noble Earl say that these 50p pieces will last fifty years? If so, does he not think that they will by that time have gone the same way as the farthing?
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and, nearer home, the Common Market countries and the EFTA countries, to say nothing of the U.S.S.R., China and Japan, can all afford to circulate their own equivalents of our 10s. note? Secondly, since when has popularity ceased to be a proper criterion in a democracy? And is it not about time that the Government considered further whether they really wish to leave this country out of step with the rest of the world?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must say that I was not entirely aware of all the information which is stored in the noble Lord's head, but I will gladly look at that point. It is my impression that the 50p coin, after a rather uncertain start, is now becoming an accepted and acceptable piece of currency.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when there will be a sufficient supply of 50p pieces? One so often finds that one has to handle a lot of silver, and we could do with some more of these pieces.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I was not aware that there was not a sufficient supply, but again I will gladly look into that particular point.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many people very much prefer the solid 50p piece to the dirty 10s. note, and that in those countries where they have notes down to Is., and so on, you really want to go and wash your hands every time you have been in a shop?
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if we cannot afford the convenience of the 10s. note, may I ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible, at any rate when re-coinage is contemplated, to make the 50p piece lighter, bigger and flatter?

CRAFT RECOGNITION AND MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
3.20 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on Ministerial responsibility for the crafts. The crafts have long been recognised as an assembly of activities which fall between the fine arts and industry. Hitherto the industrial aspect has been held to be the more important and the crafts have been the responsibility of the Board of Trade. Presidents of the Board of Trade, notably Sir Stafford Cripps, have taken a personal interest in the artist-craftsmen, but the present Government consider that the time has come to recognise the individual skills of these men and women by transferring responsibilities in relation to their activities to the Minister responsible for the Arts. I welcome this change and will try to be of service to the wide variety of artist-craftsmen whose work I admire very much. Regarding the crafts in Scotland and Wales respectively, I shall be in close touch with my right honourable friends the two Secretaries of State, who will continue to coordinate the activities of Scottish and Welsh organisations concerned with enabling craftsmen to earn a living by the practice of their craft.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for making that Statement. I welcome it, particularly as the distinction between the arts and the crafts has
646
always been rather blurred and artificial, and this brings them closer together. Indeed I think it is true to say that the crafts of one age often become the arts of the following age—and eagerly sought after arts as well. I am sure also that the Government's Statement is a tribute to our many fine artist-craftsmen. I believe that this is the first Statement of this kind that the noble Viscount has made since he became a Minister. May I ask him to note that we hope that future Statements will be equally progressive and non-controversial.
I have two specific questions to ask the noble Viscount. First, will the promotional and information services of the Board of Trade, now part of the Department of Trade and Industry, still be at the disposal of the craft industries? Secondly, may I have an assurance that this rationalisation will not result in the closing down of any art schools, particularly some of the smaller ones?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to welcome this Statement. It sounds a sensible decision. May I ask the Minister just one question? Will this decision affect the arrangements for training and for the encouragement of people to join the craft industries, or will those go on exactly as they are at the present time?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their kind reception of this Statement. We shall of course have to look at the whole question of training and courses, but I have not yet really had time to study this matter. I think I can say that we shall go on helping the crafts, but we do need a new structure. One of the difficulties has been that in this important area there have been a number of different voices, and we have to look at this matter very carefully. It may take two or three months before I am able to tell the House through what structure we shall help the crafts; and of course I hope that any future Statements I may make may be equally helpful.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to what extent this will financially benefit craft teachers as opposed to other teachers?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that at present,

647
because obviously my responsibilities are rather to the product and the marketing of the work of the craftsmen. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education remains, quite properly, in charge of further education, and I shall have to work more closely with her to see that the training matches up with what we are doing in the artist craftsman's own sphere.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
INCOME AND CORPORATION TAXES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

COINAGE BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. As your Lordships will see, the Law Commission's Report proposes three minor amendments to the law about coinage. This is not altogether surprising, since the law about coinage was last consolidated almost exactly 100 years ago. The first amendment repeals a power which has never been exercised, to introduce foreign coins into cur current coinage by Proclamation. Much as one may be attracted to the Maria Theresa dollar as an alternative to the 50p piece, your Lordships may think that we do not actually need the power which is to be removed.
The second amendment would repeal a provision, regarded as obsolete at the time of the Coinage Act 1870, requiring individuals to damage underweight gold coins and other coins when recalled, upon which the loss falls on the person tendering the coin to the damager. This has no practical present-day application and its repeal is proposed. The third amendment will make a difference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of being, as he is now, Master, Worker and Warden of Her Majesty's Royal Mint in England, and Governor of the Mint in Scotland, he will in future be simply the Master of the Mint. That is the third
648
amendment. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the Opposition welcome this Bill and the amendments proposed. I say no more than that I hope the House will give the Bill a speedy Second Reading in order that we may pass as soon as possible to somewhat less uncontroversial matters.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Location of sittings and business of High Court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARDINER: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that on the Second Reading debate of the Bill I pointed out that the Bill provides that on certain minor matters, such as empanelling juries, and so on, the questions are to be decided by the Lord Chancellor, but that on other more important questions a distinction is drawn, in that these are to be decided "by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor". If I raise this matter on Clause 2 it is because this raises the important question, where in future is there to be a civil assize. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 says:

"(a) the places at which the High Court sits, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, and

649

(b) the days and times when the High Court sits outside the Royal Courts of Justice,

shall be determined in accordance with directions given by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor."
It seems to me very important that Parliament should know who is really going to decide these important questions.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, went rather further than I did, because he suggested that these decisions should be made in a Statutory Instrument so that there would be an opportunity to move against them. I did not go as far as that; I merely wanted to know who was to make the decision. In his reply all I obtained from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor was this statement:
"In some cases the presiding judge will do it; in other cases the circuit administrator may do it, and in other cases it may be done in his office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/11/70, col. 1309]
I submit that we ought to know who in fact will do it. The question of where the High Court outside London is going to sit is a question of public importance. I am quite content to leave it to the Lord Chancellor. I am not suggesting, as the noble and learned Viscount did, that these decisions should be subject to a Statutory Instrument, but the Beeching Royal Commission clearly concluded that this was a point of great importance and should be decided by the Lord Chancellor himself. I had anticipated that that was the reply I should receive, whatever the wording might suggest: that the Lord Chancellor himself would decide it. From his reply, apparently that is not so.
The other matter to be decided in this way is the days and times when the High Court sits outside London. In paragraphs 422 to 425 the Royal Commission gave a number of reasons why the Long Vacation should be progressively reduced. On the Second Reading of the Bill I asked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what were his proposals on this point. I am not in the least complaining that I did not obtain a reply; he had a great many points to deal with, and I did not expect him to deal with them all at that time. But I think the Committee would be interested to know whether he shares the view of the Royal Commission that the Long Vacation should be progressively reduced, since this, presumably,
650
will now be largely a matter for him because, under Clause 2, he has to decide the days when the High Court sits outside London. It is for those reasons that I would respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to enlighten the Committee on those two points.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like, if I may, to add a word to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said on this matter. I feel that Clause 2 suffers from too much brevity. I can well see that there must be power to vary from time to time the sitting of a particular court, but, at the same time, that must be within the limits of the general system that is set up. It is all very well to say that at a particular month, or at a particular place, there shall be a sitting just once in a while, and I think I should be perfectly content for that to be done by, or on behalf of, the Lord Chancellor. But in the case of what one might call the permanent courts throughout the country, with their permanent sittings, I do not think that any changes should be made by anyone other than the Lord Chancellor; and there I agree with the noble and learned Lord my predecessor. As he said, I go further than he does, because I regard these directions, whether they are given by the Lord Chancellor or by someone on his behalf, as to the places where these courts will ordinarily sit, as matters of great public importance. I can see that when the time comes we may want to say something about the original places chosen, but there may from time to time be changes made, and permanent changes, that will affect a great many people. It seems to me wrong in principle that under this Bill as it now stands there should be no power for the matter to be raised in Parliament by a Prayer. It would not be raised unless there was some public anxiety, and if there was that public anxiety then the Lord Chancellor would have the opportunity of allaying it.
Why I think this clause tries to do too much in too few words is because it does not distinguish between what I might call permanent arrangements for the sitting of the courts and temporary alterations, which may be convenient because some court is occupied, or because of congestion of business in a particular place. I would ask the noble and learned

651
Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would reconsider revising this clause so as to distinguish, if he can, between changes of a permanent character in the location of a court, while reserving the power to make temporary changes. I would not mind those temporary changes being made on a particular occasion by someone on his behalf, but any permanent change—any change intended to last—should, I think, certainly be made by the Lord Chancellor himself in a Statutory Instrument which is prayable.
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, undoubtedly raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, but of course he raised it then in connection not only with this phrase where it occurs in Clause 2 but where an exactly similar phrase occurs in Clause 4. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate what is meant under both, because the same word is used for the same thing in the two cases. The actual draftsmanship is, as I indicated at Second Reading, meant to define the fact that the Lord Chancellor is the responsible Minister.
Under Clause 2, of course, the permanent arrangements will be made personally by the Lord Chancellor after normally consulting—and I think in every case consulting—with the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion will have great weight in the matter. It will also, however, enable special sittings to be fixed at short notice, should this be necessary. I should expect this to be done by the Lord Chancellor personally too, but I should not like to lead the Committee to assume that there could never, in any circumstances, be cases where it would be done under a general authority given on his behalf by a high official. The Lord Chancellor might be ill (he has no other Minister), or he might be out of the country, sometimes on official business; and emergencies do arise. But I would expect to keep this under my own hand, in every case consulting the Lord Chief Justice. If it ever were done in my absence and on my behalf, I should expect the Lord Chief Justice to have, if possible, a greater say in the matter, assuming, as would almost certainly be the case, that he was available.
652
The same phrase is used in Clause 4(5), which provides for a rather different class of case. It says:
"The cases or classes of cases suitable for allocation respectively to a judge of the High Court, and to a Circuit judge or Recorder, and all other matters relating to the distribution of Crown Court business shall be determined in accordance with directions given by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor given by him or on his behalf."
In other words, whereas under Clause 2 the Lord Chancellor is the person who does it, under Clause 4 he is the person who concurs in what somebody else does; and there rather a different set of considerations would arise. But I would expect the Lord Chancellor to concur personally in any matter of a formal or permanent character.
Again, there might be ephemeral matters, as for example when a particular magistrates' court might be committing cases to an already overburdened centre, and might be asked for a short period to commit them to a neighbouring centre. Then directions would almost certainly be given on the spot, and this would probably be done through the Circuit administration by the presiding judge, acting in the name of the Lord Chief Justice. In that case almost certainly the Lord Chancellor's concurrence would be given, on his behalf, by the Circuit Administrator. This is the machinery in that case for implementing paragraph 198 of Beeching, which says—and I will read the words, in order to remind noble Lords:
"To enable him to see that all cases are tried as soon as possible, we recommend that the Presiding Judge, acting through the Circuit Administrator, should have power to give directions as to where cases should be committed for trial."
Of course it is desirable that there should be Parliamentary responsibility, in the sense that some Minister has to answer if, for any reason, it is desired to challenge a decision of that kind.
The noble and learned Lord also raised the question of the Long Vacation, and correctly reminded the Committee that the Beeching Commission recommended in paragraph 424 that the Long Vaction should be
"made progressively shorter … than it is at present."
In doing so it differed from the conclusion reached by the Joint Professional Committee of the Bar Council and the Law

653
Society in 1968, that none of the existing Vacations should be curtailed. The Joint Committee did, however, consider that the amount of interlocutory work done during Vacations should be increased.
The Long Vacation is regulated by Orders in Council made under Section 53 of the Judicature Act on a recommendation made by the Council of Judges, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. The Joint Committee's Report was considered by the Council of Judges under my predecessor in 1969. As a result, additional work was undertaken by the judges during the Long Vacation, and all additional interlocutory business that could not be undertaken with existing staff during Vacation was made Vacation business. The hours of opening of the Supreme Court during the Long Vacation were also extended.
Quite apart from questions of judge power, unless I were able to command essential supporting staff it would not be possible, for the time being at any rate, to do anything further about the Long Vacation. That does not mean that when the Courts Bill is in operation we may not have to reconsider the matter again. As the noble and learned Lord realises, curtailing the Long Vacation is not simply a question of bringing the judges back. In criminal trials you have to bring jurors on the spot, you have to bring witnesses on the spot, you have to bring the court attendants on the spot; and in a case involving a jury and a considerable number of witnesses that might be very difficult to do during the summer months with effective justice.
But I have no fixed plans beyond what have said; that is to say, beyond the judges' meeting of 1969. On the other hand, I intend to re-examine the matter again when the Courts Bill is in operation. Of course I will take note of what was said by my noble and learned friend—if I may still call the occupants of the Cross Benches by that friendly appellation—about the distinction between ephemeral arrangements and formal and permanent ones, and will reflect upon it, but I should not like to give him any assurance at the moment. I hope that that deals with the questions put to me.
LORD GARDINER: As this is a Committee stage, perhaps I may speak again.
654
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, which is very satisfactory, except that in dealing with Clause 4 he dealt with subsection (5), which covers classes of cases, and so on, with which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, is to be concerned. Subsection (6) states that places at which the Crown Court is to sit shall be determined "by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor"; in other words, what places are no longer to have any criminal court higher than a magistrates' court. I should have thought that that would be solely a mailer for the Lord Chancellor himself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree. I inadvertently omitted that, and the noble and learned Lord is perfectly correct.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Establishment of the Crown Court]:
3.44 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("Court") to end of line 11.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have been a good deal concerned as to what course I should take about a number of Amendments which are on the Marshalled List, all of which relate to the special privileges shown by this Bill to the City of London. I apprehend that your Lordships will not want me to make one speech on each Amendment, so if it is convenient, while moving this Amendment I shall speak to the others. This Amendment is not the most important one, but it may be that in a Division the Committee will have an opportunity of expressing a general view one way or the other about these Amendments.
May I make it plain, in the first place, that I have the highest regard for the gentlemen of the City of London—the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, the Aldermen and invisible exports? But we are here concerned only with the City in its relation to our system of justice. May I start by taking up two points which were made in reply to what I said on Second Reading? The first was an observation made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord

655
Dilhorne. When speaking of the delays at the Central Criminal Court, he said:
"It is not the division of responsibility that is causing the delays there. It is the congestion of work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/11/70; col. 1289.]
The second was an observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to the effect that the Bill dealt with the substance of the matter and the points I was raising were really the frills. I am afraid I am unable to agree that the position which has arisen at the Central Criminal Court is in no way the fault of the City of London. Delays can only arise because there are not enough judges, or because there are not enough courts, or because there is an insufficient court staff.
May I take first the question of judges? In every other court in the country it is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor—that is to say, in a sense, the responsibility of the Government—to see that there are enough judges. Of course, they are usually limited as to a maximum by Act of Parliament. So it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to look ahead and come to Parliament in time with a Bill to increase the maximum number. Under the last Government the position was improved, in that this can usually be done now by a Statutory Instrument. But it is still the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to move in time to see that the maximum number of judges may be increased. This applies everywhere except in the City of London or, to be more accurate, the Central Criminal Court. It is not, and it has not been for a very long time, a City court—I mean taking cases only from the City. For about 150 years, since, I think, at least 1834, it has taken cases from Middlesex and parts of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and for over a hundred years could take any crime outside London. But there, and there alone, the maximum number of judges is not provided for by any public Act. It is dealt with from time to time in a City of London (Various Powers) Act.
This is not a matter which I am producing in this House for the first time to-day. Nearly three years ago, on January 29, 1968, on the Administration of Justice Bill, I said:
"The maximum number of judges which can be appointed additional judges to the Central Criminal Court is entirely a matter for the City of London. They deal with this under
656
a City of London (Various Powers) Act. The City pay for the judges and for the Central Criminal Court, and how many courts there are is entirely a matter for them. For the last three years"
—that was going back to the beginning of 1965, practically the whole of my period of office—
"I have been in the position that although there are only four regular courts at the Central Criminal Court, another was carved out on the ground floor and the Library and a committee room were turned into courts. There are no more rooms which might be turned into courts. I can appoint commissioners but I cannot appoint any additional judges because the maximum number has been reached, and there was no City of London (Various Powers) Act under which action could be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/1/1968; cols. 634–5.]
The first answer from the City, when I wanted the maximum number of judges increased, was that they said, "You cannot do this here, because we do not have a City of London (Various Powers) Bill." I went on to say:
"When this question was taken up with the City (they are always very generous in these matters) they found a building immediately opposite and quickly produced three temporary courts to which I could appoint commissioners to sit. But that was all I could do, and the state of things at the Central Criminal Court has been getting worse and worse. Men who could not get bail have been staying in prison for three or four months before their trial—men who, when they are tried, may be found to be innocent. When at long last the City of London produced a Various Powers Bill last Session, it got hung up in another place, not over the increase in the number of additional judges but because of something to do with the City walk-ways and, I think, something to do with Epping Forest. This shows the Lord Chancellor's difficulties."—(col. 635.)
While the present Bill meets that point, I cannot agree that in the past it has not been in any way the fault of the City of London.
The matters for which this Bill provides are as follows. There had been a Mayor's and City of London Court, which had a higher jurisdiction than the county court; a court half-way between a High Court and a county court. The Beeching Royal Commission, in paragraph 368 of their Report, recommended that that jurisdiction should be abolished. They gave all their reasons and said, in paragraph 373:
"For these reasons we recommend that the unlimited jurisdiction of the court should be abolished and that the court should, in future, serve purely as the County Court for the City".

657
At first sight that was to happen here, because if one looks at Schedule 2, which is at page 41 of the Bill, it appears to provide that the Mayor's and City of London Court should cease to exist and that it should be simply an ordinary county court, the County Court of the City of London.
Then, under Clause 28 the Bill provides:
"The courthouse and accommodation which up to the appointed day have been respectively known as the Central Criminal Court and the Mayor's and City of London Court shall continue to be known by those names, and it shall be the duty of the Common Council of the City of London (in this section referred to as 'the Common Council') to continue to make the said premises available for use for the sittings and business of those courts respectively".
It is still to be called the Mayor's and the City of London Court although it has nothing to do with the Mayor at all. Then, under a previous clause, the Mayor and all the lay aldermen of the City of London are to be able to sit on the Bench at the Central Criminal Court, which is simply to become a Crown Court. Now I appreciate that this does not matter enormously, but it seems very odd, in 1970, to continue this historical anomaly under which laymen, who may like sitting on the bench in their robes, do so at only one court in the country.
The point about which I am most concerned is that concerning court buildings. The Royal Commission, in paragraphs 299 onwards of their Report, made it plain what they thought was the only remedy for the difficulties of court administration which had arisen. They say:
"It is clear that many of the present inadequacies of the higher courts are attributable to the lack of any overall court service".
They go on to say:
"In our view, the first step must be the assumption of responsibility by one Minister, answerable to Parliament, for the running of all the courts above the level of Magistrates' Courts and for the establishment of a single court service".
The Bill itself provides for this to happen everywhere else in the country, and for the Lord Chancellor to be responsible for seeing that there are enough courts. Indeed, in the Schedules, in particular in Schedule 2, power is given to make requisition orders on premises in order that he may be able to achieve that very
658
desirable result. This is all set out in Schedule 2 and in Schedule 3. This is for the purpose of securing that we shall, at long last, in all courts above the level of magistrates' courts, have adequate court accommodation.
But when we come to paragraph 10 of Schedule 3, we see that it reads:
"Nothing in this Schedule applies to any premises in the City of London".
So in the City of London, and only in the City of London, and in relation to the Central Criminal Court (which, after all, is our largest court of assize), we are in this position. The Royal Commission said, "If the City want to go on paying for the Central Criminal Court—although we do not see any reason why they should, and why the Central Government should not pay—we do not see any special reason why the Government should refuse to let them". But it was clearly contemplated that there, as elsewhere, the Lord Chancellor would be responsible for securing that there were sufficient courts.
This the Bill does not do. The most it provides for is that the City shall continue to make the existing premises
"available for use for the sittings and the business of those courts respectively".
Then subsection (2) of Clause 28 says:
"The Common Council shall not undertake any alteration or extension of the buildings or accommodation which they are to make available for the purpose of the said courts, or provide further accommodation for that purpose, without the consent of the Lord Chancellor".
So the Lord Chancellor can say, "No: do not build any more courts; no more courts are necessary". What he cannot say is, "More courts are necessary, and you are to build them". In the whole country, this is the only place where there can be no requisition of premises, and therefore so far as I can see there is no practical way of implementing the intentions of the Royal Commission.
I think many of these privileges of the City of London are wrong. I do not mind anything remaining with them which assists them and does not do any harm. I remember that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was extraordinary how much we agreed about all this, but that he thought we were rather two different kinds of animal: I was really dealing with the

659
frills, and he referred as an example to the fact that at my instance Parliament had abolished the ex officio justices of the peace, but he said that that did not do any harm. I would remind him that we had at that time a provision whereby nobody was appointed a justice of the peace who did not undertake to undergo a course of training and to sit regularly; and that sitting alongside them we had literally hundreds of ex officio justices of the peace—every chairman of an urban district council, of rural district councils, county councils, boroughs and so on—who were not under any obligation to undergo a course of training, and did not, who insisted on sitting but did not sit regularly. That had been causing great resentment to those who had been appointed on their merits.
So, here, I feel that these provisions, taken together, go too far. I hope I have made it plain that, if I take the first Amendment by itself, it is to stand for all of them, if this is a convenient course. I do not regard the first one as being of signal importance. Nor do I mind the Common Serjeant continuing to be called the Common Serjeant. I do not suppose that it will do any harm. It is just one of those things which makes the law look silly. When you tell your client that he is to be tried before the Common Serjeant, he says, "Why is he a serjeant, and in what respect is he common?". That is not a question which anybody has ever been able to answer, and it just makes the law look an ass. The thing I am really troubled about is that the Bill leaves not only, as I understand it, the Central Criminal Court, but also the county court for that district as the only county court in the whole of England which it has not, ever since the county courts started, been the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to provide; and I can see no way in which, if there are not enough courts now at the Central Criminal Court or within the City, there is any real power to force the City to build proper courts. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must confess that I am not in the least convinced by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said that the congestion at the Central Criminal Court is the fault of the City. Nor am I convinced that he has made out a case for
660
transferring the powers of appointing judges with regard to the Central Criminal Court from where that power now resides. My experience of working with the City was that it really was not necessary for the Lord Chancellor to have power to give directions to the City. It was quite enough to make a suggestion; and I always found the City did all they could to carry out any suggestions or proposals made by the Lord Chancellor. It is true that there is a limit under their Act as to the number of judges that they can appoint; but there is no limit to the number of commissioners that can be appointed by the Lord Chancellor to meet the needs pending an amendment to the Act and pending the City getting power to appoint more judges. I do not think myself that there is much in that criticism of the City.
With regard to the building of courts, I forget the precise figures, but I am sure I am right in saying that since my time the City have, at their own expense and not at the expense of the taxpayer, multiplied the number of courts very extensively. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the number of four courts. I believe that it will shortly be 18 courts. Great expense falls upon the City for maintaining the Central Criminal Court. I do not think we ought to criticise the City for what they have done in a difficult period throughout the whole country with regard to the administration of justice; I think that rather we should express thanks to them for what they have achieved.
The real trouble with the Central Criminal Court is that the catchment area is far too large; far too much business goes to the Central Criminal Court and it is wrongly placed, right in the heart of the City, to deal with the criminal cases which emanate from such a wide area. That makes it necessary to bring the patties, the witnesses and the jurors into that part of the City. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to consider locations for the trial of criminal work, he may perhaps consider whether the time has not come to build another centre, not far away but more on the outskirts of London, to which a great number of the cases now going to the Central Criminal Court could in future be committed. But that is another question.

