Sitting of 17 December 1970

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

1. Income and Corporation Taxes (No. 2) Act, 1970.

2. Family Income Supplements Act, 1970.

3. Contingencies Fund Act, 1970.

4. Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act, 1970.

5. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1970.

6. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

7. Glasgow Corporation (Works &c) Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

8. Stirling County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

9. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

10. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1970.

11. Nottinghamshire County Council Act, 1970.

12. Preston Corporation Act, 1970.

13. Lindsey County Council Act, 1970.

14. Northampton Corporation Act, 1970.

15. Pembrokeshire Water Board Act, 1970.

16. Port of Tyne Act, 1970.

17. Barry Corporation Act, 1970.

18. Gateshead Corporation Act, 1970.

19. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1970.

20. Gloucester Corporation Act, 1970.

1534

21. West End Baptist Church, Hammersmith Act, 1970.

22. East Suffolk County Council Act, 1970.

23. Liverpool Corporation Act, 1970.

24. Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act, 1970.

25. British Railways Act, 1970.

26. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1970.

27. Monmouthshire County Council Act, 1970.

28. Port of London Act, 1970.

29. Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Act, 1970.

30. Bootle Corporation Act, 1970.

31. Bridge Street Baptist Church, Banbury Act, 1970.

32. Grimsby Corporation Act, 1970.

33. Oxfordshire County Council Act, 1970.

34. Reading Corporation Act, 1970.

35. Wiltshire County Council Act, 1970.

Church Commissioners Measure, 1970.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Polytechnics (Students)
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average maximum number of students, full-time and Dart-time, that she visualises in the 30 polytechnics by 1980.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The number of higher education institutions we shall need in 1980 and their student numbers will depend on future Government decisions about the development of higher education.
    Mr. Grylls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that the speech of the Under-Secretary of State at Leicester on 2nd December was a source of great comfort and encouragement to all concerned with polytechnics,

    1535
    but that there are many people in the local education authorities who are very concerned to know student numbers for planning. Could my right hon. Friend give some indication as soon as possible so that they can prepare their plans well ahead? Could consideration be given to additional polytechnics outside London, which already has three universities and eight polytechnics, and to concentrating further provision in the provinces?
    Mr. Speaker: Long questions mean fewer questions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps it might help my hon. Friend to know that at the moment polytechnic buildings costing some £12 million are now under construction and a further £7·5 million worth should start before April, 1972. This should give a good deal of extra provision.
    Mr. Alan Williams: But is it not about time the right hon. Lady stopped dithering on the whole question of future student numbers and revealed the criteria that she is using within her Department for the next 10 years? Or is she afraid to reveal her thinking on this matter until the botch-up on comprehensive education has been forgotten?
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman has done his homework, as I am sure he has, he will know that decisions on university grant places are not expected until next year, because the figures will not be in until then.

    Adult Education (Russell Report)
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to receive the Russell Report on Adult Education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): March, 1972.

    Higher Education (Courses)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total income last year to local authorities in England and Wales from fees charged in further education establishments for vocational and non-vocational courses, respectively; and what is the estimated percentage increase in charges for non-vocational courses
    1536
    necessary to achieve the savings of £5 million a year envisaged in the statement, "New Policies for Public Spending".
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Separate figures are not available. Total fee income was about £15 million. Local authorities decide which fees shall be increased.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of that reply, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unusual that a Government should state that their policies are fully considered when it is clear that they are not aware of the effects of this policy statement?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: No, Sir. These are essentially, in detail, matters for decision by local education authorities. Of course, the background to the request by the Government was that gross expenditure in this field is running at about £250 million.

    Youth Service
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement on the future of the Youth Service.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend wants plenty of time to consider her policy on this subject, but is she aware that there is a good deal of uncertainty in the youth service, particularly following the Youth Service Development Council Report last year? Could she give reassurances as soon as conceivably possible?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am happy to give those assurances.
    Miss Lestor: As the report has been in her hands since she first went to the Department, and as it has been fully discussed in the country by people involved with the Youth Service, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she realises—because the report contains a large number of recommendations, some of which are welcome by those in the youth sphere—the need for the Government to act urgently in this matter? Will she do her best to expedite a decision?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am certainly aware of that. I would only point out that the report has been in my hands for rather

    1537
    less time than it was in the hon. Lady's hands.

    Children (Home-School Transport Supervision)
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue a circular requesting local education authorities to employ supervisors on single-manned public service buses carrying five- to seven-year-old children to school.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities already have powers to employ such supervisors if they consider it advisable to do so.
    Mr. Morrison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that a new, rather worrying, factor has entered into the transport of children on public service buses; namely, the swift introduction of single-manned buses on which there is nobody to look after these small children? Is she able to give advice to parents and local education authorities on this subject?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am aware of this fact because of the correspondence I have had from my hon. Friend. I think it right to expect parents to take the prime responsibility for their children on the journey between home and school.

    School Meals
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take in the light of complaints addressed to her regarding the unreasonable action of local education authorities over the use of school premises by children eating pre-packed sandwiches for their lunches.
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take in the light of complaints addressed to her regarding the unreasonable action of local authorities which levy a charge on those children who eat sandwiches during the lunch period.
    Mrs. Thatcher: A few authorities make a small charge for the use of facilities by those who bring sandwiches to school. I have had very few complaints about this, but I will consider with local
    1538
    authority associations whether advice can usefully be given on this matter.
    Mr. Clark: Is the Minister aware that this problem will grow in future and that, for example, the N.U.T. has estimated that 500,000 fewer children will be taking school meals as a result of her decision to increase prices? Will she therefore consider this whole matter with more urgency?
    Mrs. Thatcher: This matter will be referred to the Joint Working Party on School Meals.
    Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the local education authority in Birmingham is proposing to introduce a charge of 1s. for each child who takes sandwiches to school? Will she bear in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) and accept that this problem will be accentuated after April, when more children will not be able to have a hot meal at school because of the increases which have been imposed by the Government?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have pointed out that the matter will be referred to the Joint Working Party on School Meals. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that.
    Mr. Edward Short: Would the right hon. Lady express an opinion on the legality of this charge? Is it not a fact that local authorities have no authority whatever to levy such a charge?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am advised that the charge is not illegal.
    Mr. Carter: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to my Question on charges imposed on children for eating sandwiches during lunch periods in schools, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Speaker: That is what one would call a late development.

    Teaching Council
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present position in regard to the proposed Teachers' Council.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am still awaiting the views of some of the associations which have been consulted on the Report of the Working Party on a Teaching Council for England and Wales.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister endeavour to push on with all speed to implement this desirable development? Does she agree that a Teaching Council could serve very worth-while purposes, particularly in training standards, professional co-operation and the orientation of research, which makes this a highly desirable proposal?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I appreciate the feeling that exists on this matter, and I will take decisions as soon as I have received the full representations.

    Open University
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the expected maximum number of students to be accepted by the Open University in each of the next five years.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Grant for 1971–73 has been assessed on an intake of students for the first year of 25,000 and a total number of undergraduate students in 1973 in the range 36,000 to 42,000. Annual intakes for the years following 1971 remain to be determined.
    Mr. Hardy: May we be assured that the Open University will be allowed to make unimpeded progress? May we have an assurance that it will not be used as a cheap form of education for those leaving school in the normal way?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Government decisions have been announced and will be adhered to. It is true that at the Government's request the Open University is looking into the possibility of the 18-year-olds, and I think the hon. Gentleman would be wise to withhold his criticism until he has received advice from the Open University on that aspect.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report—I am sure he has—showing that inflation is currently adding about £400,000 a year to the costs of the Open University? What action does he propose to take to protect this and other universities from the failure of the Prime Minister to honour his pledge to curb inflation at a stroke?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have no additional announcement to make on this subject today, except to point out that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question accentuates the hideous state of the legacy which we inherited.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for increasing the educational facilities of the Open University.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that if the authorities of this university yield to the pressures being exerted on them by the Government to admit 18-year-olds who cannot obtain a place in an ordinary university even though qualified, the original intention of this imaginative project will be frustrated, and this will be deeply resented by large sections of the education community?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is not a viewpoint universally accepted by those connected with the university. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to await the outcome of the advice given to the Government by that university.
    Mr. Edward Short: On what does the Under-Secretary of State base that reply? Has the Open University said that it wishes to take in 18-year-olds?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Open University is considering this, among other matters, at the direct request of the Government.
    Mr. Edward Short: At the Government's direction?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: At the Government's request. I am simply respectfully advising the right hon. Gentleman and others not to jump to conclusions.

    Museums and Galleries
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a further statement of Government policy on admission charges to museums and galleries.
    Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to be able to announce the

    1541
    results of her consultation concerning the detailed arrangements for admission charges and exemptions in respect of national museums and galleries.
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she proposes to implement her policy of charging entrance fees to museums and galleries.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My noble Friend the Paymaster-General has not yet completed his negotiations with the institutions concerned and is, therefore, not in a position to make an announcement about the arrangements.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: While I fully support a policy of admission charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]—may I ask my hon. Friend to make it clear that the system will be flexible and will allow for free days and special tickets to students, old-age pensioners and others, and that it is the intention of the Government to increase the money available to galleries so that they may reorganise and expand their collections?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Those points were fully covered by my noble Friend in the debate in another place yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that some of the preliminary advice which has been received is actually against free days; but the matter has still to be determined.
    Mr. Rose: While understanding the philosophy of the Conservative Party that the finer things of life should be denied to those who cannot afford them, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to nevertheless make special allowances for children, students and others pursuing courses who need to visit galleries?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Those are all matters which have yet to be determined. Perhaps I might point out that it is strange to find in the National Portrait Gallery this month an exhibition of Pepys drawings for which that gallery is charging a special fee of 5s.
    Mr. Strauss: As it is a legislative requirement that the British Museum should always be free and its contents freely available to the public and as a clause to this effect was incorporated in the Act of 1753, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government's pro-
    1542
    posals envisage the introduction of amending legislation? If so, will he bear in mind that when in 1923 the Government tried to introduce such proposals, the weight of enlightened opinion against them among those who would not countenance any restriction on art lovers among the poorer sections of the community was such that Baldwin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, wisely withdrew the offending proposals?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The right hon. Gentleman may have heard—if not, I am certain that he will have read—that in yesterday's debate in another place the Chairman of the British Museum Trustees made it clear that he had not yet received firm legal opinion on the matter. My only comment on the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as a disinterested observer of yesterday's debate, is that my noble Friend wiped the floor with his opponents.
    Dame Irene Ward: After the negotiations are concluded between my noble Friend and the bodies involved and before a final decision is taken by the Government, will arrangements be made for this House to discuss the outcome of those negotiations, as we have a great idea of what we want and should have a right sometimes to say what we want?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend will recognise that the decision has been made and will be adhered to. What we are now discussing is its implementation. I am sure that those who arrange business, among whom I am not included, will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the Government not have the sense and sensibility to reconsider this whole sorry matter? Although we are sorry to find that one honoured and cultured Gentleman on the other side of the House whom we had expected to support us has not done so, will the Under-Secretary accept the representations of those who know about this matter, including such eminent authorities as Lord Clark? Finally, although he and I both attended parts of the debate in the other place yesterday, will he take it that, in my view, a reading of the debate by all who take an impartial view of the matter will be that the Government suffered a severe moral defeat in the other place?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot understand why a Velasquez in one place should be more appreciated than a Velasquez in another, the second one being under the jurisdiction of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
    Mr. Rose: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Royal Opera House, Covent Garden (Grants)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement of Government policy on grants to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Grants to the Royal Opera House are made by the Arts Council. The council decides on the allocation of its grants and on subsidies to individual companies.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If my right hon. Friend can hear me through the baying of the Philistines opposite, may I ask her whether she will consider the very necessary reform of making quinquennial grants, so that standards of production planning could be raised and the standards of this important national asset be raised even higher?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have not so far considered that, but I shall put the point to my noble Friend the Paymaster-General.
    Mr. Faulds: What are the Governments reactions to the proposition mooted in the latest report of the Royal Opera House that once the fruit and vegetables have been removed elsewhere, a second smaller building should be provided in which smaller-scale productions could be put on ready for regional tours? Would not this largely offset the present Metropolitan monopoly of really first-class opera productions?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Although I am a great opera fan, we shall have to look carefully at that project in the light of the resources available. In the meantime, the annual grant to the Royal Opera Company this year is £1,390,000, which is considerably up on 1965–66.
    Mr. Maude: If my right hon. Friend is thinking of recommending a change
    1544
    from annual to quinquennial grants, will she bear in mind that the Royal Opera House is not the only recipient which would benefit, and that there are other places, for example, in Stratford-on-Avon, which could do with it, too?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my noble Friend.
    Mrs. Renée Short: As the Question is about opera, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that, while the Royal Opera House does a great deal to raise the standard of opera in this country, we have other opera companies in the British Isles which are in a less favourable position than the Royal Opera Company and need additional help from the Arts Council? I have in mind especially the Welsh National Opera Company, which have done superb work not only in Wales but in the rest of the country. Such companies need greater help from the Arts Council, and I ask the right hon. Lady to use her good offices with the Arts Council to that end.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There are considerable calls on the Arts Council's grants. There is a Question about the grant later on the Order Paper.

    Religious Instruction
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what circulars she plans to issue on the subject of religious instruction and observance in schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir.
    Mr. Normanton: I note my right hon. Friend's reply, but it will bring considerable anxiety and continuing distress to a large number of parents and to many religious institutions. Will she reconsider her decision? Will she consider also whether there is some means of resisting the continued erosion of religious faith as well as teaching in many of our schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is because of the erosion that I wish to retain the existing religious provisions in the Education Act, 1944. I think that my hon. Friend's objectives and mine are the same, and I hope that he will consider my viewpoint.
    Mr. Kaufman: On the question of religious instruction, has the Secretary of State received the letter which I sent to her regarding a request for a three-room extension to St. Kentigern's School in my constituency? Will she undertake to agree that that extension should be built?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That does not arise from the Question, and I confess that I did not have the specific letter in mind when I formulated my reply.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many projects for the improvement or replacement of primary schools will be included in the building programme for 1970–71, 1971–72 and 1972–73 respectively.
    Mrs. Thatcher: 124, 167 and 436 respectively in England and Wales.
    Mr. Lane: Projecting those encouraging figures further forward, will my right hon. Friend confirm that she hopes to get rid of the last of the Victorian primary schools some time in the mid-1970s?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I confirm that it is my aim to replace the worst of the schools built in the last century, for which there is a continuing need, over the five years of which the first is the programme year 1972–73.
    Mr. Loughlin: How can the right hon. Lady be so confident of completing that programme when she has admitted to me in correspondence that she does not even know the requirements for replacement of primary schools in my constituency? How can she determine what a programme is likely to be until she first acquires knowledge of the requirements?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman has a Question later on the Order Paper, and he will receive an answer then.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the cost to her Department of building new primary schools in Bradford in each of the financial years 1967–68, 1968–69, and 1969–70; and how much her Department plans to spend on this in
    1546
    each year from 1970–71 to 1972–73, inclusive.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the not very informative nature of my hon. Friend's reply, may I remind him that 80 or 90 of the 115 primary schools in Bradford were built before 1903? Will he confirm his right hon. Friend's promise that by 1977 all these Victorian buildings will be replaced?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that my hon. Friend will find that this is a highly informative answer, as are all answers given by Ministers of this Government.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that whatever figures may appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the City of Bradford, the figures for Derbyshire are appalling? The fact is that they have been sliced from £450,000 to £150,000 in two years. Will he therefore meet a deputation from the Tory-controlled education committee of Derbyshire, whose chairman, incidentally, has condemned this sum as being very paltry indeed?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There is, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, a Question in his name later in the Order Paper with which, out of courtesy to him, I must deal at that time.
    Following is the information:

    PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN BRADFORD

    Year

    Gross cost of building work

    £

    Started in 1967–68

    730,000

    Started in 1968–69

    153,000

    Started in 1969–70

    308,000

    Authorised starts for 1970–71

    130,000

    Authorised starts for 1971–72

    330,000

    Design List for 1971–72 which will form the basis of the starts list for 1972–73

    221,000

    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how she proposes to achieve a balance in her replacement programme of primary schools, in view of her lack of knowledge of the requirements in education authority areas; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities have provided lists of primary schools built before 1903 for which there

    1547
    is a continuing need and which are below standard. I have now asked authorities which schools they regard as most urgent for replacement or improvement.
    Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Lady will be aware that I asked her for information in connection with the date of building schools in my constituency. She said categorically that this was not information that the Department collated. If she wants to be serious in projecting a programme for the replacement of schools, it is essential that she has such knowledge. Will she initiate a study with a view to obtaining the knowledge?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman's previous question to me asked the year in which specific schools were built. I do not have that information in that form. I have a list of schools built before 1903. It is on the basis of that list that I am selecting projects, with the help of the local authorities, for the biggest primary schools improvement programme on record.
    Mr. Marks: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that many secondary schools are in the same category, and will she take the same action about them?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have given priority for improvements to the primary schools. Secondary schools will have a very large building programme with the raising of the school-leaving age.
    Mr. Short: The right hon. Lady will be aware that there is a considerable discrepancy between the figures that she has given for pre-1903 schools and the school building survey of 1962? Will she explain how she has arrived at her figures?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As far as I am aware, I am operating on the school building survey which was conducted shortly before I came to the Department. There has not been another one since.

    Birmingham (Immigrant Children)
    Mr. Gurdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice she has given to the Birmingham education authority in the matter of the large increases in the numbers of newly-arrived immigrant children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have made a further minor works allocation to provide additional school places.
    Mr. Gurden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that news. Will she have a word with her Cabinet colleagues to see how much longer these half-dozen or so industrial areas have to carry the exceptional load of all the dependants, so-called dependants and illegal immigrants continually coming into the country?
    Mrs. Thatcher: There are problems where large numbers of children require extra school provision, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to help.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that nothing under existing arrangements or future arrangements under the new Bill about immigration which is to come before Parliament, and nothing which she does herself, will prevent children from joining the bread-winners in this country, notwithstanding the difficulties which that presents to local authorities, education committees and so on? Does not the right hon. Lady deplore the remarks which her hon. Friend has just made, which suggest that the matter of illegal immigration has something to do with the statutory right of children to join their parents here?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My duty is to see that education is provided for children who are here, whatsoever their background, and we try to do that.
    Miss Lestor: Would it not be helpful if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) would pay tribute to the teachers in Birmingham and many other areas who have made such tremendous efforts and strides in the education of children from overseas? Second, does the right hon. Lady include in her review of teacher training the question of an increase in facilities for the training of teachers in colleges of education to deal with children from overseas, and an increase in in-service training, too?
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the first point, I am sure that my hon. Friend would gladly pay that tribute, and I join him in doing so. On the second point, I hope

    1549
    that the teacher training inquiry will include that.

    Student Unions (Use of Public Funds)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek powers to enable her to investigate the disbursement of public funds by student unions and student representative councils.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Department is carrying out an inquiry into the financing of student unions in further education and colleges of education. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors is doing the same for universities. My right hon. Friend will decide what action is necessary in the light of these inquiries.
    Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain students unions are allocating funds to pay the fines of some individuals which have been awarded by courts of law, and that other students unions are financing admittedly revolutionary organisations? Is not this a misuse of public funds, and will it come under the terms of reference of the Committee to which he referred in the first part of his answer?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the sort of example given by my hon. Friend, and there is no doubt that such examples will be shown up by the inquiries to which I have referred. It will then be for my right hon. Friend to decide what, if any, action is appropriate.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Under-Secretary of State remember when he was a member of a Select Committee, when we made a report on student relations? We made nelightened recommendations bearing on this question. Will he take an early opportunity to make a progress report on the implementation of that Select Committee's recommendations?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I have not forgotten those very fruitful times spent under the right hon. Gentleman's chairmanship. He may possibly have missed the fact that my right hon. Friend has already answered a Question in the House indicating her attitude to that report.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science
    1550
    if she will authorise the local authority to provide nursery schools in Leicester within the State school system.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I shall be prepared to consider any proposals which satisfy the criteria used for the urban programme.
    Mr. Greville Janner: I welcome that answer, but is the right hon. Lady aware of the acute shortage of nursery school places not only in Leicester but in all other cities with large housing estates where far more than the average number of mothers go out to work? Will she, in the circumstances, consult local authorities with a view to providing more nursery school places as a matter of urgency?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Leicester does very well for nursery school places compared with some other authorities. It has 22 per cent. of the 3–4 age group in receipt of nursery education. The problem about extending nursery school education is primarily one of resources.
    Mr. Raison: Will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to give more help where they can to play groups, which could do something to meet this need?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not responsible for play groups, which, under the previous Government, were put under the health authority, but I agree that they should be encouraged.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the Minister say what criteria she is currently using for the urban programme?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The criteria are the same as those that existed under the previous Government.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a further statement on her plan for expanding nursery schools.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her plans for nursery education.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the expansion of nursery education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: For the present our first priority is the improvement of primary schools. Nursery education will continue to benefit from the urban programme.
    Mr. Lane: In view of the great demand for more nursery education, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to close her mind to novelty but to look sympathetically at all possible ways of meeting the demand, including the kind of project recently approved by her Department in my constituency the capital cost of which was raised in a few months by voluntary public subscription?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, I look sympathetically at this kind of demand. As I have said, the limiting factor is resources. That is the only thing which is stopping the advance of nursery education.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many local education authorities are themselves very anxious to expand nursery education and willing to do this from their existing resources? Therefore, will she bear in mind that if she wants to get the best value out of investment in education, it would be good economics, if the matter is considered from that standpoint alone, to spend more on nursery education and consequently have to spend less on remedial work in secondary schools because of the failure to lay the right foundations?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I know that the hon. Lady and many of my hon. Friends are anxious to extend nursery education as fast as possible. As the hon. Lady knows, the cost is considerable. The annual cost per child in a nursery school is £140.
    Miss Lestor: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House and the public generally that she has rejected the idea of charging fees for State nursery schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have not rejected the idea, but I have no proposals to pursue it at the moment.

    High-Energy Physics (Research Expenditure)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is now the annual expenditure, both capital and current, authorised by Her
    1552
    Majesty's Government either directly through government research establishments, through the Science Research Council, from universities and colleges, respectively, and in total on high-energy physics; and what plans she has for limiting this expenditure in order to play a full part in the 300 Gev C.E.R.N. programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Science Research Council's expenditure on high-energy physics in 1970–71 will be about £20m., including the subscription to C.E.R.N. Expenditure by universities and colleges will be about £800,000.
    To meet the 300 GeV commitment the Science Research Council proposes to make reductions in the high-energy physics programme, principally at the two national nuclear physics laboratories.
    Mr. Osborn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's original decision to take part in the C.E.R.N. programme, but can she indicate what the effect of these reductions will be, because all scientists, here and in Europe, welcome the idea that the major programme should now be started?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The effect of the reductions will be that the programmes at Rutherford and Daresbury will probably be reduced.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Lady tell us what effect she expects the C.E.R.N. project will have on the employment of scientists in this country, and will she give a detailed analysis of cuts in expenditure programmes in other science areas which have been made in order to allow the C.E.R.N. programme project to go forward, so that we can assess the benefits of C.E.R.N. against costs elsewhere?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give details of other projects yet. It will be a matter for the Science Research Council. As to the other part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I do not think that there will be any substantial difference in the employment of scientists in this country. There will still need to be preparatory experiments to go to C.E.R.N.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I welcomed my right hon. Friend's answer to me on this subject last week, but may I particularly ask what percentage of the total expenditure of the S.R.C. will now be devoted to high-energy physics?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot give a specific percentage, but the proportion to be devoted to high-energy physics is expected to be reduced.

    Space Research (Expenditure)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual expenditure incurred on scientific experiments in space and application through the Scientific Research Council, universities, and other institutions for which she is responsible, respectively, and in total; how much of this is spent through the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, European Space Research Organisation, and our own launching and monitoring facilities; and if she will make a statement about her future programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Science Research Council's expenditure on space science in 1970–71 is about £9 million. Of this, £5 million goes to the European Space Research Organisation and the balance provides for the preparation of experiments by the council and universities and for launching and monitoring facilities. The council does not contribute directly to the National Aeronautics and Space Agency's expenditure. Details of expenditure through the U.G.C. are not available.
    The Science Research Council decides, subject to international commitments, the amount of its resources to be allocated to space research and the programme to be followed.
    Mr. Osborn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. This is a complicated matter, and no doubt she knows that it has been taken up by a Select Committee. Can she indicate what the forward programme is likely to be?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not at present. We shall, as my hon. Friend was assured last week, continue to make a contribution to E.S.R.O.
    Mr. Edward Short: Can the right hon. Lady say what her policy is for the S.R.C.? Is it to continue in existence? Is it to continue under her Department? What is the policy of the Government on the structure?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The structure of the Science Research Council remains for
    1554
    the time being as it was, and I hope that the council will remain with me.

    Students (B.Ed. Degrees)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Bachelor of Education degrees were awarded to students in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970; how many students failed to get such degrees in each of these years; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The first degrees were awarded in 1968. The numbers awarded in 1968, 1969 and 1970 were 208, 1,368 and 2,268 respectively, and the numbers of failed candidates in the same years, 14, 96 and 149 respectively.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the development of this degree has been, to say the least, somewhat sketchy and highly localised? Is he further aware that in the colleges there is some discontent among students at the manner in which they are drafted to the courses, and will he institute a survey?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of certain anxieties in certain quarters. I think it likely that the forthcoming inquiry will have this matter, at least in part, under its surveillance.

    Schools (Fire Precautions)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy regarding fire precautions in schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I attach great importance to the maintenance of adequate fire precautions. Safety requirements are laid down in Statutory Regulations.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many schools, particularly primary and nursery schools, are built of wooden units which are very much a fire risk? Is she further aware that combustible materials are sometimes stored against the outside walls of such buildings? Is she absolutely sure that adequate fire precautions are observed regularly in these schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I can only point out that Her Majesty's Inspectors visiting schools would normally draw attention to any obvious deficiency in the precautions taken against fire.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the key words in her last sentence were "obvious deficiency"? Is she aware that when the Inner London Education Authority recently carried out a survey it was found that very many schools were way below the standard required by these instructions, and as this is a very serious situation will she take some urgent action?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that if that was so in I.L.E.A. the attention of the authority was drawn to it, and I trust that the position was remedied.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Secretary of State consider increasing the rate support grant if the Fire Precautions Bill which is now going through Parliament means that many local authorities will have to spend more money on fire precautions because in many areas precautions are very inadequate?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Fire Precautions Bill proposes that schools shall be subject to the certification procedure. I had not thought of increasing the rate support grant. In any case, the question would be not for me but for my right hon. Friend.

    Libraries (Public Lending Rights)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will have further discussions with interested organisations about the need for a Public Lending Right Bill and legislation to enable public libraries to charge for borrowed books and to pay authors in a manner similar to that adopted in respect of musicians' performing rights.
    Mrs. Thatcher: My noble Friend has this complex matter under examination but is not yet ready to discuss it with interested organisations.
    Mr. Iremonger: As libraries are in effect charging the more serious kind of reader by way of fines for books kept out for more than a week and by means of reservation charges, would it not be better to do this honestly and frankly by legislation and then make proper provision for stopping the present practice of legalised theft of authors' property?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I would not agree with my hon. Friend's description of borrow-
    1556
    ing library books. I will put the points he has made to my noble Friend.
    Mr. Faulds: Do the Government intend that any scheme they introduce will follow the recommendations of the White Report and be based on the Danish model of using book stocks as the foundation? As this matter has dragged on for a considerable time, will the right hon. Lady attack it with a little more zest and expedition?
    Mrs. Thatcher: My noble Friend is certainly attacking the matter with very great zest but has not yet reached any conclusion. Therefore, there is nothing that I can add to my previous reply.

    ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to an electronics industry conference on 19th November on the subject of Government assistance to industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Sheldon: As the Government say that they believe so much in competition, why does not this apply to interest on bank deposits? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has called this a cartel? Why is he so reluctant to end it?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not see that a question about the rules for interest rates on bank deposits arises from a Question about Government assistance to industry.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's policy is causing a great deal of uncertainty in areas like Merseyside, which now has 34,000 unemployed—the highest level for a long time—with further unemployment looming as a result of the Government's failure in relation to the docks and with Cadbury's about to close part of its factories? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues to change their

    1557
    policy on assistance to industry, particularly with relation to areas like Merseyside?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. Our policy on assistance to industry is quite clear. The position of Merseyside was debated in the House. Nobody can lay the difficulties of Merseyside at this Government's door.

    HACKNEY
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Hackney.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman has denied himself the opportunity of being confronted with the inhumane and irresponsible management by the Tory-controlled G.L.C. of a number of its properties in Hackney, particularly 12 very squalid terrace houses in Paragon Road, where no fewer than seven public health notices have been served by the London Borough of Hackney upon the G.L.C.? Is it not outrageous that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not allowed a public inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it is outrageous in any sense, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue particular points about housing problems in London he should do so with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    DISABLED PERSONS' AIDS (EXHIBITION)
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the forthcoming permanent exhibition of aids for the physically disabled organised by the Disabled Living Foundation, details of which are in his possession.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he would be doing extremely good work for the dis-
    1558
    abled if he could persuade the Prime Minister to make an official visit to this exhibition, and that anything which is done to advance knowledge of the aids which are available to the disabled would be greatly welcomed by everyone? There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that the disabled are suffering too much because there is lack of knowledge of all the aids which are available to them.
    Mr. Maudling: I recognise that the exhibition is an excellent enterprise. My right hon. Friend, who has many calls on his time, will, I know, be happy to consider the possibility. In the meantime, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friends who are responsible for the needs of the disabled are helping in any way they can.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is also an extremely important occasion for the severely disabled? Is he aware in particular of the help that the Disabled Living Foundation can give to local welfare authorities in helping the severely disabled? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that at least one senior Minister visits this important exhibition?
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly I will. I think that it is a very important exhibition, and the Government are giving as much help as they can. On the question of a visit, I will talk to my right hon. Friend.