661
As to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made, about the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen being part of the court under Clause 4(7), what harm does it do? I can think of none. It carries on an old tradition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to it as an "historical anomaly". I always feared—it will not happen to me now—while I was occupying the Woolsack that someone might get up and say that I was an historical anomaly; but that is no argument for the abolition of the office. I rather like some of these anomalies, particularly when they have no harmful consequences. I like some of these old traditions and I think it would be a great pity if that long-established court, the Mayor's and City of London Court, ceased to exist. So far as the premises are concerned, it matters not who owns them, so long as the Lord Chancellor of the day can get what he wants done. I feel sure that Lord Chancellors have had, and will continue to have, the full co-operation of the City. Therefore I do not find it possible to support these Amendments.
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, inadvertently misunderstood and, I think, misquoted what I said on Second Reading. What I was saying was more relevant to the Amendment that is now being proposed than he supposed. As for the delays at the Old Bailey, I never said whose fault it was; I did not administer a rebuke either to him (and he is certainly more responsible than I am) or to the late Lord Mayor, who was more responsible than the present Lord Mayor. I said—and I have my words clear in mind—that the delays at the Old Bailey were not clue to the Lord Mayor sitting next to the High Court judge on the Bench. I stand by that. Whether the Lord Mayor sits by the side of the High Court judge when he is on the Bench makes no difference at all as to whether or not there is any delay. He sits there by tradition and takes no part whatever in the proceedings.
The noble and learned Lord erected an elaborate façade to show that the position of the Old Bailey and the other City courts was in some way the fault of the City. Broadly speaking, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend
662
Lord Dilhorne, I consider that that is not the case. But if it were the case, it would be necessary to relate them in some way to the Amendments proposed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, began with a great, and no doubt sincere, expression of respect for the City Corporation, the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs and the Aldermen; but I must say that I felt reminded of the young gentleman who said, "You may be discreet to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me down the stairs?" Because the situation which the Amendments are designed to remedy, and to which the noble and learned Lord drew such graphic attention, all arose during his own term of office.
The remedies proposed are: one, not to let the Lord Mayor sit on the Bench with the High Court judge; two, to abolish the name of the Common Serjeant; three, to omit the word "Mayor's" from the "Mayor's and the City of London Court"; and, four, to subject some unnamed, unoccupied buildings in the City to requisition. If he can tell me of any unoccupied buildings in the City which are suitable for use as criminal courts and which have the ancillary equipment, then I will make representations to the Lord Mayor to-morrow. If he cannot, his Amendment is utterly devoid of any sense at all. I am delighted to find something about which I can so profoundly disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. We have been far too amicable. It will soon be said against us that we are running in cahoots with one another. On this occasion I can honestly say I differ from him profoundly. All his Amendments are designed to cause deep offence to the City Corporation. They are not calculated to create any useful purpose at all, any difference whatever, for good or for bad, to the administration of justice. They are designed only to cause offence and they will have that effect.
In fact there are 18 courts, as my noble and learned friend reminded us, being built by the City; and I am rather grateful for that. The courts were designed and planned during the term of office of the noble and learned Lord who has proposed these Amendments. I did not recall any public protest by the then Lord Chancellor about their number or location. If there had been a conflict between the City authorities and the noble and

663
learned Lord one would understand his resentment. What was he doing all the time when he was sitting on the Woolsack with, to his knowledge, the City authorities planning 18 courts and proposing to build them? It seems to me that he was either neglecting his duties or he concurred in the plans they were making. Yet he now wants to subject some other unnamed buildings to requisition and to abolish the name of the Mayor's and City of London Court, which is an ancient and honourable name, and to abolish the name of the Common Serjeant, and to abolish the right of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to sit on the Bench with the High Court judge.
I think that even on technical grounds the last proposal is fairly misconceived. The Bill preserves the existing position to the extent that the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen will be judges of the Crown Court when it sits within the City, where it will keep the name "Central Criminal Court" by which it is very well known—only a little less well known than its unofficial name of the Old Bailey—but in future they will not be able to sit alone but only under the chairmanship of a High Court or Circuit judge or recorder. That is the effect of Clause 5(8), which provides that when a judge of the High Court, Circuit judge or recorder sits with justices of the peace he shall preside; and the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen are, I believe, justices of the peace to the City.
During the debate on the Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, criticised Clause 4(7) of the Bill on the ground that it would enable the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen to try even the more serious cases, including murder. This cannot happen, because under this Bill the most serious cases will always be allocated to the Queen's Bench judges sitting alone. But even under the existing system, the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen do not take part in the trial of any serious offences, and the City authorities and the recorder have given assurances that they will not do so in future. All that these Amendments do is to cause offence to a body which, whatever its merits or demerits, is one for which the noble and learned Lord holds (as we have now learned) the greatest respect and which has provided a great
664
amount of funds to save the Revenue. The Amendments will perform no useful purpose whatever. I would hope that he would not press any of them to a Division, but if he does I shall advise the Committee to vote against them.
4.10 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I cannot lose an opportunity of demonstrating this afternoon that there are some matters on which I find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I do not want to say more than this: that I thought we had fought out this issue at some considerable length some little while ago and that on the whole a fairly satisfactory decision had been reached—satisfactory to the City and satisfactory to the then Lord Chancellor. But I should like to add this. There are, of course, traditions that are wholly beneficent and kindly and do not hold up the progress of mankind. I believe that these traditions to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is referring, are in that category. I believe that what have been called the frills or the trimmings bring great benefit, because they are the inducement that makes the corporate life of the City worth while to people who give an enormous amount of time and effort in other directions. City companies in their activities are, I think, wholly beneficent. To strip them of these little traditional trimmings seems to me not only unkind but also, on the whole, a little small-minded, if I may use that phrase.
I do not think that the administration of justice suffers in the slightest degree by the retention of trimmings and trappings of this kind. I think that there are other features of our system of justice—to which perhaps we may be alluding later—where the administration of justice is seriously disturbed and affected by seeking to retain traditions that have long outlived their utility. With regard to these matters, I should think that we could generously leave them where they are, even if they do have slightly anomalistic features. They are more than compensated for by the inducement they give to a large number of worthy people to do worthy work.
LORD GARDINER: I made it plain that I have no strong view about this first Amendment, but no Member of the

665
Committee has disagreed with the proposal that we should take this Amendment, as it were, on behalf of this group of Amendments to save repeated discussion or repeated Divisions. With regard to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's reference to my period of Office, the fact remains that it is not at all easy to persuade members of the Bar to be commissioners from time to time at the Central Criminal Court; and that throughout the whole of my period of Office, while anxious to appoint additional judges to that court, I was unable to do so because the City of London had not got a City of London (Various Powers) Bill. That was the first stage, and, of course, when they got one, it took considerable time before I had the Act. This contributed in marked measure, I think, to the difficulties we experienced at that court.
I am concerned about building for the future. I have no objection if the City want to pay for the buildings or they are paying for them; that is a matter for them. I am sure that Central Government would have been ready to pay if the City
had not been. There has been no difficulty in finding sites in the City. A site was found immediately opposite for a temporary court and they are now building more courts. I am not suggesting that they are not at present building enough courts; but, starting as I did in 1964, it will be 1972, before we have enough courts—that is, if the work does not increase still further. The position remains as I outlined it, that if in the future there is a need for more courts in the City, or an expansion in particular of the Central Criminal Court, the City of London will be the only place in the whole country where the Lord Chancellor will have no power of law at all to requisition premises and to see that courts are built there. I cannot think that that is right and I shall respectfully ask the Committee to say so.
4.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 128.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Royle, L.

Balogh, L.

Gifford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Birk, Bs.

Hamnett, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lee of Asheridge, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Citrine, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Constantine, L.

McLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pargiter, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Faringdon, L.

Raglan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cohen, L.

Abinger, L.

Belstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Albemarle, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Alport, L.

Bethell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Amherst, E.

Birkett, L.

Courtown, E.

Ampthill, L.

Bourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Amulree, L.

Brentford, V.

Crook, L.

Annan, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Crowther, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Derwent, L.

Audley, Bs.

Carrington, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Avebury, L.

Clark, L.

Diplock, L.

Donovan, L.

Hives, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hodson, L.

St. Helens, L.

Dundonald, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Salisbury, M.

Effingham, E.

Ilford, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shannon, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Jessel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Kindersley, L.

Somers, L.

Foot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Fortescue, E.

Leicester, L.Bp.

Stamp, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

London, L.Bp.

Strang, L.

Garner, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strange, L.

Gisborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Mais, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Goodman, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray, L.

Meston, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Swansea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Tangley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Hacking, L.

Thurso, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wade, L.

Hankey, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Hanworth, V.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hawke, L.

Rea, L.

Wolverton, L.

Helsby, L.

Reay, L.

Yarborough, E.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

4.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("other express provision") and insert ("provision contained in or having effect under this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2 which stands in my name. This Amendment would be wholly unintelligible, as would Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, as they are purely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 11 which comes afterwards unless I explained to the Committee what Amendment No. 11 is about. Therefore, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to do this so that your Lordships may judge the paving Amendments that precede it. Amendment No. 11 is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 13, and its purpose is to provide a general rule-making power for the Crown Court so that its practice and procedure may be regulated by rule, As introduced, the Bill provides for the Crown Court Rule Committee to be set up for the purpose of making Crown Court rules, but the matters for which rules may be made are dotted about in various parts of the Bill, and the purpose of this group of Amendments is to provide a general rule-making power and bring them together.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that Crown Court rules may be made for the purpose of regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice to be followed in the Crown Court. The power contained in the new clause covers not only criminal proceedings but also any civil proceedings for which it may be appropriate to make rules in the Crown Court. Consequently, there is no longer any need for a specific power to do this, and Clause 9(7) will, in due course, I hope, be deleted. Similarly, references made to matters being subject to "other express provision" in Clause 4 and the "express provisions of this Act" in Clause 6 will be modified by Amendments to make clear that Crown Court rules may, if necessary, regulate such matters as the attendance and examination of witnesses, the enforcement of orders and the preservation of practices and procedures in the Crown Court which exist at present for assizes and quarter sessions.
Subsection (2) of the new clause replaces Clause 9(6), which is to be brought into the new clause, and subsection (3) provides that no rule involving increases of expenditure shall be made except with the concurrence of the Treasury, which is a constitutional necessity. There will be other minor Amendments which are consequent on this. Therefore, with the

669
Committee's consent, I beg to move the first of this group of Amendments, which is purely paving to the Amendment I have tried to outline.
LORD GARDINER: I have no objection to any of the Amendments referred to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We are not now discussing Amendment No. 11, are we? I have a point that I wish to raise on that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to No. 11 but I imagine that the right time to raise my point will be when we come to deal with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, that is entirely for the Committee to decide, but I thought that the Amendments would be wholly unintelligible if I did not explain what they were about.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exclusive jurisdiction in trial on indictment]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is another paving Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("the express provisions of") and insert ("any provision contained in or having effect under")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is another paving Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("the express provisions of") and insert ("any provision contained in or having effect under").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Appeals to Crown Court and civil proceedings in the Crown Court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is another paving Amendment of the same group.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Right of audience]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY LORD TANGLEY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert—
("(A1) Solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the Crown Court on any hearing of or in connection with—

(a) any appeal;

(b) any proceedings on committal to the court for sentence;

(c) any proceedings on indictment for an offence triable summarily but for any reason committed to the court for trial;")

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 6 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodman, and in my own name and the names of other noble Lords. I have now served in the solicitors' branch of the legal profession for 55 years, and the time has long past when I felt the slightest passion about barristers and solicitors or barristers or solicitors. I care not a rap about the relative prestige and status of the Bar and solicitors. But I do find this: that as the shadows draw longer, shall I say (because after all those years my time in the law must be nearly up), there are certain things that become all the while clearer to my mind and closer to my heart. Three of them, I believe, are relevant to our discussions this afternoon.
The first and foremost is that nothing really matters in the administration of the law, the organisation of the legal profession, except the client and his interests. One hears a lot about barristers; one hears a lot about solicitors, and we have been reading in the Press a lot about them lately. But we have read almost nothing about the one person who really matters—the client—and particularly the client who finds himself enmeshed in the proceedings of the courts. He is a figure whom I keep constantly before my mind and my imagination, and I hope that your Lordships will do the same in the course of this debate.
He is a lonely figure. He is probably in court for the one and only time of his

671
life. It is a traumatic experience for him. He is bewildered, lonely and frightened. At that moment of his life, beyond all other moments, he needs beside him a trusted and known adviser and advocate to whom he can turn. If the administration of the law as at present organised does not provide him certainly with that, then there is something wrong with the administration of the law, and something wrong with the organisation of the legal profession that ought to be put right. A man who has not that help available to him—and, I emphasise, help that he knows and trusts—cannot do himself justice; and if he cannot do himself justice, it is very unlikely that justice will be done, however hard the court, the advocates, the jury and everybody else may try to do it. That is the first thing that has become so much clearer to me now than it used to be when I was younger.
The second thing is this. I am absolutely certain—and I wish to take this opportunity of stating it in no uncertain terms—that the best interests of the client to-day, in present conditions, are served by the separation of the legal profession into the Bar and the solicitors' branch of that profession. I know that here I part company totally with my noble friend Lord Goodman. He believes in fusion. I totally disbelieve in fusion; and in that I am supported by the great bulk of the opinion among solicitors and the entire opinion of the Law Society. If I thought that this Amendment that I am moving would do anything to impinge on the privileges or the importance of the Bar, or would do anything to bring about fusion, so far from moving the Amendment I would certainly be seen in the Lobby against it. But, of course, this Amendment does not have that effect, as I hope to show your Lordships very shortly.
The third thing that I think I see now much more clearly than I used to, though I have seen it for some time (that may sound paradoxical, but it is true), is that the separation between the two branches of the profession can be maintained only as a result of the closest possible working together and co-operation of both branches of the profession. They have to work very hard together in order to keep separate if the interests of the client
672
are to be preserved and extended: and if the interests of the client are not preserved, then the whole basis of the legal profession falls to the ground.
It is easy to be misunderstood about this. This is not a notion which I have thought up for the purpose of this present debate; it is a conviction that I have had for some years. I have preached the doctrine in season and out of season. I have been misunderstood and misrepresented by many people, but I have also acted upon it and worked with the Law Society, and the Bar, with these ends in view. We have had some success, and indeed, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, referred to the flexibility which exists now whereby solicitors can more easily become barristers, and barristers solicitors, he was pointing to things which stem back to initiatives taken by myself and my friends some years ago. I want that happy condition to go on. Therefore, I deeply regret the tinge of "anti-Bar" or "anti-solicitors" which has crept into the newspaper controversy on this subject, and also on the subject of Clause 20.
I want to make it quite plain that I am not being inconsistent in what I have already said with my action in moving this Amendment, because in all these discussions which have taken place with the Bar, and in all the discussions which can conceivably take place—as I hope they will—in the future, there will always be some marginal area where adjustments of functions are needed. This Amendment covers a marginal area where I hope I shall be able to demonstrate that this adjustment is needed at the present time. May I take your Lordships back to the client in litigation, in the dock, or in the witness box, and his need to have a trusted and known adviser alongside him? The three cases we are dealing with in this Amendment are appeals; cases which have been referred to quarter sessions for sentence, and cases which could have been heard in magistrates' courts, but which have been passed on to quarter sessions for one reason or another—generally for some administrative reason. Those are the only three cases that we are dealing with.
May I first of all take the case of an appeal? As your Lordships know well, an appeal to quarter sessions differs from any other kind of appeal in that it is a

673
re-hearing. The case has been heard before the magistrates' court; witnesses have been called, cross-examined and so forth, and the decision has been given. When you get to quarter sessions, or the Crown Court as it will be known after this Bill becomes an Act, you are dealing with exactly the same sort of situation. Before the magistrates' courts in mast cases the defendant has been represented by a solicitor. If it is his own appeal he has been unlucky, for his solicitor has not succeeded, but it can very well be the prosecutor's appeal, because either side may appeal to quarter sessions from magistrates' courts. At any rate, he has been represented in all the stages of the case by his own solicitor.
Then comes a re-hearing, when the same facts are heard all over again. At this re-hearing the defendant cannot be represented by the same man who has represented him up to that point of time; at that traumatic moment he is deprived of the man on whom he has relied and trusted. What does he get in place of that? If he had a free choice of all the barristers, and could afford to pay for them, the position might not be so bad, although to see a strange face at all—especially when it has a wig on—at that stage of the proceedings can add to the state of trauma. But in fact the man has no idea whom he will have to represent hum.
His solicitor will choose a barrister, if he can find one. I do not want to go into the details (they are too discreditable to the profession) unless I am forced to do so. I will content myself with the general observation that there is only a fifty-fifty chance, taking the country as a whole, that the barrister of the solicitor's choice will actually appear and do his work on the day of the trial. I am not saying that somebody will not appear; but who it will be goodness only knows ! That is a terrible state of affairs for the unfortunate client, who is extremely anxious about his fate. That is an appeal.
Suppose a case has been heard by the magistrates' court, has been decided, and has been sent on to quarter sessions, or, as it will be, to the Crown Court, for sentence. Somebody will have to make a plea in mitigation of sentence when the matter comes before the Crown Court. The only person who cannot do that is the solicitor who has conducted the case
674
up to that particular point of time. He is the person whom the accused, or in this case the convicted man, has chosen to represent him all through those proceedings. What does the solicitor have to do? He has to try to find a barrister who will attend for a relatively small fee and do this rather miserable job of making a plea in mitigation. I assure your Lordships that this is so, and I will prove it if I am forced to do so to-day, although I do not want to do so. The chance of getting anybody of any experience to come and do that work in very many courts up and down the country is almost non-existent. That is the way in which the profession serves the clients at the present time. We do not think it is good enough; we think this is one of those cases where there is a marginal need for a readjustment of functions, and we would have hoped that there would be co-operation in bringing that about.
The third case is that in which a solicitor is entitled to appear for his client in a magistrates' court but, for some reason or another, the case goes on to quarter sessions, and is heard there instead of in the magistrates' court. The solicitor dealt with the case, saw the client, went through all the preliminary work, and at the last moment, just because there is a change of venue there has to be a change of advocate. That is not good enough from the point of view of the client, and I emphasise that the chance of actually getting the barrister to appear whom the solicitor had chosen is not much better than fifty-fifty—if that; and this is not good enough.
In finishing my remarks, I come back to exactly the same point from which I started: that there ought to be one figure, and one figure only, before our minds' eye while we are discussing this Amendment. That is the unfortunate client, entangled in this web of legal proceedings, and longing to have beside him the man whom he chose, the man whom he knew and who had seen him through up to that point, but whom at the present moment the law denies him. I beg to move.
4.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish in any way to curtail this debate. Let me say that by way of introduction. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner,

675
whom I am eager to hear upon this subject, will not feel that he has been interfered with in any way if at this stage I offer one or two observations upon this important Amendment. It is the more important because it has to be seen in connection with later Amendments which deal with a slightly different subject but which inevitably, as I shall try to show, are rather closely connected with it.
The reason I have intervened thus early in the debate is because I have an object in view. I think the earlier I put that object to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, who has moved the Amendment, the more likely it is to be attained. I hope that we shall have a full discussion on this and the other related Amendments, but I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press matters to a Division. The reason underlying my own desire that he should not do so, is precisely one of the reasons which he said he had come to see very clearly after a long life devoted to the profession of the solicitor—longer than mine—with, I think, the very highest distinction which that profession can offer him. As I have known him, if he will allow me to say so, for many years, and have sat under his presidency as the Chairman of the Alpine Club, as a fellow member of the Committee, I am sure he will accept what I say in the spirit entirely in which it is meant.
He said—and I agree with him—that he deplored more than anything an element of emotionalism and rancour which has begun to creep into the public discussion of this and related issues. I want, if I may, at this early stage in the debate, and without any kind of desire to pre-empt discussion in the matter, to point to what I believe to be—what I hope to be—a wise and statesmanlike approach to the whole subject. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said that what mattered to him was the client; and that, of course, was the view of my predecessor Lord Brougham, expressed in passionate terms on the occasion, or at any rate about—I think, on the occasion—of the trial of Queen Caroline before your Lordships' House. A Lord Chancellor, of course, has no clients; but he has a duty to the House, and he has a duty to the country of rather a different kind. It is that duty that I want to put before the Committee—not in replacement of the
676
duty to the client, of which Lord Tangley has spoken and which we have all of us had to shoulder at some time in our professional lives.
Let us not lose sight throughout these discussions of one absolute essential fact. Many things about this country have been devalued in my lifetime. We have lost our two-power Navy; we have lost our Empire, which was a quarter of the earth's surface and the earth's population. Our currency is no longer the gold sovereign, as it was when my father went to his Chambers in the morning with a sovereign case, instead of a wallet, in his frock pocket. But one thing has not been devalued at all, and that is the quality of English justice. It is as high now as it was fifty or a hundred years ago—indeed, I would claim without doubt that it has never been higher. It is one of the great glories of our country, and indeed of modern civilisation; and, although much that has gone from this country has gone for ever, that has not gone.
I feel intensely that in all that we do, whether it is on this Amendment or any other, and particularly when we are discussing the structure of the legal profession, with which these Amendments are inevitably concerned, we must not inadvertently do anything to devalue the quality of the justice for which we have become famous: in spite of delays, its speed; its notable impartiality; above all, the independence, quality and integrity of its judges and of the lawyers of both branches of the profession. All these, I think, have not merely been maintained in our time but actually been improved. Let us therefore start from this point of view. In this Courts Bill we are carrying out important reforms, but we are not so much reforming abuse as improving upon excellence.
The first thing I want to say to your Lordships is this. I do not believe that the pride we take in our judges or in our lawyers is either false or fortuitous. I believe that it is founded on a number of postulates which are not always common to other legal systems; and they are interrelated postulates. In many ways our common law as it has developed is not superior to the civil code adopted by most Continental countries. The common law we share with many other countries, among them the United States

677
of America. But I mean no criticism of our Continental neighbours or our American cousins when I say that I believe that our courts are better, our judges are better and our lawyers are better than those of other nations, however good these may be. And I repeat, in saying that I mean no kind of criticism of anyone.
What are the postulates? The first, I believe, lies in our method of selecting judges. Most Continental nations select their judges from the law school, hardly dry, as graduates, behind the ears. They become judges almost as soon as they pass. They are irremovable, but in the sense that civil servants are irremovable. They are appointed to junior positions as civil servants are appointed to junior positions. They rise largely by seniority, tempered by ability, to the highest positions, as civil servants rise. Not for them the competition and the stress of private practice; not for them the midnight hours devoted to briefs, or the contact with the client, the familiarity with juries and classic observation of judicial habits and foibles because they are sitting in their courts mainly alone. They are judges from the first, and from the first they have been nothing else. In the absence of misconduct, from the age of graduation they are secure in their employment. They cannot help but rise.
By contrast, our judges are selected in middle life. During the whole of their professional life they have been subjected to the intense scrutiny of a small, critical and highly competitive profession. They are selected from those who have succeeded in the courts.
LORD TANGLEY: By attracting the attention of solicitors.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that, like all members of my profession, I owe any small success that I may have had to the confidence which solicitors over 37 years have occasionally shown in me.
LORD TANGLEY: The noble and learned Lord will realise that it is a very strenuous selection process.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I realise that there were many others who deserved the confidence of the other branch of the profession better than I did. But that is how our judges are selected. Their
678
independence is based, not on removability only but on the fact that they have never been Government servants and have never been taught to think and behave as Government servants.
They are selected from one branch of a legal profession divided into two, neither of those two branches intrinsically more honourable or more capable than the other, but each, I am firmly convinced—and in this I may be forgiven a pardonable national pride—as capable as, and perhaps more honourable than, any other legal profession in the world. The integrity of English lawyers, I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has been based upon the mutual co-operation of two branches of a divided profession, each indispensable to the other in its nature, each supporting the other in its separate function. Of course, this separation of function is not easy to explain to the outside world. The separation is not, for instance, based on subject matter. There are barristers who have general practices and there are solicitors who have general practices. There are barristers who have practices specialising on tax and tax questions, and there are solicitors who have practices based on specialisation in tax cases. The analogy is not exactly comparable, for instance, to that between physicians and surgeons, or between specialists and general practitioners, or between G.P.s and consultants, though each in fact offers some valuable analogies.
The distinction has grown up around two fundamental propositions. A barrister may not take his instructions, broadly speaking, from a member of the public; he has to take them from a solicitor. A solicitor may not appear as an advocate before the superior Courts of record; he must employ a barrister to do so. Obviously there are exceptions both ways, and will continue to be exceptions both ways, based on utility or custom; and obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said to the Committee, from time to time there will be areas in dispute and areas requiring adjustment. It may be, or it may not be—I will come to the details a little later—that this is one. But the professions take on their separate characteristics and their peculiar economics from the rule and not from the exceptions.

679
For instance, an English barrister has an experience of litigation far superior to that, I believe, of the busiest American trial lawyer. He may carry 50 or 60 solicitors' names regularly on his fee book; he may read draft documents in 30 or 40 cases during a day and a night and appear in court at the same time. As I ventured to point out in the Second Reading debate, he writes no letters, he keeps virtually no accounts except the minimum required for income tax purposes, he indulges in no property transactions, he administers no trusts, he can leave his job at almost a moment's notice to try a case on assize, or even to become Lord Chancellor. His clerk, for whom he works, is not employed by him but by a syndicate, comparatively numerous, and will continue after his departure. He has no goodwill, no partners and very few overheads.
By contrast, when a solicitor reaches the upper levels of his profession he has an office with overheads sometimes running into thousands of pounds; a goodwill which he can sell or share with partners; a capital investment which I do not want to exaggerate, because when on Second Reading I spoke of half a million pounds a well-known solicitor who happened to be at the same party with me said, "In my case it is only £300,000", and therefore I may have been exaggerating. He has partners, managing clerks, typists—if he can find them—and a huge range of individual clients.
Each man is neither better than the other nor worse than the other. Each has developed over the course of a profession into different kinds of creature. I do not think it is worth while discussing which is the better, but I should like to say this—and I know the Committee will bear with me while I do so—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, may not disagree with me, in view of what he said, al-though I should not expect to find the total agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, contributed to a book which was published this year called Current Legal Problems. In that he publishes two American views of the set of facts which I am seeking to describe. They were views based mainly on the efficiency of the English system. I put
680
efficiency second; I put integrity first, but these are mainly based on efficiency. Mr. Dewey, for instance, who was very nearly (but not quite) President of the United States of America—he was beaten by Mr. Truman—wrote this:
"Your legal procedure is of course superb. There are four judges in London doing the same work that we have 30 judges for in New York. Only this morning I saw a murder case at the Old Bailey that took an hour and a half; it would have taken a week to finish it in America. Your judges have a great deal more power than ours and your barristers are specially trained for the particular job they are going to do; our lawyers have to tackle any case."
Then the noble and learned Lord went on to quote another American view, by Mr. Francis Welman of the New York Bar, on the art of cross-examination. He is talking of the congestion in the American courts and he says:
"The congestion is largely the fault of the system in vogue in our American courts of allowing any lawyer duly enrolled as a member of the Bar"—
that is, of the fused profession—
"to practise in the highest courts. In the United States we recognise no distinction between barristers and solicitors. We are all barristers and solicitors by turn. One has not to frequent the courts to become convinced that so long as more than 10,000 members of the New York County Bar can avail themselves of the privilege to appear in court and try their own clients' cases"—
of course the verb "to try" in America means in this country to appear as an advocate—
"the great majority of the trials will be poorly conducted and much valuable time will be wasted. The conduct of a case in court is a peculiar art for which many men, however learned in the law, are not fitted. We are beginning to appreciate in this country what the English courts for so long recognised, that time is a valuable commodity and has to be paid for by the litigant or the State."
I quote those somewhat lengthy passages to indicate what I believe to be true; namely, that the balance of adjustment between the two parts of the legal profession in this country ought, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, to be a matter of pride to both of us and a matter of adjustment between us, and not a matter of rivalry or comparison and, if possible, not a cause of demarcation disputes. I know that there are people who want to change this. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I believe, has gone on record as saying that he

681
wants a fused profession; and the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill indicated as much. There are fusionists at the Bar, although this is not generally supposed. But I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that in both branches of the profession fusionists are probably in the minority.
What I want to say to the Committee is really this. This Bill is, I hope, a piece of useful legal reform about the structure of the courts. I recognise that the legal profession, as such, is approaching a number of problems of a quite fundamental nature. I do not myself take quite the easy view that Lord Tangley takes about the possibility of viewing these three Amendments to Clause 12 wholly in isolation from the others. I believe that they do affect the balance of the professions. Nor do I think that the two professions can long fail to approach some of the more difficult problems which are rapidly crowding in upon them. The problem of recruitment, the problem of accommodation for the Bar in different centres, perhaps precipitated by this Bill; the problem of education, which cannot be discussed until the Ormrod Committee report—as I hope they will do soon—but which must profoundly affect the two branches and must, at any rate in my judgment, demand that the two branches seek to co-operate with one another.
There is, of course, the profound and difficult and extremely controversial complex of problems facing the two professions on entry to the Common Market. Which profession will be allowed to practise, and in what circumstances, in the Common Market Courts and Commission, and so on; and which foreign lawyers will be allowed, and in what circumstances, to practise here? I ask all three noble Lords who have put their names to this Amendment to consider whether the future of the legal profession, of which I am so proud of both its branches, can best be tackled in an atmosphere of mutual recrimination and criticism, or whether it requires a joint approach by the two branches, removed from criticism and mutual antagonism. I do not want in what I have to say to criticise anybody individually, but I think that, for instance, the correspondence which is currently taking place in The Times has not done
682
the prestige of either branch a great deal of good. I think that on balance, both branches have come off badly. The picture which is being painted to the public is not that of the finest legal profession in the world, which I believe it to be, but of a legal profession one branch of which is defending entranched positions and the other seeking to share a monopoly. I do not think that either is really attractive or true.
I would therefore ask the Committee whether the way to approach the question is not this. But before I put that to the Committee may I say something which I think has not so far been mentioned, and which I can mention only with some delicacy. Ever since litigation began, and particularly criminal trials, one has to recognise that the professional practice and conduct of litigation is a matter which is peculiarly subject to trials and temptations and problems of an ethical kind. Why is it that we have managed to have a Judiciary that is never bribed, and always impartial—as I believe we have; barristers who never conspire to permit perjury or to connive at perjury; and solicitors who do not put forward false cases to argue before juries? I think it is very largely because in the higher ranges of the courts, in civil cases which cost a lot of money, and in criminal cases where life and liberty may be at stake, the two branches of the profession each contribute a member of its own to co-operate together and participate in what has to be done, each supporting the other and each helping the other to maintain the standards of British justice.
These Amendments obviously revolve around the right of audience. The right of audience is one of the great preserves of the Bar in the higher courts. The right which the solicitor has in exchange is that the barrister cannot be approached directly by the client. They are mutual rights, and they are closely connected. When we come to the later clauses, Clauses 15 and 20, we can discuss the effect of this upon eligibility for the Judiciary, but in the meantime I should like to put this thought to the Committee. If what the House wants, if what Parliament wants, if what the public wants, is an inquiry into the structure of the professions with a view to mutual adjustment, then it ought to have what it wants. But to use this Bill, which is a Bill about

683
the structure of the courts, without inquiry, without evidence, and on these Amendments at least without any recommendation from an impartial inquiry in their favour, is, I think, a mistake.
The history of this matter has been as follows. On the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised what was in substance the question of eligibility to the Judiciary; and that arises on Clause 15, and not on these Amendments. In reply to that, I ventured to say to the House that I thought two things. The first was that as this was a Bill on the structure of the courts and not on the structure of the professions, it would be unfortunate if this matter were pressed beyond a point in connection with this Bill. But the second thing I said (it may have been a foolish thing to say, but I believe it was absolutely true, and therefore I do not apologise for having said it) was that you cannot discuss eligibility to the Judiciary without at the same time examining the right of audience; because, especially in the light of this Bill, every Circuit judge is going to be a man who has to try cases in front of a jury—that is, criminal cases on indictment—as well as to try civil cases; and as the matter stands solicitors have never addressed a jury in their lives, except in a few isolated cases which have a certain relevance to this clause. I said that, and I believe it to be true.
Apparently that has created the situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, on behalf of the solicitors' profession, have said, "Very well, we will take you at your word. You say that eligibility to the Judiciary is bound up with the right of audience. Right, let us have it looked at in Clause 12". I think that may be to some extent the genesis of these Amendments. Whether or not I am right in seeing logic in that, it is, if I may say so, a perfectly legitimate view to take. But it goes on to underline what I have hitherto been contending about it. In connection with Clause 15, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had this to say in its favour: that there was a halfhearted recommendation of the Beeching Commission in favour of the change. They said, "We are inclined to the view that …" and then spoke about eligibility of solicitors to the
684
Judiciary. They had not, I think, taken any evidence; they were only a majority; they were only rather modestly of the opinion, as it seemed to me; and they were, I think, a little outside their terms of reference. But again they argued a perfectly legitimate point of view. On this set of Amendments, dealing with the right of audience, so far as the Beeching Commission are concerned you are dealing with terra incognita; they did not consider the matter, they made no recommendations, took no evidence, and it was not within their terms of reference.
Clause 12, as it stands, gives the Lord Chancellor power to open certain courts to solicitors where the case is made out, I said on Second Reading, and of course I stand by it, that the first thing that will happen is that I will open the courts which at present are open to the solicitors, which are the successor courts to the quarter sessions where they can already practise as advocates. I told the Law Society, and I tell the Committee now, that if other cases are put before me I really believe I am capable of adopting a fair-minded view of them. When I had heard both sides I would view with a certain amount of respect, and with every endeavour to do justice, the needs of any particular courts to receive solicitors as advocates.
The present Amendments go a good deal further than that, in two quite separate ways. The first is that they do not relate to particular courts but to three general classes of case, and, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, they are three separate classes of case which do not altogether stand on the same footing as one another. There are the cases which start in the magistrates' court and proceed by way of appeal or by way of committal for sentence to quarter sessions. By the way, may I correct the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in one minor respect. He spoke of appeals by the prosecution. I think that was per incuriam. I do not think he will find that they take place from magistrates' courts to courts of quarter sessions. I think he will find that I am probably right about that, but I do not think it damages his argument at all.
Then there are those cases which start from magistrates' courts and are carried through to the court of quarter session. I can see that some kind of case can

685
be made out. I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in this respect. If you have lost your case in the court below, or even if you have won it, my experience is that on retrial you never do it quite so well again, and for this reason I always tried myself, when a jury disagreed or the case was sent down for retrial, not to do it the second time. I can understand the client taking the view that he wanted to keep the same horse or that he wanted a new one. But I can see the noble Lord's point; it ought to be considered.
LORD TANGLEY: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, may I say that it is very hard to explain to the client why he cannot have you if he wants you and you cannot explain to the client whom he will get or what his status or experience will be. That is the situation at the present time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are other things which it is hard to explain to the client, too. I remember a case I appeared in at the Old Bailey two years ago, in which I got the jury to disagree on a charge of murder in the first trial. In the second trial the man was convicted, and he wrote to his solicitor complaining that in the first trial I had made a speech for two hours and in the second only spoke for one and a quarter hours. It was impossible to explain to the client why I made a shorter speech in the second case. There are lots of things that are difficult to explain to the client, but ultimately it is the interests of the client which matter and not what you can easily explain to him. However, if I may return to the point, it is obviously a case which is worthy of consideration.
Then there is the third case, the hybrid offence which could be tried in the magistrates' court if both parties and the court consented, and which in fact, either because the prosecution or the defence wanted a trial by jury, or because the magistrate said that it is too serious for a magistrates' court to try, it goes to trial by jury. I think that again is on a rather different footing, because if you have a different tribunal, one involving a jury and one not involving a jury, there is, or may be, a good case for a different advocate.
686
However that may be, what I am saying to the noble Lord is this. If he wants to give the Lord Chancellor power, as he has in all the other cases under Clause 12, to examine these matters, I certainly would consider that; or if he wants an inquiry, which I should vastly prefer, between the two branches of the profession, I should vastly prefer them to set it up themselves, but if I can be of any assistance in helping them to do so I should more than welcome the opportunity.
What I would rather ask—and this comes back to the actual verbiage of these Amendments—is that he should consider very carefully whether it is wise to pursue this matter without any inquiry, without any preliminary consideration, without the opportunity to the other side to put their case or to argue their case in public, and without any report in its favour: to pursue these things to a Division. I think we can both rather take these arguments to heart and take them away and think about them, and then we can approach one another with further thoughts in view.
These Amendments in themselves do not give an enabling power; they impose upon the law of the land the obligation, in three rather ill-assorted classes of case, to give solicitors the right of audience in the higher courts of the land. That may or may not be a good thing to do. But I would seriously suggest to the Committee that with so much at stake, with so many complex problems ahead, the sensible thing would be to hold some kind of discussion or inquiry before pursuing this dispute, which has been an unpleasant one for us all, à l'outrance. At the beginning of the debate I put this idea to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I said that I did not wish to pre-empt discussion; but I do want to suggest a course of action which I believe to be in the interests of all.
5.23 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I have listened with considerable interest, as I am sure everybody has, to the excellent speech which has been made in a humble spirit by the noble and learned Lord, although I do not agree with some parts of it. Perhaps I may also respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord that to me, as an old House of Commons man, it appeared to be a Second Reading speech rather than

687
a speech on this particular clause. I am sure that he will forgive me for putting it in that way, because we were, and are, accustomed in the Commons to deal with a specific point and, at the end of the clause, perhaps to have that type of speech. But I appreciate his reason for having made this speech and for giving us the opportunity of saying, first of all, that everybody, I think, throughout the country accepts what he has said; namely, that our system of justice as it stands is as good as, and probably better than, any that exists anywhere else. I have not the slightest doubt about that. I have visited many countries, as no doubt have other noble Lords, and have found the same thing prevailing. When we meet lawyers in other countries there is no doubt that they have a great admiration for what happens in this country so far as justice is concerned.
But surely we have now come to a stage where we are considering a new set-up. It is 100 years since this kind of problem was tackled; and again, with great respect, I say to the noble and learned Lord that there are many items in this particular Bill which could come under the heading of the kind of material to which he himself was referring, and equally could be considered to be irrelevant from his point of view but relevant from our point of view when we are considering this most important change in so far as the courts are concerned and, for example, in so far as magistrates' duties will be concerned in future. They will be sitting together with judges, apparently in a judicial capacity, and so on.
No one wants to bring a spirit of acrimony into this matter. What the Committee are being asked to do is to say, now that the system of courts is being changed, whether or not there is something which is wrong with regard to advocacy or those who are entitled to be advocates in the courts. It is as plain as that. That is what these Amendments stand for—nothing more, nothing less. And, of course, in the course of argument one must bring forward facts—the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has already mentioned some of them. Some of us are practising lawyers. It is a terrible thing if you cannot get a counsel; if they are not available, or if counsel has to be changed, or if, at the last moment,
688
counsel hands in a brief because he is either engaged in two courts at the same time or has to go to the Court of Appeal in consequence of the fact that the Court of Appeal has prior right.
Surely, we are entitled to examine this matter, and to ask ourselves without any disrespect to the Bar or to either profession this question. Is not this the time, when we are changing the system itself, to decide who should be allowed to become an advocate? I am not dealing with the question of chairmen—I shall come to that later. But I happen to be a practising lawyer. I approach this subject first as a citizen; secondly, as a person who has spent the main portion of his life in public work through Parliament; and thirdly, as a person who has been a solicitor for over fifty years, in continuous practice.
May we regard this first of all from the point of view of the citizen. Of course this is the important feature of this case. We have to be just. To the individual, the man in the street, we have to appear to be just. He does not know about the intricacies of the law. I have been a Member of Parliament, as have so many of your Lordships. We know from our "surgeries" that in the vast majority of cases when people came to see us some legal issue was involved. They came to the layman in his surgery. Sometimes he was a lawyer, and they came to him for advice. What advice was given? If he himself did not know, he either had special legal sittings by friends, or he advised the individual concerned to go to a solicitor. With the experience of being a Member of Parliament, we know—as I think every Member of Parliament knows—that on a vast number of occasions we have advised people to go to solicitors, and they have received advice.
Now may I come to the third aspect of this matter? What does the individual do when he goes to a solicitor's office? He explains his case at length. The solicitor makes all his inquiries, and he knows not only the case but the nuance of the case. He knows what is behind the person's thinking. He has the opportunity of constant contact with him throughout the whole of the proceedings. He appreciates, with his experience, what is in the client's interest, and what is not. Therefore, when it comes to the preparation of a case, although he may give

689
a brief to the barrister he cannot possibly put into that brief the whole of the information which he has assimilated in the course of his inquiries. I see a practising solicitor nodding. That is why sometimes, when you are sitting in a court, you see the solicitor becoming impatient when the barrister is pleading the case, and the barrister just pushing him off. The solicitor is in a position to explain things which a barrister sometimes cannot possibly see because he does not know the nuances of the case.
Of course the Bar has a very important part to play. For my part, if it were a question of talking about fusion I think, on balance, I would be against it, because there is specialist work for the barrister to do. A solicitor has not always the time to go into the legal aspect of the case as much as he would like. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the barrister, in so far as the law is concerned, is almost invariably a specialist. I do not say that he is always a good specialist, but he is invariably, after a time, a specialist because he goes into chambers which specialise in the particular kind of work with which he is concerned. He is as necessary as the solicitors' branch of the profession. But here we are not talking about that; we are not talking about a conflict between the Bar and solicitors. We are talking about the practical issues which confront both professions in respect of serving the public.
I do not want to carry this matter too far. I have plenty of illustrations of a very serious nature indeed in which, at the eleventh hour—and I know this from my own experience—briefs have to be handed over to a youngster who is not very experienced (and that is a great under-statement) and who has not had an opportunity of reading the case properly. That is not fair to the individual; and this is the point we are driving at. How can you cope with a situation of that sort? You may not be able to cope with it in the High Court, but let us go step by step. This has always been our method in this country of remedying a situation which is difficult. You want an inquiry. You have publicity and much more if you have a public inquiry; and in that event is not everything going to come out in fullest detail with regard to the incidents and
690
instances that I have referred to? Who wants that? The Bar knows it as well as I do. The Bar knows it as well as the solicitors' branch does.
What are we asking for here? I think most people realise that there are 25,000 solicitors, but there will not be 25,000 people who want to plead cases. However, there are some people who go into courts, particularly the younger people, and they have a flair for it. It is no good saying to a solicitor, "All right, join the Bar". I must point out to the Committee that if a solicitor who has been in practice goes to the Bar, he is eligible for a judgeship in the same way as a barrister, because the experience he has had before that time counts in so far as his eligibility is concerned. So the fact of the matter is that a competent solicitor, an able solicitor, a person who is experienced in advocacy—and many of my colleagues are experienced; they like advocacy work very much, while at the same time carrying on their general practice—is allowed to practise in the magistrates' court.
What does it all mean? If a person has never been in a court before, even if he is liable only to a fine of ten shillings or a pound, his case is as important to him as a case which goes to the High Court. Every person who comes into a solicitor's office with a case considers his case to be equally important as any case that involves very heavy financial sums. If he appears in a magistrates' court he wants a person to defend him in the same way, and with the same competence, so that his case will be properly dealt with. In fact, there are solicitors in the court who do this kind of work, who enjoy doing this kind of work, and who are prepared to continue it. If they can do this in a magistrates' court—and this is all that is being asked here: one step, and not a very big step—in the same way as a barrister can, and if the solicitor is capable of defending or prosecuting, surely he ought to be able, in those cases which are not indictable offences but which cannot be tried in a magistrates' court (there is a difference because the case which can be tried in the magistrates' court could have been finished in the magistrates' court although it might have gone to a further court), if the client so wishes, to continue with the case. What is wrong with allowing the person who knows the case to appear in another