    NEW ZEALAND
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will visit New Zealand after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister considered the possibility of visiting New Zealand at that time but concluded it would not be possible.
    Mr. Marten: That is a great pity. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government stand by the assurance of their predecessors that Britain will not join the Common Market unless arrangements are made to protect the vital interests of New Zealand? If

    1559
    there are any derogations from that, will he tell the House what they are?
    Mr. Maudling: There is no doubt on either side of the House about this country's obligations to New Zealand. The particular problem of New Zealand is a very prominent feature of the position of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in the neogtiations.
    Mr. Moyle: If the worst comes to the worst, will the right hon. Gentleman say that the current New Zealand agreement will run until Britain signs the Treaty of Rome, and that otherwise trading relations between the two countries will continue undisturbed into the future?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir, I am not prepared to assume that the worst will come to the worst; I do not think it will for a moment. The position of New Zealand is a very important feature of the negotiations to which Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance.

    CIVIL LIST
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he intends to set up the Select Committee to review the Civil List.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him on 27th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 25–6.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House are concerned with the urgency of giving some form of national assistance of lower-paid workers who will otherwise have a very bleak Christmas? Is there any prospect of setting up this Committee in the current Session?
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that I cannot make a statement about this at the moment.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the value of the Civil List has fallen considerably behind the rise in revenues from the Crown lands made over to Parliament on Her Majesty's accession, may we be assured that there will be no increase in
    1560
    parliamentary salaries, including that of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), until Parliament has done justice to the Sovereign?
    Mr. Maudling: Hon. Members are straying a little from the original Question. If and when the matter is brought before the House all relevant considerations will be taken into account.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Among the relevant considerations, will the Home Secretary take into account all those matters which, since 1952, have been taken over by Government Departments from the Civil List? Will he compare that as an effective answer to the mistaken constitutional ideas of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that we should argue these matters in advance. If a Motion should be brought before the House all these considerations can be advanced.

    SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLY)
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what official communication he has received from the Prime Minister of South Africa on the supply of maritime arms for the defence of the Cape Route; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    None, Sir.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the South African Government have now indicated what maritime arms they need to share in the joint defence of the Cape route, and when can we expect a final statement on this matter, which has been outstanding for six months?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that we have a general idea of South African defence requirements, if not in particular details. As for the timing of the announcement on policy, this must rest with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that he will make an announcement at the appropriate moment.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the Prime Minister is reported at his Ottawa Press Conference this morning as having said that

    1561
    he regards himself in this matter as absolutely bound by the terms of the agreement, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is the view of the Government on which the Prime Minister was correctly reported, or whether consultations with the Commonwealth have any meaning?
    Mr. Maudling: The Government regard themselves as being bound by the terms of the agreement made with this country. Consultations with the Commonwealth are certainly of a genuine character, and it is because those consultations have been so protracted that an announcement has not yet been made.
    Mr. Tapsell: In this context, have any communications been received from the leaders of any of the other African Commonwealth countries about our overflying rights across Africa, which are of such vital importance to our Far Eastern defence?
    Mr. Maudling: Any communications between Heads of Government obviously must remain confidential.
    Mr. Faulds: Is it not the fact that the Simonstown Agreement has no binding commitment for the continuing supply of arms?
    Mr. Maudling: One could argue on that in considerable detail. This will obviously be a matter to be discussed when the Government's policy is made known. The answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman was simply that we believe in keeping agreements.

    INFLATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Kinross on 20th November referring to inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: Recalling the Home Secretary's attempt to deal with these problems and his brave but unsuccessful attempt to rid himself of the albatross
    1562
    of the £800 million deficit he bequeathed, has he never thought of suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one way of dealing with them might be the method which he tried and which was so rudely interrupted in October, 1964, by the General Election?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think the interruption was rude, although I think it was a pity. Whether or not my attempts were brave, the fact that they were unsuccessful rests on the Government which took over in 1964.

    BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Mr. Nixon on the proposed British/United States base/staging post in the British Indian Ocean territory.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 255.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it wise in this day and age for an American President and a British Prime Minister to go ahead with a base in the Indian Ocean against the express wishes of Indira Gandhi, the Indian Government and Ceylon and with no consultation with Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of that supplementary question; I appreciate his courtesy. Of course we are concerned with the views of our Commonwealth partners in all these matters, but the ultimate decision about the security and defence of this country must rest with the British Government. Since 1967 it has been made quite clear that the use of this territory for defence purposes was a matter being kept under review by the United States and British Governments. That has been the position since 1967.
    Mr. George Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question put by my hon. Friend? Were the Indian and Ceylon Governments given information in advance about this plan

    1563
    before a public announcement was made by the British and American Governments?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, they were informed before the public announcement was made.
    Sir T. Beamish: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Indian Ocean territory was set up by the last Government with the object of creating just such a staging post as this?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, that was enshrined in the White Paper at the time.

    PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (CRICHEL DOWN RULE)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct Ministers to issue directions to public corporations within their responsibility that the Crichel Down rule shall be applied in all cases of disposal of agricultural land which formerly had been requisitioned or compulsorily purchased.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    I do not think that it would be appropriate to issue directions. If, as I understand, my right hon. Friend has in mind particular points concerning British Rail, perhaps he would care to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries.
    Mr. Turton: Is it not inequitable that a citizen should be deprived of the protection of the Crichel Down rule if land which is compulsorily purchased or requisitioned comes into the hands of a nationalised industry or public corporation?
    Mr. Maudling: So far as I can gather, the Crichel Down procedure would not have covered the cases which my right hon. Friend has in mind. This is a matter which we are prepared to consider, but I ask my right hon. Friend to be kind enough to take it up in the first instance with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries.

    MARINE OIL RIG (VISIT)
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to a marine oil rig.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Archer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was precluded by the rules of order from inviting the Prime Minister to visit the sea bed? As an alternative, will he invite the Prime Minister to read the report of the enlightening debate in another place on 25th November on the urgent necessity for an international régime over the ocean, and will he do something about it?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be delighted to read that debate. The whole question of national and international jurisdiction over the sea bed is at present under consideration in the United Nations.
    Mr. Marten: To avoid the taking up of the time of the House in asking about visits to Hackney and oil rigs, would not it be better to publish a list of what the Prime Minister was going to do, and then hon. Members opposite would not have to ask these Questions?

    ECONOMIC INCENTIVES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech to the Parliamentary Press Gallery on 25th November, 1970, on the subject of economic incentives.
    Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend's remarks were delivered extempore.
    Mr. Archer: Is the House to assume from that answer that no one troubled to take a note? If anyone did, will the Home Secretary explain whether it is regarded by the Government as an incentive to impose a plethora of means tests on the lower income groups? If not, are they less in need of an incentive than his paymasters?
    Mr. Maudling: The point which my right hon. Friend made, which was totally valid, concerned reductions of taxation, both corporate and individual, as an incentive to effort.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. Do I gather that no request has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer Question No. 99, which is of considerable importance, not only to the people of Scotland, but to people throughout Great Britain? I had thought that some report would be made on the untimely deaths of 12 people in a hospital in Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he has gathered correctly. There has been no indication from the Minister that he wished to answer the Question.
    Mr. Jennings: I should like to ask for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that Question No. Q15 to the Prime Minister, in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), asks my right hon Friend to visit Burton-on-Trent. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would stretch the rules of order to allow the Question to be answered. You will be aware that I am the one and only Member for Burton. If it were possible for the Question to be answered it would satisfy my curiousity about what interest Manchester had in Burton-on-Trent, apart from an interest in its staple product.
    Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that one of my senior Chairmen should invite me to stretch the rules of order. I am distressed with him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 12TH JANUARY—The House will meet at 2.30 p.m. and proceed to the election of a Speaker.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill.
Motion on the Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations.
1566
THURSDAY, 14TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY, 15TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Second Reading of the Water Resources Bill [Lords].
MONDAY, 18TH JANUARY—Progress on the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: There are not many questions which arise from the business for the first week after the Recess, but nonetheless, as the Rudi Dutschke case is opening today, without wishing to comment on it in any way, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an assurance that Mr. Dutschke will not be made to leave the country while the House is in recess—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always concerned when Members come close to discussing sub judice matters.
Mr. Jenkins: —and that the House will not therefore be presented with an accomplished fact in this matter of considerable public concern?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say on what date there will be the debate on the negotiations for entry into the Common Market which was foreshadowed in the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot as yet tell my right hon. Friend the exact date, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster undertook that it would be held before 2nd February when the next stage of the negotiations takes place.
Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some back bench Members have watched with fascination the debate going on outside the House about the proposed election of our new Speaker? Has his attention been drawn to the article in the New Statesman today by Mr. Alan Watkins in which he is directly quoted as saying to the Lobby

1567
last week that this matter had already been fixed, signed and sealed? Will he comment on it?
Mr. Whitelaw: It would be quite wrong for me to comment on any article of that sort. I hope that the House will feel that the election of the new Speaker is a most important matter for the House. The House as a whole will wish to conduct the election with the greatest possible decorum and good will. In anything that I have done I have sought to act in accordance with the precedents which have been followed by previous Governments. If I have made mistakes I am responsible for them to the House. But I have honestly done my best to do what I believed right in the interests of the whole House.
Mr. Model: Can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect to have a debate on the Roskill Inquiry into the third London airport?
Mr. Whitelaw: No, I cannot. I understand that the summary of the recommendations of the report is to be published tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will answer a Written Question. I also understand that it will take six to eight weeks to print the full report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has also arranged for a copy of the summary of recommendations to be sent to every hon. Member.
Mr. Loughlin: May I again draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Motion on the Order Paper in my name and that of over 100 hon. Members dealing with the possibility of an increase for old-age pensioners and, in particular, a once-for-all payment for Christmas time?
[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-for-all basis before Christmas 1970.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is an affront to the dignity of the House that we deny a little succour to old-age pensioners at Christmas time and agree to an increase of £2,500 a year for High Court judges? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: My problem in answering questions on business is that, quite correctly, it is not my job to go into the merits of any case put to me. All I can say is that I realise the importance of the basic question which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I do not agree with many of his other comments. I cannot promise to debate on the Motion in the immediate future.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to a matter which was referred to yesterday, namely that in future statements on the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community which contained complicated figures of statistical calculations should be made available half an hour or so in advance of their being made? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this unusual situation in which the usual channels have converged into a single stream there is a strong case for wider dissemination of these documents to assist Parliament in its duty of interrogation and the Minister in his duty of exposition?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. I should make it clear that both the previous Government and this Government have been most anxious to make statements to the House as often as was possible and sensible in all the circumstances. We continue to be most anxious to do that. We have also undertaken to give time for a debate.
I will consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to see what can be done to help right hon. and hon. Members in connection with making complicated statements available in advance.
Mr. Carter: As the Leader of the House has said that he wants to carry out adequate consultations in the matter of the election of a new Speaker, can he tell me when and where he wishes to consult me in order to hear my views?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am always subject to correction in what I have said, because I am never very sure myself what I have said. I did not actually hear myself say that I would be most anxious to consult everybody on this matter. I said that I had done my best—[Interruption.] I only think that I am entitled to say what I thought I said, and what I think I said was that I had been most anxious to serve the interests of the House in conducting this matter with the maximum possible care, because it is inevitably a delicate question.
Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the debate on the Common Market will be a two-day debate? If it is not, it will be a very frustrating affair.
Mr. Whitelaw: I should confine myself to the promise that there will be a day's debate on the Common Market before the next step in the negotiations. I do not think that I should go further than that.
Mr. Faulds: When will the right hon. Gentleman afford us an opportunity to debate the museum and art gallery charges to be imposed? The subject has already been debated in another place.
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I would be right to say at this stage—not next week.
Mr. Faulds: I did not ask for that.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to provide time for a debate before Decimal Day on the problems which are emerging in connection with the introduction of decimal currency, so that the opportunity will be given of clearing up the many misrepresentations and omissions which have been perpetrated on the country, particularly by the Decimal Currency Board in relation to the 6d.?
Mr. Whitelaw: Again, my problem in answering this question is that I must not drift into policy. I cannot necessarily accept, however, what my hon. Friend said about the activities of the Board. I will consider his request, but at this stage without any commitment. I realise the importance of the subject.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I revert to the question of the election of a Speaker? The House is properly sensitive
1570
about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that names have already been bandied about. Can he tell us when the final nomination day is and to whom nominations should be sent, because we have several names in mind? Can he tell us what the procedure will be if three or more candidates are in the field?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must be his own judge of what is the best way to conduct this procedure. I understand that it is perfectly possible for hon. Members to be nominated on the day of the election of the Speaker. On the question of the exact procedure to be followed, I would be right at this stage to confine myself, as Mr. Speaker himself normally does in such matters, to say that it would be wrong for me at this stage to answer a hypothetical question.
Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend has stated that we shall have a debate, perhaps two days, on the Common Market. Will he try to persuade the House of Commons that in the debate some of those who have never had a chance of speaking on the Common Market should be called? I am rather tired of hearing the same speeches over and over and over again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and as this is a very important matter hon. Members who happen to be ordinary back benchers rather than perhaps Privy Councillors, etc., etc., should have a chance for once to say what they think.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that in the circumstances I might seem to be adrift this afternoon, but in view of the timing of the debate, I think that I would be right to say that the question of who is called in it must be a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more precise than he has been able to be in the past and tell us when he proposes to bring before the House the Government's proposals on the Report of the Committee of Privileges, which has been lying around waiting for action for three years?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about this somewhat complicated matter. I am afraid that I cannot tell him today when I will be in a position to do what he asks, but I recognise the urgency of the matter.
Mr. Rankin: Three years.
Mr. Whitelaw: Before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) proceeds further on that course from his seated position, he might recognise how most of those three years has been occupied. If he did, he might reflect that while I may not have been quick others have been less quick. I am anxious to bring this matter forward as soon as I can.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Social Services to Early Day Motion No. 53, upon which a statement was promised as long ago as last June? Will he provide the time for it?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Social Sevices to set up immediately an independent inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act which has been in operation for over two years and which has caused widespread public concern and considers that any such inquiry should assess the effects of the Act on the health of the nation as well as on its legal, social and moral life and should recommend any changes in the law which are in the public interest.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the importance of the subject, but I cannot say exactly when a statement will be made or promise time for a debate at this moment.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the tremendous importance of the question of the Common Market, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that opinions can be properly ventilated in one day's debate? Will he give two or perhaps three days for this burning question?
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate fully the very important issues involved, but the House appreciates that at this stage the negotiations are still going on. They were started by the last Government, as agreed to by the House of Commons, and the time when these issues can finally be decided can only be at the end of the negotiations. I believe that the House wishes the negotiations to proceed. I do not believe that it would be possible to have long debates during the progress of these negotiations.
Mr. Wilkinson: In view of my right hon. Friend's announcement that a state-
1572
ment is to be made tomorrow on the recommendations of the Roskill Commission, can he give an assurance that time for a debate will be found soon after we return after Christmas on whether a third London Airport is necessary before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes a decision on those recommendations?
Mr. Whitelaw: It would be unwise for me at this stage to enter into a commitment when I have not the slightest idea what the Report will say. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and, without commitment, will consider it after the Recess.
Mr. Buchan: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Once again, on a very serious issue, the Secretary of State has not made a statement to this House. He has spoken once in the House since the General Election. Issue after issue and policy after policy have been annunciated in the Press instead of the House being informed in statements. This is now a positive political scandal and is rapidly becoming a national disgrace. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at least to make some statement about something at some time?
Mr. Whitelaw: Again, I would be very pleased to enter into an argument with the hon. Gentleman on the merits of what he has said, but that is not my job during business questions. But I will remind him that the procedure being followed under the present Government, as far as Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland are concerned, is a good deal more forthcoming than the procedure followed under the last Government.
Mr. Heffer: While recognising that the matter of the election of a Speaker is a very delicate matter indeed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that back benchers will be properly consulted? It must be recognised that we are not mere cyphers and rubber stamps. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite think that back benchers on this side are rubber stamps, then they should learn that we are not. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the matter is not settled and that there will be further consultations before the issue is brought before the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that in all the things that have been said and in the various statements, correct or otherwise, attributed to me by various people, one thing has been perfectly clear, and on that one thing I will stand absolutely—that the decision as to who becomes Speaker is a matter for the House of Commons, that there can, of course, be an election, and that hon. Members are entitled to put up any candidate who can be proposed and seconded. All these things are quite open to back benchers to do, and they are in no way fettered in the matter. All I am saying, and I am entitled to continue to say, is, that while that is undoubtedly true, this House has a great tradition, going back over many years, of solving this very difficult and delicate problem on the whole with considerable satisfaction. It does not get engaged in unseemly and difficult problems.
Mr. Heffer: Unseemly?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I can think of circumstances in which it certainly could be.
Mr. Heffer: Elections are not unseemly.
Mr. Whitelaw: The procedure has been conducted by the House over many years. If any hon. Members on the back benches wish to change that situation, theirs is the choice, and they could not be stopped from doing so and no one in my position has any right, or desire, to stop them from doing so. I have acted in what I thought was the general practice which had been followed in the past and which I thought was in the best interests of the House.
Mr. Gurden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members do not hold him responsible for precedents and that we appreciate the way in which in this matter he has gone through the usual channels? If there is any responsibility on the Opposition side of the House, it must be carried by the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. William Hamilton: That is a lot of rubbish.
Mr. Whitelaw: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Skinner: I wish to revert to the subject of the election of Mr. Speaker.
1574
Let me say at the outset that I am still more than—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] May I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am still a little perplexed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Leader of the House aware that there are many hon. Members, presumably on both sides of the House, who are still a little disturbed about the so-called usual channels? I want to know when the nominations are to be opened, when they are to be closed and, in the event of there being more than two contestants, how the voting will take place.
Mr. Whitelaw: There is no date by which nominations are closed. On the day of the election of Mr. Speaker it is perfectly open and proper for any hon. Member who wishes to nominate another to rise in his place and do so, and, if he has a seconder, the nomination goes forward. I see no reason for suggesting any change in that practice. How the matter then proceeds must depend on exactly what happens, and at this stage that is hypothetical. In any event, it is bound to be a matter for the authorities of the House.
Mr. Bidwell: May I revert to the subject of the business of the House on 12th January, which, alas, is to replace you, Mr. Speaker? May I ask the Leader of the House to expedite that procedure without unseemly haste, because 12th January is also an important day for other reasons? It is the day when the trade unions will be engaging in a kind of pre-burial mourning of trade union rights. There are many hon. Members who will wish to take part in those democratic procedures.
Mr. Whitelaw: I seem to be in sufficient trouble about those matters for which I am responsible, that is, the business of the House on that day, without getting involved in matters which are outside the House and for which I have no responsibility.
Mr. Robert Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Early Day Motion No. 99 has now received the backing of more than 50 hon. Members? As it calls for urgent action on the Industrial Training Act, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate after the Recess?
[That this House keenly supports the intention of the Engineering Industry

1575
Training Board to exempt from training levy all firms in the engineering industry with annual payrolls not exceeding £25,000 and requests the Secretary for Employment to urge other Industrial Training Boards to do likewise, as an interim measure, pending the result of the Government's inquiry into Industrial Training.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the extreme importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but at this stage I could not promise time for a debate.
Dr. Miller: I revert to the uncanny silence of the Secretry of State for Scotland. Will the Leader of the House please convey to him that if he is suffering from laryngitis, there are doctors on this side of the House who would be willing to treat him, or to send him somewhere where he could have treatment? Would he convey to the Secretary of State the information that there are many of us who are deeply concerned about current issues in Scotland and that if the Secretary of State cannot make a statement, he should get someone in authority to do so?
Mr. Whitelaw: There are Questions to my right hon. Friend every three weeks when he answers all these issues. Exactly the same procedure is followed as was followed by the previous Government, except that we are a good deal more forthcoming.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would my right hon. Friend ensure that there is reasonable time between the tabling of Government Amendments and the taking of the Report stages of Bills? I refer to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, which is due to be taken on Report the day after the House returns. Government Amendments have not yet been tabled to it and if in response to them hon. Members wish to table Amendments, those will of necessity be starred Amendments, which will not be called by the Chair. This puts the House in great difficulty.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly look into that matter. I recognise its importance.
Mr. Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the decisive vote of the House on the Hare Coursing Bill? In view of his growing reputation as a defender of the rights of back benchers, his
1576
remarks on the election of the Speaker notwithstanding, will he give us some time after 10 o'clock one night to get a decision on Second Reading?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly not next week.
Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman see to it that if back benchers have to be considered in the matter of the election of the new Speaker, all back benchers and not just some are considered?
Mr. Whitelaw: It is only fair for me to say at this stage that in the whole process of the election of the Speaker there are some problems of which the hon. Member has raised one.
Mr. Atkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the closure for nominations for Speaker is on 12th January? Does this mean that there will be no Motion on the Order Paper for that day concerning the election of the Speaker? Will all nominations be made verbally?
Mr. Whitelaw: There will be no Motion on the Order Paper to nominate a particular Member to be Speaker. There will be a Motion on the Order Paper concerning the retiring Speaker, of course. Although it would be better if I did not go into the matter too deeply on the Floor of the House, I should be pleased to tell any hon. Member exactly what the procedures are. However, it is clear that they are in accordance with precedent, and the precedents will be followed exactly on 12th January. There will be no Motion on the Order Paper to nominate any one Member to be Speaker.
Mr. Dalyell: In view of the ugly situation reported on the front pages of the Scottish Press this morning concerning drug taking in certain schools in Scotland, would the Lord President of the Council reflect on the Departmental advice on the subject and allow a discussion on this urgent and growing problem?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise its importance. I cannot find time at this stage for such a debate, but I will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend will recall that in the last Parliament both usual channels were fairly well agreed that a considerable review of the

1577
procedure of the business committees was needed for those occasions when the House decided to refer matters to a business committee. This was a matter of particular concern to members of the Chairmen's Panel. Will my right hon. Friend give this matter urgent consideration after Christmas?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly note what my hon. Friend has said and I will give urgent consideration to it after Christmas.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
4.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, I will make a statement about the measures which the Government are taking to strengthen the machinery for promoting competition in industry and for providing safeguards against the abuse of market power.
We shall in due course introduce legislation to reshape the Monopolies Commission, to widen its scope and powers and to make it more effective. Meanwhile, within the scope of the existing legislation, we shall make important changes of practice which will foreshadow the legislative proposals we shall eventually bring forward, and set the Monopolies Commission on a course enabling a smooth transition to be made to the new Commission which will replace it. In the transitional period we shall increase and strengthen the staff of the Commission and appoint additional full-time members as necessary.
The Commission will be encouraged to become the expert and authoritative source of information to the Government on situations of imperfect competition, and I shall be ready to consider proposals from it of possible subjects for formal inquiry. The power to make references will remain with me, but I shall have no objection to the Commission making its proposals public if it so wishes.
To enable shorter inquiries to be undertaken in appropriate cases, the Commission will be asked, so far as is possible within the existing legislation, to direct its attention to specific issues as an alterna-
1578
tive to the traditional wide-ranging monopoly inquiry. For example, the Commission may be asked to investigate a particular practice by a company or industry, or to report on prices in a monopolistic situation. I hope, too, that these limited inquiries will permit simpler procedures to be adopted.
I shall make further references as necessary. I shall continue to use the power to refer proposed mergers to the Commission if I consider that competition in the relevant market would be restricted to a damaging degree as a result of the merger. I shall also hope from time-to-time to issue guidance on the principles being followed in making references to the Commission.
The Commission has in the past been used to inquire only into the activities of private industry. In future, I shall be ready to make use of the power in Section 2(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, to ask the Monopolies Commission to give the Government information and assistance on questions arising out of the operations of publicly-owned enterprises which are in a monopoly position. But I shall bear in mind the need to avoid burdening those industries with a wholly unreasonable succession of investigations, as has happened in the past.
These measures will start to strengthen the authority of the Commission at once, and to make it a more effective body for promoting competition throughout the economy. But the Commission cannot be fully effective in the new directions I have outlined without legislative changes. In preparing such legislation, we, shall aim in particular to provide for a reconstituted Commission; for appropriate new powers to collect information and to propose inquiries; and for its powers of formal inquiry to be extended to cover public monopolies such as nationalised industries and other statutory trading bodies which are in a monopoly position.
The Government are also reviewing the restrictive trade practices legislation with a view to extending its scope and making it more effective. In particular, we shall be considering the case for bringing services within the legislation, for making registrable certain anti-competitive practices by single firms, and for making certain types of restrictive agreement illegal.

1579
I should like to emphasise that in the preparation of legislation I shall want to consult fully with representative bodies in the light of experience of the steps I have outlined.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement, though long, contains very little information and is, in a sense, disappointing because, by contrast with the positive policy of trying to protect the consumer and encouraging industrial efficiency through the Consumer Council, the Prices and Incomes Board and the I.R.C., the right hon. Gentleman appears to have fallen back on a negative practice? Is he aware—indeed, he must be—that the extension to the public sector was provided by the Commission on Industry and Manpower, which the previous Government brought forward?
Will public interest findings on the nationalised industries be allowed, and exactly what will they mean? When will he be publishing the guidance to which he referred? Will there be a Green Paper on the new powers which he contemplates and will a Bill be introduced in the present Session?
Mr. Davies: The purpose of the Monopolies Commission, and its future development, is to deal with the long-term imperfections of competition. The Consumer Council and the Prices and Incomes Board were in a different time-scale. They were concerned rather more with medium than long-term considerations. Thus, the contrast which the right hon. Gentleman has made is a correct one, but it is not fair, that being so, to comment critically on the content of my statement.
As for the public sector, the intention is to utilise the Section of the 1948 Act which allows the Monopolies Commission to be used in a more general sense than on a straightforward reference and, in doing so, to gain experience over the course of the ensuing period.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the possibility of publishing a Green Paper is that my hope was that this statement would serve as a vehicle for a considerable degree of public discussion and for the period until legislation is introduced to be in a sense one of experiment. I hope that this
1580
experimental phase—which will, if all goes well, give rise to legislation, not in this Session but in the next Session of Parliament—will enable it to be perfected during the intervening period.
Mr. Benn: Having said that he now contemplates this as a long-term operation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why there are to be short-term studies on specific areas—of a kind which were dealt with by the Prices and Incomes Board, which had 140 reports? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my other question, about whether there will be public interest findings which have a specific statutory significance in relation to the nationalised industries?
Mr. Davies: Am I right in supposing, on the latter point, that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the broad field of efficiency studies and so on? I am not clear what he means by referring to public interest matters. The public interest is the responsibility of my Department in relation to the nationalised industries with which I am concerned. I therefore do not fully follow his question. The intention here is that the Monopolies Commission should, in the period until further legislation occurs, be on a more or less voluntary basis to examine the position in the nationalised industries, and to advise the Government accordingly.
Mr. Tom Boardman: While welcoming the statement and in particular the proposals for reforming the procedure, may I ask my right hon. Friend if during the transitional period he will see that account is taken of the time, expense and dislocation that is involved in a full reference and ensure that there is established a prima facie case before he makes a reference?
Mr. Davies: This purpose will, of course, be served considerably by using the Monopolies Commission more than it has hitherto been used as the receptive body for knowledge and experience in the whole sphere of competition, and it should be able with greater ability to advise the Government on issues which can be succinctly and effectively dealt with. The purpose of the Government in trying to narrow the field of the terms of reference will also prove to be advantageous in speeding up the completion of inquiries.
Mr. John Mendelson: Has the Secretary of State noted the deep concern that has existed among work people in all parts of the country in recent years when mergers have been proposed, particularly when they have been discussed in complete and utter secrecy? Will he make sure that in future the trade unions, representatives of the people and all other associations are fully consulted in private at the earliest possible moment so that they do not learn as a fait accompli at the last moment of how large redundancies may result from mergers? Will he ensure that from the very beginning everybody concerned in the Administration takes note of this point?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will realise that mergers are, by their very nature, of an extremely sensitive character, not only in relation to the shareholders, managers and boards of companies, but, of course, to the work forces in the companies concerned. These matters are very much in my mind, but I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention nevertheless to what I said in my statement: that I would make a reference of a merger only if I considered that competition in the relevant market would be restricted to a damaging degree as a result of that merger. My purpose here is to strengthen the forces leading to improved competition in the economy.
Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals will be widely welcomed? Can he say a little more about any consideration that he has given to the desirability, possibly through the appointment of a single registrar or some such official, of unifying the system more so as to cover both the monopolies and the restrictive practices parts?
Mr. Davies: Consideration has been given to that type of suggestion. It is considered that it would be wise to maintain a distinction between the strictly judicial character of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and the somewhat different statutory character of the Monopolies Commission, or its successor, and I think that that distinction is worthy of preserving. I have given consideration also to the possible nomination of a Registrar within the field of monopoly, but that consideration has brought us to the conclusion that that would not be a wise course because the Registrar in question, who would not be within the
1582
framework of a judicial position, as he is in the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, would have responsibility to nobody. We thought it was preferable that the Monopolies Commission, which has a direct responsibility to me, should be its own vehicle for examination in this field.
Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how these new powers of the Monopolies Commission in relation to the nationalised industries are to be reconciled with normal ministerial responsibility for nationalised industries and with investigations from time to time by Select Committees of this House into nationalised industries?
Mr. Davies: First of all, let me point out that the moment I am taking no new powers. We are entering into a period of the maximum use of the present powers. The proposals that I have made will in no way limit the scrutiny and rights of the various people who take responsibility for nationalised industries in the face of the public, whether it be Parliament or the Select Committees, or the Minister, each one of whom has a particular part to play. My great concern, however, is that in seeing these matters as a whole we should, as far as possible, seek to avoid imposing what has become something of an intolerable burden of inquiry on the lives of the managements of the nationalised industries.
Mr. Tapsell: While fully sharing my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for competition, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that competition within what may be broadly called the professions may well be best achieved by standards of skill and professional integrity rather than by competition purely through price, which often leads to a lowering of standards?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will know that in the light of a recent report of the Monopolies Commission, I have written to the senior officers of most of the representative bodies of those professions, quoting to them the opinions expressed by the Monopolies Commission—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the HANSARD reporters if the Minister will address the Chair.
Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