691
court on precisely the same kind of case as he would have been able to participate in in the magistrates' court? Is there anything wrong with that? On the contrary, is it not reasonable to believe that some people who are satisfied with their solicitor would want him to continue with the case in another court?
If a solicitor has successfully carried through maintenance order proceedings in the lower court, is it not reasonable that the person concerned—his client—should want him to carry on with the case if there is an appeal? So far as I can see, that is a reasonable thing to expect in those cases—and I am trying my best to keep off anything which could be regarded as acrimony in any way. We claim that in those cases—and I think the Law Society is 100 per cent. right in this—it will help the individual: it will cost him less, and it will cost less in legal aid cases. It is estimated that as much as £500,000 might easily be saved if solicitors were allowed to appear in the Crown Court, and the public would be properly served. All we are asking here—and it is a most reasonable request—is that the public interest should be best served.
I do not understand the argument about the Bar being affected. The Bar is up to its ears with work and finds it impossible to cope. Many are placed at a disadvantage because the Bar cannot cope, and I am sure that members of the Bar want someone to help them in the same way as they want junior barristers to help. So I ask my noble friends and others on the opposite side of the House (I hope they will accept it from me when I also call them "my noble friends") to weigh up this matter in that way. It is not a political issue, nor an issue between the Bar and the solicitors. It is purely and simply an issue about what is in the best interest of the man in the street, whom we are serving.
I have never, or only very rarely, come across a case where, if a barrister has appeared for an individual, that individual has not wanted the same barrister to represent him on an appeal. I have no recollection of that happening. The person concerned wants the same barrister because he knows all about the case; and the same applies with a solicitor. What we are asking for here is not only
692
reasonable, but also highly important from the point of view of justice. By this method justice will be brought to many people who will not otherwise be able to afford the kind of legal aid which they need. Secondly, the country itself will benefit financially to a considerable extent. I hope that we shall pass these Amendments without feeling in the slightest way that anyone is being attacked. It is only a question of balancing arguments and, with the greatest respect, I believe that the argument which my noble friend put forward, which has been very poorly supplemented by myself, will persuade the House to vote for the Amendments.
5.45 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My relations with the Bar Council, and also with the Law Society, are, I hope, happy relations and I think it is important that those relations should remain good. Accordingly, I very much hesitate to take part in this debate, because it inevitably means treading on somebody's toes, but I think it is my duty to state where I stand in this matter. Let me say at once that I am very happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, particularly because I was once one of those inexperienced counsel that he found, and he gave me some of my first briefs. I am sure that there is a case for extending the right of audience to solicitors on a far wider scale than exists at the moment. It is quite clear that the resources of the Bar are stretched to-day to the uttermost. When the recommendations of the Beeching Commission come into force under this Bill, I can see that they will be stretched still more. If nothing is done it will result in the very delays which this Bill is designed to avoid.
Accordingly, if I had to vote on this Amendment alone—in other words, if it were divorced from the later Amendments that follow—I should certainly be in favour of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (A1) in the Amendment. I think there is a case for opening to solicitors the rights of audience throughout the country on appeals from magistrates, and also on the hearing of committals for sentence to the Crown Court. As those who have already spoken have indicated, a practice whereby the solicitor has to go in those matters to a counsel—not a counsel of his choice; perhaps somebody

693
of no experience at all—is a practice which cannot be defended. It is not in the public interest. There is no doubt to-day that, for that class of work, a barrister who can be briefed—if one can be found—is obviously going to have less experience than the solicitor concerned, quite apart from the fact that he will know less about the offence and less about the client.
But it is a long step forward from paragraphs (a) and (b) to paragraph (c), and paragraph (c) I would do my best to resist. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has already indicated, the cases covered by paragraph (c) are referred to by lawyers as hybrid offences, offences which are set out in Schedule I of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, and include a number of very serious offences—wounding, perjury, forgery, to mention but a few. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, an accident of venue—magistrates' court or assize and, under this Bill, Crown Court. It is provided that cases of the serious character of this type are to go forward. They will go forward under indictment and, being of this type of case, will now go before the assize judge and, under this Bill, before the High Court judge sitting in the Crown Court.
I venture to say that, at the moment at any rate, presenting a case in a magistrates' court, or before a Crown Court with the Circuit judge and magistrates sitting with him, is a very different matter from appearing in a case on indictment before a High Court judge. Having said that, believe me, my Lords, I am not suggesting that the time may not come when it will be perfectly right and in the public interest for that to happen. I am quite satisfied that at the moment it would not be in the public interest, certainly until a reasonable number of solicitors have had experience in work in the higher courts through increased rights of audience, for it to be allowed at this stage. Accordingly, if one were looking at this Amendment alone, divorced from the Amendments which follow later, I would be in favour of it, subject to the deletion, by way of a further Amendment, of paragraph (c).
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I suppose that anyone who has come from the Bar to the Woolsack, when he reaches that
694
position starts thinking primarily of the Bar; but it does not take long for him to realise that he has to take a wider view and to pay as much attention to the interests of solicitors as he does to those of members of the Bar. In a sense, he is completely responsible for both sides of the profession. Before I reached the Woolsack I, like Lord Tangley, did all I could to foster close association and friendly relations between the Bar Council and the Law Society, to remove misunderstandings and to try to get them to work together; and I think our efforts were not without considerable success. One of the things which I was most keen upon and did what I could to urge forward was to make it easy to transfer from one branch of the profession to another, because when you are young it is so easy to make the wrong choice. It is very easy for a young man to come to the Bar and then find, after a few years, that the life and work of a solicitor is more attractive; or for a young man to become a solicitor and then find that advocacy has its charms and that he wishes to go to the Bar. A great deal has been done in that direction: it is much easier to change from one side of the profession to another, and that ought to be borne in mind when considering this Amendment.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor (if I may call him that: he is sitting on those Benches) has made, if I may say so, a most powerful and eloquent speech dealing with the whole problem of relations between the two sides of the profession and with the public interest in the matter. I do not think anyone who has been Lord Chancellor would take one side or the other; he would be governed by his views as to where the public interest lay. I am sorry that this controversy has arisen, both in regard to rights of audience and in regard to eligibility for the judicial Bench, because fear, judging by the correspondence which has been published in The Times, that it will lead to increased acrimony between the two sides of a great profession. That I should regret, and that, I think, may do considerable harm. If it does, I hope the harm will not last. I should have liked a proposal of this sort to come forward after consultation with the Bar Council by the Law Society, and after due inquiry. I thought that was the most

695
powerful part of my noble friend's speech. I do not know, but I do not think that the Law Society would find the Bar Council entirely unresponsive. The situation has changed. My own views have changed considerably.
I should like to reinforce the plea to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that he should not press this Amendment to a Division to-night, for two reasons, primarily. The first is that this Bill is bound to take a long time to get through, and I cannot think that there would not be time to make proper inquiry with the Bar into the proposals contained in this clause before it is too late to table the Amendment again, if need be in another place. It would be a pity to try to divide on this now, and perhaps carry it in the face of strong opposition from the Bar, if that could be avoided. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that, sitting as I do—until this Bill comes into effect, when I shall be cut off—as a deputy chairman of quarter sessions, I have the greatest sympathy with his proposal that solicitors should be allowed to have a right of audience on appeals from magistrates' decisions. That would be very desirable, subject to one limitation: it should be provided that it is the same solicitor.
The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has said that there was only a 50–50 chance that an appellant would get the same barrister. In these days, when solicitors are so busy and so many of them are wanted so often in so many magistrates' courts, I wonder whether the chance of getting the same partner to appear on an appeal as appeared in the magistrates' court is really much more than 50–50. But if the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, limited his Amendment to saying that the same solicitor should have the right to appear on the hearing of an appeal as the one who had acted in the magistrates' court, I myself should find that very hard to resist. In fact, if I were sitting as deputy chairman I would welcome the presence of the solicitor who had appeared when the case was first heard before the magistrates and when a barrister had not been briefed, regrettable though that might be. Equally, in the case of proceedings on committal for sentence, if, again, appearance was limited to the same solicitor, I should find it very hard to oppose.
696
But I agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that when you come on to the third category—that of trials on indictment—then, indeed, you are moving into a different region, and here, I think, the Amendment is making an encroachment on the position which up till now has been occupied by the Bar. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, is as opposed to fusion as I am, not because of the interests of one side or the other of the profession but because neither of us believes that it is in the interests of the public that that should take place. I know the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, disagrees with that, but that is his view and I hold my view. It is because I think that the third proposal goes too far and tends towards fusion that I would put that forward to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, as another reason for asking him not only to place great weight (because I think great weight should be placed) on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said but also to place great weight on what the Lord Chief Justice has said, and on the criticism that his clause as it stands is not entirely satisfactory. I would suggest to the noble Lord that after this debate—which, if I may say so, I having listened to most of it, has seemed to me to reach a very high level—it would be worth while to respond to the call made to him not to press the Amendment to a Division, bearing in mind that there will be other opportunities here or in another place.
I cannot speak for the Bar Council, but I am sure that in the light of what has been said to-day from so many quarters, and of all the comments that have been made, they would certainly co-operate with the Law Society in an immediate inquiry into this problem. How happy it would be if, as a result of consultation of that kind, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, could come forward at a later stage of this Bill, which is bound to be after Christmas, with proposals supported not only by the Law Society but also by the Bar Council.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If I may detain your Lordships for a few moments, I must first declare my interest in this Bill as a solicitor (though comparatively juvenile to those who have spoken before me, as I have not quite completed fifty years in the profession as yet) but as

697
one who can definitely state that he has no practical interest in this Bill because he is far too old to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor to any of the offices of which we are speaking. I listened with the greatest interest and attention to the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I thought he really made out a wonderfully good case for the elimination of the rights of any solicitor to practise and receive audience in any courts at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My noble and learned friend says that he did not mean to. That I am quite sure is so. It would not be his wish to remove the right of audience for solicitors in magistrates' courts. But every argument he produces against the right of audience for solicitors in the superior courts would have applied pretty well to their rights of audience in the magistrates' courts.
My noble and learned friend said that this Bill deals with the structure of the courts and not with the structure of the profession. I agree with that entirely. But where you have a Bill which is making provision for a number of new courts, surely you must also take into account the production of those who are going to man the courts, both in the Judiciary and also in the right of audience. Therefore I cannot agree with my noble and learned friend that this Amendment is in any way out of place in this Bill. He mentioned that the Beeching Commission did not have before them any evidence on this subject; but in that I venture to think that he was not quite so accurate as usual, because both the Law Society and the Bar Council submitted evidence before the Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I do not think that my noble and learned friend wants to misrepresent the situation. On these Amendments, which are confined to the rights of audience, unless I am mistaken (and perhaps he will correct me if I am) the Commission made no recommendation at all. The only recommendation of the Commission was in relation to eligibility for the Judiciary. If I am wrong I shall be happy to retract; but I thought I was right.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think that my noble and learned friend is correct; that was not quite the point I endeavoured to make.
If I may I will turn to the question of our friends in the other branch of the profession, and their availability to take on the additional work which will be involved in the increased number of cases. I do not see how they can do it, particularly if their branch of the profession is further to be reduced in its top echelon by the withdrawal of people to take up judicial posts in the new courts. I can tell the Committee that I had occasion the other day to seek advice from counsel. I submitted the papers to him; his clerk rang up and said, "I will put them before him in about six weeks." I said, "Why? I want the answer now." He replied, "He has so much work to do that he cannot possibly look at the papers for about six weeks." This is the sort of state in which we find ourselves in the profession at the present time. As the profession is organised at present, I do not believe the answer to that problem can be that there are always more young people ready to come into the profession. I heard recently of an exceedingly able, personable, suitable young man who wanted to become a barrister. I applied to the heads of one or two Chambers who were delighted to read about him and who said he was just the sort of fellow they wanted. But, they added, "we have not got room to take him into Chambers." Eventually, one said, "We have a rule whereby these young gentlemen can spend only half their pupilage in our Chambers, and they then move because we are so full." When you get a profession as crowded as that appears to be at the present time it is difficult to see what justification we have for imposing still further additional burdens on them without endeavouring to relieve them to some extent, at any rate to the extent of what is proposed in this Amendment.
Finally, as the Committee are aware, it is a fact that in certain of the courts solicitors have a right of audience where they have enjoyed it in the past. It seems to me the height of illogicality that there should be a right of audience in certain of the courts but not in certain others where they are on parallel lines. It seems to me completely logical that if a solicitor has a right of audience in

699
one court he should have it in all other courts of that grade and type. I very much hope that it will be to the pleasure of the Committee to accept these Amendments.
6.5 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I feel that the Committee will expect me to say something on the matters which have been adumbrated. I do not want to. What I want to do is to retire from public life as soon as possible. I have worked very hard all my life. I am 70, I have a pension and I do not see why I have to go on. However, here I am. I thought I ought to say something on the matters before the Committee because I am in a sense in a special position. I was four years on the Bar Council as a junior counsel before the war, and four years as a Silk after the war; and there had been a change. Before the war, there was a tendency for an atmosphere of hostility to exist between the Bar Council and the Law Society.
After the war, when we started again, we took the view that this was unnecessary, and we adopted the opposite policy. Personally, I have always had amicable relations with solicitors. We set up a Joint Council of the Bar Council and the Law Society to consider how together we could give better service to the client. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tangley, that that is the thing that matters. In addition, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary of the Bar Council and the President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Law Society lunched together once a month, and we never told our executives what we talked about. They knew that that was the position and they accepted it.
After that, having been twice elected Chairman of the Council, I had ten years on the Bar Council. I have taken part in more discussions on questions of this kind—and I have always had friendly relations with solicitors—than possibly any other Member of the House. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, I rather believe that I am the only non-academic barrister who has ever become a Peer. There are a number of solicitors in this House, and for all these reasons I thought I ought to say something on the matter before the Committee
700
I believe that the consideration we should have in our minds when considering this Amendment are substantially the same as those we should have in our minds when we consider later Amendments in the same names with reference to eligibility for judgeships. I think there are really two preliminary questions that must be considered. No non-lawyer could be blamed for not appreciating all the considerations involved. I think there are two basic questions. The first is this. In the times in which we live, and with the growing feeling about monopolies, has not the time come when, instead of having a divided legal profession, we should have one legal qualification of lawyer; and then everybody can specialise as he likes? Why should we have to have two lawyers when we want only one? Would not this be to the advantage of everybody?
The importance of the basic question is that if you answer the first question, Yes, then I imagine that you are in favour of these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman (though he did not tell us), is, I know, a very strong fusionist. Few lawyers are. He is entitled to his view. If you take this view you are in favour of this Amendment. If you answer the first question, No, a second question arises. If we are to maintain a divided profession what ought the division to be?
On the first question, may I explain the three reasons why I personally am in favour of the divided profession. The first is that the barrister and solicitor have substantially different functions. The solicitor is, in the main, the office lawyer; the barrister is, in the main, the advocate and increasingly a specialist. After all, in 99 per cent. of cases (or whatever the actual percentage is) when you do not feel well and go to your doctor, he deals with your trouble perfectly all right. It is only in a very small proportion of cases that he says, "I am afraid that you have got to have a major operation. I do minor surgery, but I do not do major surgery, and you will have to see a surgeon." Or he says, "Well, as you know, I think there is something wrong with your heart. I have done all the tests that I know of, and I have never seen a case like this before. I think you will have to go and see a heart specialist." The patient does not

701
say, "Why do I have to see two doctors when only want to see one?"
In the same way, in 99 per cent. (or whatever is the right figure) of cases when some legal question worries you, your solicitor deals with it all right. You may want to make a will; or you may want a house conveyed; or you want legal advice. It is only very occasionally that he says, "This means a High Court action: you will have to see a barrister"; or, "This is the most complicated tax position I have ever come across, I think you ought to see tax counsel." They really are separate functions.
One of the last cases in which I appeared before leaving the Bar was in the Court of Appeal. I had not been in the court below, but it was one of those cases where there was a huge pile of papers, and it had taken a very quick judge six weeks to try. My opponent for the appellant, Mr. John Foster, talked for three weeks before I had a chance to say anything at all. Every night I had to work on the cases which he had cited during the day. Now how could a solicitor do all that, while answering the telephone, seeing other clients and dictating correspondence? Solicitors could do a half-day case all right in magistrates' courts or county courts, but High Court advocacy is a separate function.
I remember that when I was Chairman of the Bar Council a man came to see me, and said, "I am a New Zealander; and there, as you know, we have a fused profession; we all practise as barristers and solicitors in firms of barristers and solicitors. Six years ago I applied to the Law Society to be allowed to take out my certificate as a barrister only. As this had never happened before, they took an awfully long time to decide. Of course it meant that I would not have to subscribe to the compensation fund, but eventually they said, 'Well, ail right'. So I left my firm of barristers and solicitors and set up in practice as a barrister only; and I let it be known that I was going to do only High Court advocacy, and then only on the instructions of a firm of barristers and solicitors. I did well because, as you know, where there is a fused system the small firms cannot do High Court litigation. When it comes to a trial they send you to the advocacy partner of one of the large firms, and very often the client does not come back.
702
They knew that if they came to me there would be no question of clients not coming back. I did very well, and now there are six barristers-advocacy; and as we are in court every day and the advocacy partners in the large firms are there only occasionally, they are no match for us. It is only a question of time before the barristers only get an exclusive right of audience".
I believe that has not happened yet, but I am told that in Auckland there are now six Queen's Counsel who are barristers only and fifteen juniors, and this looks like being a case of a fused system becoming de-fused; not on any theoretical grounds but simply because High Court advocacy really is a separate function.
Secondly, there is what is to me a much more important reason. I have attended meetings of lawyers of all nationalities, in Europe, Asia, Africa and in South America. They do not always think a lot of our law, but they almost always end by saying, "Your judges are the best in the world", and by paying a very high tribute to the integrity of our system of justice. I have been told (it is not within my own personal knowledge, so I will not mention the name of the country) that in the court of appeal of a country not far from ours one judge quite regularly gives judgment one way, a second judge gives judgment the other way; then there is an adjournment—and the lucrative position of the third judge (they take it in turns to be the third judge) is said to be good.
Two or three years ago two American High Court judges were convicted of taking bribes from litigants. About ten days ago I read in The Times that an American judge, having been acquitted of charges with reference to prostitution and obscenity, was nevertheless removed because he was not doing his work properly. It is so long since anybody suggested that an English judge took a bribe that nobody can remember when it was. We are, I think, in grave danger of taking this very high standard of integrity too much for granted, and I believe that this high standard is entirely due to our divided profession.
It is not, of course, that barristers are intellectually, morally or socially any better than solicitors—of course not. It is the system. From his earliest years in

703
Chambers a barrister has the ethics of the profession drummed into him. He must not discuss outside Chambers any pending cases; he can have no dealings with the clients; he must not see witnesses, except his client and expert witnesses. I remember telling an American lawyer this, and he said, I simply cannot understand it. I am a trial lawyer myself, mostly for the defence in accident cases, for insurance companies, and I always get all the witnesses together, sometimes for a whole day. If you do not get all the witnesses together, how can you be sure that they are all going to say the same thing?" This is the sort of thing that our system is designed to prevent.
In an important case—say a High Court case—you could not have a false case presented to the court unless the barrister and solicitor were in it together. It is not that the barrister is any better than the solicitor. But as he does not touch the clients' money he cannot embezzle it. He is protected at all points; and because barristers work together in Chambers, and lunch together in Hall, the good opinion of other barristers matters a lot more to a barrister than the good opinion of other solicitors matters to a solicitor. The barrister has no call to go wrong because it would not pay him to get up to tricks. His colleagues would know, and then the judges would know; and judges themselves are men who all their lives have lived under this very strict ethical system. This, I think, is shown by what happens elsewhere.
LORD GOODMAN: Before the noble and learned Lord continues, I wonder whether I might ask him one question. We are discussing an Amendment to give a limited right of audience to solicitors. He is quoting examples of appalling behaviour in other parts of the world. Is he seriously suggesting that if we accept this Amendment that will happen in this country; that judges who are drawn from the ranks of solicitors will thereby subborn witnesses, become guilty of offences relating to prostitution, and generally behave in so discreditable a fashion that they would not be entitled to be bootblacks, let alone barristers?
LORD GARDINER: No, of course not. But I think that the very first question
704
to decide is whether or not we are in favour of a fused system. If we are, then I quite agree—
LORD GOODMAN: I am compelled to ask the noble and learned Lord why he cited the instances of behaviour in other countries, and what relevance of any kind they have in this matter?
LORD GARDINER: For the very reason that I mentioned: namely, I am persuaded that our high standard of integrity is largely due to the fact that we have a divided profession and not a fused one. The difficulty is to find a fused system. Mr. E. J. Cohn, a lawyer, who has been a member of the English Bar, but who was a judge in Germany and an acknowledged authority on comparative European law, has pointed out that in the four large countries of Western Europe none has an undivided legal profession. He writes:
"In France, West Germany and Spain it is split more often and no less deeply than in Britain. The drafting of documents, probate work and a good many other types of professional activities are largely in the hands of notaries, who either form a separate profession or are civil servants."
Then he deals with each country separately.
The one country where there is fusion is the United States. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred already to observations made by Mr. Dewey and by Mr. Wellman of the New York Bar. I should like in addition, if I may, to refer to a witness who I suppose is a reliable one; namely, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Three years ago he delivered a lecture to the Association of Trial Lawyers in his country and in the course of the lecture he said this:
"From more than 20 years of active practice, only part of which was in the court room, and for more than ten years on the Bench I think I have gained a fairly reasonable and representative view of what goes on in court rooms. When I first reached some tentative conclusions some years ago my appraisal of court room performance was so low that I began to check it with lawyers and judges in various parts of the country as I attended meetings to see whether I had misjudged.
"From time to time, for example, in meetings with judges, I would ask what proportion of the cases tried before them were properly presented. The highest figure ever stated was 25 per cent.; the lowest was 10 per cent. From that general and sweeping proposition, I began