1583
I have asked the senior officers of these institutions if they will give consideration to the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission and whether they would, after a period of six months, let me know what they then consider is the appropriate course of action to take.
Mr. Dell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement represents a complete abandonment of major elements in the competition policy put forward by the Government before the General Election? Not merely has he abandoned the Registrar of monopolies and mergers, but equally he has completely abandoned self-referencing by the Commission or the Registrar of Monopolies and Mergers. Can he say whether his remarks about policy for referring mergers means that he is abandoning the £5 million asset criterion in respect of the reference of mergers, and whether he intends to do anything about additional financial disclosure as part of competition policy, or whether he is leaving this to the Ides of March when he may be able to bring in a Companies Bill?
Mr. Davies: As to the Registrar and self-referencing, I have dealt with the subject already. The Registrar was found to be less perfect, to our minds, than the system which we have adopted.
The self-referencing is covered by giving the Monopolies Commission, in the interim, a very free hand to make recommendations in the light of its own general scrutiny of the efficacy of competition impulses in the economy. These matters are covered just as well—in fact, better—in the proposals which I have made than those to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about financial disclosure, and he has referred to the Ides of March. I see nothing particularly magical in that date, which has a more tragic connotation. I hope, indeed, to be looking into this question in relation to any changes which may be foreseen in company law.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the answer that he gave a moment or two ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) will be well received by those who have given some study to these matters, in that he proposes to
1584
preserve the dichotomy established by the 1956 legislation whereby monopolies of scale go to the Commission and restrictive practices to the Court? Does he further agree that the main scope for advance and improvement is in the context of the Monopolies Commission and that the judicial processes instituted by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956 have been very successful?
Mr. Davies: As to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, I am not sure exactly what "success" means in this particular connection. On the whole, I should have thought that the findings of the Court over the years have proved not how great are the restrictive areas in British industry but, on the contrary, how little they are. I have mentioned that we are contemplating something of an extension of the activities of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court into fields which it does not at present cover.
Mr. Sheldon: While welcoming the increase in staff which will presumably enable the Commission to report in a rather shorter time than it has done in the past, when so many of its reports were wildly out of date by the time they were received, will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that this is rather a mouse of a measure by comparison with the great schemes that we were led to believe would result from their interest in increasing competition? Since this is an interim measure, would the right hon. Gentleman say when we can expect the Bill which will produce the far-reaching plans which we were assured would come before the House?
Mr. Davies: I do not consider that the proposals I have made are at all small. On the contrary, I think they are very profound. I think I have already mentioned the timing of the legislation in question. I repeat that we hope it will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Sheldon: And the staff?
Mr. Davies: The Commission numbers 17, and the staff just over 40. It is not a big organisation. My proposals might have the effect of doubling it.
Mr. Crouch: May I draw attention to the advantage afforded to my right hon. Friend and to the House by the work

1585
of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries? I hope that my right hon. Friend did not imply any downgrading of the sort of work done by the Select Committees referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). May I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that sometimes these Select Committee Reports are not debated in this House? May I further point out that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has decided in its future session to look into the relationship between certain of the major nationalised industries and their impingement on the public interest?
Mr. Davies: I certainly have no intention whatever of downgrading in any sense the work of the Select Committees—quite the opposite. Questions about the work of the Select Committees and debates in the House which might ensue are really matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Marsh: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a lot of the talk about monopoly in the public sector is based on pure prejudice? Will he interpret the words "competition in the relevant market" very widely in the public sector and recognise that, for example, the market for steel is international where there is plenty of competition, and the market in the fuel industry is a market between different fuels, some in the private sector and some in the public sector?
Mr. Davies: I fully recognise that many of the nationalised industries face stiff competition from outside and within. Some of the actions of the former Government did nothing to improve that competition.
Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he expects his proposal will make it possible for these areas of the nationalised industries which are not developing or taking an active part in marketing some of the technological products which they have at their disposal, to be investigated by the Monopolies Commission to enable private firms to develop what the monopoly prevents?
Mr. Davies: If any issues arise within the field of imperfect competition, which
1586
is the definition of the word which I have perceived for this Commission, they can be looked at.
Mr. Russell Johnston: In welcoming any intention of the Minister to widen the scope and powers of the Monopolies Commission, may I assume that he would look back critically on the fact that, during the fabled 13 years, out of some 23 references to the Monopolies Commission, the previous Conservative Government acted on only three? May I hope that he will be firmer? Specifically, on the restrictive trade practices legislation which he intends to review, does he have it in mind to take trade unions within its operation and to make across-the-board wage increases subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Court to see whether or not they are in the public interest?
Mr. Davies: Among that variety of subjects, I am of course open, in this experience-gaining period, to very much discussion and consultation. The actual enlargement of the work of the Commission to which I have referred will not embrace, in the interim period at least, these latter issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mr. Benn: In view of the very large number of points which have been put, would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of producing a White Paper or a Green Paper to allow the House to debate these issues, because, as he said, these are fundamental changes which he has introduced? I think that he would agree that there should be an opportunity for the House to consider the policy before the Bill is produced. May we also have a figure on whether the £5 million asset limit for merger references still applies?
Mr. Davies: On the last point, the £5 million assset limit will apply for the present, but I am further considering this matter. As for a Green Paper, it is difficult for me, in all fairness, to undertake to do this. I wish to use the ensuing months as a period of experience and experiment in this widening field. It is in the light of this experience and experiment that consultations and discussions emerge, not in the light of an arrested position on what is at the moment a conjectural basis.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Stewart-Smith: With permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement. With regard to the request by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) on 15th December that I should correct an error in my remarks concerning Mr. W. Hartington and his dispute with the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, I should like to say that I inadvertently misled the House by saying that he was thrown out of his job, whereas I should have said that he was threatened with being thrown out of his job. I deeply apologise for the error.
Mr. Walter Johnson: May I thank the hon. Member for that statement, which I am sure is in the best traditions of the House?

BILLS PRESENTED

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to sheriff courts in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read
  1588
  a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

  INDUSTRY
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Sir John Eden, Mr. Frederick Corfield, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. David Howell, presented a Bill to repeal the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act, 1966 and dissolve the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation; to terminate the power to make industrial investment schemes under the Industrial Expansion Act, 1968 otherwise than for the purpose of revoking or varying any such scheme made before the passing of this Act; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 80.]
  POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Mr. Martin McLaren presented a Bill to make new provision in relation to powers of attorney and the delegation by trustees of their trusts, powers and discretions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd January and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    EMERGENCY POWERS (PROCLAMATION)
    Mr. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Message, as follows:
    Her Majesty, by Proclamation dated 12th December, 1970, having declared that the industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the electricity supply industry did, in Her opinion, constitute a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964;
    And it having appeared to Her Majesty that the state of emergency has now ceased to exist: Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated 17th December, 1970. to proclaim that the said Proclamation of 12th December is revoked.
    Ordered,
    That Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be now considered.—[Mr. Maudling.]
    Message considered accordingly.
    Resolved,
    That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message and for Her Most Gracious Message of 14th December.—[Mr. Maudling.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
    Order read for consideration of Her Majesty's Message [14th December, 1970].
    Ordered,
    That the said Order be discharged.—[Mr. Speed.]

  ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)
  Ordered,
  That Sir John Rodgers and Mr. William Hamling have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a Parliamentary Library to the House of Assembly of St. Vincent.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

  MAURITIUS (GIFT OF A MACE)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bernard Braine and Mr. Ernest Perry have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
4.26 p.m.
Order for Second Reading read.
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is substantially the same as that introduced into another place earlier this year by the previous Government. It is concerned with the commercial production activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The Bill makes provision for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Authority's Trading Fund to two Companies to be set up under the Companies Acts—British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and The Radiochemical Centre Ltd.
The idea of transferring the fuel production activities of the Authority to a company is no new one. The Select Committee on Science and Technology in its report for the Session 1966–67 recommended that a new British nuclear fuel supply and manufacturing company should be established. Subsequently the previous Government introduced a Bill for this purpose. It received general support from all parties but lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament. It now falls to the Government to reintroduce the measure in substantially the same form. I am sure, therefore, that, in proposing to hive off these particular activities from a public agency to a more commercially-orientated structure, the Government can count on the support of the whole House.
I propose in this short speech to touch on the reasons for introducing the Bill; then to describe its main provisions and the differences between some of the provisions and those in the previous Bill; then to explain the financial effects of the Bill and finally to make clear the Government's policy on participation of other companies in the shareholding of the two companies.
When the Atomic Energy Authority was set up in 1954 one of its objectives was the application of nuclear power to the economic generation of electricity. Plants to produce nuclear materials for the defence programme had already been established and it was appropriate to use these same plants, and to extend some

1591
of them, to produce the fuel elements required for nuclear power stations. By 1965 this civil business had become large enough to warrant the setting up, within the Authority itself, of a Trading Fund. This enabled the business to be run in accordance with financial arrangements similar to those of other public and private industries, separate from the Authority's research and development and other functions.
Comparing the first financial year of the Trading Fund, 1965–66, with 1969–70, the value of sales of nuclear fuel services has grown from £19½ million to £30 million and the value of sales of radioisotopes from £2·3 million to £4 million. The proportion of total sales represented by exports was 9 per cent. in 1965–66 and 15 per cent. in 1969–70. The current financial objectives set for the Trading Fund cover the three-year period from 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1971. The targets have been met for the two completed years, the main target being a minimum rate of return of 13 per cent. on capital employed in respect of nuclear fuel services.
As regards the future, it is clear that the domestic and world market for nuclear fuel elements and fuel services is bound to grow at a rapid rate. The Atomic Energy Authority estimates that annual world demand for nuclear fuel, now approaching £200 million, will increase to £1,000 million or more by 1980.
The Authority has already shown great technical and marketing enterprise in securing a growing share of this overseas business. In 1968–69, overseas orders worth some £11½ million were won and the export order book now stands at over £20 million. Particular success has been achieved in breaking into the United States market for conversion of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride—the starting point for the enrichment process—despite the handicap of trans-Atlantic transportation costs. Contracts have been obtained against international competition to supply fuel to an American-built reactor in Holland, to reprocess fuel from American-designed reactors located at various places in Europe and to provide nuclear fuel services in other parts of the world.
The Radiochemical Centre at Amersham provides an essential service to all
1592
users of radioactive isotopes. Its business is on a smaller scale than that of nuclear fuel services but it is no less successful. The products of the Centre are required in fundamental research in the life sciences; in radiotherapy and new methods of diagnoses in medicine. In industry they are widely employed in processing and testing. Since it was established in 1946, the Centre has had a continuous record of growth and profitability. It sells over half its output abroad.
These two success stories add up to a very considerable achievement for the Trading Fund. It is this very success which makes me so confident of their ability not only to hold their own against any competition but also to increase their share of these growing markets. But they will be greatly assisted in this if they are run by ordinary companies set up under the Companies Acts with the normal commercial freedom to raise capital and to enter into international partnerships. Neither company will be accorded any statutory monopoly, but, of course, in setting them up, the Government envisage that the companies will be successful in retaining the present pre-eminent position of the Fuel Production Group and the Radiochemical Centre in their respective lines of business.
Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I should make clear that the setting up of the companies does not by itself entail any further modification of the Atomic Energy Authority. The remaining part of the Authority, comprising the Research, Reactor and Weapons Groups, will still be of sufficient size to make it a viable body. Nevertheless the Government are giving thought to the longer term future of the Authority.
The main purpose of the Bill is the transfer of the relevant activities of the Atomic Energy Authority as an on-going business to the two companies. The companies will be set up under the Companies Acts and, consequently, the Bill does not need to provide for their structure and organisation. The companies will be registered before the appointed day on which the transfer is to take place. But this will not be done until each House of Parliament has considered the Bill in Committee. The draft Memoranda and Articles of the companies have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members will

1593
see from a study of these that they follow the usual form of such documents. Two points about them may be of interest. First, the objects of the companies have been framed widely enough to avoid any artificial restriction on the employment of their assets to the best advantage. Second, the Articles provide for the majority shareholder to retain control over the issue and transfer of shares and over disposal of any substantial part of either company's undertaking or assets.
Each company will issue shares to the Authority in consideration of the transfer taking account of the difference in value between assets and liabilities. I shall refer later to the question of valuation.
The establishments to be transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. are Spring-fields, Capenhurst, Chapelcross and the Windscale and Calder Works. At Spring-fields, uranium is extracted from ore and converted to a form suitable for enrichment in the plant at Capenhurst. Springfields is also the centre for manufacture of fuel elements from both natural and enriched uranium. At Windscale, used fuel elements are processed to extract plutonium and other useable byproducts. The power stations at Chapelcross and Calder Hall generate electricity for the national grid but are also capable of being used in the production of special types of plutonium and the experimental irradiation of fuel elements.
The Authority will retain the exclusive use of its research and development laboratories at Springfields and Wind-scale.
The Authority's Radiochemical Centre at Amersham will be transferred to The Radiochemical Centre Ltd. together with certain activities and facilities belonging to the Centre at Harwell.
Although the companies will be set up under the Companies Acts in the normal way, they will be subject to certain special limitations or safeguards by means of some of the provisions in the Bill.
Clause 11 provides for the retention of a majority public shareholding in the companies. Hon. Members may be aware that, when the previous Bill was considered in another place, the then Opposion secured the deletion of the subsection providing for majority control. But, frankly, it is clear that there are strong grounds for ensuring that in the foresee-
1594
able future, there shall be a majority public shareholding. In arriving at this judgment, we have in mind chiefly the strategic importance of the fuel company.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister referred to the exclusive use that the Authority would retain in relation to Windscale. It occurs to me that that is rather an odd way of putting it, but perhaps I have misunderstood him.
Sir J. Eden: I was referring to the research facilities there. The Authority will retain the use of those research facilities. The facilities themselves will be used, although the land on which they exist will be transferred as part of the assets to be transferred. The choice of phraseology was to identify the facilities. Perhaps I might ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look further into this matter with a view to meeting the hon. Gentleman's point with greater elucidation towards the end of the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: It was simply the use of the word "exclusive" that puzzled me.
Sir J. Eden: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. These research and development laboratories are currently used by the Authority. The use of these facilities will not be transferred. But I will ask my hon. Friend to follow this through more closely for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House.
Clause 11(3), which was the provision that was removed from the previous Bill, has been restored, but in a slightly different and more straightforward form.
The Bill provides for the public shareholding in the companies to be held initially by the Authority. It also contains a provision permitting the Secretary of State at any time to transfer the controlling interest to himself. The decision to do this would be taken later, bearing in mind that the remainder of the Authority will be primarily a research and development organisation. But it will also depend on the timing and scale of private participation in the shareholding of the companies.
A further limitation on the nuclear fuel company arises from the fact that the company will be handling, and in fact generating, information of a particularly sensitive nature. In the absence of special provision, this information will be outside the scope of the Official Secrets Acts

1595
as matters now stand. The Bill therefore provides for the application of a schedule of special security provisions very similar to those to which the Atomic Energy Authority is subject.
As the law now stands, only the Atomic Energy Authority may carry out enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of nuclear fuel elements for a purpose other than research and development—that is, as a production business. The Bill therefore provides, in Clause 17, for an appropriate amendment to the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, to enable the fuel company, or other bodies, to carry on such business, subject to licensing and safety controls.
This amendment is also required before the United Kingdom can ratify the Agreement with the Netherlands and Germany for collaboration in the development and exploitation of the gas centrifuge process for enriching uranium. Hon. Members will doubtless recall that this Agreement, which owed a great deal to the encouragement given to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was signed in March of this year by the previous Government. The Agreement provides for collaboration, by means of two international companies, in the designing, building and operation of centrifuge plant. Initially, capacity is to be established in the Netherlands and also in this country.
I am sure that in considering the Bill hon. Members will have particular interest in the Clauses dealing with the terms and conditions for the staff on transfer. Particular safeguards concern the staff who will be transferred with their work from the Authority to the companies. For purely practical reasons it is just not possible to allow staff the option to stay with the Authority. The Government therefore share the view of the previous Government that the provisions of the Bill must go to considerable lengths to protect their legitimate interests.
The provisions in the present Bill are unchanged from those which were in the previous Bill. They lay an obligation on the companies to seek the co-operation of staff representatives in setting up machinery for negotiation of new terms and conditions of service. They lay down that those terms and conditions must conform to the principle that they are, taken as a
1596
whole, as favourable to the staff as the terms and conditions enjoyed in the employment of the Authority. They also provide for arbitration on the question whether this principle is adhered to.
The Bill also provides for the staff to remain members of the Authority's superannuation scheme until the companies have introduced schemes of their own. The companies' schemes are to be, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no less favourable, taken as a whole, than those of the Authority at the time.
Mr. Dalyell: We have all heard from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that it sees no need to add to the number of superannuation schemes in the nuclear industry as a whole; and that it hopes that the Minister may yet be persuaded to reconder his decision. Can the Minister tell us at some length why this view has been rejected?
Sir J. Eden: That is a matter which can properly be pursued later in our consideration of the Bill, but I am sure that it is right that the companies should set up their own pension schemes. I am equally certain that the reference I have made to the need of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that these schemes shall be no less favourable than those already in operation will fully safeguard the interests of the staff concerned. The Government believe that these provisions, together with the enhanced opportunities for expansion which the companies will enjoy, will constitute effective safeguards for the staff.
Before turning to the respects in which the Bill differs from its predecessor, I should like to say something about the retention of one Clause—Clause 16—
Mr. Stanley Cohen: The Minister has referred to the setting up of new machinery for consultation and negotiation. Is he able now to say when such machinery is likely to be established and to be effective?
Sir J. Eden: I said that provision is made for the setting up of machinery for negotiation of the new terms and conditions of service, and this will have to be done as it affects the transfer of the staff. Provision is made for members of the staff to remain members of the existing superannuation scheme until

1597
something comparable has been set up within the companies themselves. This aspect, therefore, is covered by the procedure I have outlined.
Before I deal with some of the respects in which the Bill differs from its predecessor, I should say something about the retention of Clause 16 on the treatment of the transferred assets for the purpose of investment grants. In the light of the Government's decision to terminate investment grants the Clause now ensures no loss of investment grants on transferred assets where expenditure relates to assets for which contracts were made by the Authority on or before 26th October 1970. Whether the wording of the Clause is quite appropriate for this purpose cannot be completely determined until the Government have got further with the drafting of the legislative provisions to terminate investment grants. It may therefore be necessary later to table a Government Amendment.
The other differences between the Bill and its predecessor can be briefly summarised. First, there was in the previous Bill a Clause which provided for payment of grants to British Nuclear Fuels Limited instead of investment grants to international companies set up under the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge Agreement. It has been excluded. This is an automatic consequence of the decision to end investment grants.
Mr. Dirk Douglas: If I recall correctly, Article 3(3) of the Treaty contains a specific pledge to consult the Joint Committee set up by the Tripartite Agreement in relation to any economic changes affecting the operation of the Agreement. Did the Government consult the Joint Committee before they changed the method of investment incentive?
Sir J. Eden: This is a matter of investment incentives affecting the position of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the company to be set up, and as such this ultimately will undoubtedly have an effect on the consideration to be given to the development of the gas centrifuge proposals.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is pointing out that, as the Minister will
1598
know, there was a lot of negotiation with our Dutch and German partners about the extent to which investment grants were to be taken into account in the financing of the different parts of the Agreement. What my hon. Friend is asking, as I understand, is whether the change in respect of investment grants and the new arrangements proposed in the Bill were the subject of international negotiations in order to be sure that they were covered by the arrangements we have reached before.
Sir J. Eden: The changes the Government have decided to make were not the subject of discussion internationally. The changes, of course, had been proposed by the Government and have an impact on this operation, and it is that aspect which is the subject of international discussion.
The second change is that the limits set in Clause 13 for the aggregate of Government loans to, and new share purchases from, the fuel companies are lower than those set out in the previous Bill. The reason for this is the expectation that the company will be able to raise a significant amount of its capital requirements from the private sector.
Third, a new Clause—Clause 18—has been included to ensure that in the interests of security the present arrangements whereby the Factory Inspectorate rather than local authority inspectors exercise statutory functions of inspection at A.E.A. establishments will continue at sites transferred to the fuel company where classified work is carried on. The same arrangements will apply to any such site owned by a company set up in pursuance of the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge Agreement.
The fourth difference is that a new clause—Clause 19—has been introduced to ensure that the United Kingdom can implement the Security Annex to the Gas Centrifuge Agreement with the Netherlands and Germany signed by the previous Government in March this year. The Clause will permit certain of the security provisions of the Schedule to the Bill to be applied to any international company registered in the United Kingdom and established pursuant to the Centrifuge Agreement.
I think that it might be helpful to the House if I were now to say a word or

1599
two about the financial effects of the Bill. These are set out in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, and require only a brief further explanation. Reference is made in the Memorandum to the two-way trade in goods and services between the trading fund side of the Authority and the rest of the Authority. This amounts to about £6 million annually each way and covers, for example, purchase from the trading fund of fuel elements and components for the Authority's reactor research and development programme and, in the reverse direction, the undertaking by the Authority of research and development for the trading fund.
Once the companies have been set up, trade between them and the Authority will no longer be at cost, but will include a profit element—in either direction. Because the pattern of trade is weighted in favour of the trading fund, this new element will increase the net payment by the Authority to the companies. Further more, although there will be savings to the Authority from discontinuance of certain services for the trading fund, it is not expected that they will match the loss of revenue. Overall, therefore, the Authority estimates that there will be an increase in its net expenditure of about £600,000 a year.
The estimate of not more than £100,000 that might be paid by the Secretary of State to the fuel company in reimbursement of the cost of complying with security directions under paragraph 5 of the Schedule of the Bill is additional to charges that will be borne by the Ministry of Defence in connection with any work on the defence account.
Mr. John Biffen: As a result of the recasting of the finances under the two proposed companies, and taking into account the adjustment that my hon. Friend has mentioned, will it be possible for the House to know what has been the return on capital employed by the assets which will be allocated between these companies, not merely for the latest available year, but going back over the previous three or four years?
Sir J. Eden: Yes. The Bill provides for presentation to the House of the accounts of the trading companies. This information is already available for past
1600
years because the trading fund has been operating on a commercial basis, and accounts have been published separately. They show a successful return on capital employed. I think I am right in saying that for the year 1969–70 it was about 23 per cent.
I come, now, to say something about the Government's thinking about private participation in the two companies. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, in its recommendation in 1967, envisaged that whilst the industrial heart of the proposed fuel company would be provided by the Atomic Energy Authority, other companies should be invited to join. The previous Government endorsed this by expressing the hope that suitable firms in private industry, able to offer relevant expertise, would choose to take up shareholdings.
The Government believe that private industry has an important contribution to make to the continued success and future expansion of the nuclear fuel business. We favour private participation from an early date—preferably from the outset—provided, of course, that we can reach satisfactory agreements on the terms and on the price of shares. In conjunction with the Atomic Energy Authority the Government propose to commission a merchant bank to advise on the problems of valuation and capital structure and to identify prospective participants. The Government will wish to satisfy themselves that whatever the formula to be adopted it will be related not only to the past performance of the Trading Fund, but also to the future profitability of the fuel company. I shall shortly be discussing the terms of reference for this operation with the merchant bank.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the terms of reference be made public?
Sir J. Eden: I shall consider that. This is of great interest to the House, and it is the Government's wish to ensure that in discharging the responsibility in this way they are seen to be acting in the best interests of the whole House and of public investment. I shall take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Douglas: The task which the hon. Gentleman is to give to the private merchant bank was within the orbit, and,

1601
indeed, was a direct function of, the I.R.C. which his Government have destroyed.
Sir J. Eden: I am not proposing anything substantially different from what was considered by the previous Government, and it was said by Lord Delacourt-Smith when he introduced the Bill in another place that this was the sort of procedure which would have to be followed, and that the Government would be taking outside expert advice on this matter by people properly qualified to give it. I think that that is the right way to deal with it. We shall follow this course here and a similar course in regard to the Radiochemical Company.
The Government, or to begin with the Authority acting on their behalf, will retain majority shareholdings in both companies. The shareholders will appoint the directors, and the Government, either through the Authority or directly, will thus have a choice in the composition of the boards. It is our intention that, in accordance with normal company practice, the boards should manage their affairs in the interests of the companies and the shareholders. Accordingly, the Government will expect the companies to aim at securing a fully economic return on their capital, bearing in mind that they will have to operate in competitive markets.
Finally, I propose to say something about timing. There is a broad measure of agreement between the Government and the Opposition on the need for this Measure and on the desirability of setting up the proposed companies as soon as possible. About three years have elapsed since the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1967.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am sure the Minister appreciated that when the Select Committee started its investigation we were told then that reorganisation was urgent.
Sir J. Eden: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government have pressed ahead as fast as they could with this matter. There is also an urgent need to secure early amendment of the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965 so that the United Kingdom can ratify the Gas Centrifuge Agreement with the Netherlands and Germany. The Netherlands
1602
and German Governments are already on the point of ratifying the agreement. Since interim arrangements under the agreement expire in early March, one year after its signature, it is clearly desirable that the United Kingdom should be able to ratify the agreement before March of next year. I hope, therefore, that it may be possible to secure early passage of the Bill. If that can be done, then the Government will be able to set up the companies in time for them to commence trading from 1st April of next year.
In commending the Bill to the House I should like to end by paying tribute to all those in the Atomic Energy Authority through whose efforts and enterprise in the past the future success of these two companies is assured.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: It is a happy thought that I can begin by warmly endorsing what the Minister said about the work of the Atomic Energy Authority. No one who has been involved in these matters, as I was before him and as others have been before me, can fail to be impressed by the quality of the men and women who have worked in the Authority over the years. Whatever else we may want to say on this Bill we must recognise that we are building a new firm, almost a new industry, upon the skills of the people who have worked in the A.E.A. and before that in the Ministry of Supply.
After the clashes that have taken place in the House over the last few days and weeks, to be able to congratulate the Government wholeheartedly upon the introduction of this Bill is a very pleasant duty. I was watching the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) as the Minister introduced the Bill. I hope that he noticed what was being presented. It was a Bill to establish two new mixed-enterprise companies, one for nuclear fuel and one for radio chemicals, both with 100 per cent. Government holdings at the start and both with a statutory Government majority for all time, reversing an Amendment passed in the other place by the Conservative peers who were referred to rather amusingly as the "then Opposition". I liked that very much, talking about one's own colleagues as the "then Opposition". This Bill entirely implements the pledge in the Labour manifesto of 1964 which I will

1603
read to the House in the Christmas spirit. It says:
"A Labour Government will—
Go beyond research and development and establish new industries, either by public enterprise or in partnership with private industry."
To have the present Government implementing the Labour pledge of 1964 is very pleasing to me.
In explaining the background to the Bill the hon. Gentleman was rather shy about describing to the House the kind of negotiation that has gone on and no doubt is going on and which has to go on, between Government, industry, scientists and engineers and the public research establishments, the trade unions and other countries to get an operation of this kind off the ground. Although we shall have detailed points to raise in Committee, in supporting the Bill tonight I should like to give some of the background so that at any rate for the Opposition I can perform some function in throwing a light upon how these operations are conducted.
I should like to take the three main streams of policy that have culminated in the publication of the Bill. The first takes us right back to the origins of the Atomic Energy Authority. The nuclear research of this country is a product of war-time need. It was a defence operation. In 1955 when the A.E.A. was set up out of the Ministry of Supply we had the beginnings of the civil programme to which the Minister referred. The A.E.A. was hived off from the Ministry of Supply. Looking back, it was probably a mistake to hive off so much policy making, and the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) drew attention to the weakness of government in the area of policy.
At any rate, into the hands of the A.E.A. were transferred considerable responsibilities. The work that it has done has been in discharge of those responsibilities. At the time the view of government—and this was two or three governments ago—was that science policy was something that had to be handled very much at arms length, through the Lord President of the Council. That was the way that science touched government, in very much an indirect way, and there was no active in-
1604
dustrial policy pursued at that time to see that, when the research that was done came to fruition, it could be positively applied and made the basis of an export marketing effort.
When the old Ministry of Technology was formed six years ago—and to this extent its functions have remained within the new Department of Trade and Industry—for the first time the research and industrial policy were brought together into one Ministry under one Minister. When the Ministry of Power was added to that, all the three ingredients in this problem came under the same Minister. The Minister's speech to-day links with the work done in converting a number of consortia—there were three in 1966—and the British Nuclear Executive into the present pattern of nuclear design and construction companies.
The House knows that although we have achieved remarkable feats in nuclear research and in our domestic nuclear programme, we have been notably unsuccessful in selling our reactors abroad. When in the summer of 1966 one of the nuclear consortia came to my Department and asked for money from the Government to support it in a bid, I declined to provide that support and instead began to work on the reorganisation of the nuclear industry and set in hand a re-examination of the industry. I must tell the House, although it probably knows it already, that my initial view was the same as the view of the Committee which sat later, that we should have a single design and construction company, partly because the volume of business at home would not be sufficient to sustain two companies and also because of the very stern competition that the British design and construction companies would face in foreign markets.
Therefore, early in 1967 we met the consortia. They were very hostile to the idea of any sort of inquiry, saying that it would create great uncertainty, and they pleaded with us to keep secret the fact that the meeting had occurred, although a full account appeared in the Sunday papers—but not my account. This was just at the time that the Select Committee began its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, who did a very close study, drew evidence from many people in industry and Government. I gave evidence. The Committee came up with a very firm recommendation, first bearing

1605
on the fuel company which is the subject of this debate and, secondly, recommending that a single design and construction company should be established.
I am glad that the present Government have reappointed the Select Committee on Science and Technology because I believe it to have been a notable innovation in the conduct of affairs of the House, and I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the Committee for the work that it did, not only in this but in other areas.
When the Committee had made its report it was open to us to call in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to see whether the recommendation could be implemented. Although the hon. Gentleman brushed aside the I.R.C. rather hastily when he was asked about it, the truth is that it would not have been possible to bring about the two consortia that he is recommending to the House if the I.R.C. had not been available. It is astonishing—and I do not want to make a controversial speech just before Christmas because we are all so cheerful and happy and the Bill is a good one; it is ours—that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can still maintain their weekend speeches and come forward with a Bill based upon a structure that they have begun to destroy in terms of the machinery which brought it about.
With the I.R.C. we had an industrialist working, not a political supporter of ours. Frank Kearton has very candidly always admitted his Conservative loyalties and subscriptions. [Laughter.] He is an independent person certainly, but no supporter of ours in the sense of political allegiance. He is a scientist, an industrialist, a member of the Atomic Energy Authority, a member of the Advisory Council on Technology, Chairman of the I.R.C., and Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Industrial Expansion Act, about which I want to say a word later.
He was the man who enabled I.R.C. to go to the consortia and try to see how far it was possible to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee. I said it in the Rolls-Royce debate and I say it again: if Government are to get into this industrial policy area, that is the place where the industrialists should work, not as a substitute for a Permanent Secretary, tucked
1606
away in No. 10 Downing Street. Sir Frank Kearton was fully backed by the staff of I.R.C. He set up a further inquiry to see how far this could be implemented. It was not possible to bring about what we wanted and what the Select Committee wanted originally. The fact is that these design and construction companies did a wider range of business than simply nuclear power and therefore they could not be looked at simply as part of the nuclear industry. They were not absolutely dependent on the Atomic Energy Authority designs, although they obviously wanted to make them work if access were made available for them.
So we went for two rather than one, and it was, again, through the work of the I.R.C. that the exceptionally difficult negotiations necessary to bring about the two consortia took place. I say "difficult" because some of the consortia were faced with loss-making operations which they had undertaken in the past. It was a matter not just of bringing about mergers but of dealing with some extremely difficult company situations. The I.R.C. did it, and without the I.R.C. it could not have been done. In the process something else happened: the I.R.C. took a holding in the two consortia and so did the Atomic Energy Authority. Thus we had the beginnings of the mixed-enterprise ownership pattern which is embodied in the Bill. Nobody has said it was wrong then, and nobody has said, not even the Minister, that it is wrong now. Of course it is not wrong in an area in which publicly-financed research figures very highly and is applied in industry. The mixed-enterprise arrangement was right.
Not only that, but there were long and exceptionally difficult negotiations with the staff. Some of the staff moved out of the Atomic Energy Authority to the private consortia. Why did they do that? Why did that happen? Because the consortia anticipated that an expansion of effort required staff, and the Atomic Energy Authority, having discharged part, at any rate, of its role to create the technology, was not expecting to require as many people as it had had in the past. Many people moved in this way into a mixed-enterprise arrangement.
This new Bill provides for the fuel company, as I understand, to acquire

1607
shares in the consortia with the A.E.A., which will have a holding of shares in the first instance. And we get a treble interest—the interest of the Government, the interest of the Atomic Energy Authority, in its ownership in the first instance of 100 per cent. of the fuel company, and some holding by the private consortia. This is quite right. This is essentially because, of course, the design of the fuel element is the whole heart of the nuclear business, and with cross-representation we want to have co-ordination; and, of course, we need to remember that it is in the fuel business that the money lies far more than in the sale of the hardware itself—just as, in my life, having been a life-long smoker, I have contributed far more money to the tobacco manufacturers than to the pipe manufacturers. It is the same position with the nuclear business.
The consortia being established, we then had the opportunity to have discussions with the new consortia on how the policy would work, and on the developments. I mention this because it will obviously happen again with the fuel company in terms of the relationship between the Government and this type of mixed-enterprise operation. I will tell the House about the way we did it, because it is of some public interest.
We invited both consortia to come separately and to meet not only myself and my own principal officials but representatives of the Ministry of Power, and also there were brought in the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Export Credit Guarantee Department and the Foreign Office, all looking together to see how it was possible to develop and expand the export business. This export business has considerable relationship to export credits. We had to try to think our way into the future through the eyes of companies, this joint planning was really important.
I get a bit fed up reading articles about Japan Incorporated as though M.I.T.I. in Tokyo were the only department in the world creating co-operation between Government and industry. The truth is that, without any of the political overtones of Great Britain Limited, we can do and did do a great deal of it ourselves. The Government today have to sit down with
1608
private industry and with mixed-enterprise firms and plan ahead the expansion of our marketing overseas. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's Department ought to be doing. I do not know whether it is doing it, because it is contrary to all the philosophy pumped out that Government and industry are separate—that unions and managements are separate. I do not believe that we can run modern society on that sort of philosophy.
At any rate, that was the first stream, stream No. 1, industrial restructuring. Next we come to stream No. 2, which culminates in this Bill, and that is the development of the new technology of the enrichment of uranium first by the diffusion process, and largely linked with that is the high enrichment for weapons purposes. In 1965, I think I am right in saying—it is hard to remember everything—we announced Capenhurst stage two, linking with the development of the A.G.R. programme.
But in parallel with the enrichment by the gas diffusion process came the work on the centrifuge itself. The work was very complex, involving development of high skills in mechanical engineering rather than nuclear techniques. Doctor Zippe is recognised worldwide as the father of centrifuge technology. Born in Germany, he went to Russia and to America and then he returned to Germany. The centrifuge technique developed within the A.E.A. was cheaper than the gas diffusion system. It could be built up on a modular basis, but it had certain dangerous aspects, and it was feared that it might make for greater proliferation of nuclear weapons. This work was therefore conducted with great secrecy.
It was about this time that the proposal was made about the smelters. This was a parallel story which I must bring into my account because it is an exceptionally interesting one—the idea that smelters might be provided in the United Kingdom with comparable powers costs to those abroad by linking it with the advanced gas-cooled reactor, necessary to provide power for stage two at Capenhurst. This project was under consideration in the summer of 1966 when centrifuge was coming forward. In the event, it was not done by using A.G.Rs. because the centrifuge was to replace diffusion for

1609
enrichment. It was done under the Industrial Expansion Act, and that Act, like the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act, has been abandoned by the Conservative Party.
Here was a great import saving venture under the Industrial Expansion Act programme which was made possible in large measure by our legislation which has now been knocked out. I say this in parenthesis because it was an element in the story which led up to the links the Dutch and the Germans had begun. As the House will appreciate, centrifuge work in the early days was carried out with exceptional secrecy because the Government had experience enriching uranium by the diffusion process and when we decided to shift to the centrifuge process, it revealed that that was the better method and bearing in mind what had been done and with the experience of centrifuge, it was thought better that we should be doing it with the Dutch and the Germans and that we should cooperate together. The French were at work at Pierrelatte, hoping to provide enriched uranium to Europe by the diffusion process from there. We made an approach to the Dutch and the Germans and brought about the tripartite arrangement.
If the House will bear with me for one moment, here is another lesson to be learned from the very nature of mixed Government and industrial enterprise. By this tripartite agreement we developed a totally new type of international agreement and co-operation unlike E.L.D.O. We got together and signed an agreement for a new international company to be set up with a long-term programme. The real value of this is that it is an international company working together with a number of companies and bringing together the German and Dutch Governments and the British Government, bringing together the A.E.A., and now the new nuclear fuel company which is to be brought about by this Bill, and bringing in private firms both in Holland and Germany. This was based upon a huge market; the figure given to me was the one the Ministers quoted, £1,000 million by 1980. We planned a tapering subsidy to transfer the research costs progressively to the new company. As Dutch and German firms were involved we had one
1610
reason for having private enterprise brought in as well.
I make no apology for this. I profoundly believe that this is an enormously expanding business and involves more than just the A.E.A. capability, because there is here a big trading capacity, and technique, from which British firms do not wish to be shut out. They will be competing with Dutch and German firms, and we want them to be moving into the market. So I think that this was right.
Now we come to the Bill before the House. I did not want to talk, as it were, by giving my memoirs, but there is, I think, a little more flesh and blood, as I think the House will agree, in the account that I have given than there was in the rather skeletal description given by the Minister.
Under the tripartite agreement each nation will own a majority holding in the enrichment plant in its own country, with the minority being held by the three partners together, so that at Almelo and Capenhurst there will be provision for a genuine international operation to work. I believe that this makes sense. It is an international company; it is European; it is mixed enterprise; it is Government; it is industry; it has been negotiated with the unions, and it brings science in on it. It makes sense—and it is utterly incompatible with everything that has been said publicly by the Conservative Party.
I make no more of that. It is obviously right to maintain the Government majority holding. In the House of Lords before the election, in the heady atmosphere when peers were preparing to defend their seats—a thing that worries them immensely—they passed an Amendment which would have taken away the Government majority holding. The technology is so sensitive and the staff requirements are so important—and for many other reasons—that it is obviously right that it should be Government-controlled. In that respect, the Minister has fairly recognised the virtues of what had been originally proposed.
I have described three streams of thinking and action that went into the Bill. But there is one great blank. We have heard nothing, other than the phrase "the Government are giving thought to

1611
the future of the Atomic Energy Authority". I look at the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who has been a member of the Committee and has a great interest in the matter, and has always shown a great interest in the staff of the A.E.A. I wonder how he felt—I wonder how my hon. Friends felt—when they heard the phrase about "giving thought to the future of the Atomic Energy Authority".
Mr. Dalyell: What does it mean?
Mr. Bean: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
We could not deal with the future of the Atomic Energy Authority until we had dealt with all the things that I have been describing—until we had dealt with the consortia; until we had dealt with the radio-chemical function; until we had dealt with the production group and until we had brought Aldermaston back into the Government arena as part of the recognition of its particular defence function. Having got to the point that we reached 12 months ago—to the point where this question becomes acutely pressing for the staff—it is disgraceful for the Minister to say no more than that he was "giving thought", when the Green Paper was published in January, and not with major political disagreement in the House. There was some criticism from outside, in the professional associations. There was some highly intelligent criticism of the Green Paper. All that is known to the Minister.
I think that Green Papers should lead to the provision of Pink Papers, which would tell us what the public thinks about the Green Papers. Many comments came in after the publication of the Green Paper. Some of them were critical, but they were immensely helpful. If the House had available to it all the information that we got from those who wrote in about the Green Paper we should be a little nearer to the solution of the problem.
I am utterly convinced that other than in the field of academic science—which never concerned me because it was the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science—technical research and technological work of the kind done in the A.E.A. and the D.S.I.R., sponsored
1612
by the N.R.D.C., must be orientated on the basis of need. If that principle had been followed, far from frightening the staff they would have been encouraged to see the relevance of their work.
Secondly, we must bring the Atomic policy back into the ministerial domain. We must create an Atomic Energy Board where all the interests in atomic energy policy can be focused together, bringing in industry, the research people and the power generating people themselves. I greatly regret the fact that six months after they came to office, and having known about the thinking of the previous Government—because the Green Paper was published; it was not a private document—there should have been not one indication of what the present Government intend to do about the Atomic Energy Authority. We had a deathly hush, followers by the classic, immortal phrase, ''The Government are giving thought to the future of the Atomic Energy Authority". That was said only a few months after we were told about the computers at the Conservative Central Office having their policies geared for immediate implementation. None could have been easier than this, because of the thinking that had been made public.
The staff are entitled to know about this, and it is a question on which the hon. Member who is to wind up the debate must say more than that he is "thinking"—because Oppositions think and Governments do things. That is a relationship that we should not forget.
What I have tried to describe is the background to the Bill. I believe that it is the best solution. My hon. Friends and others who are keenly interested in the matter will want to deal with problems of valuation and capitalisation. But staff matters are of supreme importance—such as conditions, wages, assurances that can be given, superannuation arrangements, problems of safety, which was partly dealt with by the Minister, and the interchangeability problems that will arise in connection with the new company and the old A.E.A. They are matters that I hope he will discuss with the staff. I made it my business to do this. I met the staff associations which must not be regarded as being of less than supreme importance. We are not talking about hardware; we are talking about people and their skills.

1613
There are lessons to be learned. One is that we must link research with identifiable needs; another is that the structure of application is much more difficult and in many ways more important than the research that goes into the initial work. If we had learnt that many years ago—and I am not making a party political point—we should all have done better. Research must serve some need—industrial, military, or communal. We cannot make sense of any of these decisions unless Government, management, the unions, and scientists are brought together in partnership. We have had a lot of philosophy put forward by the Government since they came into office. I am in favour of Governments having a philosophy, but if the philosophy of the Conservative Party is the philosophy of scientific apartheid, where the two sides live separately and meet only when it is necessary and where there is no idea of partnership. I condemn it, because I believe that without partnership we cannot make this Bill work.
I know that the Secretary of State and his colleagues are active in developing and applying this philosophy, and I regret that they are demobilising the instrument by which modern Government can interact intelligently with industry and science, when the future of our society depends on our being at least as modern as the French, the Americans, the Japanese and the Swedes. Since in this case, however, they have been able to bring forward a Bill based upon the instruments that we gave them, I commend it most warmly to the House.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I am glad to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) because I have always supported the operation contained in the Bill. He made a number of provocative remarks to which I shall refer but I must first declare a financial interest in the Nuclear Power Group and in a boiler company which has a shareholding in the group, and also a large constituency interest, in that many of my constituents are employees of the Authority. I shall naturally wish to raise a number of staff matters.
The right hon. Gentleman castigated the Government for not having decided the long-term future of the Atomic Energy Authority in six months. He will be
1614
aware that after many years he produced a Green Paper which was demolished by many scientists and which did not contain proposals that found acceptance in any quarter that I know of with regard to the future of the A.E.A., because it proposed to lock it up in a monolithic structure known as the B.R.D.C. We are not supposed to be discussing that in the context of the Bill, but I hope that hon. Members opposite will not make any further points about this Government's having taken too long.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will remember that in the Select Committee we often prodded the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to produce this Bill, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a nuclear fuel company. It does not lie with him to say that the delays are on this side of the House. There were considerable delays in his time.
However, I do not want to spoil the Christmas spirit, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in other directions, but I thought I should make that point, even if it sounds a little waspish. It is to the right hon. Gentleman's credit that he prepared the ground for the Bill, and I know something of the negotiations which took place. It is quite clear that nuclear fuel will be very important and very big business in the near future. This is one of the reasons for the Bill and one of the reasons that one wants to know a great deal about the implications of it.
One of the things which I welcome, which is being demonstrated by this Bill, and also by what the Minister said, is that the Atomic Energy Authority has for some time being a thriving commercial enterprise on the production side. I join in the congratulations to its Production Group on its excellent work, particularly in fuel and radio isotopes. It is certainly not the remote body that it has been made out to be in some quarters and on which I have commented in the last Parliament. It is certainly not divorced from industry and commercial practice. For any organisation to have as big an increase as 22·5 per cent, in its export orders is something on which it should be congratulated.
Since these matters are reported in the 1969–70 Report of the Authority, I ask what will happen about the new contracts

1615
for fuel which it has with Japan, with Germany and Switzerland? Will they be taken over by the new company? If so, in what circumstances? I assume that the new company will acquire the shares which the Authority has in the Italian nuclear fuel company, Combustibili Nucleari, which is an important point in view of the European links of the Authority. My hon. Friend has rightly described these as success stories and they form a very good basis for the new companies.
Not much has been said about the Radiochemical Centre. This has a close connection with Harwell, and is based at Amersham. It had an exceptional year's trading last year and its increase in sales was up 60 per cent, in exports. That is a remarkable record. I have noticed the way in which they exercise quality control. I am sure that this will be followed in the new radiochemical company. I know of the work that they have been doing with the isotope production unit at Harwell and I assume that those links will remain the same as they were. As I say, they are sound foundations for the future. They have excellent staff with which to carry out the work of those companies in this fast-growing industry with a considerable export potential.
These companies will, of course, with this very considerable growth, be able to make commercial decisions. This is not to say that the previous organisations could not or did not make commercial decisions. They certainly did. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this, but I think that the structure is better for the future with the growth potential.
I think that it is absolutely right that the Government should have a majority shareholding. Although it may not be for all time, and these things may have to be reviewed in the light of private investment, this is absolutely the right structure at the moment—although my hon. Friend may tell us how far this question will apply to the Radiochemical Centre Ltd. as distinct from British Nuclear Fuels Limited. I was not clear from the Minister's speech about that.
I turn now to the staff effects. I have had a brief from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, as has the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). They have supplied us, as usual, with
1616
extremely valuable information. I understand that there are 3,700 non-industrial staff to be transferred, and 2,400 others. Therefore, future prospects of these companies, particularly the nuclear fuel company, are very important to them.
My hon. Friend discussed the terms of reference of future negotiations for these companies and said that we would bring in the merchant banks. This is a perfectly normal method and there should be no real dispute about it. The net surplus of the trading fund, of the Authority, it is said, is expected to continue. This flat statement does not mean much unless we look into the actual working of the new companies.
I want to know whether any forward estimate has been made of the profits and the dividend policies of the companies. It is important for the staff, who are very skilled people, to know what sort of company they will join. If the likely market is as high as £1,000 million by 1980, as the Minister said, what share will the nuclear fuel company and the radiochemical company get of that market? Has there been a forward guess in his Department on this matter?
We are dealing with some of the most brilliant people in the field of reprocessing nuclear fuel in the world and they are entitled to know what sort of company they are joining. While I wish the company well, these are relevant questions to us.
What study in regard to our present negotiations with the E.E.C. has been made, for example, about the economics of large-scale reprocessing nuclear fuel plant in Europe? This will be important because, were we to join Europe, we would want to know the effect on the economics of the new company.
Clause 13—this again is a financial question—says that the maximum contribution out of public funds is to be reduced in the case of the fuel company from £100 million to £75 million, without recourse to Parliament. After that, there has to be recourse to Parliament. What is the significance of this? Is it because part of the capital is to be obtained from the market? If so, that might be a perfectly sensible way of doing it.
A subject which concerns me a good deal and which I have discussed very often with Members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and

1617
with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East when he was Minister, and with my hon. Friends, is the relationship between the authority in future—I assume that he will retain the Authority as a viable organisation: that is certainly my wish—and the design and construction companies in regard to this nuclear fuel company.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the A.E.A. shareholdings in those companies. At all times, I have been very much in favour of these shareholdings although I am connected with the private enterprise side of the industry, and they have proved to be very valuable to the design and construction companies.
I assume that these A.E.A. shareholdings will be transferred to the nuclear fuel company. If so, the Authority will continue with some of its R. and D. work on nuclear fuels and there will be a direct link. I would not like to see that link disappear by this transfer, and it is therefore to be hoped that some of these A.E.A. shareholdings will continue. This link is valuable to those of us who work in the industry on the private enterprise side.
Mr. Dalyell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, from his great experience of this subject, that the problem of valuation is likely to prove extremely difficult, especially in the long-term?
Mr. Neave: I think so, although I am not equipped to answer that. It is obviously a matter which my right hon. Friend will wish to consider when examining the whole question of assets. I am dealing with the tricky point of the need to maintain the link of which I have spoken because most design work will now be outside the A.E.A., and that Authority will be the main research body for the industry.
The I.P.C.S. has told hon. Members of its suggestion—I put this forward as its suggestion rather than mine—that the total shareholding of A.E.A. in the design and construction companies should be divided between the nuclear fuel company and the A.E.A. I refer, of course, to the holding of the A.E.A. and the I.R.C. The suggestion is that that should be jointly held by the A.E.A. and the nuclear fuel companies, and I hope that a decision on this point will be taken shortly.
1618
Under Clause 8 we see that no option is given to the staff to remain with the A.E.A. because, of course, they automatically become employees of the companies on the appointed day. This makes it necessary for the Government to give the firmest assurances about terms and conditions of service. I made this point to the Labour Party when they were in office, and if the principle enshrined in Clause 8 is accepted, the Government have a clear responsibility in this matter. The I.P.C.S. wrote to the Minister for Industry on 9th December asking for certain assurances on this point, and I hope that they will be forthcoming.
This brings me to the question of superannuation. I have been pressing Governments on this issue for some time because I envisaged the day when the Authority would be, certainly to some extent, separated from the fuel side and from the design and construction companies. I have maintained all along that there should be a system of interchange between the A.E.A. and the Companies. I am not sure how far this process of interchange is being effected by this Measure, but I trust that the need for it will be borne in mind.
It has been asked why there need be three different pension schemes. I, too, pose that question. We are here forming two companies and two schemes, in addition to the A.E.A.'s superannuation scheme. I could understand the need to set up different pension schemes if we were not concerned with the public service, but although this may not be the public service as such, I see no reason why this difference should exist. If there is a reason, may we be told it? I remind the House that the nuclear power group, which is primarily a private enterprise group, has amended its scheme to provide benefits comparable with those offered by the A.E.A. scheme. We did this when staff were transferred to us.
Clause 20 appears to say that the Secretary of State must have regard to this pensions aspect, and this denotes that the interchange of staff about which I spoke will be facilitated. However, it seems that the Authority does not envisage what one might call a "mid-career" transfer of staff from one employment to another.
I have always held that this type of interchange should exist, and I hope that the Government appreciate the need

1619
for it. The I.P.C.S. has made this point, and as far back as the days of Frank Cousins I was pressing for a greater degree of interchange. We do not appear to have made much progress along these lines since then.
Clause 20(6) has a considerable bearing on the transfer of staff. It seems that the Science Research Council will not be able to apply the A.E.A. superannuation scheme to its new employees at the Culham laboratory. The subsection clearly says:
"In addition to any person to whom any pension scheme maintained by the Authority is applicable apart from this subsection, any such scheme may also apply to any person employed by the Science Research Council who—
(a) immediately before 1st April 1969 was an employee of the Authority engaged in research … at the Authority's laboratory at Culham".
What happens after that—to the new employees of the Science Research Council at Culham? We do not want to pass legislation which will make it impossible for the Council to adopt as good a pension scheme as the A.E.A.'s scheme. This important point has been made strongly to me by the staff side of the Whitley Council at the Rutherford laboratory.
Is the Minister satisfied that he has taken account of the representations of the staff side about safety? There is a fear that with the creation of these companies—there seems to be no reason for this fear—there will be less of a contact with the A.E.A.'s health and safety branch, which keeps a watch on radiological safety. In view of the amount of responsibility that outside industry will have for these new projects, we should be told what safety arrangements are being made.
The I.P.C.S. has suggested that a new Clause should be introduced to make it necessary for the companies that we are setting up to consult the Authority's safety division. I am not sure that we need go that far, but certainly adequate assurances should be given by the Minister on this issue.
I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on the clear way in which he introduced it. I trust that he will remember that many people, in ad-
1620
dition to hon. Members, require an early statement about the future of the Authority. We would also like a Green Paper to be published, though not the one which we were discussing six months ago. These matters are in the best interests of what has been a most successful career from the point of view of the Authority's Production Group.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: As the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said, the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the last Parliament, to which kind references have been made in the debate, devoted a great deal of time and thought to the nuclear power industry. There were a number of reasons for that, but I shall content myself with giving three. First, the industry is a vast spender of public money. When we were carrying through our investigation as a Select Committee, we asked for an estimate of how much public money had been spent from the beginning on nuclear energy development for civil purposes. Tucked away in the Report somewhere there is an estimate given. I cannot give the exact figure—it is not altogether relevant anyhow—but it is awe-inspiring in its extent.
Second, we had a strong instinct throughout our investigations that the United Kingdom must keep ahead of the times in the further development of complex technologies. This is not just an economic question to be measured by the return on invested capital; it is a human question as well. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that we can treat scientists and engineers as interchangeable units who will work just as happily on water softeners or electric typewriters as they will on reactors or in aerospace. If they cannot do what they want to do and what they have been trained for and are interested in, they will move, perhaps, to other countries or pass too early in life into more profitable management jobs. Therefore, in looking closely at the progress of this advanced technology, we thought that, in the long run, we were probably helping the country's general industrial future.
The third reason has already been mentioned in the debate, that it was common ground at the end of 1966 that changes in the organisation of the nuclear industry were urgently necessary. My right hon.

1621
Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us at that time, nearly four years ago, that he was on the verge of making recommendations and that our views as a Select Committee, since we had given notice that we were to investigate this subject, should be brought forward without delay in order to assist him. We produced the first Report to the House by the end of 1967. One of our major recommendations which is now taken up in the Bill, was that there should be an independent nuclear fuel company. We made no recommendation on radiochemicals, so I shall not deal with that.
Nearly four years have passed, and, at last, legislative action is being taken. Looking back, one cannot help thinking that, in the end, it has turned out to be a very leisurely reorganisation in practice. I am not apportioning blame. It might have been due to the difficulties of placating and consulting all the interests concerned but it is a bad delay nevertheless.
It will be said that the sale of nuclear fuel is going on anyhow, and that it is an established branch of the Atomic Energy Authority's business. That is true, but delay has the unfortunate consequence, to which the hon. Member for Abingdon referred, that it is demoralising for the staff when they know that a change is to come but not when it will come. That anxiety is always there. It is unsettling, bad for morale, and does not help in the slightest.
The Institution of Professional Civil Servants gave us a great deal of useful evidence, to that effect, as can be seen in the Select Committee's Report. I am, therefore, glad that the Government have decided to wipe out the consequences of the Amendment made to the earlier Bill in the other place and to give once again a majority shareholding to the Atomic Energy Authority. That is important because, since the staff have to come from the Atomic Energy Authority, it will give them confidence as to their future, as they can feel that their previous employers are still in command of the situation.
The Select Committee was so concerned about the leisurely way in which the reorganisation was being carried through that it decided, perhaps to speed things up, to conduct a second inquiry. On the pace of the reorganisation, we said this in 1969:
1622
"The Minister declared over twelve months ago his intention of introducing legislation to establish a fuel company in place of the Authority's present fuel business. A Bill has not yet appeared but much depends on speedy action."
We went on to give a number of reasons why that speedy action was essential and I am sure we were right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was most helpful in the evidence which he gave to the Select Committee at every stage, and most helpful in the memoranda and documents which were placed before the Committee, and I pay tribute to him. I was glad that he used again his illustration of the difference between nuclear fuel and nuclear reactors. I am a non-smoker. He is a notorious pipe smoker, which, on the whole, goes down rather well in Bristol. He used a similar illustration in his evidence to the Committee. He said—this is Question No. 955—
"… just as tobacco manufacturers make more money than pipe manufacturers, probably there will be a very great export market in nuclear fuel."
Under questioning, he explained to the Committee a little later that he did not mean that it was still not important to export reactors, and I confess that that qualification was to our great relief. It is estimated now that by, say, 1980 there may be will be an international market for nuclear fuel to a figure of £1,000 million. It is, therefore, important that the new company should be fully ready to take the maximum advantage of that market. Nuclear energy for power production may be having its temporary setbacks in most industrial countries just now, but it will go ahead again in a big way in the long run, never fear.
It is never easy in this country in public utility circles for those responsible for the management, to break away from what I call the municipal engineer's outlook. This outlook always requires a cosy domestic market in which the purchaser decides the specification and prefers to have a choice among as many makers as possible so that he may obtain comparative tenders and reach a decision on purchase suitable to him. That may still be perfectly sound for many articles of equipment, but in nuclear fuel it is the international market and international standards of comparison which count, and this will be increasingly so if our

1623
economic links with Europe become closer.
I think it excellent, therefore, that there is to be just one British nuclear fuel company. There is no nonsense here about the need for competition in the domestic market so that one can make a choice between one type or style of nuclear fuel and another. There is to be one nuclear fuel company because it is correctly recognised that the true competition here is international competition.
I still think it a pity that a similar line of reasoning was not followed in regard to the principal recommendation of the Select Committee, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred, that there should be one British design and construction company for reactors which would have developed its own international subsidiaries not just for fuel but for the main product itself, the reactor. It would have been dominated, the Select Committee proposed, by the Atomic Energy Authority, but, again as we suggested, private capital would have been welcomed as a component.
My right hon. Friend rejected that suggestion, in spite of the weight of opinion in its favour. As he knows, there were some eminent people in the industry—Lord Penney was one—who were in favour of the single design and construction company.
Mr. Benn: I think that the word "rejected" slightly misrepresents what happened. What I told the House—my hon. Friend knows this—is that I personally wanted it before the Committee recommended it, but, on examination, I found it not to be practicable. Whether that constitutes rejection may be an interesting question of semantics.
Mr. Palmer: I often read what my right hon. Friend said on the subject before he was the Minister. The trouble was that he converted me but he did not in the end convert himself when Minister. If "rejected" is too strong, I am sorry, but I think that that is what it came to when he had to make a decision as Minister.
Instead, it was agreed with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the three previous consortia that the industry
1624
should, so to speak, be reduced to two new groupings, with some small extra injection—20 per cent, in each case, I think—of public capital from the Atomic Energy Authority. I am still open to conviction that that compromise was satisfactory, but, if one looks at the number of overseas orders for reactors, one can only say that the export trade is still making very slow progress. In spite of the initial advance which we had in this technology, we are not selling reactors abroad in the way we should, and there seems to be a great deal of muddle and confusion about who is the selling authority for British reactors.
On this issue, my right hon. Friend and I had a little exchange in the columns of that volatile political journal, the New Statesman. He said then—he said much the same again today—that the Select Committee's solution was unworkable. I thing that that was the work which he used. I very much doubt that. I think that what stood in the way was the business interests of the companies concerned in other fields. They had many other things to do and many other heavy engineering products to sell.
I think that my right hon. Friend and I differ a little on the question of inter-ventionism, and I should put the matter in this way. The real trouble was that his Department had become so much involved in details and in the restructuring of private companies that he had lost that independence as a Minister which was necessary for action by the State.
Mr. Benn: I must intervene again, because that is a serious charge to make. What powers would it have been open to me to use to bring about a merger between companies which were independent, short of introducing legislation to take into public ownership all the companies I wished to join? My hon. Friend has often made that point, but he has never told me by what powers such a solution could have been implemented, and he ought to explain now.
Mr. Palmer: The Select Committee suggested that, in the long run, it could be done on the basis of voluntary co-operation—that is true—but I think personally that in the end it would have meant legislation.
Mr. Benn: To nationalise all of them?
Mr. Palmer: To bring their relevant business into public ownership probably.
Mr. Benn: All the companies?
Mr. Palmer: That is one of the difficulties of course. I hold strongly the view that, if a Minister takes interventionism beyond a certain point, becoming greatly involved and committed to the fortunes of the companies concerned, in such circumstances he is bound to lose that independence and impartiality which the State must always retain if it is to take action in the public interest. That was the fundamental difficulty here.
Mr. Benn: A moment ago, my hon. Friend was urging me to bring all three into one by voluntary co-operation. That would have involved a degree of intervention going far beyond what was necessary to bring three into two. He has now said for the first time—I have never heard him say it before—that he thinks that the whole of the industry should have been brought into public ownership, if necessary, to create the single design and construction company, and that would have included—for the industry was not concerned just with nuclear power—the whole manufacture of electric plant and all the plant and equipment for conventional power stations as well. This is a striking advance in his own policy thinking, and I feel that my hon. Friend ought to tell the House more about it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should address the Chair. It helps the reporters to hear.
Mr. Benn: You were in my mind, Mr. Speaker, though my face was elsewhere.
Mr. Palmer: This is a Second Reading debate, and we can discuss matters widely, but we have to do so in accordance with the rules of the House. I said that the Select Committee—I want to be precise about the Select Committee—did not suggest legislation because we hoped there that it could be brought about by voluntary co-operation. I would prefer that but I would not shrink from legislation. I am putting forward the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the method now being used of a legislative Measure to bring about the fuel companies could also have been used for the amalgamation of the reactor interests into one group.
Mr. Neave: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Select Committee of which we were both members never advocated public ownership in this case at all but did advocate a joint organisation of private and public enterprise?
Mr. Palmer: That is a perfectly fair comment. I have said already that the Select Committee thought that this could be brought about on a basis of voluntary co-operation of public and private enterprise assisted and inspired by the Ministry. At no stage could we have obtained the general assent of the members of the Select Committee had we suggested any expansion of the frontiers of public ownership. I simply say that if legislation had been introduced later involving an expansion of public ownership I would not have gone against it in order to obtain the single design and manufacturing company.
However, this is now all in the past, and we have here a Bill which takes a very sensible step forward. A Bill for an independent nuclear fuel company had the advocacy of the Select Committee of which I had the privilege to be Chairman, and I wish the Bill and its outcome all success.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I had intended to make some remarks on the structure of the industry, but things have been so much better put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) that on the general issue I have only three questions to ask of the Minister.
The Minister stated that by 1980 fuel services would be reaching a value of about £1,000 million. This is a very interesting statistic and I should like to know something of the basis on which it is calculated, because it may go to some extent to settling the worries expressed in the I.P.C.S. document we have all had.
The second issue has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), to whom we listen with great care on these matters: it is the whole difficulty of valuation. If the Government come forward with what we hope