705
to probe for the specific reasons why trial judges—the best available observers—took such a dim view of the performance of lawyers in the courts. The answers covered the entire range of the acts performed in the court room.
"On the most favourable view expressed, 75 per cent. of the lawyers appearing in the court room were deficient by reason of poor preparation, inability to frame questions properly, lack of ability to conduct a proper cross-examination, lack of ability to present expert testimony, lack of ability in the handling and presentation of documents and letters, lack of ability to frame objections adequately, lack of basic analytic ability in the framing of issues, lack of ability to make an adequate argument to a jury. Also very high in the list of deficiencies was the lack of an understanding of basic courtroom manners and etiquette, and a seeming unawareness of many of the fundamental ethics of the profession."
Later he said:
"I do not know how many full-time trial lawyers would be needed to handle all the litigation in courts of general jurisdiction in this country, assuming they devoted their full time to trial work. England, with about one-fourth of our population, manages to do quite well with 2,000 professional barristers, who, as you know, are the only lawyers who can appear in courts of general jurisdiction, Admiralty and divorce courts. We cannot to-day make a comparative analysis of British and American litigation, even if I were competent to make that analysis. But I have spent a great deal of time in British courts and I know, as those of you must know if you have watched it, that it is a far more efficient process because only highly trained professionals are permitted in the important litigation. I believe the vastly greater efficiency of the British barrister (and I must add the greater efficiency of the British judge) enables them to try cases in much less time than we do it in this country.
"I do not suggest for one moment that the best British barristers are better than the best American trial lawyers. Not at all!The foremost trial men in this country are as good as the top level in England. But below the upper level, the picture in this country is a dismal one indeed. The performance below the top 25 per cent. in this country is not only poor in terms of those who must watch it and those who must stand or fall on the performance, but it is also wasteful. Indeed, much of it borders on malpractice. Even when the 'occasional trial lawyer' gets a tolerable result, he is likely to take five days to try a case which a competent professional could try in one day. In those five days he has pre-empted the courtroom, the time of jurors, of witnesses and a host of others."
Then the writer made some unfavourable remarks about American judges, which in the presence of the Judicial Committee I do not propose to repeat.
This is the system in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, believes and in
706
which, for the reasons I have ventured to give, I do not. If your Lordships share my view, then the second question arises: if we are going to have a divided profession, we must have a dividing line. Our present dividing line is fairly old. Only a solicitor can have direct dealings with the client; only a solicitor can have financial dealings with the client; only a solicitor can indulge in the most lucrative form of legal work, which is conveyancing. I remember that when I was chairman of the Bar Council the Law Society complained because there were barristers as well as solicitors in local government service and some were reaching the top. And one cannot be a clerk to a local authority without being responsible for the authority's conveyancing. The Law Society said that this was wrong. They said that barristers ought never to get to the top because it involved conveyancing. They were good enough to say that those who were already town clerks need not resign. But we upheld them.
On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, permitted himself to say of me—but I assure him that I took no offence; I never do; there is no amour-propre so far as I am concerned—
"Of course, he is a member of the Bar. So far as the Bar are concerned, that freemasonry will not be altered by any considerations from arty other part of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/11/1970; col. 1295.]
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord but he has made several references to views I hold. All I would say is that I adhere totally to that statement and would not alter a single word of it, and it has been more amply demonstrated by the noble and learned Lord's speech in the last 14 minutes than by anything I have ever heard previously.
LORD GARDINER: Then, if I may, I will permit myself to comment on it. First of all, we know that a Lord Chancellor is very peculiar—I do not mean the present occupant of the Woolsack—and one peculiarity is that the Lord Chancellor is Visitor to Newcastle University. When I went to open the new law school at Newcastle University,

707
there was a very fine engraved stone with the words:
"This has been opened by the right honourable Lord Gardiner, Q.C., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain."
I had to point out that they would have to alter it, because as I was not a barrister I could not be a Queen's Counsel. If what the noble Lord meant was that in former times I had practised at the Bar, and therefore on any difference between barristers and solicitors would always decide in favour of the barristers, I think, with the greatest respect, he does me less than justice. First of all, I should have betrayed my trust as Lord Chancellor, if I had not held a perfectly even hand between barristers and solicitors. Secondly, let me remind the noble Lord that I myself introduced legislation, with nobody behind me, no Committee to back it, which for the first time in our legal history enabled solicitors to do undefended divorce cases, which they had never been able to do before. That involved a straight transfer of quite a lot of money from the pockets of barristers to the pockets of solicitors—and I know that that was a serious thing to some divorce chambers. I did that because I thought it was right.
Again, it was then the law, by Statute, that if a solicitor could not get to a county court he ought to be at he had to get a barrister to appear. Here I would say, as I have told the House before, that there is a chronic shortage of lawyers. There are parts of the country where at quarter sessions there are not enough barristers to go round and solicitors ought have the right of audience. There is a deficiency of from 100 to 200 barristers, some 15 per cent. Solicitors are in a far worse position. The solicitors gave an estimate to the Prices and Incomes Board that they were 5,000 solicitors short, a shortage of between 20 and 25 per cent. Whenever I had complaints as Lord Chancellor about delays by solicitors, I always pointed out that the complainants must realise that every solicitor is overloaded and simply cannot get through all he has to do. He finds it difficult to get staff. He works all the hours he can. And there is no remedy, except in an increase in numbers, and this both branches of the profession are trying their best to achieve. I am glad to know that last year the increase in
708
the number of those going to the Bar was an all-time record.
But I was saying that where a solicitor could not get to a county court to do a case himself, it was the law, by Statute, that he had to get a barrister to appear. He could not get another solicitor to appear as an advocate. I thought that that was wrong; and that also I altered to the advantage of solicitors. I still mildly resent the suggestion that because until six or seven years ago I was at the Bar, I must always, in a difference between barristers and solicitors, take the view of the barristers. It is, after all, the client that matters, and not either branch of the profession.
May I conclude by saying that if my analysis is right, the Committee will appreciate that this question and the following one about eligibility are not to be answered by asking: "May not a solicitor make a good High Court judge or Crown Court judge?", as though, if the answer to that is, "Yes", that concluded the matter. One might just as well ask: "Might not many members of the Chancery Bar be good at conveyancing? Might not one of the silks practising in the Companies Court make a good director of his client company?" If we are to maintain a divided profession, we must have a dividing line. The Committee may not believe this, but I can assure your Lordships that two separate solicitors have said to me, in almost exactly the same words, "I do not want fusion. I am all against fusion. All I want is for solicitors to be able to do High Court cases and be eligible for High Court and county court judgeships". But that is plain nonsense, because those are the only things with which the Bar have been left.
The line tends to move in favour of solicitors and to the disadvantage of barristers. In return for the solicitors' right to be the only man to see the client, to have financial dealings with him, to do conveyancing and so forth, these are the only things that the Bar have. If solicitors had the right of audience in the higher courts, and to High Court and county court judgeships no-one would be a barrister. What would be the point of being a barrister? All lawyers would then be solicitors, because they could do anything, and we should have fusion. That is why if one is against fusion one

709
realises the importance of maintaining a divided profession, and then one must have dividing lines.
For my part, I think that we should think seriously before further altering the dividing line, except in the sort of case to which the noble Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, referred. That was outside the terms of reference of this Royal Commission. This is a Bill to see that we have enough law courts and a greater degree of flexibility in the judicial power. It was outside the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, as they themselves realised. They heard no evidence for or against fusion. They heard no evidence as to where the dividing line between the two professions ought to be drawn. Therefore, for my part—and there is nothing Party political about this, obviously—I would strongly support what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I would not myself be against a Royal Commission or Committee to consider the legal profession, but I cannot regard this Bill as a suitable place. It emanates from a Royal Commission of great distinction, with whose Report I very much agree, but who have not made any recommendation, except in relation to quarter sessions, and that is embodied in the Bill.
I agree with the Lord Chancellor that both branches of the profession are primarily concerned with service to the client but might very well consider some of these questions further. For the reasons I have ventured to give, I am afraid at too great length, my own hope is that the Committee will agree with the view put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
6.34 p.m.
LORD BEECHING: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, have both made the point, quite rightly, that the Royal Commission did not make any recommendation about rights of audience. We failed to make any recommendation for what I believe was a good reason and with your Lordships' permission I will talk about it later in connection with other clauses. It has also been said that we took no evidence in relation to this matter. But that is not true. We did not set out to take evidence systematically with a view to considering the whole question of
710
whether it should be a fused or separated profession. We did not think it necessary to do that, because it was marginal in relation to our main job of considering the structure of the courts. We realised that if we got involved in this very controversial question we should detract from the effectiveness of our other deliberations. So we agreed among ourselves that, so far as we could, and if possible completely, we would avoid treading on this stony ground. Nevertheless, we did of necessity, in the course of taking evidence on many matters, hear a great deal that had bearing on this question.
For my part, I was convinced that the question of where the boundary should be drawn should not be left to bargaining between the two branches of the profession in all details. I think that the interest of the client, which has been referred to by many noble Lords, is the main consideration, and I think it will be served only if in some matters it is decided what; the court should do, rather than have the two branches of the profession bargaining one concession against another.
I was much impressed by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said on this matter. The arguments that he used are arguments that have appealed to me strongly in the past in relation to the question of limited movements in the line of demarcation relating to rights of audience. I felt when he was speaking, and referred to the three classes of cases covered by this Amendment, that I should have been absolutely certain of the rightness of the Amendment had it been limited to the first two. But I feel that if it is to be voted upon in its present form, it will still be right for me to vote for it with the three classes of cases included: because I would remind your Lordships that already in some parts of the country these three classes of cases are dealt with at quarter sessions, where solicitors have rights of audience. So it is no good treating this simply as a matter of high principle. The principle has already been breached to that extent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he drew attention to the parallel of the medical profession, where the general practitioner sends a patient to a specialist if an operation seems

711
necessary, drew a good parallel if it is carried right through. Of course the general practitioner, if the patient has a boil or some minor disfigurement which the doctor can deal with by pulling a scalpel out of his drawer will deal with it there and then—or at least he used to do so in the good old days, although now he would probably send the patient to hospital. I think the same position occurs here. There are these relatively simple cases which it is already accepted should be heard in courts where solicitors have rights of audience and which could well be heard in other places with solicitors representing clients. While I think it is right that the Royal Commission did not make a recommendation on one particular facet of this whole question, as to where the line should be drawn, except I may say (and I hope to refer to this later) in relation to eligibility for appointment to the Circuit Bench, I personally, in common with some other members of the Commission, have a quite firm conviction that there ought to be a somewhat extended right of audience.
LORD FLETCHER: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I do so briefly only to make two comments. Listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I felt that he was devoting most of his speech to opposing any suggestion that there should be a fusion between the two branches of the profession. That seems to me to be an entirely separate matter, and not directly connected with the subject that we are discussing to-day.
Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in the course of his remarks about fusion, referred to me, I think I ought to make it clear that I have an open mind on the subject. When sitting as a member of the Evershed Commission, which inquired into the law and practice of the Supreme Courts a few years ago, of which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was a member, I ventured, in conjunction, I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, and others, to advocate that that was a matter which required a separate and independent inquiry as soon as possible. Personally, I very much regret that there has not been hitherto a separate inquiry into the organisation of the legal profession
712
as a whole. But it does not seen to me that a judgment on the particular Amendment that we are considering to-night ought to be affected one way or the other by any views that any of us may hold or not hold on the subject of fusion. Nor do I happen to believe that if the Amendment before your Lordships to-night is carried, either in whole or in part, it will necessarily, or indeed at all, lead to any closer fusion between the two branches of the profession.
Listening, as I did, to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and also my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I felt that much of what they said would have considerably more weight if there were adequate numbers of experienced counsel at the Bar. In an ideal world the public would be better served by the separate division between the two branches, provided there was an adequate number of experienced counsel who were able, as and when required, and without delay, to protect the interests of the client. As the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, has just reminded your Lordships, and as the Report of the Royal Commission shows, a good deal of evidence was given to the Royal Commission to the effect that there is an acute shortage of suitable counsel, not only at quarter sessions in the more remote towns, but also in some of the larger conurbations outside London.
Listening to this debate I am left with an impression that I should like to record. Whatever may be said about the wider principles involved, I am convinced from my own experience over a number of years that there are a number of cases arising year by year in which members of the public suffer injustice because the solicitor whom they engaged has not the right of audience, either on appeal or in proceedings on committal. There are cases in which the unfortunate person charged with an offence suffers considerable injustice because there is no counsel available, either with adequate experience or with adequate time at his disposal, to look after the interests of that particular individual. That injustice can be cured only if, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice suggested just now, with, as I understand it, support from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the present right of audience of

713
solicitors is extended to the hearing of an appeal from the magistrates' court and to proceedings on committal.
I hope that, in view of all the evidence before your Lordships' House, and the speeches that have been made, effect will be given to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Amendment. I am not sufficiently familiar with the procedure in your House to know how that result can be achieved, in view of the fact that some of your Lordships may be willing to support the suggestions with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b), but not with regard to paragraph (c). But that is a procedural matter on which I have no doubt we shall have experienced advice.
LORD SEGAL: I rise with great hesitation, particularly at this stage of the debate, merely to put in a plea that this Amendment as between solicitors and barristers ought to be considered entirely on its own merits, and to say that not too hard a parallel should be drawn with the case of the medical profession. There are many important differences that arise, particularly where the general practitioner and the consultant are concerned. Where matters of life and death are at stake—as, fortunately, rarely happens with the legal profession—it is imperative that the consultant should have direct access to the patient, and not merely access through a general practitioner. Further, in many known instances a consultant has a right to sue for fees directly to the patient.
I am just taking at random two or three instances where this parallel does not hold good. An ordinary general practitioner, who may happen to be a ship's surgeon, without any specialist qualifications, is fully entitled to perform, if necessary, a major emergency operation on a ship at sea. In the one instance, you have the case where the patient's life may be immediately at stake. In the other, you have the time factor and other factors as to the particular locality, the relative shortage of qualified barristers, and so forth. So I want to put in an earnest plea that this parallel between the legal profession and the medical profession ought not to be driven too hard.
LORD PARGITER: May I say, entirely as a layman who tries to keep out of the clutches of both of these professions, that I hope we may have a good
714
deal more unbiased evidence as to where there should be a dividing line—if there should be one—as against the protagonist arguments of both sides on this matter. There is a case for the solicitors, and there is also a case for the barristers. It is important that your Lordships should have all the facts that are available, or that may be made available, before coming to a decision on a matter so important to the general public.
LORD GOODMAN: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, and I am only minded to make two observations. The first is that, despite the immense provocation extended to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I do not intend to reply to his speech at all, because it had absolutely no relevance to this particular Amendment. There may be other and better times for dealing with it. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—who professes to have ceased to be an advocate, but totally underrates himself—is seeking to introduce into the discussion the question of fusion. I do not regard fusion as quite the unmentionable word that some other members of the profession here do. I am perfectly happy to accept the fact that fusion is something that ought to come about. I do not believe that fusion has anything to do with this discussion this evening on either of the Amendments. I wish to state that with the utmost possible clarity. I do not believe—and I regret it—that the acceptance of either of these Amendments will bring us one inch nearer the fusion of the professions. It would be wrong if I did not say this, otherwise my support of these Amendments might be an embarrassment to my colleagues in view of the appallingly revolutionary attitude that I take on the question of fusion. That is the first point that I ought to make with as much emphasis as I can.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what he meant by his most impressive address to us. I speak as one of the signatories to the Amendment, and if the noble and learned Lord is proposing to say that there is a reasonable prospect that this matter will be reconsidered before the Report stage, it may well be that we can curtail this discussion. I do not believe that any of the portentous issues which it is suggested are involved

715
in this minor administrative change are remotely connected with it. It is a minor administrative change which will bring substantial benefits to the public. If, having heard the arguments, and particularly the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the valuable intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to offer us, not an assurance on the matter, but at least an assurance that it will be reconsidered before the Report stage, we could curtail this discussion and keep it within reasonable bounds, having regard to the size of the issue.
6.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may make one or two remarks, as this is Committee stage, and I have a second right of audience without the instructions of a solicitor, I should like to comment on the debate in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, accused me of making what he called a "Second Reading speech". I admit that I did so. The reason was an absolutely irresistable one. This debate is extremely important to all of us, as is shown by those noble Lords who have taken part in it. On the other hand, it is absolutely peripheral to this Bill. In my Second Reading speech on the Bill I did not mention this subject, except in passing, until I came to reply to the debate. I thought that it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to do so. What we do or do not do about this extremely important subject is peripheral to the Bill. Therefore, although I recognise the truth of the accusation, I think I was justified.
LORD
JANNER: Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor allow me to say that I did not say it in the form of an accusation; I merely said it because I thought that in another place it would not have been allowed to go on. I was interested to hear it was possible to do so here. I thought his intervention was excellent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord said it in his usual agreeable way. I can assure him that I took no kind of offence about it, although I thought there was an implied criticism
716
in what he said, and I thought it was a justified one, but for the special circumstances which I have tried to outline which I think gives me a confession and an avoidance here.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, were of course members of the Bar at one time just as much as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was. I think it shows that those of us who have practised at that profession are not approaching this matter with closed minds or with a biased view, but genuinely with a view to handling this subject in the manner which is most conducive to the public interest. But it is clear enough that, so far as concerns this Amendment, there is no means of taking bits of it out and voting on them to the exclusion of the others.
The logic of the two speeches from the Cross-Benches which was heard is that this Amendment will not do if you agree with those speeches; it is only if you would go what in any other circumstances I would call the whole hog that you can vote for this Amendment. But I should very much like to give the kind of assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested. I certainly do not want to appear not to give it, because it is conceivable that one could do this. But we are working to a very tight schedule in this House on this Bill. I think I could almost certainly guarantee that before the Bill left Parliament the matter could have some wider reconsideration. It is possible that we could do it in this House before Report. But this is trying me rather hard on the schedule which I have been trying to live up to.
I hope I have made it plain that the division in this Committee, if one leaves out the question of the third category of the case, is really between two alternative sets of argument and about two alternative courses of action. There are those who say, "These Amendments are relatively trivial"—I think "trivial administrative arrangements" was something like Lord Goodman's phrase—"They do not involve fundamental questions at all. Therefore, they can be decided out of hand without very much further consideration on general a priori arguments about the needs of the client and the shortage of barristers." And

717
there are those who feel with me, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that the implications of these Amendments are rather more serious than some at any rate of the proponents of the Amendments believe, and certainly than Lord Tangley believes, because he said he would not have proposed the Amendment if he thought it had the implications which some of us have seen in it. I take the view that the implications are rather more serious and that they ought to be carefully considered. That is all I say.
I think they are more decently considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, suggested, by discussion between the branches of the profession, the Law Society and the Bar Council, and other interested bodies, in the light of the things which have been said in public in this debate. Quite obviously, the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, will have a great deal of weight in forming political opinon. But, if both noble and learned Lords will forgive me, in order to have their weight they must be given time to have their impact. I should have thought my original suggestion was right, that we have a goad deal to think about as a result of this debate. I did not take the view that the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was irrelevant. He sees wide implications and repercussions in this provision. I think he is right. And he thinks, as I think—and may I say I had no words with him about this beforehand; our speeches were independently contrived although I think they had a rather similar viewpoint—that the integrity of British justice depends upon a divided profession, and therefore the point at which you draw the line between the two divisions, between the two branches, is a matter which cannot be treated lightly even at its marginal points. I do not think that is irrelevant to this.
I want to see this matter properly discussed and decently discussed without any kind of rancour on either side. I think it was a very important point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made when he pointed out that the shortage of barristers is exceeded by the shortage of solicitors. It is true that we are undermanned in the legal profession, but we are undermanned in both branches
718
and, if anything, the shortage of solicitors is worse because their shortage is not only greater numerically and percentagewise but accentuated by the shortage of typists—a disease from which barristers suffer to only a lesser extent.
I would quite frankly ask the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment to withdraw it to-day. It can be put down again on Report to see how far we have got. I repeat my offer that, if I can bring the two branches of the profession together to discuss it rationally, or if I can use my office in some way as a catalyst to encourage some form of inquiry—not a public inquiry, but an impartial inquiry—between them, in which these matters and their implications can be frankly discussed, I will do anything I can. To-day I think we have gone as far as we can. I would very greatly deplore a Division. If there were a Division, I should ask my noble friends to vote against the Amendments. But I would ask the noble Lord, on the kind of assurance I have given and the degree of good will I have tried to show, not to press the Amendment to-day, in the knowledge that he can do so on Report if he is not satisfied.
6.57 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not regard it as remotely discourteous if I press him a little. I acquit him of any prior consultation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. It is quite unnecessary. It is as unnecessary for two penguins to agree on coordinating their flapping of fins as for two Lord Chancellors to agree about what they are going to say on this issue. What I want to say is this. We have reason to entertain grave doubts about our capacity to persuade the Bar—and I accept that the Bar in this matter are in total good faith and hold their views with absolute sincerity—that this is an issue upon which there can be any compromise. I certainly do not want to aggravate feeling or exacerbate the matter by making any further comment on that.
What I should like to feel is that the noble and learned Lord will confer with his colleagues to the extent to which it is necessary, and before the Report stage give us some final answer on the governmental view. If I may say so, I think he underrates his own influence in the

719
matter. I believe that the one person he needs to persuade is himself, if I may say so with absolute respect. I think he needs to commune with himself in the evening, struggle with himself throughout the night, locate himself in the early hours of the morning, and deliver the judgment at breakfast. If he will undertake to do that, I think we shall arrive at a highly satisfactory conclusion. And if we can have an answer before the Report stage which leaves the people who are marshalled here to-day prepared to do battle, able to reassemble for a resumed battle—which we all hope will not take place, because nothing is more undesirable than that there should be public division between the two branches of the profession—this will be entirely satisfactory to us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Appearing as I shall before myself, and giving judgment before breakfast, I am rather afraid I might have a divided court or a hung jury. I am anxious to help as much as I can. I am very reluctant to declare a governmental point of view ipsissimis verbis. It would be a rather artificial point of view if I were able to produce one. That is because this is not the kind of thing about which Cabinets, I think, ought to take a policy decision if they can avoid it. It may be that Cabinets must shoulder the responsibility—they have broad shoulders—but I think it would be artificial to put Government Whips on in either House and have to force a Division against an Amendment of this importance. This is why I have rather sat a little on the fence about this issue.
If I may, I should like to put another thought into the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I know he has a profound distrust, which he has expressed, of Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors, which I can understand. We were all members of the Bar and, equally, we are all men—and I suppose noble Ladies might feel a distrust of us for that reason. But I would suggest that this Amendment in its present form is of a rather brutal kind; that is to say, it forces a right of audience in respect of these classes of case. The rest of the clause gives a power to the Lord Chancellor to declare these things open, which is discretionary; and the power would not be exercised in the event until both sides
720
of the profession had agreed. For instance, if somebody wanted to open the Oxford Sessions or the Oxford Crown Court to solicitors there would be some sort of inquiry at which both sides would be able to put their case. The difficulty of getting barristers would be established by evidence, and so on; and also the number of solicitors available.
If an Amendment in that form were moved on Report stage I should find it very much easier to give judgment in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, than to persuade myself that I can on the form of Amendment which is now proposed. I do not want to force that on the noble Lord, but I want him to have the thought in his mind when he leaves this House to-night. What I am not sure about is whether we shall settle this matter on Report, because I think all members of the Committee must face the fact that this proposal will arouse just as much excitement and interest and discussion in another place as it has done before your Lordships. And if we in this House were to throw open the right of audience, I am sure there would be a concerted attempt in the other place to put it back; and, equally, if we refused the Amendment in this House I am quite sure there would be a battle in another place. My real interest in this Bill is to get it through.
I hope that this matter can be settled out of court, and that is why I would rather not declare a Government position. I would far rather see an honourable settlement, based upon an inquiry—not a public inquiry—at which both sides could put forward their viewpoints; or an enabling clause, rather like the existing Clause 12, which would enable the right of audience to be given. But what I want to do to-night is not to take up a position from which it would be difficult for me or for the noble Lord to resile. Let us take this debate as having given us all something to think about, and let us resume this discussion on Report without definite commitment but in the hope that we can achieve some kind of honourable understanding.
7.3 p.m.
LORD WIGG: I never intended to intervene in this debate until a moment ago when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that his object I was to get the Bill through. I think