1627
are thought out proposals at least they will have some clear idea of the criteria on which valuation is to be made. All of us who are interested in the subject know that it is extremely difficult to carry out any kind of valuation, and we want to know precisely how the Government think it is to be done.
The third general issue that concerns me a little is the Minister's reference to commercial freedom to raise capital. I do not make too much of a party issue of it at the moment, but I do wonder precisely what it involves. Does it mean that the companies can ask certain favoured merchant bankers to raise capital in the City, or am I completely wrong in supposing that it might be very difficult to raise on a commercial basis capital in the quantities needed for what is necessarily seen by the City as something pretty speculative?
Before I quite bluntly argue the case that has been given to us all by the I.P.C.S., I want to ask about procedure. I understood the Leader of the House to say during business today that the remaining stages of the Bill will be taken on the first Friday after the Christmas Recess. I am not of a disposition to offer any kind of threat about talking for a long time on that Friday, but I must tell the Ministers that our speeches will be shorter if we get answers to some of the questions raised this afternoon. Whether the Bill is given them early or whether it takes a long time depends, I say it in all humility, on whether the Government Front Bench is prepared to meet the very real worries of live people who work in the industry as well as dealing with the technical issues that have been raised this afternoon.
Since this is what we might call a working day in Parliament, when we are making speeches for a limited number of people working in the industry rather than speeches designed to have great public effect outside, I make no apology for going through with some care the document which the Ministry and those of us who have been interested in the subject for a long time have had given to us by the I.P.C.S.
Paragraph 5 of the document refers to
"(i) the likely market during the next 5–10 years."
1628
I should be grateful to be told something of the likely size of the market.
The document then refers in the same paragraph to
(ii) the share the new companies can expect to obtain;
(iii) the implications for the size and character of its staff."
On that issue we would welcome any information that can be given, at least before the Committee stage.
Paragraph 6 states:
"The Institution also notes that the new Bill differs from the previous Bill in that the maximum contribution of capital out of public funds which can be authorised without further legislation has been reduced, in the case of the Fuel Company, from £100 million to £75 million. Presumably this is because it is now expected that the company will raise part of any capital it needs from the market and other non-Government sources. The staff would therefore welcome a statement from the Government as to the significance of this provision and the likely timetable for the introduction of private capital into the company."
The question of a timetable is quite important—
Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman said that the raising of capital would appear to be rather a speculative matter. If the estimates of growth of this potential market are right—going up to £1,000 million by 1980—it could be a case where private capital could be quite easily raised.
Mr. Dalyell: If there is success, yes, but given the stale of the capital market and its fluctuations I am just expressing some slight doubt whether we can have the certainty of success. If private capital is not forthcoming, and it is a possibility, what happens? It is in this context that I become extremely concerned about the Minister's throwaway phrase, quoted by my right hon. Friend: "The Government is giving thought to the long term future of the Authority."
I cannot believe that such a statement was spatchcocked into the Minister's speech just for the fun of it. Ministers do not make statements like that just for fun. I interpret it as an important statement made after due consideration. We therefore ask what it means. I may say that the Minister will find some of us very awkward indeed unless we get a full explanation of this sentence. If it does not worry the hon. Gentleman it certainly will wory a great many people who work in the Authority.

1629
Since the Minister made that statement I have not been able to get in touch with the I.P.C.S. but my guess is that the Institution, and other unions involved, will take that statement very seriously. My right hon. Friend's question should be answered later in the debate and we should be told precisely what those words mean. I confess that I would be very shocked if no comment was made on it because that would mean that the wording was terribly ill thought out.
I have to say to the Minister that I am slightly concerned at his inability—I know that he has many other things to do—to answer questions put to him during the course of his speech, because to come forward with proposals like these presupposes that they been thought out by the Minister and the Department. Therefore, we deserve the answers fairly soon.
Paragraph 8 of the document contains this passage:
"There is a need for the Authority, as the organisation which will continue to undertake research and development on nuclear reactors and nuclear fuels, to have a direct link with the design and construction companies They must all work closely together to maintain and extend an integrated programme from reactor research and development to production and sales. The two companies have already expressed their appreciation of the value of the U.K.A.E.A. shareholding in the evidence they gave to the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1969",
as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will remember.
"This direct linkage cannot be retained with anything like"—
this is the important part—
"the same effect if the U.K.A.E.A. loses its entire shareholding in the two companies".
I am not saying that I agree with that piece of evidence, but it is a substantial point which I do not think was answered in the Minister's speech. Here again, the Minister who winds up should tell us what the Government's view is.
Paragraph 9 of the document says this:
"The safeguards which have been written into the Bill relate only to the initial negotiations on terms and conditions in the companies. They are ambiguous in relation to the interim period whilst new agreements are being negotiated, and silent as to the longer term intentions. The Staff Side has therefore written to the Minister of State asking for certain supplementary assurances and a copy of this letter"
was sent to all concerned.
I again return to the Minister's phrase, which I must harp on—that the Govern-
1630
ment are to give thought to the long-term future of the authority. If our fears on this kind of thing are to be dispelled, it is obligatory for the Minister to say exactly what is meant by that phrase.
Paragraph 12 of the document concerns pension schemes. This point has already been raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon. From talking, not only to the I.P.C.S., but to people whom we have all met and who work in different establishments, one knows that there is considerable difficulty and worry on this score. Having been for 2½ years P.P.S. to a pensioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and having perforce had to learn a lot about pension schemes which I did not know before, I cannot understand why there is any reason why the Government should not stick to the A.E.A. pension scheme, especially as—the hon. Gentleman pointed this out—it was worked out by mutual consent with considerable satisfaction in the case of the T.N.P.G.
If the Government are to get our good will—I am not threatening; I am merely saying this—in getting their Measure through quickly, I should have thought that this was the sort of point on which they could say, "Yes, it can be done. We will give you that"; because, as the Minister knows, in this kind of argument everything is part of the package. Surely this is an element of the package which is certainly expendable from his point of view but rather important to those who work in the industry.
I wish it were possible to insert whole paragraphs into HANSARD so that Members did not have to make speeches which were too long. As we know, however, in our Parliament that is not possible. Therefore, I am bound to read paragraph 15 in full, so as to enable sense to be made of this passage of my speech if it is read outside.
Paragraph 15 reads:
"It has become clear from the discussions which have already been held with Ministers that very little interchange of staff is envisaged between the Authority and the companies whether on secondment or on a permanent basis."
I would hope that that is not so.
"The Authority itself is on record as saying: 'We frankly do not regard it as realistic to envisage that there would be a great deal of mid-career transfer from one employment to the other'. The most the Authority has been

1631
persuaded to say is that the companies will be recommended by the present managements to accept the principle that if they can assist in resolving an Authority surplus by aiming to get the bulk of any additional staff they may need in the category concerned from the Authority while the surplus persists they should do so, subject to review of the arrangements after five years. This seems to the Institution to be an unnecessarily restrictive view and it hopes that the Government can yet be persuaded to recognise the desirability of the maximum interchange of staff both between the Authority and the companies and with the nuclear industry in general."
I suppose that on this matter of mobility of staff it is the question of pensions as much as anything which is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central will remember very well that on a visit that the Select Committee made to Windscale and Risley this point in various forms was emphasised time and again by different people to whom we talked. Paragraph 15 is very important.
The hon. Member for Abingdon stressed the safety aspect. Here again, I should have thought that the Government could have gone some way, on the matters raised in paragraph 18 onwards of the Memorandum, to meet what we are putting forward and perhaps to meet the requirements of the I.P.C.S.
I have spoken a great deal over the last few weeks and do not want to make another long speech. Can the Government tell us what their intentions are on the Friday when we return? They will find that a number of us are wholly co-operative if we think that the Government are co-operative on the points that we have put forward. Let us hope that at any rate some of the issues which have been raised can be settled before the Committee stage on the Friday on which we return.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is very pleasant to take part in a debate in which so many knowledgeable right hon. and hon. Members have participated. I was particularly struck by the knowledge and experience of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who distinguished himself as a former Member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Both sides of the House welcome his accession to the Chair of that Committee.
1632
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is a former Chairman of that Committee. The work which that Committee has done indicates the value of the constitutional innovations made in recent Parliaments for the benefit of the House, the benefit of hon. Members, and the benefit of the community at large.
One can accept the general background of the Bill, which is the foraging but not at times too economically successful work of the Atomic Energy Authority and British industry since the establishment of the Authority in 1964. Both the Minister for Industry and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) have naturally—or perhaps unnaturally—reached a measure of agreement on certain provisions of the Bill. This is because there is a very close similarity between the Bill now before us and that which received its Second Reading in another place on 4th April.
I shall spend a little time examining the general strategy of the Bill before I come to one or two points of detail which I shall ask the Minister to examine.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East likened the Bill to a three-stage rocket. The first stage was the desirability of achieving general agreement on the basis of a consortium to be used for the construction and sales techniques of British nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the first stage could not be a single stage in itself. It had in many ways an unfortunate take-off, in that we could not achieve a single company and had to resort to two companies to undertake this process.
However, I do not think that it was unnatural that the Select Committee, in examining this structure, should have used these words in paragraph 8 of its Report:
"The process of reorganisation of the industry had produced two companies substantially little different in appearance from the two previous consortia."
There has been some disagreement in the House between the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central on the basis of why this should take place. I have a certain sympathy with both points of view, and I declare an interest in this, having spent a considerable amount of time in the engineering industry. I have

1633
considerable sympathy with the idea that there should be one consortium to take Britain's leadership into the actuality of sales and the construction of nuclear power plants abroad. I also have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East in his view of the ramifications of the industry which would be needed to get together three types of organisation into a consortium. There would have to be an organisation capable of constructing boilers of the high temperature and high pressure necessary, an organisation capable of constructing the electrical engineering generating equipment, and an organisation capable of doing the public works construction. Although my preference is for one consortium, I can see difficulties, in forcing that to its ultimate conclusion, of achieving any measure of public ownership or public compulsion. I would not like to envisage the nature of the Bill which would be necessary to achieve that. We have made the best of a difficult job, and it remains to be seen whether British industry is capable of selling nuclear power stations of the next generation.
In an analysis of the association between private and public enterprises, I am not sure that we require an alteration in the mixture rather than clear and definite managerial leadership and control. This is what we are trying to set in stage 2, but I am not certain that this mixture of private and public ownership is the most desirable one.
On Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill in 1954, the then Minister of Works said:
"Already, the British investment is changing its character. The programme is becoming less like a laboratory and more like an industry."
In arguing for the particular type of organisation envisaged in that Bill he said:
"It was then necessary to look for a form of organisation which combined the advantages of Parliamentary control with those of independent management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 846–48.]
Having departed significantly in two stages from this form of organisation, will the Minister be more forthcoming than the Bill is about the nature of the parliamentary control? I recognise that some form of parliamentary control is envisaged in Clause 14, which requires the
1634
accounts of the company to be laid before the House, but we require a little more than that. A large amount of public money is involved, and these organisations will play an important part in research and development, and sales of a fuel which will have such a large international market.
My second point is on the relationship between private and public funds, in a company which will initially be wholly publicly financed. It is a little surprising to see from the articles of association that both companies have 100 £1 shares. I know the technicalities involved, and we have to look at it in terms of market valuation, but what procedure does the Minister envisage to secure parliamentary oversight of the buying-in valuation of private industry? There is no account of that in the Bill. If private enterprise wants to participate in this company, as was thought desirable by people who examined the matter in detail, Parliament, knowing that the essential good will of the company has been almost entirely publicly created, has a right to know what procedures the Minister will adopt. He has mentioned the merchant bank, but he has not said what would be the requirements of stability of the companies who want to buy in.
I do not want to embarrass any company by mentioning names, but some companies which might be involved are already being substantially publicly sub-vented. Those companies might be using public money to buy shares in a public company, which strikes me as farcical, and I should like some clarification.
Clause 16 refers to investment grants under the Industrial Development Act 1966. If I understood the Minister aright, the Clause merely regularises the existing position. The Minister said that the Government might have second thoughts about the Clause and might redraft it in view of the changes in investment incentives. I apologise to the House for bringing forward again my point about the tripartite agreement, but that point is still valid. Article III (3) of the tripartite agreement states:
"The contracting parties shall inform each other, through the Joint Committee of technical or economic developments which might affect significantly the commercial exploitation of the gas centrifuge process by the joint industrial enterprise."

1635
Will the Ministry responsible discuss with the Joint Committee the changes in investment incentives, and the effect of those changes on the location of future plants? That is extremely important in relation to development area policy, and I should like clarification on that.
The third stage of the rocket which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East envisaged in his Green Paper was the organisation for research and development in Government laboratories. Research and development is where the real break-throughs will take place. It is not good enough to leave areas like Dounreay in an indeterminate position. We have seen today's figures of 103,000 unemployed. The future of the prototype fast reactor and the research being done there cannot be subjected to fears about centralising all the foraging powers and the "sexy" aspects of sales techniques in these new companies. It cannot be left like that, because these people feel insecure.
It is early days for the Government and it might be a little unfair to press the point, but people in the far North of Scotland will be concerned about what has been said today. I ask the Government, in view of the uncertainties, to take urgent steps to clarify the position, if possible, before the Committee stage of the Bill.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: It has been made clear that the Bill is in a party sense, non-contentious. Basically it is the Bill which the Labour Government introduced, and for that reason we have welcomed it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made clear, it is only part of a number of steps which the previous Government had taken and were intending to take to deal with the Atomic Energy Authority's activities as a whole. Therefore, it was rather remiss of the Minister to confine his remarks so narrowly to the provisions of the Bill without setting the matter in its very much wider context. I do not see how one can understand the impact and implications of the Bill without setting it in this wider context. Therefore, the House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-
1636
East for supplying, in such a fascinating and candid way, the background to the Bill which the Minister had failed to supply.
It would be presumptuous of me to go over the background to the Bill in the way in which my right hon. Friend did, but I wish to remind the House of three developments or potential developments at issue: the one dealt with in the Bill—the establishment of the nuclear fuel and radiochemical companies—the question of the design and construction companies, on which action had already been taken by my right hon. Friend, and the question of the future of the remainder of the Atomic Energy Authority on which a Green Paper was published by the previous Government and about which we have had no indication of the Government's thinking.
I should like to comment briefly on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said on the question of the design and construction companies. The reply to my hon. Friend was very effectively made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, because he explained very frankly the difficulties which he, starting with a prejudice towards a single design and construction company, found in practice in implementing the Select Committee's recommendation and the process by which he was brought to the solution which he propounded and which has now been implemented of two design and construction companies.
My reading of the Select Committee's Report and the subsequent debate on it in the House led me to think that there were no deep ideological divisions between the Labour and Conservative members of the Select Committee in making this recommendation. I had the impression that, although there was eventually what amounted to a party split on the matter, the balance between the recommendation for one design and construction company and the minority recommendation for two design and construction companies was quite fine, and it was really a question of approaching the problem, not from any ideological preconception, but simply from the point of view of the most effective solution to improve the effort of the industry, particularly in selling reactors overseas.
Mr. Neave: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that the real question concerned who should do the reactor design—whether there should be competition in the design of the reactor?
Mr. Millan: That was another important issue. It is also relevant to point out that the Central Electricity Generating Board, as the sole purchaser in the United Kingdom, apart from the South of Scotland Electricity Board, was very anxious that there should be two design and construction companies.
One recommendation of the Select Committee which I thought was rather unrealistic was the corollary recommendation to the single design and construction company, that the C.E.G.B. would obviously be entitled to look abroad for subsequent nuclear power stations.
Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend is quite right. The emphasis of the Select Committee, and certainly my emphasis, was that true competition is international competition and that international competition would apply within our own boundaries and outside.
Mr. Millan: I do not approach the idea of international competition within our own boundaries with a great deal of enthusiasm considering the vast amounts of public money spent on nuclear research and development in this country.
I do not wish to reopen that argument. I thought that I would simply comment on the Select Committee's Report and make the additional comment that, the decision having been made to have two design and construction companies, with the Government now operating with that decision, the important thing is to see whether we can make the two companies successful in the export field. We are entitled to some indication from the Government about how they view the prospects now that the two companies are working and what is happening concerning exports. That seems to me a much more important question than discussing again whether we should have one or two design and construction companies.
We all had very much in mind a number of considerations when we previously discussed the question of the design and construction companies. First, we had in mind the very large element of public expenditure by the Atomic Energy Authority and that the tremendous success
1638
which it had achieved in many fields should be exploited to the fullest economic and industrial extent in this country and overseas. Secondly, we thought that the public should get some kind of commercial and industrial return on this very large element of public expenditure. Thirdly, recognising that the matter could be dealt with only as a partnership between public and private enterprise, we believed that the operation should be carried out on the basis of a contribution of effort and finance by public and private enterprise. The same kind of considerations apply when we are discussing the two companies to be set up under the Bill.
The background is however different in this sense. Whereas unfortunately we cannot say that we have had any conspicuous success, or indeed any success at all, in exporting plant over the last 10 or 12 years, the background to the export of nuclear fuel and radiochemicals is, in the Minister's words, a success story. In 1969–70 exports of fuel and isotopes amounted to £6·8 million compared with £3·8 million in 1968–69. The value of the contracts during 1969–70 was considerably higher than even the deliveries in that year. Therefore, these companies are starting on a very firm basis of successful operation by the Atomic Energy Authority over the last few years and we should recognise the tremendous efforts which the Authority has made in building up this very important business.
We are, however, very much more concerned with what the future holds in the world market as well as the home market and how successfully we can obtain a substantial share of that market.
The figures were given by the Minister today. I understand that by 1980 we expect the home market for nuclear fuel, for example, to go up about fourfold from £25 million to £100 million and that overseas we expect the figures to go up from something which he described as approaching £200 million to £1,000 million. There is a tremendous market and we really are concerned with establishing the proper kind of industrial and commercial arrangements which will be able to exploit that market to the full.
There are very strong arguments as to why the combination of public and private enterprise, decided upon by the last Government and confirmed by this

1639
one, is the most effective way of producing the result we require. My right hon. Friend described the history of the centrifuge project and the various discussions which led up to the Dutch-German-United Kingdom agreement. There is no doubt that the projected combination of public and private enterprise in this country, which will marry and match with the projected combination of industrial and public enterprise in each of these other two countries, is much the most effective way of getting this kind of international co-operation off the ground.
There is the further consideration that many of the problems in the development of the centrifuge project are problems of engineering, and so on, which are not necessarily strictly relevant to many of the things which the Atomic Energy Authority has been doing over the years but where there is a good deal of experience in private industry in this country, which we should be drawing upon and which I think we can most effectively draw upon if private enterprise has a financial stake in the whole of the arrangement for the development of this project.
Then, of course, we have to have regard to what has already happened in the establishment of the design and construction companies. Once having accepted the principle there of a partnership between private and public enterprise, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that this is also the right kind of partnership for the nuclear fuel and radio-chemical industries as well.
Having said all this, I welcome the fact that the Government have been converted to the view that a majority holding should be held by public enterprise in these new companies. I think that this is absolutely inevitable in any case for security reasons, and I imagine that it was the security reasons which weighed most heavily with the Government in reversing an attitude which it seemed originally they would adopt. I feel that this proposition is absolutely right at present for commercial reasons as well. It safeguards, in a way which is important, the public participation at a significant level, and that is right in view of the way these developments have been financed by public enterprise over the
1640
last fifteen or sixteen years. I would have found it objectionable on commercial grounds, as well as on security grounds, if the Government had not stuck to the Labour Government's Measure in this respect.
If we are to have private enterprise involved here, obviously it has to be attractive for it to come in, and I think that the record of the Atomic Energy Authority in these two activities over the last few years will make this a very attractive proposition. Indeed, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), from his own considerable personal experience of the industry, thinks that private enterprise will be only too willing to participate in these new projects, and this is something we are all glad to hear.
Since however this is potentially a very profitable industry, there is no case for putting the public assets into the new companies at anything other than a fair commercial valuation. The question of valuation is very important and is something that we shall have to get clarified, either tonight or at a later stage. Anyone who has read the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the revaluation of assets at Windscale, in the Atomic Energy Authority's accounts for 1969–70, will have some appreciation of the very considerable difficulties involved. I do not wish, in a Second Reading debate, to go into this matter in detail, but there is an interesting passage in pages 109 to 111 of the Report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on some revaluations of assets of the Authority which, it is not unfair to say, he was really rather doubtful about. I simply make the point that very difficult issues are involved.
Nor do I particularly wish to take up the question of how the professional advice should be obtained. This is something which the Labour Government might very well have looked at the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation for, and perhaps the I.R.C. itself would have taken outside professional advice. But as the Government are winding up the I.R.C, there is no point in my trying to argue that the I.R.C. should be doing its job.
Mr. Douglas: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if there is now to be discussion about valuation they should be publicly presented?
Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is anticipating me. I am coming to that. I am not going to object personally to the proposition that a merchant bank should be called in for advice, although it does not strike me that a merchant bank by itself has any particular expertise in valuation of the assets of the Atomic Energy Authority. But I think this matter must be clarified. I am anxious, first, to establish the terms of reference on which the professional advisers, whoever they may be, are to operate; and, secondly, to know in detail the results of the study of the problem. In other words, it would not be suitable that we should simply be told that a merchant bank or other professional advisers had been asked to give advice on this difficult problem, that they had reached certain conclusions and that we should have no means of knowing how they reached them. I think we must be able to see how these advisers tackled the problem and what led them to their conclusions. This is very important, since very large sums of public money are involved, and we need assurances which I hope we shall get tonight. If we do not get them, we shall have to press this point very strongly.
I would also like a more elaborate and clearer explanation from the Government about why, in Clause 13, they have reduced the limit of payments by the Government to the new companies from, in the case of the nuclear fuel company, £70 million
"… or such greater sum (not exceeding £100 million) …".
to £50 million
"… or such greater sum (not exceeding £75 million) …".
The Minister said that this was because they expected private enterprise to be contributing at an early date. But I understand that the previous limit was put in by the Labour Government on exactly the same assumption—that private enterprise would be participating from an early date.
Comparing the Financial Memorandum to the Bill with that of the Labour Government's Bill—and this is rather remarkable—we find that the sums, contained in Clause 13 in each case, are described in exactly the same terms. They are based on the Government's estimate of what are likely to be the capital requirements of the companies for the
1642
first five years after the transfers. The calculations seem to have been done on exactly the same basis, but they have produced considerable differences.
If the Government say that this is because they now confidently expect a substantially increased capital contribution from private industry as compared with what the situation was even six months ago, that will be a reasonable explanation, but before accepting it as reasonable we shall have to have the explanation elaborated, and one must have some confidence that that is the position and that this is not just another means of cutting down a public expenditure commitment, which the Government are anxious to do. I am not satisfied with the explanation which we have had so far and I hope that we will have a clearer explanation. Otherwise, this will be a matter which we shall have to press in Committee.
Another important matter, and it is not just a point of detail, because so many people are involved, is the dissatisfaction of the staff, particularly as represented by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, with the present Bill. I have some sympathy with the Government in this respect, because they have clearly basically repeated the provisions of the Labour Government's Bill. I would not necessarily object in principle to the Bill's provisions, but it is not only the principle of what might be written in the Bill, but whether the Government can successfully persuade the staff that behind the Bill there is a firm guarantee on the various matters which have concerned the staff so much. Clearly, whatever the Government may have done in this respect over the last few months, and some attempt has clearly been made, they have not persuaded the staff that their interests are satisfactorily met by the Bill as drafted.
I shall not attempt to go over the controversial issues, because that has already been admirably done by the hon. Member for Abingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I simply say that many people are involved, nearly 10,000 employees altogether, including about 3,500 non-industrial staff. They are being compulsorily transferred and there is an obligation on all of us to see that, so

1643
far as we can, we satisfy their legitimate interests, suspicions and doubts before our proceedings on the Bill are completed. We attach considerable importance to this and we need clearer explanations than we have had so far.
My own feeling is that some of the apprehension of the I.P.C.S. comes not just from the Bill, but from the uncertainty about the long-term future of the Atomic Energy Authority as it will be once the new companies are established. This makes it all the more important to have a clear statement from the Government about how they intend Government research and development establishments, particularly the A.E.A., to be dealt with organisationally and in other ways in the years to come. This is becoming increasingly urgent and I am sure that lack of a clear lead from the Government has much to do with staff dissatisfaction with the Bill.
There are a number of other detailed issues which may be raised at rather greater length in Committee. For example, I am interested in the investment grants, a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). I was very much concerned with what my hon. Friend said about the development areas. I remind the Government that the Green Paper on Research and Development which the Labour Government published at the beginning of the year included a pledge that whatever happened to research and development establishments the Government would have very much in mind the need to see that a satisfactory proportion of the effort put into this was made in development areas.
I shall not discuss in any detail the problem at Dounreay, for example, which I mention because I have a Scottish interest, but which is illustrative of the general problem. The Government should recognise that in this difficult period, when the long-term future of the A.E.A. has not been settled and there is no clear guidance from the Government as to what its future may be, these apprehensions and worries are very important. It is necessary for the Government to do everything possible to assuage the worries of the areas concerned, particularly where there are special difficulties from staff apprehensions or development area policy.
1644
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance. I do not wish to make the development area position a matter of contention between us, because I hope that the Government attach as much importance to it as the Labour Government did, although the unemployment figures do not make me confident that the Government are fully seized of the considerable difficulties of the development areas. However, that is something which I shall be delighted to expand upon in another context.
We have to have something from the Government about some of the issues raised by the Green Paper published in January, 1970. There may be legitimate differences of opinion about the Labour Government's Green Paper solution. My right hon. Friend expected legitimate differences of opinion when the Green Paper was published. The whole purpose of publishing was to stimulate discussion without getting the Government into a posture of absolute commitment to a particular solution to difficult problems, but rather to allow those who, by background and experience and professional outside interests, had points of view to express to do so. The intention was that the Government might subsequently reach a solution which was a distillation not only of Government wisdom—and we all know that Governments, particularly the present Government, do not have a monopoly of wisdom—but that of interested outside bodies.
Whatever feelings might be about the solution of the Green Paper, there was widespread acceptance of its aims. Paragraph 26, for example, said that three of the basic purposes of the Government in publishing the Green Paper were the need to rationalise programmes in the Atomic Energy Authority and Ministry of Technology establishments, the need to link Government laboratories more closely with industry so that they could better understand and more readily help to solve some of its problems, and the need for work to be undertaken increasingly on a contractual and commercial basis. There was widespread acceptance that these were legitimate aims for the Government to follow. There is also widespread acceptance that we are not very successful in meeting any of these aims at present.

1645
Whatever the view may be about the particular solutions in the Green Paper it is now becoming increasingly urgent that we have changes in policy and organisation which will more effectively help us to meet these aims, clearly stated in the Green Paper. I am not asking, as the hon. Member for Abingdon somewhat unfairly suggested my right hon. Friend was asking, for a cut and dried solution from the Government tonight. This is not necessarily the most appropriate occasion to give us any conclusive views on these difficult problems. We are entitled however to some indication as to how the Government's mind is working on this issue or even on how they hope to tackle these important matters, for example by the publication of a pink paper or some other kind of Government document, letting everyone see the reactions by interested outside parties, most of them constructive, many critical, so that we would know not only what the Government felt the issues to be but what those outside felt.
All of us would then have some firm basis on which to make up our minds about the problems. I do ask that, if the Government are not willing to take us into their confidence about their thinking and I would like to think that they are thinking about these matters they would at least give us a commitment tonight that this kind of information will be made available to the House and the country generally so that we can all see what are the issues and more effectively judge whatever the Government's ultimate solutions might be. We need this broader context. We need to consider these broader issues before we can fully appreciate the background to the Bill and the purpose which it sets out to achieve and the prospects it has of achieving that purpose.
Having said all of this, and I hope encouraged the Government to be a little more forthcoming on some of these wider issues, I repeat that we very much welcome the fact that the Government have brought this Bill forward at an early stage. We shall certainly, as far as we can, give the Bill an easy passage. In slightly different terms I must however repeat the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and point out that whether the Government get this Bill as quickly as they obviously want
1646
it and as quickly as we would like them to get it, will depend very much upon how satisfactorily they are able to give us the answers to the various points raised in the debate and to those likely to be raised in Committee. I hope that they will be able to give us some satisfaction. Again I repeat we welcome the Bill.
7.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I want to start by acknowledging the debt that the House owes to the Select Committee on Science and Technology which published a Report, which it has been said in all quarters of the House, was exemplary. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) can feel some sense of paternity in what is going on. I would also like to add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) over the choice of the Chairman of that Commitee. It would also be right to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for the part that he played in the negotiations leading to this Bill and the coming to fruition of the gas centrifuge project.
I cannot quite say that about the long piece of background which was put into his speech. He fought again the old battles, armed with the sword of the I.R.C. and the buckler of the Industrial Expansion Act—the instruments of intervention. This is ground which we shall tread again on the Industry Bill which had its First Reading today. I was amused when I heard him having to defend himself strongly against his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, explaining why he had been totally unable to achieve one nuclear construction company. Despite the powerful weapon of the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act, his Bill was frustrated.
Mr. Benn: We did it by consent; we did everything by consent.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked me how I viewed the prospects of this company. I would be wrong to be drawn on such matters. The company is not included in the Bill and we are touching upon wider matters about the whole future of the atomic energy policy, to which I will refer later.

1647
Rather than dwell on the background it would be better if I were to move to the foreground and try to reply to as many of the important and useful contributions which have been made by hon. Members on both sides. To start with financial matters and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and others asked why the amount of money which it was possible to lend under the Bill had been reduced from £100 million to £75 million.
I would say first of all to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no question of the Atomic Energy Authority having power to go to the market. This power is entirely reserved under the Bill to the two new companies and we are not talking about the Authority at all in this respect but only about the possibility of the company being able to borrow money from the private capital market. The sum in the Bill, whether or not increased by Order, applies to the amount which the Government may lend either for the purchase of shares or the advancing of loans. It does not apply to the initial transaction of shares.
It is our belief that a certain amount of capital can be raised by the sale of equity shares to private companies participating and that, as the company gets under way, and develops a healthy record, further funds can be raised from the market by way of loans. It is by taking account of the needs of the company over the next five years, which is the longest foreseeable period, less the amount we believe can be raised from the private capital market, that the Government have arrived at the figure in the Bill. It is a reduction on the figure in the last Bill because we are optimistic about the chances of this being brought about.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) asked me what degree of parliamentary accountability would be applied to the new companies. There will be no more accountability than attaches to any private company, which is what these companies will be, except that through the National Loans Fund the hon. Gentleman can ask Questions about or debate the taxpayers' contributions. The companies are in a similar position to B.P. and other companies with a public shareholding. It is therefore right that we should remove any suspicion or suggestion that Parliament
1648
will attempt to interfere in their day-today management or direction. This is the right degree of accountability for the companies to have. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the economic changes which the Government have made in investment incentives will in some away affect the position vis-à-vis our partners in the gas centrifuge Tripartite Agreement.
The hon. Member quoted the phrase "economic developments"—that we have to consult our partners concerning economic developments. Under the meaning of the agreement, a general change in investment incentives in one or other of the countries concerned does not amount to an economic development. These are not the sort of matters which the people who made the agreement had in mind.
The hon. Member asked about location of plants and investment incentives. The change in investment incentives will apply to the new companies. They will have free depreciation in a development area or the other incentives in non-development areas, the same as any other companies. Although this certainly will change the economics in some respects, I remind the hon. Member that one of the plants was in any case to be built abroad and that the other, at Capenhurst, is fixed in its location. It is not easy to see, therefore, that any of this has much relevance to regional policy.
The important question of the valuation of the shares of the company was raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Craigton, and I will try to say a word about this. In passing, I would remark that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who introduced the similar Bill in another place in April, had no more to say about the matter than this:
"Of course, when that time comes professional advice will be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 309, c. 330.]
That seems to me to go far short of the strident demands of the Opposition for full information about the basis of valuation, how it will be done and whether we shall publish the report of the professional advisers who will advise upon valuation.
The question of valuing the shares is a difficult and highly professional matter.

1649
The earning capacity in the future has to be assessed, and this will be difficult without there being a record of continuous management in the past. The Government do not conceal that the task of valuation is difficult. It therefore seems right to employ people who are skilled and practised in valuation and entirely unbiased. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said that we would seek the advice of a merchant bank.
I think that the House will agree that the only way to deal with this is to put it in the hands of unbiased professionals and for both sides of the House to assess the value placed upon the shares. I assure the House, however, that we have no intention of concealing anything in this matter and that within the proper and prudent confines of commercial practice, we shall be frank with the House as is right when the question of valuation is discussed at a later date. Nothing has been done at the present time and, therefore, there is nothing of which I can inform the House today.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire asked why only a nominal amount of capital was specified in the draft articles of association. The answer is that it is intended at the beginning to set up a shell company and that this will take place before the appointed day. It must be in existence before the Bill is passed. The appropriate increase in the capital will be made before the transfer of the Authority's undertaking takes place. It is merely a convenient arrangement for making the changeover.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon asked whether the fuel company will take holdings in Italian companies and other overseas enterprises at present in the hands of the Atomic Energy Authority. The answer is that it will do so and that the fuel company will take over all the relevant assets and liabilities of the A.E.A. Trading Fund. My hon. Friend also asked what progress was being made in matters of reprocessing fuel in various European countries. Discussions are taking place between the major European countries with a view to agreeing on reprocessing capacity, in which, I am certain, our own national fuel company will be interested.
There is no need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, for the
1650
Government to maintain a majority share in the radiochemical company, as opposed to the fuel company, for reasons of defence and security. The whole House is agreed that the Government should maintain a majority share in the fuel company, but those reasons do not of themselves apply to the radiochemical company.
We believe that it will facilitate the smooth transfer of activities from the A.E.A. to the companies to treat both companies alike. This is a measure of the Government's desire to make sure that those who are affected by these transfers—the staff—will have any justifiable fears allayed. When I come to the points dealing with staff, I think that I shall be able to demonstrate that we have gone as far as could ever be expected of the Government and exactly as far as the last Government went—there is nothing whatever between us—to dispel all these worries which the staff have put forward. I hope that I shall be able to convince the House that the treatment of those concerned throughout by the Government is exactly as they would like it to be.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked why the Authority would still retain exclusive use of the facilities owned by the fuel company at Windscale and Springfields. The answer is that the bulk of the land and buildings will be required by the new fuel company at those two sites but that certain laboratories at those sites will continue to be required by the A.E.A. Therefore, an arrangement has been made whereby the land and buildings will be transferred to the new companies but the laboratories will remain for the exclusive use of the A.E.A., because it is the Authority which wants them and needs them and they are of no interest to the fuel company.
The first question which I was asked concerning the staff related to the chance of there being transfers to and fro between the Authority and the new companies. The arrangements envisaged appear to be reasonable in this respect. I do not think that there is much scope for permanent transfer on more than a limited scale. The previous Government said exactly the same thing and referred specifically to the transferability of pension rights. We believe, therefore, that a limited amount of transfer will be possible, but we do not foresee the need for large-scale transfers. My hon. Friend

1651
will be delighted to have further discussions with, or take further points from, the staff side on any difficulties which arise over transferability.
The question of safety has been raised. I should like to give the House a strong assurance that there is no reason whatever why the new companies should not have every incentive to obtain the best advice they can get at the design stage of an installation and in putting it into practice. They are likely to continue to use the specialist services of the Authority's health and safety branch. The companies can choose what they will do in this matter—it is not for the Government to lay it down—but the House will, I think, recognise that those who will run the company have, perhaps, more incentive than anyone else to make sure that they are regarded as being above any conceivable suspicion in these matters, and I am sure that that will be the case.
Mr. Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the companies will be subject in any event to the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act?
Mr. Ridley: It will be necessary for companies to have licences under the Nuclear Installations Act, and if the arrangements are not perfect they will not be granted a licence and will have to make their arrangements better.
Next I should like to deal with the question of terms and conditions for the staff. There will be an interim period between the companies being set up and the new contracts being signed for the staff, and during that interim period, during which negotiations on terms and conditions can take place, staff are deemed to be employed on terms and conditions corresponding as nearly as the circumstances permit to those they enjoy at the present time with the Authority. It is impossible, obviously, to lay down identical terms and conditions when the employer is different, and the nature of the company is different, but I think anybody should be satisfied with the assurance, that in the interim period the terms and conditions will be as nearly as possible identical to those which exist at the present time.
Later, the companies will negotiate new contracts with the staff. The Government are well aware of the undertaking given in 1954 that the terms and con-
1652
ditions of service in the Authority will not be less favourable than those enjoyed by staff in the Civil Service, and the Bill provides, in Clause 9, that the new terms and conditions are to be negotiated in accordance with the principle that they are to be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the staff whilst in the employment of the Authority. The Bill even goes so far as to provide for arbitration on this point. It would be impossible to specify that the terms and conditions of service must be perpetually in line with those of the Civil Service. The companies we are thinking about will be new, independent companies and they will naturally want to develop their staff contracts and their staff relationships in the way they think best. We have, I think, in this Bill guaranteed that intially contracts will be at least as good as Authority contracts, and it will be up to the consultative machinery of both sides of the companies to see how these contracts develop in the future, and it would be quite wrong to bind the companies for all time to provide terms identical with those in the Civil Service.
This brings me to the question of the pensions. The point has been pressed upon the Government that there is no need to change the entitlement of the staff to the Atomic Energy Authority's present superannuation scheme. The companies will inevitably at some stage have to set up their own superannuation schemes for the purposes of recruiting new staff and, of course, expanding their staff, because it is very likely that in 10 years' time there will be a totally different number of people employed in the companies alongside those who transfer on the day when the companies are set up. So one would have the situation whereby in the companies there would be two different sorts of pension scheme, one of the original A.E.A. type, the other the new companies' pension schemes, and this would make for division within the companies, an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Therefore, one would very much prefer that the whole of the staffs of the companies should start life upon a new pension scheme negotiated between the employees of the new companies as soon as practicable.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already informed representatives of the staff that it is to be expected

1653
that the companies will wish to set up their own pension schemes for the reasons which I have just given, but there are very strong safeguards in the Bill in respect of these pension schemes. They are just as effective as the safeguards in respect of terms and conditions of service which I have just mentioned. The only difference lies in the fact that whereas other terms and conditions are subject to arbitration, it is the Secretary of State himself who has responsibility, under Clause 20, for satisfying himself that the provisions of the pensions scheme are no less favourable than the Authority's scheme itself. So there is a safeguard written into the Bill that a new pension scheme must be no less favourable.
Mr. Dalyell: Why is it that the arrangements between the Authority and the T.N.P.G., to which both the Under-Secretary's hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I made reference, is not thought very satisfactory? It has worked perfectly well.
Mr. Ridley: I am just coming to that point. This is the point which my hon. Friend raised, that some of the staff of Culham transferred from the A.E.A. to the Science Research Council and yet were allowed to remain in the Authority's pension scheme.
Mr. Neave: That is a different point. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is referring to the transfer of the A.E.A. at Risley, and the T.N.P.G. point, and I raised the Culham point, which is a separate issue.
Mr. Ridley: I do not think I am wrong, because I think the point is the same in both cases. They are two instances of the same sort of point. The Culham staff have been transferred but allowed to stay in the A.E.A. pension scheme from which they came. The situation arose whereby some staff would have been on one type of pension scheme and other staff on another type of pension scheme. This would have made it more difficult to recruit staff. That is why we have changed the practice in this respect, because it has been found that it was not a very suitable situation and one which should be avoided in future by those responsible for management in these various enterprises which hon. Gentlemen have mentioned.
Mr. Dalyell: We are not quibbling here. There is a substantial issue involved, and it is the whole issue of mobility between one organisation and another. There is the danger that we have been referring to that those organisations will become so stratified that it will be to the great disadvantage of the whole of British industry in this field. It is not just an issue of pensions, but a deeper issue—the issue of mobility—and that is what is worrying the T.N.P.G.
Mr. Ridley: I would say that one would like ideally to have a situation where all industrial pensions were immediately transferable, in and out of public and private enterprise, in and out of every company, but this is not a subject which we can raise on this Bill at this time, nor is it a subject for which my Department is responsible. I can only say that till the general problem is solved and—I very much hope that it will be—it is much better to have a separate pension scheme in an expanding business like the nuclear fuel field, one where there is likely to be more and more staff taken on, than it is to have also an Authority pension scheme when one would have two classes of staff existing side by side with different pension rights or prospects.
I must now turn to the question of the future of the A.E.A. We have in the Bill set out plans to transfer the production activities from the Authority. That will involve 9,500 staff; on the other hand, about 20,000 staff will remain with the Authority. This is a sizeable organisation, and there is no doubt about its future viability. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate the need to study the longer-term future of the rest of the Authority. It is important to bear in mind that this remaining part will be an organisation with a complex of activities, not only in the field of reactor research and development but in applied nuclear and non-nuclear fields, and the best way of organising these activities in the longer-term is not a matter in which easy, snap judgments should be made.
In July, in answer to a Question, my hon. Friend, at that time Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, said:
"We are considering the future of the Department's research establishments in the light of the many constructive comments on the previous Administration's Green Paper. We will make a statement as soon as we have

1655
completed the review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1125.]
I think it is recognised by hon. Members who asked us what our plans for the Authority were that it would be quite wrong to rush out with answers before we are entirely ready; in fact, the hon. Member for Craigton said that it would be only right for us to take time before making up our minds. The previous Government took five-and-a-half years for the job. They published their famous Green Paper, and were met with a barrage of comments—mostly, but not all, critical. They were in the strange position of having gone to Press with proposals which, on the whole, were not well received, and therefore they will probably agree that their own record of progress in the matter was nothing for them to be pleased with.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central, in his ding-dong battle with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, said that the Government had been proceeding in a leisurely way about the whole matter. The Government are not yet in a position to make any announcement about their ideas for the future of the A.E.A. As soon as we are we shall tell the House what our views are, in the most appropriate way. It would be wrong to say now whether the paper will be white, green or pink, or whether it will be in the form of a statement or a speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask the House to be patient in this respect because we have not finished the review.
Mr. Benn: On the question of the way in which the Government should proceed, may I put one point to the hon. Gentleman. It is right that our Green Paper was much criticised, but the hon. Member will know that any proposal for dealing with the A.E.A. will be criticised, because this is a very difficult area. I very much hope that he will not tell us that when the Government come forward with their proposals they will not give the same opportunity of public debate that we gave by way of the Green Paper; I hope that they will not come along with a firm statement and say, "This is our view", because that would be totally unsatisfactory.
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman would also agree that it would be rash
1656
of me to say how we will handle the presentation and discussion of our proposals until we have decided what they are. We have not yet come to a conclusion as to what the proposals are. I am certain, however, that my right hon. Friend will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We intend to be as open and frank as possible, and to invite such discussion as is proper, but it would be quite wrong for me to express myself in advance as to the right way of achieving that object.
We have been asked about the future The figure of £1,000 million for future world sales of nuclear fuel is a large one. The hon. Member for West Lothian asked how it had been arrived at. The answer is that it results from an estimate made by the A.E.A. of the growth in electricity and the proportion of that growth that will be met by nuclear power. It is not a precise figure—it is an order-of-magnitude figure—but it indicates the large size of the future market.
It would be impossible to say just what share of that market we are likely to get and even to say, therefore, just what profits or dividends the new nuclear fuel company is likely to make; that depends upon its ability to compete, and in the success of its investments and of all who work in it. But the present forecast shows that a great potential lies in this field, and the past history of the trading fund of the A.E.A. will give the House every confidence that the new fuel company will achieve a good share of this growing and important world market.
The same is true of the radiochemical company. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has been about the only Member to spend much time on that company. It is right that I should end on its prospects. The demand for isotopes is growing throughout the world. and over the next five years The Radiochemical Centre expects to double its sales and to reach £9 million worth of sales a year, over half of which will be for export.
These two companies will therefore be launched in a very favourable atmosphere. The whole House has welcomed the Bill, the two major parties are lying down like lions and lambs together to give the companies a welcome, and they are all hoping that the companies will be entirely successful and that all who work

1657
in them will feel that the arrangements that have been made for their transfer from the A.E.A. to the companies have been fair and reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I will be delighted to receive representations, and will try to meet any points that hon. Members feel have not quite been dealt with satisfactorily either before the Committee stage or in Committee. There has been extensive consultation and we are satisfied that everything possible has been done to meet all
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
Committee tomorrow.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer of parts of the undertaking of the United
the legitimate points. The fact that we have produced a Bill almost identical to that produced by hon. Members opposite shows that we have both largely come to the same conclusions.
It only remains for me to wish the two companies and all who work in them every good fortune in the future.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 8.

Division No. 52.]

AYES

[7.47 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Green, Alan

Normanton, Tom

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Gummer, Selwyn

Onslow, Cranley

Atkins, Humphrey

Gurden, Harold

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Hawkins, Paul

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hay, John

Palmer, Arthur

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Hicks, Robert

Pounder, Ration

Benyon, W.

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Biffen, John

Holland, Philip

Redmond, Robert

Boscawen, R. T.

Hornby, Richard

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Bowden, Andrew

Iremonger, T. L.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Knox, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

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

Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

Channon, Paul

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Chapman, Sydney

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Simeons, Charles

Costain, A. P.

McLaren, Martin

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Curran, Charles

Mather, Carol

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Dalyell, Tam

Mawby, Ray

Tebbit, Norman

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Drayson, G. B.

Millan, Bruce

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Eden, Sir John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

Moate, Roger

Ward, Dame Irene

Eyre, Reginald

Monks, Mrs. Connie

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

More, Jasper

Younger, Hn. George

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fowler, Norman

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Mr. Hector Monro and

Fox, Marcus

Neave, Airey

Mr. Tim Fortescue.

NOES

Cohen, Stanley

Latham, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Lawson, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Pendry, Tom

Mr. James Wellbeloved and

Garnett, W. E.

Small, William

Mr. Ray Carter.

Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the payment into the Consolidated Fund, of any sums so payable under or in consequence of any provision of the said Act of the present Session;

(2) the payment out of or into the National Loans Fund of any sums so payable under any provision of that Act; and

(3) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any provision of that Act in the sums so payable

(a) under section 4(1) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954; and

(b) under, or in respect of expenses incurred under, section 24 of the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965.—[Mr. Ridley.]

FARM AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY CHANGES
7.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
With permission, it might be convenient also to discuss the other Motion—
That the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
The two Schemes are fairly closely related.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): if that is the wish of the House. I am sure that it is agreeable.
Mr. Stodart: These Schemes are made under Sections 26 and 27 of the Agriculture Act, 1963, as amended by Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1970. I do not pretend that they are models of simplicity. But perhaps I might take this, the first opportunity that I have had to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to those which my hon. Friend paid him last week. I can recollect that when the 1967 Bill was in Committee, some comments were made about the complexity of these provisions. Looking back, I have no regrets for making those comments.
One thing I am satisfied about is that, in a debate a week ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was relieved that he was not on the Committee which gave rise to these Clauses, and that therefore no chickens could come home to roost because of his comments. I have of course taken care to look up my comments on the subject of these Clauses, and find to my relief that, apart from one or two details, I gave the Bill a general welcome.
The Amendments made by Section 32 of the 1970 Act had two main objects. They corrected some defects in the existing legislation and also provided for grant on remodelling works resulting from an amalgamation or boundary
1660
adjustment, to be paid under the proposed Farm Capital Grant Scheme, which was debated in the House last week.
These present two Schemes follow directly from that, and they do not attempt to change in any radical way the existing measures to encourage farm amalgamations which featured in the 1967 Schemes and which these ones will replace. During the next few months we shall, however, be reviewing the operation of the structure schemes generally to see—this requires very careful consideration—whether there is a case for making further changes, in order to give more effective help to the creation of viable units.
I have already mentioned the intention to pay grant on remodelling works under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme, which the House approved last week and which comes into operation on 1st January. This is all part of our recasting of the capital grants to give us a unified Scheme which will reduce paper work. Where a farmer wants to apply for grant, not only on remodelling works but also on other items which are not a consequence of the amalgamation, he will be able to get grant on all the eligible items under one scheme. This apart, the main change which is common to both structure Schemes is that provision is made, following the amending of Section 26(1)(a) of the 1967 Act for an amalgamation to absorb part only of an uncommercial unit. This could apply, and would be useful, for example, where the rest of the unit is going for amalgamation elsewhere or where it belongs to a different owner from the part being amalgamated. We shall, of course, have to be satisfied that there is an actual improvement in farm structure in cases where an amalgamation absorbs only part of an uncommercial unit.
When the revised Schemes are introduced we plan to use more up-to-date standard man-day equivalents in assessing the labour requirements of the farms concerned. It will be common knowledge to those interested in agriculture that even since that slightly jargonistic phrase "standard man-day equivalents" was first introduced, and that is not long ago, there have been considerable changes in the management and output of farms, which have caused us to embark on a reassessment of the whole system of

1661
assessing these standard man-day equivalents. This will bring within the Schemes some farmers whose farms would, on the standard man-day figures used now, be classed as commercial and, thus, would not be eligible for amalgamation under the Scheme. The change would, however, by itself have the effect of making ineligible some potential outgoers with very small farms who are at the bottom end of the scale. They would qualify under the Schemes as they are just now.
We want to give these very small farmers a chance of taking part in the revised schemes, and so we have offset the effect of the change in standard man-day equivalents by reducing the minimum number of standard man-days for the outgoer's farm from 100 to 80. Of the changes made to the individual Schemes, I should, perhaps, mention that the revised amalgamations Scheme sets out, in paragraph 8(2), the types of incidental costs which are eligible for grant, and which were formerly covered by Section 26(3) of the 1967 Act as originally enacted.
In paragraph 9 it also provides for grant to smallholdings authorities, following the provisions of Part III of the 1970 Act, and it will allow the grant-aiding of some amalgamations resulting in permanent intermediate units, where this is part of the reorganisation of the authorities' estates. For reasons which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will know well, this paragraph does not apply to Scotland.
Intermediate units are holdings which are at the upper end of the uncommercial scale. They are not intended to reach the two-man size, which is, broadly speaking, the yardstick of a commercial unit.
Paragraph 10(1) provides, in conformity with the announcement following the 1970 Annual Review, for an extra 10 per cent. grant on the incidental costs of amalgamations or boundary adjustments which are submitted or approved in the two years commencing 19th March, 1970.
On the outgoers Scheme, I think the only changes which I need mention are the relaxation of the income test and the additional provision to help widows whose husbands die while their applications are being dealt with. This important point, which is to be found in paragraph 10, was made in Committee.
1662
On the income test, which is to be found in paragraph 7(1), we have followed the intentions of the previous Government and increased from £400 to £750 the amount of non-farm income which can be disregarded before calculating whether three-quarters of the income of the outgoer and his wife comes from the farm.
I hope that the changes which have been made, coupled with the much shorter 15-years period—this matter inspired a very spirited debate in Committee—for which Schedule 3 conditions now apply to amalgamated units, will encourage more amalgamators to take advantage of these grants.
I recognise that the Schemes are not simple, but they reflect to some extent the complexities of amalgamations and of the enabling legislation. As I have mentioned, we are reviewing the measures concerned with farm structure. If our review shows that the Schemes now before the House are not likely to be as successful as we wish, we shall be bringing forward proposals for further changes. But the revised Schemes which are now before us will carry through the process of unifying the farm capital grants and will make a number of other useful improvements. It is on this basis that I invite the House to approve them.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wish, at the outset, to thank the Minister for his kind personal remarks and to join with him in the pleasing recollection of the passage of the parent Act. Long our sittings may have been, but profitable they certainly were also.
I move to a more discordant note in expressing regret at the fact that he has not found it possible to make more plain which criteria of size or profitability the Government have in mind in initiating their review of the structure of farms. The previous Government gave some indication of the hope they had for a reduction in the number of units that were not viable when the Scheme was first introduced, and it is plain that these targets are very far from having been reached. The take-up under both the existing Schemes has been substantially less than expected.

1663
In initiating a review of the structure of our farms, especially at this time, when the whole question of size and related profitability is so much under debate in the countries of the European Economic Community, it might have been helpful to the farming industry if we had had some idea of the Government's thinking.
These Schemes are very much in the nature of a patching-up operation, and as such they can be welcomed, but they do not go very far. The Minister has probably seen the current edition of Farmers' Weekly, which describes the Schemes as
"No more than a tantalising will-o'-the-wisp for the man who cannot afford to expand and for his neighbour who cannot afford to retire."
It was the original intention and hope that under the existing Schemes, which the proposed Schemes will replace, the non-viable farms should be reduced by some 15,000 by 1970, that is, about 5,000 per annum. But as I understand it, the figure has been in the order of 1,450 farms which have been amalgamated, fewer than 1 per cent. of the farms which, by the test of the 600 standard man-days, are regarded as viable.
Under the present amalgamation Scheme only 1,700 applications have been approved out of 4,300 in three years. From what the Minister said, I take it that he is not wholly satisfied with the progress made towards reducing the number of non-viable holdings. But I wonder what indications he has had that it is matters which are dealt with in these Schemes which are responsible for the relatively disappointing take-up.
I have heard criticisms, as have my hon. Friends, of the tardiness of the Departments, both in Scotland and in the Ministry, in handling applications, which in itself constitutes some disincentive to go forward with a scheme.
On the lump sum golden handshake, the payment to outgoers, the figures are also very small. As I understand it, only some 740 applications for lump sum payment and 710 applications for annuities have been met, and the total sum paid out is little more than £1,100,000.
When these Schemes were before the House on a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Anthony Stodart) said that on the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme,
1664
the nub of the question was paragraph 8, pertaining to the amount of grant. As one expects of him, he was very careful on that occasion to hedge his bets, in a sense, and not to say that the amount was either too small or to large but that we should have to wait and see what happened in the outcome.
Mr. Stodart: I never hedge my bets, because I never bet.
Mr. Maclennan: If I may use another metaphor, he was very careful to leave the issue open. The hon. Gentleman will agree that he was ready to do so.
One can infer from the Scheme before us that the hon. Gentleman must feel that the sums contained in the Payments to Outgoers Scheme were precisely right, because, as far as I can see, no alteration has been made in the sums. If this is correct, it has not perhaps been sufficiently widely appreciated. I noticed the rather misleading headline in the British Farmer of 12th December,
"Bigger handshake on farm mergers."
On my study of the Scheme, that is not an accurate picture of the situation.
What has been happening during this whole period of time—if one goes back to 1960, and the trend has not greatly changed since the Scheme was introduced—has been a contradiction in the overall number of holdings in the country. A very useful survey and study of this has been published earlier this year by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, on the changing structure of agriculture in this country. It shows that the number of holdings has declined from 440,000 in 1960 to 380,000 in 1968, the last year which the survey referred to; that in the same period of time the average acreage of crops and grass on farms has risen from 70 to 80; and that in the five-year period from 1963 to 1968 there has likewise been a decline in the number of full-time farms in England and Wales, from 175,000 to 156,000, and in Scotland, from 27,000 to 25,700.
It is plain that this process has not been greatly accelerated by the Schemes. I should have liked to have heard from the Minister the pace of acceleration which he and the Government envisage

1665
as desirable. I take it that in initially bringing forward these proposals, the previous Government had in mind something other than merely the assisting out of the agricultural industry all those with unprofitable farms. The purpose was rather more dynamic. It was intended to enable small farmers to become more viable by giving them access to additional land. It was not conceived, as I understand it, that these Schemes should provide the means whereby the large farmer enlarged his domain. It would be most unfortunate if, by the direct intervention of the State, the big farmer should be encouraged in this positive way to become bigger still. Unfortunately, in so far as the new Scheme changes the situation, it may end in that direction. It may tend to encourage the strong to enlarge at the expense of the weak.
I think that the revisions of the conditions as to eligibility arising from the adoption of the revised standard man-day provisions in the 1970 Regulations, will have the effect, as the Under-Secretary said, of making the scheme for amalgamation open to larger farmers, and I wonder whether that was the right end at which to tackle the task. I recognise that he looks upon this as merely a holding operation pending the completion of the review.
A further doubt arises in my mind in connection with the amount of non-farm income which is ignored in applying the outside income test under the Outgoers Scheme. It is now raised from £400 to £750. Again, I am not entirely clear whether the desired end will be achieved.
The original purposes of the Scheme will not be substantially altered by the Measure before us tonight, and to that extent I think it possible to welcome the Instrument on behalf of the Opposition. Like the hon. Gentleman, I consider that the amount of the grants
"must not be so great as to cause a mass exit from small farms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October. 1967; Vol. 751, c. 1788.]
Those were his words in the debate on that occasion. Nor should it distort the whole balance of farming, which would be disastrous. But I wonder what thought the hon. Gentleman has given to the question whether the sums which the Government set then are right, particularly taking into account the inflation which has occurred since 1967.
1666
The Scheme has, perhaps, suffered from misrepresentation or misunderstanding during the period since it was introduced. Although the then Government and Opposition emphasised the importance of it being understood that it was a voluntary scheme, that has not been fully appreciated, and this may have led to some resistance in certain areas.
I feel, also, that the natural concomitant of the scheme has not been given sufficient emphasis by the present Government. Plainly, to the extent that these schemes succeed, they create a need for extra rural employment. I think particularly of the action of the present Government in Wales regarding the Rural Development Board as indicative of their failure to face up to that need. To the extent that they are successful in creating amalgamations of non-viable holdings, the Schemes create a new need, a greater need for the provision of new jobs in these areas.
Will the Government tell us when they expect that their review of the structure of farming will be completed? What consultations are they having on the subject? Is the review being carried on within the Department, and are they taking the advice of external agricultural economists as well as of the Farmers' Unions and other interests?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lucid account of how these rather complicated Schemes have been changed. Like him, I think that clarity may lead to their being more attractive to the general farming community. However, I recall that on an earlier occasion he himself asked what steps were being taken to make the schemes understood, and whether pamphlets were being produced to explain them simply to the public. I repeat the question tonight.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing the Scheme forward, and I take it to be part of a much wider review of what is needed.
I was utterly bewildered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I could not discover whether he approved of the Scheme or thought it a bad thing. He seemed to contradict himself as he