721
that is absolutely wrong. I came down here with an open mind and I moved first this way and then that way; first I thought that there was a considerable case for the Amendment, and then that the Lord Chancellor had made a point that we ought to have an examination, and I must say I share his view that it would be unwise to press the Amendment.
As we have been told, there are two sides to the question. There are those who want to fuse and those who think we should be separate. There is a grave shortage of barristers and there is no training accommodation for young men who wish to enter the profession. There is a shortage of solicitors and they have not got typists. Yet we were told, certainly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in what, if I may say so, I thought was an exhilaratingly xenophobic mood, that every legal system in the world is corrupt except our own and that ours is all but perfect. But the two just do not go together.
It seems to me that there ought to be a far-reaching inquiry, but, please God!, not an inquiry consisting of representatives of solicitors and barristers, because that really would be a "carve up", if I may use an expression which is perhaps more familiar in my other capacity. But that would be no race; it would be all carved up before we started. The Lord Chancellor has made a powerful case. He is going to report progress on the Report stage. What I think he ought to do is go back to his colleagues in the Government and say, "On the basis of the debate, which was good-tempered, far-reaching and probing, public opinion in this country has been informed that even if ours is the best legal system in the world it is a very long way short of what it ought to be and there is need to look both at the recruitment and the training of solicitors and barristers. There ought to be an objective examination to see whether, in view of the shortage of personnel of the right quality, there cannot be fusion". That should be done, not in the interest of either the Law Society or the Bar Council but in the interests of the public at large; whose interests, after all, both professions exist to serve.
If that were the point of view, it would have my support; but in this highly important and, as the noble and learned
722
Lord the Lord Chancellor said, peripheral but nevertheless far-reaching matter, for the only object of the exercise to be to get the Bill through is not right and is not in accordance with the traditions of your Lordships' House. Therefore I hope the Lord Chancellor will stick to his guns: I hope he will go away and see what he cart do with this matter and then come back to the House. At the same time I hope he will please accept the case which has been made out, perhaps unwittingly, by almost every speaker in this debate, to ascertain whether we are, not the best in the world but as good as we ought to be.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to weary the Committee but I should just like to comment on that speech. When I said I wanted to get the Bill through, it was precisely because of some of the things to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has referred. We must have this Bill if justice is to be done and we are to get rid of the legal delays, and we ought not to allow a dispute between the two branches of the legal profession about a peripheral matter to jeopardise it. I do not think there was anything dishonourable or contrary to the traditions of this House in that. I also do not want a "carve-up", but I do feel that both barristers and solicitors ought to agree to a procedure whereby their differences can be solved without loss of prestige or credit to either party. They have legitimate interests to defend and they have succeeded in evolving a system which, I repeat, is the best in the world; and they should not, by a side wind perhaps, undermine it. I agree with every word the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said.
7.8 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: When, a good many hours ago now, I moved this Amendment I did not expect to find so much interest taken in it or so many weighty speeches made about it. I am deeply grateful, as the other sponsors must be, to those who have spoken, and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
Certain appeals have been made to me as the mover of this Amendment. We had a long speech from the Lord Chancellor. It was four times the length of my speech,

723
and I suppose his client would have said that it was in consequence four times as good. I do not think so. But I had great sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, because he had obviously expected somebody to make a speech in favour of fusion: he had worked up an excellent speech against fusion, and it does take the wind out of one's sails if the mover of the Amendment takes the other line. Therefore I thought a good deal of the early part of his speech was not really germane to the Amendment that I had put before the Committee.
The second thing which struck me during the course of the debate was the weighty support which I received—and again I had no suspicion that it was coming—from the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. After all, to be two-thirds supported by the Lord Chief Justice and nearly two-thirds by the noble and learned Viscount is a lot for a solicitor. I am very grateful indeed for that support. With regard to the fractional reservation which was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I must confess that I had not contemplated that a solicitor would be given the right of audience on appeal unless he himself, or perhaps his partner, had appeared in the first court.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I did not think that the noble Lord would have contemplated that, but I think the clause as it now stands would enable it, and I pressed that as an argument for further thought on the clause.
LORD TANGLEY: That, if I may say so, is perfectly legitimate criticism, which I accept.
The main part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was couched in terms of the sweetest possible reasonableness. I was delighted to hear that, because I could have made a pretty nasty speech in moving this Amendment, and I carefully refrained from doing so. I also carefully refrained, in the interests of an amicable debate, from citing a good many facts about what really happens to clients. I had the facts all ready for use, and it there had been any echoes of any bellringing I should have felt bound to bring them out. I do not want to do it if I can help it.
724
I should like, if I can, to respond to the appeal made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I thought at times during his speech that he had something which vaguely resembled an olive branch in his hand, but I could not quite make out what it was.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: An olive branch.
LORD TANGLEY: It seemed to me to appear and disappear, and to change its shape in the course of the movement between the sleeve and desk, and so forth. If all the Lord Chancellor is suggesting is that we enter into a long discussion between solicitors and barristers, then I must say that I do not think that is a very good olive branch—for two reasons. The first is this. I do not believe that this is a matter which ought to be settled merely as a compromise between solicitors and barristers. This is a matter of public interest on which I think your Lordships' House ought to decide one of these days; and I can think of no tribunal in the world which is more suitable to decide on a question of this kind than your Lordships' House. Its Benches are crowded with people who have had long experience in public life, many of them in local government, many of them as magistrates, many of them as solicitors, many of them as barristers and judges. Where could you find a better tribunal to decide a point like this than the one which I have the honour to be addressing at this particular moment of time? I do not think that a long discussion between solicitors and barristers would be in any way a substitute for that.
The other reason why I doubt whether such a solution would be suitable is this. I have had too long and hard experience of discussions between solicitors and barristers. There was a reference to the Ormrod Committee on legal education. I started that one. I remember that when I was president of the society at London University which was graced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the other day, I started the theme of perhaps a common education for solicitors and barristers. Then we took it up. For a long time it was suggested there was nothing to discuss, and that there was not any urgency for discussing it; and then

725
the Bar discovered that they had nobody on their side who could discuss it. Two or three years were spent setting up a Senate, and then we started discussing it again. After that the Ormrod Committee was set up. So the discussion of the subject has been going on for sixteen years. Sixteen years is a pretty fair natural timetable for discussions of this kind between solicitors and barristers. But the clients I have tried to talk about, and for whom I feel so strongly, cannot wait sixteen years for justice in this matter; they must have justice given to them soon, and quickly and obviously. Therefore I do not believe that an inquiry of the kind suggested would be at all apt or suitable in this case.
We have made a great deal of progress in the course of this debate. We have had some negative progress, in that we have been able to avoid any serious exasperation with one another. We have had extraordinary progress, I think, with the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. We have had, from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I may say so, what was to me a very pleasantly, but slightly unexpectedly, kind speech. We have had other speeches with which I do not want to deal. Take, for example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I agree with him against fusion, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Goodman in favour of it. I think that that is the fairest thing I can say about that.
What does one do with this Amendment? I should like to have a decision upon it. I believe that the Committee are in possession of sufficient facts Lo come to a conclusion about this, but there is the possibility that we might consider the solution suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice; namely, that part of this Amendment is good and part of it not so good. What I should like to do, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say he is willing to do this, is to meet him—not a great body of barristers and solicitors—between now and the Report stage, to review with him the course of this debate and see whether we cannot put into this Bill at Report stage something which at least goes some way to meet the points I have made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I put a point which occurs to me? I agree with the noble Lord that discussions between the Law Society and the Bar Council on matters like education have taken an unconscionable time. I do not want to attribute blame. I should have thought it possible, if the Lord Chancellor held a meeting between the Law Society and the Bar Council, under his chairmanship, between now and Report stage, that some progress might be made. That is worth trying. Lord Tangley says that he wants to take a decision to-night. I beg him not to, because I think a decision to-night will have very serious consequences which it might be possible to avoid.
LORD TANGLEY: I of course could not have the slightest objection if, in the course of discussions between now and Report stage, the Lord Chancellor asked for the assistance of a group of solicitors and barristers, as assessors, or whatever you like to call them. That would be perfectly all right. But I feel we ought to decide this matter before Report stage and not leave it to the Greek calends. Could the noble and learned Lord give me any help on that approach?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two things I would say about that. The first is that it is always a pleasure to meet the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and if he wants to see me I would prefer to meet him with, at any rate, the officers of the Law Society and the Bar Council, because I do not want to try to settle this in the absence of, if I may put it rudely, one side. That certainly could be done before Report stage, I hope. But I think the noble Lord was forgetting this. He said that there could not be a better tribunal than this House. I must point out that Parliament has two Houses, and this House cannot settle the matter at all. It can vote on the matter. It can send the Bill down to the other House in one state rather than another. But unless we do this with a certain amount of general agreement we are going to have this row in the other House and have an amended Amendment coming back here. I would point out that between 16 years and the time between now and Report stage there are many intermediate stages. May I go step by step, and say that I would like

727
to meet him to arrange a meeting with the wider representation, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
LORD TANGLEY: With a view to suggesting some solution of this problem at the Report stage in this House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know when the Report stage will be; but no solution which does not command the respect of both Houses of Parliament is an agreed solution. This must be understood. I mean no disrespect to your Lordships. It cannot be settled here because we have no power to settle it. We must settle it in a form in which public opinion as expressed in both Houses of Parliament will take it.
LORD TANGLEY: I wonder whether it would be of help to say this to the noble and learned Lord. If an agreement is reached as a result of these discussions, this will be an agreement that is acceptable to the Law Society and to their spokesmen, and presumably acceptable to the Government. In that eventuality, surely there would be no question of there being any possible opposition to that agreement in another place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord underestimates the capacity of the other place to oppose.
LORD TANGLEY: I think perhaps the noble and learned Lord also underestimates the willingness of your Lordships to form an opinion and to express it. If the noble and learned Lord is willing to meet me on the terms that he has suggested, with a view to trying to produce some solution which we can recommend to this House before the Report stage, certainly I should not reject that as an olive branch. I would certainly join in such a discussion, and in order to facilitate it I would not press this Amendment to a Division. But I first want to be quite sure what I am getting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord is getting is a meeting in good faith, on the basis that I wish to find an honourable settlement of this problem as soon as possible. I cannot give a date line, because obviously other people have to be consulted and another House has to express its opinion. But I will do my best. That is all I can do.
LORD TANGLEY: On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. May I say now that I never intended to press it to a Division, for the good and sufficient reason that I did not think that the Committee could come to a proper conclusion unless they had decided on this and on the Amendment to Clause 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 21, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (A1) of this section,").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether we might now curtail this discussion, in view of the arrangements that have been made, by agreeing for practical purposes to withdraw all the controversial Amendments. It does not seem to me to make any sense to have a long debate on the question of the eligibility of solicitors, following upon the undertaking by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if that undertaking will apply as well as to the other matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My undertaking is a general one. I shall be grateful if noble Lords do not move the Amendments unless there is something that they particularly want to say upon them.
LORD GOODMAN: In that event, may I say at this stage that I shall not move any of the Amendments standing in my name and in the names of my colleagues, until we are driven to come back again, which I hope will not be necessary.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I want to ask one question in regard to Clause 12, and in case the debate takes a long time I had better say that I have no intention of dividing upon it. Under Clause 12 the Lord Chancellor has power to give directions about right of audience. It is, I think, the case at present that if sessions become open they are open for ever—they cannot be closed again. I am only asking the Lord Chancellor this. Would this clause give him power to make a temporary order giving a right of

729
audience to solicitors, or is it a power which can only be exercised once and for all? I should have thought it desirable, if the power was not wide enough, to make sure that it was a temporary power, for this reason: that if it was a power that could only be exercised once and for all, the Lord Chancellor might feel more reluctant to exercise it than if he could exercise it provisionally for a period. I do not think the point is covered by the Bill. Perhaps he would look at it. May I ask this further question? In view of the lateness of the hour, is it proposed to carry on with this Bill much further to-night?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As regards my noble friend's second question, it will be entirely a matter for the Committee and for those who are more familiar with our operations than I am. I want to go on as far as possible, but not to strain the patience of the Committee unduly. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said about his subsequent Amendments, I hope that we can make a little progress. I take the noble and learned Viscount's first point. I should have thought that the clause is either ambiguous on the point as it stands, or alternatively does not give a power to revoke such a direction. I will consider this matter by Report stage. If the noble and learned Viscount would like to put down an Amendment in the direction he suggests, we can discuss it on Report. So far as I know, the power has never been revoked when it has been once exercised, and I think that those who framed Clause 12 did not contemplate that a revocation should be exercised. But it is a matter which deserves consideration.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think it is a power that lies possessed by the Lord Chancellor. I think it happens that in certain circumstances, once the sessions are opened they can never become closed sessions again. But I may be wrong about that. I will not put down an Amendment on Report—I tell the noble and learned Lord that straight away. It may be answered by the power to vary a direction. Perhaps that is the answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; the noble and learned Viscount is quite right. I am now answering rather rapidly,
730
but it appears to be covered by the provisions of Clause 54(4).
Clause 13 [Process to compel appearance before Crown Court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a minor drafting Amendment, and unless the Committee wish me to expatiate on it I merely beg to move it.
Amendment moved:
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(a)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 13 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
Practice and procedure: power to make rules
".—(1) Crown Court rules may be made for the purpose of regulating and prescribing the procedure and the practice to be followed in the Crown Court.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above Crown Court rules may provide for the procedure and practice as respects appeals to the Crown Court, and in particular may make provision as respects—

(a) the time within which notice of appeal is to be given, and the circumstances in which further time may be allowed,

(b) any particulars to be included in the notice of appeal,

(c) the persons on whom notice of appeal is to be served, and the particulars, if any, to accompany the notice,

(d) the abandonment of an appeal,

(e) the circumstances in which a person concerned with the decision appealed against is to be disqualified from hearing the appeal, and the circumstances in which proceedings on the hearing of an appeal are to be valid notwithstanding that any person hearing the appeal is disqualified,

(f) the amendment or repeal of any enactment about appeals to the Crown Court so far as it relates to any matter within this subsection.

(3) No rule which may involve an increase of expenditure out of public funds shall be made under this section except with the concurrence of the Treasury, but the validity of Crown Court rules shall not in any proceedings in any court to be called in question either by the court or by any party to the proceedings on the ground only that it was a rule to which the concurrence of the Treasury was necessary and that the Treasury did not concur or are not expressed to have concurred in the making thereof."
The noble and learned Lord said: I explained this Amendment at an earlier stage, on the paving Amendments, and unless the Committee wish me to go further into it, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: There is one point that one ought to comment on before passing this Amendment. This is a case where power is being taken by Crown Court rules in regard to:
"the amendment or repeal of any enactment about appeals to the Crown Court so far as it relates to any matter within this subsection."
The appeal to the Crown Court under this Bill is something new, and it seems to me that this is taking power by Statutory Instruments—they will be prayable against, I think—or taking power by rules to amend an Act of Parliament. In the old days in the other place one always viewed a provision of this kind with a certain degree of suspicion. I have noticed once or twice that there are other instances in this Bill where power is taken to amend Acts of Parliament by rules or Statutory Instruments. It is not a desirable practice, as I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will agree. Sometimes it is necessary. A case should always be made out in order to take power to do that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to precedent, I think the same power exists in other rule-making powers as respect the Supreme Court, although I have not checked the point for the purposes of this matter. It is something to which the noble and learned Viscount is entitled to draw attention. But where you are dealing with rule-making powers and with something as complex as this, there usually is a provision of this kind because very often there are consequential amendments to the Statute Law which are implied in the change of rule. The appeal to the Crown Court is of course taking the place of the appeal to quarter sessions, and there must be a rule-making power of a general character in order to prescribe the procedure in relation to those.
Clause 14 [Crown Court rules]:
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 12:
732
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("or any other Act")
The noble and learned Viscount said: I put down this Amendment because I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question about what is meant by "any other Act". The Crown Court rules do not of course exist at present, but this seems to be legislating in futuro, as indeed was the provision to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention in the course of our Second Reading debate. Surely it is unusual in one Act to say that in subsequent Acts—because I would have thought this can be only in subsequent Acts—a particular expression shall have a particular meaning. Should not one leave it to the subsequent Act to say whether or not the language used in that Act should have the meaning in this Act, and not do it the other way round? At the moment I cannot recollect any precedent for doing it this way round in an interpretation clause. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the definition of the Crown Court rules in Clause 14(1) to the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount is right in saying that as at present drafted the clause extends the definition to "any other Act". The reason for this is that it is convenient to use the same words with the same meaning throughout a complex of statutory enactments, and it will be, and is, convenient to use the expression "Crown Court rules" to cover the rules made under this clause. I think that they will become generally known as the "Crown Court rules" in exactly the same way as the rules made under the Judicature Act are known as the "Rules of the Supreme Court".
If the Amendment were accepted, the expression "Crown Court rules" would have to be defined in all future Acts. These definitions might well differ, and confusion would result. It is thought much better to have one set of rules, known to all as the "Crown Court rules", than to have a number of different sets of rules under different Acts, only some of which may be termed "Crown Court rules" in those Acts. The clause is not, of course, binding on future Parliaments, any more than is Section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1889, which attaches a particular meaning to the expression "Rules of Court" in other Acts. If

733
the noble and learned Viscount wants a precedent, I would refer him to that section.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Retirement, removal and disqualifications of Circuit judges]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) No person appointed a Circuit Judge shall thereafter practise as a barrister or be directly or indirectly concerned as a conveyancer, notary public or solicitor or so long as he holds office as a Circuit judge act for any remuneration to himself as arbitrator or referee.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is an attempted re-drafting of the subsection on which I commented in the course of the Second Reading. The present subsection (6) seems to me a very curious provision. I will not take up time by repeating the criticisms I made of it in the course of the Second Reading. The insertion of the words "so long as he holds office" seems to imply, or might be capable of being read as implying, that he is free to do the things specified subsequently when he has ceased to hold office. I should not like any support to be given to any such impression by the wording of this particular subsection. I should have thought it clearly wrong that anyone who has held the office of Circuit judge should thereafter practise as a barrister
"or be directly or indirectly concerned as a conveyancer, notary public or solicitor."
But I must say that I cannot see that it is wrong, after he has retired, for him to act as an arbitrator, or as a referee. Therefore, I have re-drafted this subsection to make it clear that those are perfectly proper functions for him to perform after retirement, but that the ban on practising as a barrister or solicitor still exists. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The existing subsection, as drafted, is really a reprint or a re-draft of Section 6 of the County Courts Act 1959, and the policy
734
as hitherto enacted by Parliament has been that we prescribe what a judge may do while still in office, but we leave what he may do when he leaves office to the appropriate professional body. I think we should cause a certain amount of offence if we sought to change that policy without consultation. I would not in the least differ about the propriety of going back to the Bar. I think it has been accepted since the 17th century that this is not proper for High Court judges, and I should have thought the same is true of county court judges. Indeed, I thought there was a ruling of the Bar Council, and probably of the Law Society, to the same effect.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am not entirely sure how far those rulings go, but this is a matter that perhaps it would be possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider. The Act of 1959 may require revision. I do not intend to press this Amendment, but a re-draft of this language, by agreement with the Bar Council and the Law Society, may be desirable. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARDINER: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not have time to deal with the point I raised on Second Reading as to the retiring ages of Circuit judges. The provisions in the Bill are a retiring age of 72 with a right in the Lord Chancellor to invite them to stay on until 75. I merely wanted to know what was the Government's view about this. I have always thought that this is a very invidious power to have. Suppose one knows that two county court judges are shortly to retire, and that both have let it be known that they want to stay on. In that event it is very difficult indeed to say to "A", "Yes, please do stay on", and to "B", "No". I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he did not think, on considering the matter, that it would be more satisfactory to have one retiring age and to stick to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord is quite right that I did not answer his question on Second Reading. I apologise for not having done

735
so. The present Bill follows almost exactly the precedent of Section 8(2) of the County Courts Act 1959, and a number of other Acts. A few examples are the additional judges at the Central Criminal Court, the Recorders of the Lancashire Crown Courts, and the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Greater London Sessions. Quite obviously there are arguments both ways, and I acknowledge that there is force in what the noble and learned Lord has said to the Committee.
My judgment, for what it is worth, comes down marginally in favour of the present arrangement and not a rigid retiring age. It so happens that in the last few months (I hope nobody will do the necessary research) I have had to consider this matter in a direct way. Curiously enough, I found the power of enlargement both useful and, I think, equitable. One takes into account the state of a particular judge's health; the time the judges concerned have served, and other factors, and the way in which they are doing their work. It is invidious but I think, on balance, a useful arrangement.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Pensions of Circuit judges]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 16, after ("of") insert ("the Lord Chancellor and").
The noble and learned Viscount said: There is a point which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider. Under Clause 17, a Circuit judge will be paid,
"…such salary as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service."
Under Clause 18 the Lord Chancellor may,
"… recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service that there shall be paid … an annual sum by way of pension calculated in accordance with subsection (2)".
There is of course the objection, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention on Second Reading, to a reference of these matters to a Minister for the Civil Service, and I feel very strongly with him about that. It is a very undesirable nomenclature, and may tend to blur the margin between the Judicature and the Executive.
But if one comes to subsection (7) of Clause 18, I think the matter becomes even more important because, as the clause now stands, the Minister for the Civil Service will decide whether there will be any pension paid on a recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. It states that his decision on that is to be final
"… on any question arising with regard to—

(a) the application of any of the provisions of this section to any person, or

(b) the amount of any pension under this section, or

(c) the reckoning of any service for the purpose of calculating such a pension."

I really do not think that that will do. I really do not think it is right that judges, who are under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor and regard him as a father figure—
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: A young father.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Maybe young, maybe old. They differ in size, they differ in shape and they differ in many other respects. But, none the less, the Lord Chancellor is the head of the legal profession, and for the Lord Chancellor merely to recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service whether a pension should be paid to a judge, and, after the conditions for payment of the pension are prescribed in subsection (2), for the clause to go on to say that in relation to these Circuit judges the decision, not of the Lord Chancellor, but of the man to whom the payment is recommended, should be final on any question of interpretation, without any appeal, is wrong.
I am becoming lazy in my old age, and I thought that the simplest way of raising this matter was to put down the Amendment for the insertion—which I think would meet the point—of the words "the Lord Chancellor and", so that the subsection would read:
"The decision of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for the Civil Service shall be final …"
That I think would meet the case, and if they disagree then one can leave it to the two Ministers to sort it out between themselves. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I would respectfully venture to support what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under this pressure, I think I must agree to consider this Amendment before Report, but I should like to say this. The purpose of the subsection is practically identical with that of subsection (4) of Section 9 of the County Courts Act 1934, with the one qualification that, instead of the "Treasury", which I think was the Civil Service Ministry at that time, we have inserted the "Minister for the Civil Service" who is, as your Lordships know, a fairly new creation.
A formal decision under the subsection will be needed only in the event of some unforeseen doubt arising as to the intended application of the earlier provisions of the section to the circumstances of a particular case. The responsibility of the Minister for the Civil Service for superannuation schemes in the public sector generally makes it entirely appropriate that such a decision should be taken by him; although, naturally, I would expect that there would be the fullest consultation between his officials and those of the Lord Chancellor—and, if necessary, between the two Ministers themselves—before any formal decision was recorded. But I cannot really resist as firmly as I am otherwise instructed to do the pressure from two immediate predecessors. So with the leave of the Committee I will take this back and consider it again before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: In those circumstances, I gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Judges of county courts]:
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("shall be available to") and insert ("if he consents to do so, shall")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor but, none the less, very important Amendment. Its object is to preserve the constitutional position, that a judge cannot without his consent be called upon to do work other than that for which he was appointed. No one envisages that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would banish one of Her Majesty's judges to sit in a county court.
738
But in theory, at any rate, under the clause as at present drafted, a future Lord Chancellor could make a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal go and sit for the rest of his legal tenure in a county court. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I promised on Second Reading to accept an Amendment to this effect, and I am very happy to fulfil that promise.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Circuit judge or Recorder sitting as High Court judge]:
7.46 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 17, line 15, leave out ("If requested to do so by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: Clause 22 states that,
"a … Circuit judge or Recorder shall sit as a judge of the High Court … at such place and for such time as may be specified by or on behalf: of the Lord Chancellor."
I read that as being an order or direction, and I do not think it can be read in any other way. But those words are preceded by the words:
"If requested to do so by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor".
So I think it follows that that is no ordinary request, in the usually accepted sense of the word "request". The same thing surely cannot be, at the same time, a request and an order; the two things are mutually exclusive. Therefore, I feel that this matter may give rise to confusion at some time.
A recorder will receive something from the Lord Chancellor's Department in the form of a request, and he may say to himself, "Is this merely a request? If that is all it is—a request to go and take on some assignment—then, presumably, I am at liberty to point out any particular difficulties which stand in the way of my doing this, which may not be known to the Lord Chancellor's Department." Or he may say, "On the other hand, is this not really a request at all, but a direction having the support of Section 22 of the Act? If that is what it is, and the Lord Chancellor has nobody else to turn to

739
and is, in effect, giving a direction, I ought to make the best of it and not put forward any difficulties that stand in my way. I ought to go and take on the assignment." I really think that an Act of Parliament ought to call a spade a spade, and an order or direction ought not to be wrapped up in the form of a request. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this and the subsequent Amendments would be to oblige Circuit judges and recorders to sit as judges of the High Court in circumstances specified by the Lord Chancellor, without the need for him to make a specific request for them to do so. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. The clause is, in fact, modelled on the existing Section 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, whereby the Lord Chancellor may request any judge of the High Court to sit as an additional judge at the sittings of the Court of Appeal.
The point is that not all Circuit judges would have the necessary experience to try High Court cases, and so the clause as drafted enables the Lord Chancellor to select those judges who have the requisite experience. A blanket provision of the type envisaged or effected by the noble Lord would not enable this to be done conveniently. No formality will be involved in making a request, and it is unlikely that any delay will be occasioned. Accordingly, I think it can be said that the clause preserves the flexibility considered so desirable by the Beeching Commission, without any lowering of standards or any inconvenience to litigants. I do not think it is wrapping up an order as a request. The Act imposes the obligation, not the Lord Chancellor. All the Lord Chancellor does is to select the judge for the case, and this, I think, has to be done with some delicacy having regard to the case and having regard to the judge.
LORD AIREDALE: I appreciate that, having selected the judge, according to the Bill the Lord Chancellor's Department have to make a "request" to the judge. It is not really a request at all; it is an order, a direction. I think that one day a judge is going to be uncertain,
740
because there must undoubtedly be some cases in which genuine requests, having nothing to do with this clause, will emanate from the Lord Chancellor's Department, and if they are genuine requests the judges will be able to say, if there are difficulties in the way, that there are difficulties in the way. But I have made my point, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made his. I had better reconsider this matter. I think I shall be coming back to it on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The only point I want to raise with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to ask whether the powers he is taking under this clause are not a little too extensive. He says that it is modelled on a section of a previous Act. I thought it was. But with the power that he is now getting, both here and in the next clause, it might be the case that another Lord Chancellor, who is perhaps weak and subservient to the Treasury, would find himself faced with the situation that, when he wanted to have an enlargement of the number of High Court judges, the Treasury would come back and say, "There is no need for that; you can request a Circuit judge to sit for such time as you like, without any limit". The object of this clause, of course, is that he should sit temporarily and help out, giving flexibility. But the power goes wider than that. One might find a Circuit judge sitting and doing the work of a High Court judge at a Circuit judge's salary for quite a considerable time. I am merely asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at this—I do not want a reply now—to see whether some kind of limitation of the power would not be desirable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall look at it, but I do not know that I can add very much more to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Clause 22 agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I understood that we were going to get to the end of Clause 22 and that then the Committee was going to adjourn. Has there been some breakdown in arrangements?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was told the end of Clause 22 or 8 o'clock, and I was hoping that it would be 8 o'clock. However, if the Committee wants to adjourn I do not think we shall do a great deal more before 8 o'clock, although I was hoping to do a little.
LORD GARDINER: I understood we were to adjourn at the end of Clause 22 or 8 o'clock, whichever was the earlier.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that is the understanding which the noble and learned Lord had, I had far better keep it at that even if it was not the arrangement. In that event, if might be generally convenient if we now adjourned the Committee stage until Tuesday next, December 8, when we can take it after the Armed Forces Bill.
House resumed.

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 2 [Supplemental]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved as an Amendment:
Page 3, line 2, after ("and") insert ("—

(a) a statutory instrument containing an order under that section authorising the making of discharges of water at, or of discharges of water taken wholly or partly at, a place which, on the date when the order is made, is within a National Park shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;
(b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils the undertaking given by me in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, reminded us in Committee,
742
Parliament has in the past, in one way or another, taken a direct part in deciding whether water schemes should or should not be approved, both in recent years as an inadvertent result of a defect in the 1963 Act and also, prior to the 1963 Act, under the Water Act 1945. The 1963 Act, among other things, repealed certain provisions in the 1945 Act which attracted Special Parliamentary Procedure, and the general intention in 1963 was that all water schemes should in future be authorised by a Ministerial Order which would not require to be laid before Parliament. However, the 1963 Act did not provide river authorities with immunity from legal proceedings in respect of discharges of water, and it has therefore proved necessary to seek authorisation for schemes, through the Private Bill procedure, in order to obtain this immunity. As originally introduced, the present Bill would have restored the intention of the 1963 Act.
In Committee, however, it was argued, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that Parliament should have the final say on discharges involving amenity land. In reply, I made it clear that in Her Majesty's Government's view the precise proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that several categories of amenity land, particularly areas of outstanding natural beauty, should have the same special consideration and close attention as National Parks would in our view be going too far. So also, in our view, would be the suggestion that all Orders under this Bill ought to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. However, to meet what I judge to be the wishes of the House and to fulfil the undertaking given in Committee, the present Amendment provides that where a National Park is involved, but only then, an Order under this Bill will be laid before Parliament, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in bath Houses.
The Amendment that I now move covers two types of cases: first, where an Order is made authorising a discharge at a place within a National Park; and, secondly, where, although the place at which the discharge is to be made is not itself within a National Park, the Order authorises the discharge of water taken wholly or partly at a place within

743
a National Park. Paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to this Bill already requires a river authority, when giving notice of an application for an Order, to specify the places at which the water involved is to be taken. The Negative Resolution procedure will apply to discharges by river authorities and to discharges by statutory water undertakers, and other persons by agreement with river authorities under Clause 1(5) of the Bill.
My Lords, in Committee I gave the Government's reasons for preferring the Negative Resolution procedure to the Special Parliamentary Procedure for which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has expressed a preference. We believe that either procedure would be an improvement on Private Bill procedure and would be far less expensive, both for the promoters and the objectors. But although Special Parliamentary Procedure was a step forward when it was first introduced in 1945, it does involve a detailed examination of the scheme, with counsel and expert witnesses, and that is expensive. Moreover—and this is the most important part—it duplicates, in our view, the public local inquiry which the Secretary of State will always already have held. The Negative Resolution procedure, on the other hand, complements the public local inquiry by providing an opportunity for Parliament, if it so wishes, to debate, in the light of the inspector's report, the broader issues involved in the Order. I beg to move.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation of the way the Government have carried out the undertaking which they gave on the Committee stage. They probably could not have gone much further than they have in the present Bill, in view of the Long Title. I recognise also that they have shown a much more sympathetic attitude than has normally been shown in the past by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, whether under a Labour or under a Conservative Government. I recognise with sincere gratitude the increasingly sympathetic view which the Departments are taking towards control by Parliament in all matters affecting amenities. I think that in one respect the Government could go further and include other places besides the National Parks, but I recognise,
744
although I do not accept, the force of the arguments in favour of the Negative Resolution rather than Special Parliamentary procedure, put forward on the Committee stage by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I should like to take this opportunity, in digressing for just a few minutes, to draw attention to the difficulties which arise in connection with the efforts of the Amenities Society to ensure that the amenities of the countryside are defended. It may well be that part of the more sympathetic attitude that the Government are now taking with regard to Bills of this kind is the remarkable sequence of three cases where Bills, which I think in an earlier climate of opinion would have gone through without much difficulty, have been rejected. As a good constitutionalist and erstwhile Member of the other place I am glad that the actual decisions were taken in another place and not here; but we have now had a Bill which was considered very carefully here and against which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made a very persuasive speech in this House, which was thrown out on Second Reading in another place. There is the case of Farndale which was thrown out by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Perhaps more remarkable than any of them was when a Select Committee of the House of Commons did not even call upon the petitioners to state their case but came at once to the conclusion that the proposal to build a great reservoir in the middle of the National Park of Dartmoor was so obviously unacceptable to public opinion that the Preamble had not been proved.
It is therefore clear that public opinion is aroused to a greater extent than would have appeared possible even 18 months or two years ago about the need for a water policy which is not going increasingly to invade the countryside. It therefore is wise for the Government to agree that this should be amended in order to restore some considerable measure of Parliamentary control over orders of the kind that are contemplated in this Bill.
For a long time I have had on the Order Paper a Motion for "No Day Named":
"To move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider how far and in what manner matters of public policy should be allowed to affect the consideration of Private Bills in Parliament."

745
A Private Bill, as I need not remind your Lordships, is something in the nature of a petition to Parliament by one subject to have transferred to him rights which under the existing law pertain to another individual. If, in the course of the inquiry, it appears that a reservoir, for example, could with greater general acceptance be put in a different place, it is not possible for that matter to be fully considered at the public inquiry. That is quite right. It is not merely a matter of Parliamentary procedure; but it would be monstrous if the rights of some other person should be affected without full notice having been given and without a full opportunity for stating his case.
But it does emerge from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and certainly is generally accepted among those with most experience of these matters, that none of the private legislation procedure which is enforced at the present time is entirely satisfactory. The original form was the Private Bill, which was extremely costly, slow and cumbersome. Then there was the Provisional Order Bill, which had many of those defects; and I find, despite the fact that in 1945 it was thought that the Special Parliamentary Procedure was going to rectify these defects, that it has not fully done so. Therefore I now intend at some convenient time to move that a Select Committee should look into these matters. I am sure that everything that has transpired on these Water Bills during the last few years makes it more desirable than ever that the whole question of this sort of procedure should be looked at. It was the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, dealing so wisely, if I may say so, with these difficulties, which really touched off my present agitation on the subject.
There is no doubt at all that when these Parliamentary procedures were originally devised there was nothing analogous to town and country planning. The whole of that code has now been established, with very wide acceptance, as being a satisfactory system, and it may well be that we can in future devise some new machinery by which the facts and the controversial argument may be dealt with later at a local inquiry, which is relatively cheap and where the local people could appear and express their
746
views; and that the result of that inquiry would go, as at the present time, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—under whatever name he may be going at the time. After he has taken his decision there might be some kind of appeal to Parliament where they could, if they so wished, differ from the view of the Minister. This would be broadly analogous to the system of the criminal law under which the Court of Appeal, when it considers a criminal case, does not go over all the evidence and try the case again, but can look at what is on the record. In that way it might be possible to bring our procedure more into line with the new procedure under the town and country planning legislation and avoid the tedious and expensive repetition which now occurs.
My Lords, if I may mention it, the amenity society with which I am concerned is going to be involved in a bill of over £4,000 in connection with the Swincombe Bill, despite the fact that the greatest amount of expenditure will never be incurred because we were not even called on to state our case. I am sure that there is a need for your Lordships' House to look again, with the advice of those most experienced in these matters, at the whole question of Private Business legislation Orders and bring them into line with town and country planning legislation. I feel, my Lords, that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have gone a long way to meet us. I think that they are responsive to change in public opinion, and I welcome their generosity. I congratulate them on their wisdom and I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved this Amendment.
8.13 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I too should like to welcome this Amendment and associate myself with the first half of everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, about the treatment of reservoir proposals in particular, without necessarily endorsing what he said about the possible future régime which could be set up for Parliamentary approval of Ministerial decisions. I look forward to the time when that can be debated as a general proposition. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has in mind to put down such a Motion.

747
My Lords, if this Bill had reached this stage yesterday I would have said, "Amen" to the Government's Amendment and sat down. But as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has pointed out something has happened to-day; that is, the rejection by the Committee of the House of Commons of the Swincombe Bill. We have recently had the rejection of the Farndale Bill relating to the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and the Bill relating to the Hardcastle Crags Reservoir, also in Yorkshire. I suppose that one could reasonably regard those as sports or freaks of Parliamentary opinion, but with the rejection to-day of the Swincombe Bill, once again in a National Park, it seems to be becoming a habit. It seems that there is a profound switch in Parliamentary opinion and that Parliament rather likes having this control. If it exerts it with such regularity, it can only be that it thinks it ought to have the control.
The thought I wish to pursue is this: if we look at this run of three reservoir proposals thrown out by the House of Commons—Farndale, Hardcastle Crags and Swincombe—we see that two out of three are in National Parks, and would, if they had come under the present Bill, be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. But the third, Hardcastle Crags, would not. It is not in a National Park, and had it come forward under this new Bill, it would not have been caught by the noble Lord's Amendment and would not have been subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament.
I do not know what is the right thing to do, but my first reaction is that there may be a stronger case than at the last stage of the Bill for widening Parliamentary control to cover not only National Parks but also particular areas of outstanding natural beauty. I have not had time to talk about this with my friends in this place, or in another place, and consequently I have not put down a Manuscript Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment. But I think that I ought to say now that I may, if reflection confirms my first impression and if consultation confirms that this would be a good idea, put down an Amendment on Third Reading which would have the effect of maintaining negative Parliamentary control
748
over these matters in areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as in National Parks. Having said that, my Lords, I repeat that I think this Amendment is a great step forward. I very much welcome it, and I associate myself with the expression of gratitude which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has made in the direction of the Government.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, may I start by mentioning a small point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? It is that National Trust Land was involved in the Hardcastle Crags case, and therefore Special Parliamentary Procedure would have applied in that case. May I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his Amendment. I am most grateful to him.
At the Committee stage on November 19 the noble Lord, Lord Molson, voiced three objections to the Negative Resolution procedure, and he quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison (col. 1339) as having said in another place:
"The classical objection … is that it puts the burden on a private Member of keeping a House, getting his friends to stay there, and introducing, a Motion for Annulment in a House which is tired after Government business and wants to get home. That is a fair point which we have to recognise."
That objection does not apply with equal force in this House but I should like an assurance that these Orders would not be debated late at night. They are very important matters, and I ask for an assurance on that point.
In putting his second objection the noble Lord, Lord Molson, quoted Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (col. 1339):
"The other point which can fairly be made is that it is difficult for a private Member to work up the requisite technical knowledge which may well be involved."
Here again, my Lords, I suggest that this point does not apply with equal force in this House. Perhaps we have more time here than they have in another place. Lord Molson's third objection was that this House was reluctant to throw out an Order which had been passed in another place, and that indeed this had happened only on two occasions. These three points, I suggest, form quite a strong argument for having such an Order considered first in this House, if that is possible.

749
My last point is that if this House is to act as a final court of appeal on these Orders, it is essential, as I am sure we shall all agree, that the public should know that there has been an entirely free vote on these matters and that Party political pressure has not been exerted. If I may, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and whoever is speaking for the Liberals in this matter, for an assurance on this point. I would end by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his Amendment.
8.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken for their reception of this Amendment, and I am glad that it goes so far to meet the points they made at the Committee stage. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for his kindly attitude and remarks regarding the new Department of the Environment in which I serve. I hope he will understand if, on the Report stage of this particular Bill, I do not comment extensively on all the other matters that he has raised in his interesting speech, especially as we can all look forward to the further debate to which he referred.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared at Third Reading to say quite a bit about it, especially in relation to reservoirs, because what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has raised is very important.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall be very ready and willing to deal with any points relating to discharges from reservoirs that noble Lords like to bring up, at Third Reading. That is what this Order is about; but I do not believe that it would be proper to deal at that stage of this Bill with the whole question of Parliamentary procedure on Private Bills.
Turning to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised about possible extensions to the move we are making to give Parliamentary control over proposals for reservoirs in National Parks, I cannot give any undertaking or assurance that we will do more than take fully into account any proposals he makes to us about this. Of course, we will consider them, but I am extremely doubtful
750
whether we shall feel disposed to extend the Amendment I have just proposed. We feel it is possible to draw the line at reservoirs in National Parks, but once we go outside this to areas of outstanding natural beauty, landscape of high quality and areas of special scientific interest, it will become extremely difficult to draw the line.
As my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford knows, the demand for water grows all the time and has to be met by some means or other. The urgency of the matter, the degree to which water undertakers and river authorities have made a proper search, are things which can be fully considered, with models, maps and expert witnesses, at the public local inquiry. I believe that we should look at this Amendment as something which will have the effect, the retrospective effect as it were, of concentrating the minds of all concerned—landowners, farmers and all others interested—on the public local inquiry to which these Orders refer.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this is an extremely important matter, and one that concerns many parts of the country. The country of my own origin, Wales, is very much concerned with just this sort of problem. Is it enough to leave it to a local inquiry? Many of these proposals need to be tackled on a much wider scale. Is it not essential to force everyone to start thinking of where the sources of water should be, rather than rely upon a local inquiry dealing with a threat to a certain environment?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is now raising questions to which the original Act of 1963 referred, and I am not keen on being drawn into that wide field; nor do I think it right, on this Amendment to an amending Bill, to go right back over the whole ground. We are dealing now with rectifying what everybody recognises to have been a defect in the original Act. That Act took the general line (it does not apply in every case, but it applies in a great majority) that when a river authority, with or without statutory undertakers, comes forward with schemes for the taking of water in particular places, the right thing was to make those schemes the subject of a public local inquiry.

751
The purpose of this amending legislation is to get back to the original intention when the Bill was enacted, and the effect of the Amendment I am proposing is. I believe, to concentrate the attention of all concerned when the Order requires the construction of a reservoir or other works in a National Park. It does not alter the fact—and this is something which I ought to say, to allay fears which have been expressed in farming and landowning circles—that the whole case will be heard at a public inquiry. It will have the effect of improving the quality of the inquiry. Once again, I am grateful for the reception given to this Amendment. I hope that noble Lords will not press me to go into all the matters which were raised. I look forward to hearing anything further said on Third Reading.