1667
went along. At one point, the hon. Gentleman seemed to question whether it was right to raise from £400 to £750 the disregarded part of private income, yet almost in the next breath he spoke of the effect of inflation, which made me think that he ought to have suggested that the figure should have been increased even further.
None the less, the hon. Gentleman raised the basic question about which we should be thinking: Are we doing the right thing in the wider context? When introducing the Scheme, my hon. Friend said that it was a holding operation while a wider review was going on. Always, after a scheme has been running for some time, one finds fewer applicants to come forward. In my view, it must be right to take out non-viable farms and, if appropriate, put them into larger units. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman when he argues that it is not a good thing to put these non-viable pieces of land into a large farm unit. If such land can go conveniently into a larger farm, so be it. I am all in favour of it happening.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman completely distorts what I said. I entirely accept the principle that it is desirable to create viable units. I was emphasing the concomitant desirability of creating alternative employment for those who have to give up their non-viable holdings.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That was the second point which the hon. Gentleman raised. If he reads his speech in HANSARD, he will see that at an earlier point he questioned the propriety of taking some non-viable land out of the hands of the small occupiers or tenants who have it now and amalgamating it with a larger farm. He said that this was not what he had regarded as the concept in the mind of his right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) when he introduced the Act under which the Scheme is made. In my view, it is something which could and should happen in many instances. It is necessary to take non-viable land out of use.
One has to ask oneself whether this is the right way of proceeding. What does my hon. Friend think? Has the present Scheme been succeeding so far? Were the figures quoted by the hon. Member
1668
for Caithness and Sutherland the correct figures? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that has been made? Is he satisfied that even this improved Scheme, marginal though the improvement is in several aspects, will meet the intention? Presumably, over a period of five or seven years we are seeking to get the maximum amount of unviable land amalgamated into viable units. Will the Scheme achieve that end? I confess to some doubt. That is why I am glad to have been told that this Scheme represents only a holding operation during a wider review of the whole structure of farming and of Government aid to farms.
How much money should we now be giving to get people out of farming into different work? Is payment necessary, or will ordinary economic circumstances force unviable land out of business? Several years ago about 4,000 farms a year were going out as a result of amalgamations brought about by the economic facts of life. People were selling farms which, once sold, were amalgamated. But there are still parcels of land which people are keen to take over and on which they lose money. It is one of the most incomprehensible things I have ever known. These people carry on for three or four years and lose what little money they have, then someone else takes over and the process is repeated time and again. I know that it is that sort of land which my hon. Friend seeks to bring under the Scheme, but will the proposed payment to outgoers prove a sufficient inducement?
I turn to one or two points of detail. My hon. Friend will see in page 2 under "tenant" that executors and administrators of tenants are excluded. I have no quarrel with the first case, but does the definition of an administrator include someone, himself a tenant farmer, with a power of attorney for a tenant who has had, say, a stroke and has not been able to execute a power of attorney? I do not know why such a person should be excluded. This may be a small point but it has caused difficulty in a case which has been brought to my notice.
Again, paragraph 3(1) refers to a period of seven years. Can we be told what is the particular magic about a seven-year period?
In general, I welcome the Scheme. It is an improvement on the original

1669
Scheme although the improvements are only marginal. Is he satisfied that he is going far enough, and must we await the review of farm structure before going further? How has the Scheme succeeded so far? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that even this interim Scheme will bring about the very necessary amalgamations?
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, and as has been acknowledged by the other side, the changes brought about by the two Schemes will not be very considerable. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about delays. We should see a very material improvement in these Schemes if the Minister would consider whether the Ministry was deploying enough staff to deal with these matters. I have had a number of complaints of delay in Cardiganshire, and I know that other rural Members have had very much the same experience. Delays of six or nine months or longer, are very much the ordinary thing.
My criticism of the Schemes is twofold. I believe, on the one hand that they encourage indiscriminate and wasteful amalgamations and, on the other hand, I hold the view that the Government have failed to take positive action to assist the small farms as much as they could and should be helped.
On the first point, as is obvious to the House, these grants are available to the owner of a big farm who wishes to add a holding to what is already a bountiful agricultural unit, as indeed they are available to a small man who wishes to acquire land to achieve viability. The small farmer who feels that he must have hand to give himself and his family the chance to reach a reasonable standard of living must compete in the market with his more powerful and affluent neighbour.
If the position as regards farm amalgamations were fairly static, it could well be argued that that was a rather inequitable position which it would be right for Parliament to correct; but the position is not static. Between 1960 and 1968 the number of farm holdings in England and Wales fell from 480,000 to 420,000. In Wales 12,000 farms have disappeared since the end of the Second World War.
1670
I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the present rate of disappearance of farm units is running at about 2 per cent. per annum.
Many people lament the decline in the number of small farms, but protest without a constructive alternative plan is futile. It is clear that unless something substantial is done this relentless, unremitting process will continue. I believe that the choice confronting successive Governments is between consolidation of small farms or their destruction.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We are not talking about small farms. We are talking about unviable units. There is a tremendous difference between the two. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that unviable units must be held in a state of inaction, for want of a better word?
Mr. Morgan: I was using the rather general term "small farms", but I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction that I should be talking about unviable units. If a small farm is such an intensive farm as to be viable there is no reason why it should be called a small farm at all.
I was using the term "small farms" to mean unviable holdings. If we think of 10 small farms existing now, it may well be that in 10 or 20 years time, if nothing is done, all of those farms will have been bought up and subsumed within the boundaries of larger units. The alternative is to consolidate the pattern and encourage some of the owners of those farms to buy farms coming on to the market so that ultimately there could be four, five, six or seven of those farms, viable and with the chance of continuing to exist. The present pattern is so riddled with weaknesses that it cannot continue. Anybody who wishes to destroy Britain's small farms pattern need only sit back and do nothing.
My second point is that the Government have lost the opportunity of discriminating in favour of the small, unviable farm. They could have brought in a differential scheme of grant and they could have gone out of their way to weight the situation so as to give the small man a chance to compete in the market with his bigger and more powerful neighbour. A scheme of grant or loans that is designed to deal with that problem is the way by which the Government could have cancelled some of the fundamental disadvantages which the small

1671
man suffers when he tries to accrete to his unit to make it viable.
I know that the Under-Secretary will readily agree with me that the major problem facing farmers is the problem of credit, and that problem is felt the more acutely by small farmers. If the Government wish to help small farmers they will apply their minds very earnestly to this question.
It was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) when he was Minister of Agriculture, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), that they had no wish to eliminate the small farm but wished rather to strengthen it so that it could be a viable unit, protected for the future and enabled to make its best contribution to British agriculture. But it appears to me that behind these Schemes there is a rationale which is founded upon the hypothesis that small farms are an evil. Dreary sermons on farm structure are read by Ministers from time to time.
We are told that 5,000 very large farms—farms having more than 3,600 standard man days a year or over—although they represent only 2 per cent. of the holdings in England and Wales, are responsible for a total agricultural output of not less than 21 per cent. We are reminded that the top-sized 1 per cent. of farms in Britain between them are responsible for an aggregate production of about 15 per cent. of the total, and that one-quarter of the larger farmers are responsible for three-quarters of the agricultural production. On the other hand, we are told that the holders of small-sized units, representing 25 per cent. of the totality of British farmers between them are responsible for only one-sixth of the total output.
An unbiased person listening to such statistics would gain the impression that small farmers were lazy or incompetent, or were in a position where they could not fairly contribute to the success of British agriculture. What is not said by the reciters of these statistics is the amount of land held by the larger farmers, the character and quality of the land, how much capital is invested in those larger enterprises and how much labour is engaged. Only after computing those
1672
factors is one in a position to judge whether, all things then being equal, small farmers are more productive or less productive than their bigger brethren. Seldom in these statistics is prominence given to figures of the totality of land held by the larger farmers.
In "The Changing Structure of British Agriculture", published in June of this year, we see that farms of 300 acres or more, although between them they represent only 5·7 per cent. of the totality of holdings, hold 33·5 per cent. of the agricultural land in Britain. It is by taking into account the amount of land that is held and the proportion of capital assets dedicated to agriculture that one finds a true basis upon which to make a meaningful calculation.
There is an influential section of agricultural opinion that is affected by the phobia that the small farm is an institution which is standing in the path of agricultural progress. I have said on many occasions in the House that I do not believe that sufficient credit has been given to the factor of intensive farming by the small farmer. It is not a situation which comes about by nice calculations of profit, but it is forced upon him by the harsh law of economic necessity. Some years ago studies were made by the University of Exeter on the net income per acre of farms in various groups. If the Minister will study those figures, he will find that for farms of between 20 and 50 acres the average net income per acre was £21·03; between 50 to 100 acres, £13·03 and between 100 and 150 acres, £10·74.
I represent a constituency in Mid-Wales, which is very largely an area of small farms. I was one of those Members who welcomed the proposed setting up of a Rural Development Board for Mid-Wales in 1967. I gave support to it, not because I believe that it would be an engine of tyranny—indeed, the compulsory powers which it was proposed should be vested in the board were very much milder than those vested in a parish council—but because such a board could bring about such a situation that considerably more small farms would be in existence five, ten or 15 years hence than if it were not created.
The Conservative Party did not show initiative in objecting to the proposed board. I do not believe that one speech

1673
was made from the Conservative benches against the principle of setting up a rural development board. Certainly there was no division about it during the Committee or Report stage of the Bill. But the Conservative Party was very quick to take opportunistic advantage of ruthless turmoil created by others. There was a campaign of foul misrepresentation and of exaggerating every possible peril and disadvantage of such a board and writing down and denying every advantage which could flow to Mid-Wales from its creation. As a result, Mid-Wales, which has been neglected for so long and has such great needs and complex problems, finds itself deprived of a board of the sort which is bringing such prosperity to and showing such promise for the Pennines.
Farming is not only an industry; it is a way of life in the countryside. It is a repository of standards, outlooks and attitudes. That is the structure of a rural society and not just a process by which food is produced for the State. If the pattern of small farms is destroyed, many communities such as mine will disintegrate. In any event, the life of Britain will have lost something invaluable. I do not believe that the Government are doing all they can to assist small farms. I ask the Minister, in the review which he is undertaking, urgently to apply his mind with imagination and vigour to that very principle.
8.48 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have had a very useful debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put forward very constructive thoughts on the problem of small farmers and of farm structure generally. I think that all who have spoken were at some stage members of the Committee which considered the Measure which is the parent of the Scheme we are discussing, because the Committee stage stretched over two Parliaments.
One of the more philosophical questions raised in the debate—and this is particularly true of what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) said—has been about how we view the future of small farmers. If one took some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks completely at their face value, one would think that, through having schemes like
1674
this—and he spoke of small farms being an evil—it was the object of successive Governments—
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I certainly did not say that small farms were evil.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hold himself back for a moment. He quoted statements that people had said that the improvements of small farms were an evil. That is where I was quoting the hon. Gentleman. There is danger in a debate like this of an impression going out that it is the object of successive Governments to get rid of small farms. This is where the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was so right, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Cardigan—that it is not the small farmer as such who is the problem.
The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman in terms of productivity and output per acre show that it is often the small farmer, who, perhaps because of the small size of his holding, has to work his land very much more intensively, so that the output per acre is very much greater than on a farm of larger size. In the part of the country which I represent it is often the small farmer, through the intensity of his business and through his attention to the commercial aspect of his farm, who in many ways sets an example and sets the pace in terms of business efficiency. He often sets a high standard for farms which are very much bigger.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I believe that I made it clear that I was talking about small, unviable farms. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the fact that the figures I quoted from the Exeter study applied largely to non-viable farms. I think that they are non-viable but that nevertheless their contribution to the success of British agriculture is very considerable.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. Small farms, like big farms, make their contribution. This is why, in the Scheme as administered, we use the standard of standard man days, which is the nearest standard we can apply. It is perhaps a rough and ready way, but it is the best available in commercial standards in trying to determine what is a viable and what is not a

1675
viable unit. To that extent, we look upon the Scheme not in terms of size of acreage but in relation to the business capability of the farm.
There is another serious aspect in considering the disappearance of the small farmer in efficiency and other terms. Is a community better off with very small, unprosperous farmers, struggling for a living, or better off with farmers earning a reasonable living? I would choose a prosperous community as contributing more to the countryside than an unprosperous community.
I accept the concern of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the problems of depopulation. But when an amalgamation takes place it does not necessarily mean a decline of population in that area. The land still remains and still needs people to farm it and look after livestock. The fact that we are likely to create a more commercial and viable unit has the effect in the long run probably of keeping people on the land rather than losing them. At the same time, I accept that, in some of our rural areas, we have problems of depopulation which, of course, can have an effect on the whole structure of local society.
Before coming to the general aspects and how we see future prospects, I want to answer some of the points raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West asked a technical question about the power of attorney. He asked whether someone in the circumstances he described would qualify. The Order would not exclude a man incapable of making his own application because of some mental or physical disability. I hope that that will set my hon. Friend's fears at rest.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does that mean that the person acting for him will be able to make the application'?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is the spirit of the Order that that should not be a problem. However, I should like to write to my hon. Friend about the legal question of the power of attorney for someone acting as an administrator or executor.
My hon. Friend asked a question about the seven-year period, but that is a prob-
1676
lem which is covered by the parent Act and nothing can be done about it in the Order.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned publicity. I am glad to be able to say that a draft explanatory leaflet has been prepared—I have a draft in my hand—and it is now at the printers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that it explains the scheme fully and simply and will show those who wish to take advantage of the scheme exactly what is involved.
He mentioned the Rural Development Board for Wales, as did the hon. Member for Cardigan. That is not included in the Order and I do not intend to be drawn into discussing it.
I thought that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was rather grudging about the fact that we had raised the income test for non-farm income. We believe that this will help. We have had evidence of hard cases. One example is of a farmer who had fallen ill and whose wife had gone out to work to support the family. In such a case the farm income of the husband and wife might be very small compared with the non-farm income. I have had specific cases raised in my own constituency. We believe that this increase will be of genuine help to people in difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances.
Mr. Maclennan: I want to correct any impression that I did not welcome the increase. I was asking who would benefit and drawing attention to the fact that it seemed to allow for inflation, whereas the grants remain static for a period of three years.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall deal with inflation later. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that this increase will give considerable help to those able to use it.
Several hon. Members have been worried lest an effect of the scheme is merely to make big farms bigger. I have read this point of view and it has been expressed by various commentators in the agricultural Press and elsewhere. But one of the encouraging features of the scheme so far has been the number of amalgamations between non-viable units. I quote the figures for Scotland, but those for the rest of the country are similar, and in Scotland nearly half the

1677
approvals have involved amalgamations of two uncommercial units. What is particularly significant in Scotland is that in crofting areas the figure is higher still. This encouraging trend shows throughout the rest of the country.
As to the take-up of the Scheme, it is difficult to make comparisons between what has been happening under the Scheme and what happened before, because it is only sensible to compare it with the period before the Scheme came in. We can make such comparison, but it may not be statistically correct because some people may have been anticipating the Scheme. In the two or three years before the Scheme in Scotland amalgamations appeared to be taking place at something like 200 a year. Since the Scheme, this has gone up to about 450 amalgamations a year, and the same is true of other parts of the country. While we cannot be absolutely accurate, it appears that the Scheme has had the effect of bringing about amalgamations.
Speaking for my own part of Scotland, the North-East, an area with a high number of small farms, probably similar to parts of Wales, the rate of take-up there was far in excess of what my Department anticipated. There is regional variation and perhaps the rate has not been so fast in other areas. There can be no doubt but that the Scheme has had the effect of speeding up amalgamations.
What hopes do we have for the Scheme? A number of fairly basic criticisms have been voiced about it. The hon. Member for Cardigan said that all the Government seemed to be doing was making a Scheme that was not entirely effective, and only marginally better, rather than producing a new one. I do not accept that as a fair criticism. A new Scheme would require new legislation. We have to make the best of the Scheme in our hands, provided by an Act of Parliament passed by the previous Government. There have been other, deeper matters raised tonight which we will take up in the review.
I was asked: What are we aiming at as the typical commercial unit? I do not think that there is any secrecy about this or about the number of standard man-days that we use for a commercial
1678
unit. The unit we want is one that would provide an adequate living for the occupier, adequate scope for the use of modern methods and labour-saving machinery and which would generally enable him to employ two men including himself. That is the general aim in bringing forward this Scheme for amalgamations. The detailed criteria must be left to the review and in that review we will certainly take account of what has been said tonight.
What we come back to are the debates we had in Committee. These centred around whether we want to see, in such a Scheme, amalgamations being positively encouraged by the Government and which change the structure of agriculture, or whether on the other hand there should be merely an oiling of the wheels of the amalgamation process taking place in any case. I know that some hon. Members on both sides believe that such a Scheme should be no more than an encouragement of the process already taking place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not looked back to this in Committee, because it may have been a view I expressed at the time, namely that if we provide a Scheme which is too fast at one end of the scale we may produce an artificial structure too quickly which may not be in keeping with the commercial and economic future that will face agriculture. Equally, on the other hand, we do not want a Scheme which is too slow and does not help to meet the problems which we have to face. Obviously, this is a question which we shall look at during the course of the review.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman well appreciates, I believe, that five-sixths of the farms in my constituency are below the limit at which, he maintains, the Government are aiming. Does he appreciate that if that process took place, three-quarters of my constituency socially-speaking would be little more than a desert?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view of what the effect would be but he demonstrates, I think, that if a scheme went forward too fast, it could have deep repercussions on a locality and on society within that area. The hon. Gentleman has underlined the point which I was making.

1679
The one criticism which we have had—and I give the assurance that this will be borne in mind in the review—is of the apparent slowness of administration between application and the making of payment. I accept the criticism. I would merely say that it is not necessarily a criticism of those who have had to administer the Scheme.
I speak from experience in my constituency in saying that one of the greatest difficulties is the legal stages which have to be followed when an amalgamation takes place. The criticisms that we receive are not so much from the point of view of amalgamators but rather concern the outgoer's payment. In cases which I have handled, hardship has resulted when, in prospect of an outgoer's payment, somebody has left his farm, invested his savings in a house and then has had to wait perhaps two years before either receiving a lump sum or the first instalment of an annuity. I know that this has caused considerable embarrassment and financial difficulty.
In all the cases which I have raised, there has been no fault by those administering the Scheme but the amalgamator has met problems in legal procedures or otherwise in carrying forward his half of the Scheme before the money could be paid out. I give the assurance that this factor will loom very high in the review which takes place, because if the Scheme is to be effective it must work quickly and its effects must work through to those who hope to benefit from it.
We hope that the review—which will be a departmental review and will take place within the Agricultural Departments—will take something like three months or, perhaps, longer. We shall, of course, consult the interests involved, the National Farmers' Unions, and we shall also take into account the views of two university departments of agricultural economics which have studied the working of the Schemes. We want the review to be thorough. We want to use all the work which has been done, in addition to our own experience of the Schemes, before we bring our conclusions to the House in due course.
The Schemes which we are discussing certainly have their defects, but I think
1680
that everyone in the House tonight is in agreement with the general aims. Certainly, the proposals before the House tonight will help the existing Schemes within their limitations. I hope that they will encourage those whom amalgamation and outgoing payments will help to take advantage of what the Schemes have to offer. As to the future, we take the criticisms which have been made and I assure the House that we shall take them fully into account in the review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Mr. Stodart.]

HOMELESS FAMILIES (LONDON)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]
9.10 p.m.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: Tonight I invite the attention of the House to the position of homeless families in London, and I want to start by making it quite clear that my main interest and concern is with the cruel and increasing problems with which the homeless families are being faced at the heart of our great capital city.
I must begin by trying to get from the Minister some clarification of the confusion which seems to have surrounded what has become known as the Greve Report. In April, 1969, the then Minister commissioned, as I understand it, a study of this very severe and difficult problem by a team headed by Professor Greve and Professor Cullingworth. I understand also that the draft of that report was submitted last January and that the final report was published in June.
Therefore I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in November
"when he received the report of the study of homelessness in Greater London commissioned in April, 1969, by his predecessor; what steps

1681
he is taking to make public the findings of the research team under the leadership of Professor Greve."
To my immense surprise the right hon. Gentleman answered:
"I have not yet received this report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1970; Vol 807, c. 68.]
If he had not received the report, obviously he could not have read it; if he had not read it, that must mean that no very urgent consultations had been going on in the Department about the material which was contained in that report. I think it is an absolute disgrace that a report dealing with such an urgent human problem should be kicking around the Ministry for six months.
I was even more surprised when I read in The Guardian on 3rd December a letter from Professor Greve saying:
"I was puzzled to learn from Sir Keith Joseph's reply to a Parliamentary question that he is still awaiting the report on homelessness in Greater London. There must be some mistake. The research team delivered its final report to the Department of Health and Social Security by the beginning of June.… The title page says Homelessness in Greater London—Report of Study ' and the research team certainly did not regard it as a draft."
He goes on:
"The revision on which we are now working is not a 'final version' of the report—that has already been submitted. Instead, we aim to produce a book based closely on the June report, but not identical in content."
Several hon. Members have asked Questions, the Answers to which have confused the issue even more. I shall not weary the House with recitations, but there are certain questions which have to be asked. For instance, can copies of this report, of what I have to call the "June report", be made available to local authorities? Local authorities have got to deal on their doorsteps with this problem. Is there any information in this report which will give them some guidelines for their future planning and for their future financial arrangements? Is it to be kept a secret from them, even though many of them contributed usefully and helpfully to the work of the research team?
Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a suspicion that the report she calls the "June report" was referred to the various local government associations in London, and that there is a suspicion
1682
that it was even altered by those people, they having some views on it? I think the Minister ought to answer and say that the "June report" was referred to the local government associations, and say whether they were permitted to make amendments to it.
Mrs. Jeger: I thank my hon. Friend who has great knowledge of these matters. I am not, however, so much concerned with whether it went to the associations. What I want to know is whether it went to individual boroughs, and I hope that, whether it did or not, it may soon be made available. What about the Greater London Council and the housing associations which are trying to help in this difficult matter? Will it be possible for the Community Relations Commission to study the report from the point of view of the problems of homeless people from overseas? Will the Minister place any restrictions on the research team's publishing part of the report in the form of articles, or talking on the communication media about its discoveries?
It is extraordinary that in answer to questions the Minister should tell the House that his Ministry has been financing, out of public funds, a project to enable two professors to write a book That is a strange use of public money and is not the way in which these matters are usually dealt with, especially since it was understood, when the original announcement was made in the House, that the Minister was setting up this project because he urgently required information on which to take action.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) did not set up this academic exercise so that one more book could be added to the spate of literature on our housing problems. I must press the Minister to tell us what is going on. It is a much more important question than asking when a draft report becomes a report, or when a book is to be published; it is a question of the action that the Government are going to take to deal with the facts disclosed by the report. We want to know, tonight, what is happening about the growing number of homeless families in London. It bodes ill for those people when one considers the incompetent muddle that surrounded even the passing of the report from the Ministry to Ministry. We have to ask ourselves how

1683
any of the Ministers concerned will be able to deal with the reality of the problem if they cannot cope more efficiently with pieces of paper about it.
Much of the argument has concerned the difficult of definition. Nobody knows how many homeless families there are. That is one reason why I hoped to hear something about the definition of homeless families. When I am privileged to read the report I may find some answers in it.
When one of my hon. Friends asked a Question in the House on 11th December about the number of homeless families in the United Kingdom the Minister replied:
"My information relates to families in temporary accommodation maintained by local authorities. Reports from authorities in England and Wales … give a total of 4,680 families then in temporary accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1969; Vol. 808, c. 205.]
That does not answer the question which is: how many homeless families are there? It does not ask what accommodation is available. That answer is about as helpful, in answer to a question asking how many people have chest complaints, as saying that there are 50, because the local hospital has only 50 chest beds. The way in which the figures are produced means that a serious underestimate is made of the number of homeless, and there there is a gap in our knowledge of homelessness. We are told only the number of places in which homeless people can be put; we are not told how many are turned away.
We know that different authorities have different definitions and that in some areas only families with small children are counted, and elderly couples are turned away. We know that thousands of people are sleeping rough, putting up with temporary accommodation in hostels. The last survey estimated that every night about 11,000 in London were without homes of their own, sleeping either rough or in hostels.
Of course, the figures give no idea of the number of people who are living in absolutely intolerable conditions. I always think that if we took homelessness to mean living in uncertainty without one's own front door, not knowing how long one would be able to stay in a
1684
place, not being able to grow any roots, not enjoying the basic amenities, we would probably find that the figure was nearer one million. I do not think that I am exaggerating.
But if we take the first official definition, we find that there are about 7,600 families in the officially classified homeless list, which is probably already out of date. I do not know whether the Minister will have another report prepared, but my impression is that the figures are still rising. So this Christmas, there will be at least 2,300 families actually in welfare accommodation and no one is sure how many who would like to be in are outside.
There are many families who would be homeless tonight if our public health inspectors worked to rule in the boroughs that some of us represent. Hundreds of families are living in over-crowded and sub-standard conditions and would be homeless but for a sympathetic blind eye now and again being turned in their direction.
The evidence seems to me that the problem is getting worse in London. I have read accounts in the Press—I have to rely on the Press for my information—that some people say that it has trebled in ten years. Other reports say that it has doubled, and of course the difficulty in getting the right answer, especially to those of us who are not privy to the report, is that we know that it varies very much from borough to borough.
If this question is getting worse, we must ask why it is. One of the main reasons is that, in all the greater London boroughs, the stock of privately rented accommodation is dropping. In Inner London, between 1961 and 1966, it dropped by about 15 per cent. But the interesting thing is that in all those boroughs the supply of furnished accommodation went up.
This is part of the heart of the problem. I am sure that the Minister would not want to make party capital out of this. I will give him a point in advance: several of us tried to persuade the previous Minister to include furnished accommodation in the Rent Act, because we foresaw—I have been the chairman of a borough housing committee, as have several other hon. Members, and we

1685
know about these things—that as soon as the restrictions on unfurnished accommodation became more stringent than on furnished accommodation, landlords will put in the table and a chair. This is what has happened.
In one case in my constituency, landlords have collected public money for improvement grants and have been enabled to raise the rents because the facilities were improved. That is fair enough, but as each family move out of those publicly improved flats, a couple of pieces of furniture go in, and the rent rockets immediately.
This is having a very distressing and serious effect sociologically. We are finding in Inner London an ebbing away of family life, that, in order to pay these rents in Inner London, three or four girls live together and there are shared households and single working people.
I appreciate that they must live somewhere and I am certainly not casting doubt on my concern for this group of people. It means, however, that many families cannot live in Central London on one wage packet. This is certainly so in many of the constituencies that we represent.
The result is that one gets a completely distorted picture of the position. Many households are shared among single people who do not grow deep roots in the places where they live and who take up accommodation which was traditionally that of working people who needed to live in Central London to be near their work.
Many of these people are homeless because of what is euphemistically described as "redevolpment". Many hon. Members will be aware of cases where private developers have bought up rows of traditional working-class houses, have done them up—not always very well—and sold them. The local people are completely outbid in this market situation. Why are these companies going in for this sort of development? The answer is simple. It is profitable. They are certainly not doing it because their hearts are aching about the condition of old houses in the middle of London.
Another problem which will increase is that of rising rents causing increasing difficulties for many people. Sometimes families are tempted to take on property
1686
which they cannot afford, just for the sake of having somewhere to live. They get into difficulties and, in my experience, many of the present homeless families came from the furnished sector. It is this sector where we must look for the earliest and most direct improvement.
I was interested to read a Report—this was one Report which I was able to get—about London's housing needs up to 1974. It was called Report No. 3 of the Standing Working Party on London's Housing, a high-powered committee which worked hard on this difficult problem. It said:
"The Report confirms dramatically the view that there is an imperative continuing need to take every possible means to relieve the clament housing needs of London as a whole"
It went on:
"It is clear that the relative position of inner London has worsened in comparison with that of outer London and that, on present trends, the disparity will be still more marked in 1974, when inner London is likely to have a deficit of over 100,000 dwellings."
To that figure must be added an estimated 150,000 dwellings which are either unfit or unlikely to be improved, making a total deficit of about one-quarter of a million. These are terrifying figures because if we are now watching the number of homeless families rise, we cannot but conclude that the trend will be upwards.
This working party estimated that to cope with the quite modest projected needs, we should require in the public sector about 28,000 new units a year. As far as I can discover, the London building programme is stuck at about 21,000, and many boroughs are worried about whether, under the new subsidy arrangements, they may have to cut back further. Certainly we shall need a fantastic increase to jump from 21,000 to the 28,000 which this working party thought was necessary.
Exactly who are we talking about when we refer to homeless families? Unfortunately, the phrase "homeless family" has become a sociological label. It gets stuck to people and all it does is help to put them in a row of statistics. Sometimes the label becomes so large that it hides their faces.
I recall when it was said that most people who could not provide homes for themselves must have something wrong