RESTRICTION ON AGREEMENTS (ESTATE AGENTS) ORDER 1970
8.27 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN) rose to move, that the Restriction on Agreements (Estate Agents) Order 1970 laid before the House on November 18 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to start with an apology for the comparative shortness of notice that has been given to the House that we should be taking this Order this evening. The Motion was tabled last Tuesday, on December 1, and this means that most noble Lords would not have seen it on the Order Paper until this morning. Technically this was adequate notice, but I am well aware that in practice it only amounts to short notice.
One reason for this is that the Order in question is what is known as a 28-day Order—that is to say, one which is made on a certain date, laid before Parliament on another date, comes into operation maybe on yet another date—in this instance, on November 20, so the Order is already operative, but lapses unless it is approved by both Houses within 28 days of the date of making. Since the Order was made on November 10, the 28-day period expires on Monday, December 7, a day on which the House
752
is not sitting. Therefore, the last day on which we can take this Order is to-day. The position is further complicated by the fact that, although the Order was laid before your Lordships' House as long ago as November 18, Private Bills Standing Order No. 261 makes it impossible to take a Motion about an Order until the Standing Orders Committee of your Lordships' House have reported on that Order. As your Lordships will be aware, the Standing Orders Committee did not meet to consider the Order until Thursday, November 26, and the Report from that Committee was not published I believe until Friday, November 27. In the event, the Committee have not made any report of substance upon the Order. They have not commented upon it. Nevertheless, I wish to apologise to the House both for the shortness of notice and for having to take this Order at this late hour.
This Order renders unlawful collective agreements which give rise to the practice of charging fees at standard rates in connection with the sale and purchase of unfurnished houses. The Order came into force on November 20. Where such arrangements were in operation at that date they must be brought to an end before June 30, 1971. The Order is made under Section 3 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965. It gives effect to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission, with one dissentient, in their Report on the Supply of Certain Services by Estate Agents (published in February, 1969) that such arrangements operated against the public interest and should be discontinued; that is, the services which have been provided by persons acting as estate agents in connection with the acquisition and disposal of unfurnished dwellings.
In reaching this conclusion the Commission said that the arguments advanced for charging estate agents fees at standard rates appeared to carry no more weight than those in the past advanced for avoiding price competition in the supply of goods. The disadvantages were very similar. The Commission considered that the charging of fees at standard rates meant that at least in some cases fees were likely to be higher than they otherwise would be; that resources were likely to be wasted; that the incentive to introduce or experiment with new methods

753
was likely to be reduced; and that the customer was denied the option of a lower price if he did not want the full service which went with the standard price.
The Commission's recommendations have been the subject of very full discussion since the Report was published between the agents' national societies and the previous and the present Government. The national societies made it clear that at every stage they wholly disagreed with the Commission's judgment of their practices and they repeated the detailed arguments which they had put to the Commission to support their case.
These arguments, I need hardly say, have been given most careful consideration but the Government have reached the conclusion (as did the previous Government) that the judgment of the majority of the Monopolies Commission was fundamentally the right one and that the Government, subject to the approval of Parliament must act upon it.
The Government have also given careful thought to the form which this action should take. The national societies have always argued that the existing scales already had no binding force and at most were merely recommended to estate agents (though the vast majority chose to follow them closely). As an alternative to an Order the societies offered to make it clear to their members that the standard scales of fees had no mandatory significance and would remain in existence solely for the guidance of their members and the public. We acknowledge the spirit in which the offer of voluntary undertakings was made, but we have reached the view that this would not be sufficient to give effect to the Commission's recommendations or to bring about reasonably quickly a real change in the direction of greater competition on the basis of fees between estate agents. Besides the national societies whose members would be covered by any voluntary undertakings, there are very many local associations of estate agents and groupings of estate agents which fall outside any associations. However satisfactory a method of voluntary action could have been agreed with the national societies, we did not think it reasonable to expect that it could be applied over the whole field in a way that would be really effective.
754
In these circumstances, we see no alternative to proceeding by way of the present Order.
The Order has been so drafted as to be directed principally at those practices of estate agents which most directly limit competition. The collective arrangements it renders unlawful include those—whether or not constituted by the rules of associations—which place restrictions on the charges individual agents may make or on the terms and conditions on which they supply their services. This is analogous to action that under the restrictive practices legislation could be taken against collective price fixing agreements. The Order also prohibits collective restrictions on the extent to which estate agents are free to advertise their charges since competition in fees cannot work if estate agents are not free to let the public generally know what different fees or different services they are offering. Here, however, we have in response to representations from the estate agents excluded from the effect of the Order restrictions on clearly undesirable forms of seeking business—what I believe is sometimes described as "coffin chasing"; that is the harrying by telephone calls and personal visits of potential clients. Finally, the Order prohibits arrangements which involve the recommending of the charges to be made by estate agents. This deals most directly with the standard fee scales recommended by the national societies.
I think I should add that the Order specifically excludes arrangements relating to the fees charged where estate agents negotiate with public authorities on compulsory purchase prices—a quite different kind of activity from the bodies otherwise dealt with by the Order and the Commission's Report.
A period of grace is given for the termination of existing agreements and arrangements which otherwise would be in conflict with the Order—until the end of June next year. This is because some associations will need the time to bring about in accordance with their procedures the necessary changes in their rules and by-laws—particularly where the associations have been set up by Order.
I repeat that the Order is aimed at collective arrangements by estate agents. It will not force any individual estate agent to alter his level of charges or to

755
charge on a different basis, but it will enable an agent who wishes to change the level or basis of his charges to do so without any fear that this action would be in conflict with the obligations he has accepted to his association. Over a period we believe that the Order will lead to a greater degree of innovation in estate agency, to a wider choice for clients and the other benefits which normally flow from competition. It will tend to assist the efficient and progressive firms to reduce charges or provide a better overall service and it may bring about changes in the structure of estate agency in so far as the less efficient or less active firms fail to respond to clients' special needs.
The Government are committed to a vigorous policy of promoting competition in those sectors of the economy in which it is not at present fully effective. We shall soon be announcing our proposals for the improvement of the machinery for this purpose and the action we are now taking is in harmony with our view that competition generally is the best means of promoting consumer welfare and the efficient allocation of resources. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Restriction on Agreements (Estate Agents) Order 1970 laid before the House on November 18, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
8.37 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it is indeed unsatisfactory that the House should be confronted with so complicated an Order at such very short notice. It is a most important matter, and we feel real dissatisfaction at this short notice. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made a handsome apology in respect of it, and of course we on this side accept that apology, though I think it is true to say that noble Lords in all parts of the House would have had to run very fast to have caught up with his particular coffin, if they were to make a detailed examination of the Order as we have received it now.
As I say, it is extremely important and very complicated. We are grateful to the noble Lord for his clear explanation of so difficult a subject. We on this side of the House are familiar with, if I may put it this way, its shape and spirit. At
756
this late hour, probably the best thing to do from our side is to give the Order our blessing and approval, but in regard to the last sentence of the noble Lord's introduction I would say that we could not agree with either its shape or its spirit.
8.39 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I also entirely accept the difficulty the noble Lord has had in having to put this upon us at such short notice. I think it caught us all rather by surprise. This is a great pity, because it is an extremely important and much more controversial subject than possibly the noble Baroness indicated. A great many Members on this side of the House, and on the noble Bareness's side of the House, are seriously worried as to whether the Monopolies Commission have come to the right decision. That is why it is such a pity that we have to debate this Order at this late hour and in such a very thin House, without the weight of the distinguished people in the profession who could have influenced your Lordships.
May I remind you that this Report was not unanimous: it was a Minority Report. There are misgivings among a great many people about the way in which the Monopolies Commission collect their evidence. The noble Lord pointed out that very full discussions on this matter have taken place between the Board of Trade and its successors and the professional bodies, but those discussions have mostly been about the methods of how this should be implemented rather than about the basic premises on which the Monopolies Commission based their Report. I wonder whether the present Government are really satisfied that this evidence was properly substantiated: because I am not. I am surprised that the Government have not had second thoughts about this Order. The noble Lord referred to competition. It seems to me that he is on the wrong tack; this is entirely the wrong approach to the matter. My impression is that the Commission have misunderstood an important difference between the supply of goods and the providing of services in the way that these two things should be looked at in relation to what might be a restrictive practice.
In the provision of professional services, as opposed to the supply of goods, restriction is in some measure the essence of it. If you offer professional services

757
you must be qualified to perform them. You must have the highest standards (possibly even higher standards than with regard to the supply of goods, though I would not necessarily say that was so) and there must be some restriction of entry. There has to be experience and knowledge which you will not get without restriction of entry. This whole concept of what a restrictive practice is with regard to the supply and to the provision of services has implications with other professions. I am sorry that all the noble, extremely learned and articulate Lords who were here this afternoon are not here now, because if they do not watch out they will find their own profession at risk in this particular sphere.
The Commission have not recognised this. It was not for want of telling them—they were told over and over again. The point was put to them as forcibly as it could be, and they have not accepted it. I should have thought that this was self-evident, and I am amazed at their attitude. I know that the selling of houses is a mixture between these two propositions, the supply of goods and the provision of services. It is possibly much more commercial than professional. Nevertheless, it has a considerable professional element about it. If you do not recognise this you are going to damage that element of professional interest and you are going to end up by removing an aspect of professional advice which the public needs—and they probably need it in this sphere more than in any other one.
House purchase is the biggest single financial transaction in most people's lives; the type of transaction which most families probably go through about three times in the course of their lives. The public in this particular capacity are not only buyers of goods, professional advice and services, they are also sellers. If you damage them in their capacity as sellers, you are damaging them in that part of their material possessions which is the biggest commodity they own. I hope noble Lords will consider this point very seriously. It is not the same as being only a buyer of some lesser commodity. If you treat the house purchaser on the same footing as the buyer of a lesser commodity, and you remove that professional clement, you are going to damage the public in that aspect of their life.
758
This Order will prejudice the standards of professional behaviour and, therefore, prejudice the kind of advice which the public has the right to expect. The existing scales of fees are only guidelines; there is nothing obligatory about them, and there are no hidden persuaders, so far as I am aware. I am a member of the profession, but I have never practised. There are no hidden persuaders within the profession to try to make the fee scale obligatory. A recommended scale of fees is helpful to all parties: buyers, sellers and the professional people.
I take the noble Lord's point that voluntary undertakings are not enough, because there are too many associations outside the profession. Even so, there are certain statutory obligations that can be enforced in this matter which are a great deal stronger than voluntary ones. In the short term you may think that it will produce a reduction in the fees of estate agents. What it will do is to encourage the bucket-shop operator, the unqualified man, the man who is financially unsound, who is offering this type of cut-price agency—I do not say "cut prices"; I say, "cut-price agency". It means asking him to offer professional advice on the cheap, and that has never been very successful. We know from past experience that it damages the people who use the services.
The Consumer Council made certain recommendations, mostly with regard to financial bonds to cover liabilities, and the use of separate banking accounts for clients, which is much more useful than the mere cutting out of scale fees. One has only to look at what has been happening in the insurance world in the past year or two to see how easy it is to get into the hands of the bucket-shop operator. In the long term I am not at all sure that scale fees do not have a damping effect upon rapidly rising prices. It is more difficult to increase a scale fee than to increase a fee which is not a scale fee, or is not any kind of fixed fee. May I remind your Lordships that the existing scale charges are the lowest in the world? I was surprised when I discovered this. I was not surprised when I was told that they do not yield exactly a "killing", and the Monopolies Commission accepted that point.
I should have liked to speak at much greater length but I promised through

759
the usual channels that at this late hour I would neither attempt to divide the House nor speak at very great length; nor, indeed, do anything which might prejudice the Order. I know that the Order is in jeopardy; if we were, somehow or other, to produce a quorum, the Government would be in difficulties, because I understand that it may be impossible for them to lay such an Order again. But I do not think that that would be the right way to set about it. It is much more suitable that the Government should have another think about this matter on the lines of what I have said, to see whether they cannot withdraw it. Perhaps they could deal with the matter along the lines suggested by the Consumer Council. What is now proposed will not diminish some of the difficulties and wickednesses of the bad estate agent; it will probably increase those problems. I do not think that the Order, in the last resort, is in the best interests of the public, and I hope that the Government will have another think on this matter.
8.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to declare my interest at the outset, as did the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I am a working member of the Chartered Surveyors. In taking up the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I would say that he is not correct in saying that the Government will be embarrassed if the Order were not moved to-day. So far as I am advised, they could re-lay the Order. I am sure, however, that the House was grateful to my friend for explaining and defending the introduction of the Order at such short notice. My noble friend, being an experienced politician, will appreciate better than perhaps any other noble Lord present that, however appealing his reasons may appear, it somewhat strains his most ardent supporters to receive these Orders at 24 hours' notice.
Mention has been made of the hour. I would also mention, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has, that this Order is very controversial. It is not only a complicated Order; it is in fact a very controversial Order. As my noble friend has explained, it springs from the Monopolies Commission's Report of February, 1970. Anyone examining that Report will, I am sure, be in complete agreement on its
760
main objective: to examine the estate agency profession and to recommend ways, if any, of encouraging a good service at the lowest cost possible in the best interests of the public.
It is the conclusions and the recommendations of the Commission which have caused such bitter controversy among all the professional bodies and among quite a number of people outside those bodies. The controversy is on the ground of what the Report recommended, and of course this Order implements the Report. The controversy stands on the view, and the strong view, that both the short-term and the long-term interests of the public are not fortified by the Order. The clear issue at stake is whether or not the professional bodies should offer and publish guidelines, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggests, on fees for sale of houses passed by estate agents. Those guidelines, as we now have them, have in fact been published since 1912. Indeed, since 1922 the scales that have been published have never been increased, despite, I am told, great pressure from fellow members of my profession.
What has angered the professional bodies more than anything else is that the Report made two fundamentally wrong assumptions on which the Commission apparently based their recommendations. The first, and a simple one, is the assumption that estate agency is a business akin to a sweet shop and that it is in the public interest to be able, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, to shop around among estate agents and seek the best terms for fees, irrespective of the advice. This assumption is, I submit, a dangerous one and could cause great hardship to the public in general in the future. The reason, I suggest, is that whereas there are a number of cases where by simple comparison of values certain houses in streets and towns are known by comparison values, there are a great many cases where opportunities of development exist within the premises of a house and where only an experienced estate agent could advise a client responsibly.
I believe that, in a curious way, an estate agent is a very remarkable fellow. He is meant to have knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant; of the law of planning, of the law of compensation,

761
of the law of the Rent Acts and of the law of contract, and, on top of that, a knowledge of building construction. It is a very wide area. The essence of it all, which I support, is that the estate agency profession must keep a reasonable standard of advice. Indeed, when the noble Lord comes to reply, if he does so. I should like him to say whether it is the Government's intention at some time in the future to register estate agents and to seek that all estate agents shall have a bond against defalcation of deposits. The case against shopping around for cut-price fees is that clearly the standard of service is bound to deteriorate, and many innocent people could well lose a great deal of their capital through bad service.
The second fundamentally mistaken assumption in the Report was that the scale fees published as a guidance by the professional bodies were somehow termed mandatory. I quote from the Report of the Commission, paragraph 257:
"We are not impressed by any of the arguments advanced by the Estate Agents' Committee in favour of the estate agent fee continuing to be charged at standard rates."
It is wholly wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, to assume that these scales are mandatory. Any member of the public to-day is perfectly entitled and is at liberty to agree with an estate agent any fee he likes over the sale of a house. It is, however, frowned upon heavily—and this is an important point—by the professional bodies for a qualified firm to agree a fee way above the scale of charges unless that firm can prove it has done exceptional work. That, I believe, is the safeguard that the public will be losing.
What is the likely effect of preventing the professional bodies from publishing these guidelines on scale charges in future? The Report, in a curious way, in paragraph 251, makes a very vague statement as to the likely effects the Commission consider will occur. They say here:
"As we have said, we do not think the removal of the present restrictions would cause widespread competitive reduction of fees. There would, however, be some flexibility and consumers could be given more choice."
762
It is a very odd argument to say that, and perhaps the noble Lord, if he understands it, will explain it to some extent when he comes to reply. The professional bodies are a great deal more forthcoming. They say quite clearly in the brief they have sent round to a number of your Lordships that, in their opinion, the fees will undoubtedly go up, and the reason for this, as Lord Henley suggested, is that the present scale of fees in Britain is well below the scales on the Continent; secondly, firms have been pressing the professional bodies for an increase in fees, and will now be allowed to charge additional fees without any control from their professional body. If professional bodies are right in this, it is surely not in the public interest to abolish this limited control over the members of these professions.
The final insult in the Report so far as the professional bodies were concerned was the reason given to remedy the present mischief. The present mischief which so offended the Commission in their Report referred to the provisions under the 1948 Act. If at least one-third of all the country's estate agencies practising could be shown to be charging the standard rates, and if competition was thereby restricted, this was construed as a mischief, When one examines the statistics published in the Commission's Report they are seen to be very astonishing figures. One must remember that these figures were apparently the principal and cardinal reason for the decision of the Commission. Of the 10,000 offices which apparently operate throughout the country practising estate agency, the Commission took it upon themselves to investigate 454 cases—that is, less than 0·5 per cent. It is, I believe, this staggering lack of evidence, coupled with the minority view of Mr. Roche which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that leads one to suspect the value of this Report.
My Lords, the final point to which I wish to draw the attention of my noble friend is the almost total lack of positive consultation which the professional bodies claim took place. Whatever accusations may be levelled at professional bodies as to their restrictive practices—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has mentioned, this applies equally to our legal friends—there is little doubt (and I think the

763
Report reinforces this) that the present standard of conduct which the professional bodies have sought to keep is a safeguard to the public. The professional bodies maintain loose but effective control over their membership and all, of course, to the good of the public. With this Order passing into law, this control and the safeguard will be gone.
Despite pleadings by the professional bodies to proceed on a voluntary basis in the interest of the public good and so keep some control over their members, the Government have taken the view that control would not work. I do not agree with this view personally, despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I am sure that time will show the folly of this course.
9.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, for the way in which she has received the Order.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, it is nice that it is only the Opposition which congratulates the Government on the Order. We did not do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, and I shall come to his points later. I was going to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, that what strikes me as odd is that she objects to what seemed to us to be the major reason why this Report should be accepted; namely, that there was need for competition in prices in this sphere.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it was really within the context of the general view of the Government on that question that I objected.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Baroness accepts it in this context, it is difficult to see why she cannot accept it in other contexts, but perhaps we might leave that point for the time being. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, that of course we here recognise the professional status of estate agents. We recognise the important job that they have to do and the important job of giving advice in what, as the national societies themselves have said, is
764
the major transaction that many people perform in their lives. They may do it two or three times, but they are in effect major transactions. Certainly we have no intention whatsoever that the high standards which the national societies seek to impose upon their members, or to get their members to agree to, should in any way be diminished.
I am sure that the Monopolies Commission would not have recommended the course that they have if they thought that this would tend to diminish that adherence to their codes and their professional standards. For myself, I do not see that the course suggested will do so. I find it somewhat difficult to follow my noble friend in this, because the Monopolies Commission go out of their way to recognise, for example, that the majority of offices did from time to time depart from these scales in some or all of the cases listed—and that is referred to in paragraph 77. In other words, there is not a 100 per cent. following up of the scales, but it seems that the scales are carried out in far and away the majority of cases and in some 90 per cent. of transactions.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, does the noble Lord have actual proof of the statistics and the figure of 90 per cent.? Because this was one of the areas which came up and was a cause of the aggrieved feelings of the professional bodies.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Monopolies Commission cannot be regarded as being entirely inept at collecting statistics, and I understand that this is the figure they have given. If the noble Earl has figures he can give which will show that this is not so, we shall be glad to consider them. The point is that what the Commission really set out to do is to ensure that it is left open to the clients in general to go to those estate agents who can offer them the best service at the best terms. At the moment, this plainly is not the case, because the practice as a whole is to maintain charges.
In paragraph 242 of their Report the Monopolies Commission say this:
"As regards the method of charging, we have no ground for suggesting that the present method is inherently objectionable or that any other of the methods which have been discussed, such as the quantum meruit charges,

765
or charges of a fixed sum per sale would in general be preferable. We think it likely that the great majority of agents would continue to apply the familiar method of charging if standard rates were no longer recommended or enforced, but the way would be freed for experimentation with other methods which might prove to be more appropriate in particular circumstances."
My noble friend says, "Oh but this is a long-tried system. The guidelines have been there since 1912, and there has been no increase in the rate of the scale of charges since 1922". If I may say so, it is a little dangerous to put it that way because as the scale of charges is primarily a percentage charge quite naturally there has been a steady increase in the actual income, although not in the ratio of the charges to the price that is obtained for the house. This very fact, surely, is one reason why it may be a good idea to open the windows to see whether, after all these years, there may not be some other way of doing it. This Order does nothing else than that. It merely says that there must not be a general agreement, or an agreement between particular estate agents in certain sections, to apply certain scales of charges. The purpose of that is simply to enable experimentation to take place; and we hope that it will. No one can possibly foresee exactly what the outcome will be, as indeed the Commission have themselves recognised, and I should have thought it was right, in this day and age, with so many changes and experiments going on, to allow for some departure from practices that have existed for such a long time.
If I may say so, with the greatest respect to the national societies, I thought the way they put forward their case was extremely lucid, and it was very ably done; but I feel that they are overestimating the dangers they foresee. They foresee that prices will go up. But surely, with the effect of competition, the tendency should be to keep charges down, through the force of competition. There may even be cases where it is right that charges should go up for specific services. This may lead to a change in the structure of the charges. This may be a good thing, but we cannot tell that. This is a matter for the market to settle, and I should have thought this was entirely in line with the thinking of the Party to which my noble friend and I belong. So
766
I hope that on reflection he will reconsider this.
I am asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to ask the Government to reconsider the Order as a whole. I do not feel able to say that I would recommend the Government to withdraw this Order. In any case, it would certainly not be very well looked at by another place if I were to withdraw this Order this evening, when they are going to discuss it on Monday. So I do not think he seriously meant that. If he is asking whether we shall watch the situation very closely, I can say certainly, Yes. But it is the case that nobody expects any sudden or violent changes as a result of this Order. What it does mean is that the windows are open to competition and experimentation.
It may be true that the scale is the lowest in the world. But this is a matter that is equally difficult to substantiate; it is very difficult to make comparisons on an international scale. But that does not mean that the ordinary laws of competition ought not to apply. I could not possibly go into the details of evidence at this stage, and of course I do accept that this was a decision that was not unanimous—although I think it was a seven to one decision. As for the noble Lord's comments about the misgivings felt as to the way the Monopolies Commission collect their evidence, I can only say that I note the point, but I do not think at this stage, unless other evidence is submitted to demolish these figures, they ought to be challenged. I hope I have said enough here, while I appreciate fully my noble friend's divided loyalties in this matter in supporting his own professional association and at the same time finding that that loyalty is in conflict with support of the Conservative Party—
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, if I may interrupt, my loyalties are not divided at all. What I should like to ask my noble friend, because I think it is fundamental, is: does he say that the market forces should react also on doctors, architects, barristers, solicitors? How far is he taking his market argument?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, this was the first reference that was made to the Monopolies Commission in the area of

767
professional services. What further references will be made I cannot foretell. But he will be aware that the Monopolies Commission have recently presented a more general report, and this is at the present time being examined. But I would say to the noble Lord that, other things being equal, the same principles apply everywhere.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, the point I wanted to make is that I am not asking about the Monopolies Commission; I am asking specifically about my Party and the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in that case I am afraid that I do not quite get the point. All I can do is to repeat that, so far as the Government are concerned, the same principles in equal circumstances apply everywhere. I hope that I have said enough to convince those noble Lords who have spoken against our making this Order that this is a reasonable thing to do. They may not like it. There are many people, I agree, who do not like it; but I think that in the circumstances it is a reasonable thing to do, and I hope that I may be allowed to get this Order this evening.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I just say that, although we on this side of the House approve of the Order, I could not associate myself with the noble Lord's remarks about the rest of the Monopolies Commission and the professions, and so on.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness means by that. It was under her own Government that the general reference to the Monopolies Commission was made, and it is that which is now being examined. I quite understand that she must reserve her position. I did not for an instant mean to say that this would apply in every case, because, as the
768
Report itself makes clear, in different cases different considerations may apply.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes. I thank the noble Lord.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
9.16 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to societies and branches registered under the Friendly Societies Act 1896, to make other amendments to facilitate the consolidation of the Friendly Societies Acts 1896 to 1968, and for purposes connected therewith. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.
FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.
GREATER LONDON (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPTS, 1971–72
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPTS, 1971–72