1687
with them or be a lot of feckless lay-abouts. Some time ago the then L.C.C. conducted a survey. It showed that the main characteristic of the homeless family was that it was just a family without a roof over its head. It showed that the majority of the homeless were decent, employed people with all sorts of difficulties, the main one being that they had nowhere to live. Another characteristic was that they earned rather less than average wages. Last year just over half the fathers in these families were earning under £20 a week. Goodness knows, that is little enough to provide housing in the jungle of Central London these days.
Sometimes, the family loses its home, even though it is not in arrears with the rent, because the owner falls down on his mortgage repayments. There have been several such cases in which, through absolutely no fault of their own, people have lost their homes. Some leave when they have no legal necessity to do so; because there is so much harassment and unpleasantness, they would rather just go than fight it out. One difficulty is that the law is always on the side of the landlord. We need urgent action to ensure that tenants know their rights, and not only know them but are supported in getting them. It is not enough just to tell a person that he cannot be thrown out.
It is estimated that about 7 per cent. of homelessness in London nowadays is happening to families because of their attempts to use the legal provisions which are meant to protect them. After they have been to the rent tribunal, or to see the rent officer, the harassment and the difficulties start. So it would be quite irresponsible—I am sure that no hon. Member would suggest it—to follow the line that homelessness is the result of some aberration, some sort of character defect.
Some of these families need a great deal of welfare and social help. But often those needs arise because of the insecurity of their housing; they are not the cause of the difficulty, but the result. We need to be more tolerant about these things because many well-off and well-housed people can get away with all sorts of inadequate habits and with less than conventional behaviour—they can drink
1688
too much, or have noisy children—without being labelled welfare cases or problem families. But if a family loses its home, all these factors attract attention, and it is too easily assumed, almost automatically assumed, that they have personal and social problems other than housing.
I shall be interested to know, if we are ever to hear anything about Professor Greve's study, whether he confirms the thesis which the L.C.C. study established some years ago.
I ask again, who are these people? They are people who cannot find a secure home at rents which can be paid out of average and below-average wages. Goodness knows what they are supposed to do as rents go even higher. Another characteristic is that they have children. Sometimes there are other problems—illness, recent arrival in this country and so on—but the two basic factors are having children and earning less than the average wage.
It is what happens to the children that worries me most. Inner London has the highest admission rate in the country for the taking of children into care. I know that there are all sorts of reasons for that, but what worries me is that, between 1965 and 1969, the total number of children taken into care was practically constant, whereas the number admitted due to the homelessness of their parents nearly doubled. So this is not a question of parental neglect, delinquency or any of that group of causes which can lead to children being taken into care.
I emphasise again that the number of children who had to be parted from their parents and go into residential accommodation because of homelessness doubled between 1965 and 1969. I regard that as a shocking indictment of the present state of affairs. What is more, half of those children had to stay away from their parents for more than a year, and some for much longer.
What are we building up in personal strains and psychological difficulties within those families?
Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London Borough of Hackney, with its Tory majority, attempted last year to reduce the pocket money of such children by 6d. a week, to save money?
Mrs. Jeger: There are mean attempts made to save money in that sort of way. At the same time, according to the last figure which I was able to obtain, the average cost of keeping a child in care was £8 6s. a week. I am sure that it is higher in London, and now, with the rate at which inflation is going and the cost of living is rising, it will become higher still. This is what makes me so angry about the way housing finance is dealt with by Ministers, of either party. They go on about the money side of it, but no one seems to take into account the amount of money needed to keep hundreds of children in care at over £8 a week each. I take the example of just one family with four children in care. What has happened to our economics, if not to our goodheartedness, if we will spend £30 a week to keep four children away from their parents? I never understand why we cannot spend the £30 on housing them. We could house more than one family for £30 a week.
There is a serious effect on the family caused by the break-up and distress inevitable in these circumstances, often leading to permanent defects and psychological trauma which makes it a most sensitive and urgent problem.
Mr. James Allason: In her figures, has the hon. Lady the proportion of children who went into care because of the inadequacy of the parents? She will realise that there are many cases in which it is necessary for the protection of the children that they be taken into care. In the case of homelessness, will it not often be possible for the children to stay with the mother?
Mrs. Jeger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I took my figures from the Home Office Report, which attaches labels, so to speak, to the various categories. There is a category marked, "Taken into care because family homeless". There are other categories, "Parents incompetent", "Mother ill", and so on. I have used the Department's own nomenclature, and for the country as a whole, 2,192 children are reported by the Home Office as in care for homelessness. It would hardly be fair of me to ask the Home Office whether it really meant that. I am sure that these children are not taken into care if it can be avoided. Every child officer I know tries
1690
to avoid it, and, if it be possible for the children to stay with their mother, the children's officer is only too glad to arrange it.
I come to the administrative side. This whole sad problem does not belong with the Department of Health and Social Security. I am glad that a Minister from the Department of the Environment—as we have to call it now—is here to answer the debate tonight. This is where the problem belongs. If these people have difficulties of health and welfare, so have the well-housed people. Let them be looked after, as are other citizens, through the social services.
The history is interesting. Responsibility for homeless families went first, under the National Assistance Act, to the local authorities. I well remember that when this arrangement was made it was meant to cover sudden distress, sudden homelessness due, perhaps, to fire or flood of some others such immediate emergency. The provisions of that Act were never meant to cope with an in-built housing problem. That is why the whole thing has gone wrong. Homelessness is a built-in permanent aspect of London life: it is not a welfare problem.
It was a great pity—and, again, I give the Government a point here—that the previous Government when reorganising local authority social services did not take the opportunity to transfer the problem of homeless families from the welfare department to the housing department. The result is confusion between work at local and at Ministerial level. The health and social security side is finally responsible, but it is the housing Minister who has to build the houses which are what these people need.
I am strengthened in my view because this was a recommendation in the Seebohm Report, and that is why I was the more unhappy that that recommendation was not adopted. It is worth recalling that the Report stated:
"The full range of housing responsibilities should be placed upon housing departments. To relieve them of responsibility for dependent or unreliable tenants would discourage them from looking at the housing needs of their area as a whole and create or reinforce degrading stigmas and social distinctions. We recommend that housing departments should, as a few already do, asume responsibility for providing accommodation for homeless families."

1691
I know that it is difficult to talk about changing these arrangements so soon after local authorities have had to try to absorb the changes brought about by recent legislation, but the point should be looked at again.
Apart from the rather technical points in the report, what Government plans are there for helping local authorities to deal with this problem? In the capital city of our rich and talented country we can no longer accept our inability to put roofs over the heads of these people. No strange and rare genius is needed—no undiscovered processes of science. It is a problem of priorities, or social values, of public concern and of Government action.
Here, again, it is only fair to be asked what action we would take. First, I would transfer to the housing departments overall responsibility. We need massive capital investment in inner London. It is no use expecting boroughs, even with existing Government help, to deal with this problem, especially as some boroughs have problems very much worse than others. We must do what was promised in the Labour Party election address—bring furnished accommodation into equal control with unfurnished accommodation. I should like to see a big cut-back in so-called private redevelopment, because that does not contribute at all to the housing needs of the people with the most urgent problems. That sort of redevelopment merely provides profit for those who choose to invest in that way.
Lastly, I would severely cut back on office building in London. I am sad to see that an increase is to be allowed. As the Member of Parliament who is said to be the Member for Centre Point, I believe that this outrageous obscenity in my constituency is a reproach to anyone who has anything to do with it.
We have heard a lot of talk this week about inflation and the need for more productivity to combat inflation. I should like to know what the productivity norm is of the speculators who erected that hideous block and who can sit back and look at it—I am not sure that they even bother to look at it; they just wait while it becomes worth more and more money the longer it remains empty. This is an
1692
outrage when we are thinking in terms of the need for land, sites and building in the middle of our cities. I mention this example because it is one of the uglier ones.
Mr. Ronald Brown: As my hon. Friend and I have adjoining constituencies, she will no doubt be aware that she can pick up 50,000 ft. super of empty office space any time she likes in my constituency.
Mrs. Jeger: I hope that the Minister responsible will make that fact known. It is clear from the Press that there seems to be no more profitable investment at the moment than an empty office. I wonder what that does to the nation's productivity and what part it plays in our fight against inflation.
Mr. Brown: The Barbican is coming along.
Mrs. Jeger: It is coming along nicely. I believe that there would be public support for speedy and imaginative action. It will take a lot of money, but it will not be any more expensive in the end than trying to deal with all the casualties that we are creating by the present policy.
For these reasons I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that this intractable problem—I do not pretend that anyone seems to have found the answer to it yet—will receive the close and urgent attention that it merits.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) was very sincerely motivated. It may be a record that present in the Chamber tonight are all three Members for the borough of Camden. There are certainly political divisions between us, but at least there is no question but that we are all extremely interested in the problem of the homeless in inner London.
The major problem which has faced anyone who has had anything to do with any form of public service in London since the war is that as fast as an old derelict or decaying site is developed the more difficult it is to rehouse people, because the same number of people as were displaced cannot be got back into the cleared site.
Further, in the broader sense the risk is run of destroying communities. In the

1693
general context of providing a roof over people's heads that is perhaps less important, but I am not certain that any of us would like to see throughout London vast gleaming, new, massive blocks of flats in which it was difficult for people to develop any feeling of security or of belonging to a community.
The hon. Lady mentioned the numbers of children in care in Inner London. This problem is aggravated by the fact that the Inner London boroughs have within their boundaries the major railway termini. The borough of Camden has within its boundaries King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston. It is a fact of life that homeless families, whether or not they have children, who come to London seeking their fortunes, seeking different and better lives, land up at one of those railway stations and after a very short period qualify to be rehoused by the local authority's welfare department. They get temporary accommodation and then qualify for permanent accommodation. This difficulty is not experienced by Outer London boroughs because they do not have the main railway stations.
The hon. Lady said that one reason for the rise in the number of homeless families was that many of them could not afford high rents on their low incomes. There is a substantial element of truth in this, but two factors need to be examined. A substantial number of local authorities offer good rent rebates. The borough of Camden under its progressive Conservative council is pioneering. It has decided that nobody shall spend more than one-quarter of his income on rates and rent combined.
There is an urgent need for the legislation which was promised by the Secretary of State to provide for rent rebates in the private sector. The Milner Holland Report showed conclusively that incomes in the private sector are lower than they are in the sector covered by local authority housing, and that should never be forgotten.
The new family income supplements will be a substantial help to some families. Since 1963, under the Children and Young Persons Act, which was introduced by a distinguished Minister, Henry Brooke, local authorities are empowered to spend substantial sums of money on keeping families together, to save them
1694
from becoming homeless and the children going into care. I wish that more local authorities would do as much as Camden has done under both parties since it became a children's authority. It is far better to spend money on keeping families together than on keeping children in care.
No one will deny that there is not a short-term solution. What is the longterm solution? The G.L.C.'s idea of Thamesmead, started by one party and continued by another, is a step in the right direction. It may be that London needs a new town. It is no good winkling out the odd 5 acres in Harrow, 5 acres in Croydon; we need to look for a wider solution.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Lady make one or two partisan references in a speech which otherwise commended itself to both sides of the House. She was critical of private development. To condemn private development merely because it is for profit shows a closed mind. After all, it is out of the taxation of those profits that the country is run—not on the losses of some of the nationalised industries. To talk about private development not being allowed to continue is just as much a sign of a closed mind as to say that there should be only municipal development. The key is mixed development, and there was a belated conversion to this view by the last Labour Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Greater London Council.
The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South mentioned Centre Point. It is in her constituency. It was in my borough when I was leader of the council. I should be ruled out of order or would be straying close to the bounds of order if I were to say that the sooner full rates are levied on this sort of property the better, so I will not run the risk of doing so.
As the hon. Lady rightly said, we are not dealing with statistics. We are not apportioning blame or trying to seek credit for any ideas we put forward. We must constantly realise that we are dealing with human beings. It would have been much easier had both parties gone the whole hog on the Seebohm Report and put all the responsibility on the boroughs in inner London for the full range of services instead of taking responsibility for some of the health services from the boroughs and splitting the functions of

1695
the housing department. This was not necessarily a good thing.
It is fortunate that the business of the House concluded slightly more speedily than was anticipated. The problems of inner London are perhaps not realised to the extent that they should be. It is true that they are shared in large measure by two or three other major cities, but public attention focuses on inner London. I desperately hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to set out some guidelines to what we may look for in Greater London in the next four years.
9.58 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I hope that the House will forgive me if I speak now. I shall try to give way to hon. Members if I have time. Other hon. Members may have the opportunity of speaking later. However, the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) spoke for 35 minutes and I think I am entitled to a little time to reply.
Mrs. Jeger: May I in explanation point out that during the debate on the Bill earlier some hon. Members spoke for even longer, otherwise we should have had much more time for this important debate.
Mr. Channon: I agree. We have waited some time for this debate which is important to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was only right that the hon. Lady should have raised this very important subject, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) had the opportunity to intervene.
I shall have some things to say which may be controversial, but I hone that I can begin by being wholly non-controversial. The problem of homelessness is by far the most distressing aspect of the housing problem wherever it occurs. Although we may disagree about the methods needed to cure homelessness, or alleviate it—because it is a very difficult problem to cure—hon. Members on both sides of the House are rightly concerned to ensure that everything possible is done to relieve the distress and hardship suffered by families who have lost their homes.
1696
It is appropriate that the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South should have raised this subject just before Christmas, because in a way the sympathy which we all feel for homeless families is perhaps heightened at this time. But this is not a problem which is over after Christmas. It is with us all the year round, and it is not sufficient for us to remember it at only particular times of the year. Apart from the homeless families in London, thousands of other families in the conurbations—and I entirely accept what the hon. Lady said—are living in completely inadequate and sub-standard housing.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
Mr. Channon: I entirely accept what the hon. Lady said about the ghastly conditions of housing in London. Hon. Members are rightly concerned that the problem should continue to be aired, and I am sure that it will continue to be aired while such conditions exist. This is an appalling problem and no one would deny it. It is an appalling problem for any incoming Government to face. I accept the figures she gave of 100,000 crude shortage and 150,000 inadequate houses.
Mr. Arthur Latham: The hon. Gentleman says that he is being non-controversial. I have listened carefully to him and I do not want to let pass his reference to homelessness being the worst aspect of the housing problem. Before he leaves that point, I invite him to answer my hon. Friend's question about the definition of homelessness. I can take him to many places which could technically be called "homes" in my constituency, but whose occupants would be better off without such roofs over their heads. I ask him whether he does not agree that there is a twin problem—that of not merely providing additional accommodation but of launching a concerted attack on some of the Rachman-type landlords who are beginning to break cover in the London area.
Mr. Channon: I entirely accept that the present definition of homelessness is unsatisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on numerous occasions during the General Election campaign, my right hon. Friend said that he thought the present definition was unsatisfactory. It is difficult to find a better definition but it is a matter we shall have to go on examining. When I said that homelessness is the worst aspect of the housing problem, I meant it in the wider aspects, which of course include the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.
I hope I shall continue to be non-controversial, at least for a few more minutes. I must first take the opportunity to set out the facts about the Greve Report on homelessness in London. I say to the House, and I shall substantiate it, that there has been a scurrilous and irresponsible campaign by those who should know better, and by some who did know better, about the alleged suppression of the report. I will give the facts.
The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at Birmingham University was formally asked to undertake a study of homelessness in London, to appoint Professor Greve, of Southampton University, as Director of Research, and to form a team mainly by diverting research staff from Centre projects sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security. For this, the Centre is to be paid at least £13,000. Professor Greve was thus a consultant to the Centre.
If this appears to be a strange arrangement, as the hon. Lady says that it is, I remind her that it was not made by me or by my right hon. Friend. She should address her comment to the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who made the arrangement. Under the terms of the agreement made by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State, it is up to the Centre to publish. The Government have neither the right nor the power to publish. We are bound by the terms of the agreement to let the Centre publish. I have the agreement here if any hon. Member wishes to refute what I am saying. The agreement was made by the last Government for reasons which no doubt at the time seemed sound to them.
1698
The report was asked for by October, 1969, but for various reasons for which I cannot be blamed, it could not be ready by then. The date for the first and final draft was first expected to be the end of February, with the object of securing publication of the report by the end of June, 1970. In fact, the draft of the report was not received until June, 1970.
The research staff agreed—and I emphasise that it is the research staff's report under the agreement—that the report should be sent in strict confidence—because it is for the staff to publish—to the Departments concerned with the problem, the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association for comment. The authors—and here I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown)—would be completely free to take account of any comments made, or utterly to ignore them, and I must emphasise that in August of this year some eleven pages of comments were sent to Professor Greve. For example, in the original draft provided by Professor Greve he was unable to use the up-to-date figures in the recent report of the Standing Working Party on London Housing, to which the hon. Lady referred, and therefore a great many of his figures were out of date.
I understand that a complete revision of the document sent in June will be ready by mid-January. I also understand that the delay in providing a revised document is due to lack of time, so I am told. Professor Greve and his colleagues are presumably taking account of these revised figures in preparing their amended version of the report and of the book which, I understand, is to be published in the new year. My right hon. Friend has asked Professor Greve and Professor Cullingworth to publish as quickly as possible, and I hope that the revised version will come to us next month and be published shortly after.
Mrs. Jeger: I should like the hon. Gentleman to make this totally clear. Are we not talking about two things? Is there not a report which is within the Ministry on the one hand and, on the other hand, a book to be published? Is he saying that the agreement with the Centre for Urban Studies prevents the report that was delivered in June from being passed down to local authorities,

1699
or published in any way, or even put in the Library of the House of Commons?
Mr. Channon: The agreement is perfectly clear: it is for the research team, the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, to publish the report. If the hon. Lady wishes to see a copy, she should ask Professor Cullingworth or Professor Greve, for it is entirely for them to publish. We are only too anxious for the report to be published at the earliest possible date.
It is clear that there has been no intention whatever on the part of the Government to try to suppress this report. Indeed, we are as anxious as anybody to have up-to-date facts to help us in taking action. I therefore regret very much that, without adequately checking their facts, some observers are alleging that the Government are suppressing this report.
It is particularly sad, to me at any rate, that the Director of Shelter, which has done so much to help to alleviate housing misery, and whose organisation has done a job which is rightly praised both inside and outside the House, in his Christmas magazine and in other articles should have repeated allegations which are both irresponsible and completely and utterly untrue. I take this opportunity tonight from this Box to refute those allegations.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: I do not in any way wish to question what the hon. Gentleman is now saying, because, like many others, I have been awaiting a clear explanation of exactly what has transpired. It would be useful, and I do not say this in any unpleasant manner, if the hon. Gentleman made the point to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that a full explanation along these lines would have been helpful at a much earlier date, for it would have been easier for many of us to understand what was going on. Some of our own comments on the problem, made outside the Chamber, might have been less ironic.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that suggestion, but I am grateful to him for the tone in which he is taking what I am saying. I sincerely assure him that there is nothing in my very short period in Government which has annoyed me more than to be attacked for something in which there is not a single grain of truth.
1700
Governments of all kinds are liable to be attacked for their housing policies. We may be right or wrong, and I welcome honest attacks and honest controversy about matters of great public importance. The hon. Lady has given us an example of an important debate on a topic of great public importance. What wounds me is when attacks are made which have no basis of truth.
Mr. Ronald Brown: Having regard to the seriousness of the issues and the leakages which have gone on, and knowing as we do that his Department is aware of what would appear to be prima facie a very serious case, is he aware that it appears to the outside person that his Department has not been aware of the importance of the subject!
Mr. Channon: I am coming to that. What is more important than who is right or wrong about the publication of this is what we are going to do about it.
That we are willing to publish the facts and to act on them is clearly illustrated by the fact that we published the report on London's housing needs up to 1974 prepared by the Standing Working Party on London Housing. If the hon. Lady looks at that document she will see that it was prepared in February, 1970. If I were to take the same line as some of those criticising us I would say that the last Government held that up because they did not want to publish it before the General Election. I do not take that line. I accept that the last Government acted in complete faith about the report and I hope that hon. Members will accept that we did likewise with this one.
As the hon. Lady points out, the problem in London's housing is utterly desperate. There is a shortage of about 100,000 in inner London with a further 150,000 unfit or unlikely to be improved by the year 1974. Within four weeks of coming into power we published this report which gives a much more up-to-date picture of the London housing situation than the figures I have seen in the draft Greve Report. We have not stood still on this. Despite the fact that we knew that the draft was likely to be substantially revised, our Departments have been preparing as far as they can for action on the recommendations in the draft report on the assumption that many would stand at the end of the day.

1701
It would be wrong for me, although I am tempted to do so, to comment in detail on the Greve Report until I have seen the final version. It is clear that the report is not a blueprint for a quick and easy solution to the problem of homelessness. It is however a most useful contribution which the Government intend to discuss shortly with the authorities concerned, as soon as the revised version is received. We intend to have meaningful talks with all the interested parties. This deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury.
Meanwhile the Government are continuing to press local authorities to provide more and better welfare accommodation to meet the immediate needs of families.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Now that the hon. Gentleman is turning to the question of persuasion of local authorities, may I point out the situation in my constituency, with which he is no doubt familiar. There, as he well knows, the Conservatives cut the housing programme from 2,000 to 600. What representations is he making about that situation? Has he indicted that local authority as he ought to have done?
Mr. Channon: What I would like to do, if the House will allow me, is to deal in some detail with the situation of London's housing. I will not shirk the point raised by the hon. Member. We are pressing for more and better welfare accommodation to meet the immediate needs of families. We have made it clear that no financial bar will be raised to acceptable proposals for providing such accommodation. The House may like to know that last year loan sanction amounting to £244,877 was given to London boroughs to provide temporary accommodation. So far this year £312,085 has been given. I cannot do the percentages in my head but it is a substantial increase this year.
Generally, London authorities are responding well in a very difficult situation and we are continuing to give advice and to prompt them where necessary. We intend, however, to have further general discussions with the London authorities about some of the difficulties and the problems which the Greve Report has indicated.
1702
To turn to the wider question, because homelessness is only part of the London housing problem as a whole, it is not enough simply to provide welfare accommodation on a temporary basis for homeless families. The aim must be to resettle them in permanent homes as quickly as possible. At the same time, we must do all we can to relieve the urgent needs of those living in overcrowded conditions and in unsatisfactory and substandard housing. This means that the housing drive in London must be maintained.
Again, the Government are taking action. One of the first things that we did was to publish a report. The hon. Lady will have seen the circular letter which went out with it from my right hon. Friend the then Minister, now Secretary of State, asking housing authorities to give the report serious consideration, to pursue a vigorous building programme, to bear in mind the need for the outer areas of London to help the inner areas, to make the greatest posssible use of improvement grants and to push ahead with housing advisory services to the public.
In October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Construction met representatives of the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association. That meeting agreed that Outer London must help Inner London by providing for the rehousing of Londoners from the centre in outer districts, that there should be a big improvement campaign and that a high level of local authority building must be maintained.
That does not mean—I hope that no side of the House believes it to mean—that local authority building is the only way of helping. We are actively looking for ways to increase the contribution of private enterprise in London and, above all, of housing associations in London. We had an interesting debate on this in the House only a few days ago. My right hon. Friend has asked the Standing Working Party on London Housing to consider these aspects of private housing and housing associations in addition to the local authorities' own programmes.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: We are perfectly aware that there are many ideas on housing, including local authority housing, but is it not the fact that under

1703
the previous Government many local authorities under Tory control deliberately, without regard to the totality of the problem, stood back their local housing programmes?
Mr. Clinton Davis: Like Hackney.
Mr. Bidwell: Like Ealing.
Mr. Channon: If the hon. Member wishes to introduce that note into the debate, I shall answer him in due course in my speech. I utterly repudiate what he is saying.
We are, of course, urging inner London itself to build wherever possible in its own areas and we are instituting a fresh search for surplus and other land throughout London which might be used for housing. Despite all this, Outer London must continue to help Inner London.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead said, that another important direction in which we can have help for London is in a vigorous new towns programme and sensible overspill arrangements. There is, however, no point in providing new towns where people do not have jobs and where they are not prepared to go. It is important that we should pursue a policy that will provide both opportunities for employment and houses outside London in overspill and new town schemes.
One of the things that disturbs me is to read occasionally in overspill schemes of numbers of empty houses. That seems to me to show that in many cases this whole situation needs radical review.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches and I know that the Minister wants other hon. Members to speak in what was supposed to be a half-hour debate.
Mr. Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important parts of the new towns policy must be to let those who might go to new towns know where they are and where the opportunities are? Many people in my constituency would go to a new town if it were not so difficult to find out where the jobs and homes are.
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree. I believe that the provision of housing aid
1704
centres, which, again, we shall encourage as far as possible, will make an important effect upon that. Far too little is known about these schemes. Many local authorities are enterprising in getting them known, but there are some which are not. I entirely accept that more publicity is required for new towns and overspill schemes and about where there are empty houses. Indeed, I know of boroughs which have got to work with a new town or an overspill development and a number of people have been persuaded to go to a new town and have not regretted it.
In November my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Construction wrote to each of the London boroughs emphasising the need for this high level of authority building saying that officers of the Department would be discussing their problems with the borough councils. After this. I am only too anxious to meet any London authority which wishes to discuss its problem with me, and I hope very much many of them will. Initial meetings with London boroughs are taking place at the present time.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Southall, as I said to his hon. Friend at Question Time the other day, that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House seem often to give the impression that as though by the wave of some magic wand the housing problem in London started on 19th June, 1970. It is a fact that in the last year of Labour Government, from whom we inherited the problem, after five years we had fewer houses started in London than there were in 1964.
Mr. Latham: Mr. Speaker, may I register protest at the fact that we have had one speech from one back bencher from the Government side, and that the Minister is now making a very lengthy reply, and replying to points which have not been raised in the debate, though my hon. Friend was very careful to avoid partisan points, and emphasised that fact—and the Minister complimented her on having done that? Yet he is replying to points which he said were raised at Question time on a previous occasion. I think that this is something of a farce in an Adjournment debate, that a Minister should choose to intervene when he did, and prevent other hon. Members from making contributions.
Mr. Speaker: It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order. It is a point of argument. The hon. Member does not like what the Minister says.
Mr. Channon: He will like it a good deal less in a few moments' time I expect, but hon. Members opposite have attacked us and implied that the London housing problem started in June of this year—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not keep on intervening, because many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, if the Minister will let them.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Lady spoke for 35 minutes—
Mr. Latham: Then reply to what she said.
Mr. Channon: I know the hon. Member does not like what I am saying, but surely I am entitled, as I was trying to do, to reply to her argument about the London housing problem.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I am interested in what the Minister is saying, but he must realise that we are not suggesting or complaining that the housing problem started in June this year. We have talked about 1968 and how the situation has been exacerbated, and I hope that he will address himself to that point.
Mr. Speaker: That is a point of argument.
Mr. Channon: Yes, I will certainly try to deal with this point if I am allowed to continue with my speech. I was saying that we had inherited a situation which the previous Government had allowed to develop, and in the last year of the Labour Government, after five years in power, they started fewer houses both in London and the country as a whole than in 1964.
One other thing the Government have done is—and I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear it—is that we are spending £250,000 this year on a massive publicity campaign to inform people about the grants for improving their houses. It is particularly important in London if we are to make the best use of our housing stock and to avoid the growing problem of obsolescence in
1706
London in the 'seventies and 'eighties. We shall have a massive campaign in London and it will certainly be launched next year. Housing associations also have a part to play here as an additional effort to the work which local authorities should undertake in the improvement schemes. [Interruption.] Peripheral it may be, but it is improvement.
The hon. Lady talked about tenants' rights and the harassment of tenants. On that very point, we had a debate in the House a short time ago. She knows that the Francis Committee is sitting, and we very much hope to receive its report very soon, and I can certainly assure her and the House that we shall study it with care.
One of the earliest things my right hon. Friend did when he took office was to increase by a quite considerable sum the amount spent on advertising to try to help tenants to know what their rights are, and no doubt hon. Members have seen the advertisements in the newspapers. We are hoping to be able to include in rent books statutory obligations that every tenant shall have his rights whether he is in a local authority dwelling or a private dwelling.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Can the Minister say something about the increasing harassment of tenants trying to carry out their rights, especially in the operation of a fair rents policy? It would be a great help if the Minister could say something about the backing that the Government will give to the carrying out of existing laws which in some cases are upsetting landlords.
Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Lady's point. The law is quite clear. The duty is on local authorities to prosecute. The Francis Committee is considering that aspect, and if there are improvements to be made we shall be only too anxious to make them. We have no wish to see any tenant harassed by his landlord. It is a serious problem in a limited number of areas.
Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister has referred on three occasions to different things which he thought were the first things that his Government did to improve the housing situation. Does he recall that one of the first things he did was to

1707
issue, 11 days after the Election, a circular encouraging local authorities to sell council accommodation? Has he noticed that in the Borough of Islington the attempt to give effect to that policy has resulted in a disastrous situation and that the scheme has been withdrawn? Will he relate that policy to the policy of encouraging Outer London boroughs to assist inner London boroughs? How can they do so if London boroughs are selling off large parts of their council accommodation stock, as some are?
Mr. Channon: I do not accept what the hon. Member says about that. It is a very important point, and I wish that I had more time to develop it. The fallacy in the argument of many hon. Members opposite is that it is impossible to generalise; the situation varies from one part of the country to another. Because a council house is sold, it does not follow that the housing problem is made worse. The tenant in the house in almost every case is going to stay there as long as he lives, and the sale has no positive or negative effect on the problem. But this policy enables people to buy the houses in which many of them have lived for years.
On the question of the sale of council houses I should point out that the new circular, which was one of the first things—
Mrs. Jeger: On a point of order. We must asked your protection, Mr. Speaker. I had this Adjournment debate. It was nothing to do with the sale of council houses. If one hon. Member is out of order, I do not see why the Minister should use the rest of the time in this way.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must listen to the answer.
Mr. Channon: I am only answering the question that was raised. If the hon. Lady does not like it, I cannot help it. Hon. Member complain that I am speaking for too long. I have had to deal with about 25 interventions, all but one from
1708
hon. Members opposite. I could not have been fairer. Perhaps I should not have given way to any of the interventions. Then I would have finished earlier.
Mr. Latham: The hon. Member should read the report of the debate and take action on the points raised.
Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read it. Naturally there will be controversy in connection with what any Government do in housing. What we want to do, above all, is to have a fair rental policy in both the private and public sector, with rebates for tenants in the private sector—rebates for the poorest people. That will make a great contribution.
Mr. Freeson: The point that the hon. Gentleman is making has nothing to do with building more new homes to house the homeless; it has to do with housing the homeless. What action does he propose to take about local authorities in London which, since 1968—not June, 1970—have been drastically cutting back on their housing programmes under Conservative control? That is what London wants to know. What action will the Minister take to get Tory local authorities to increase their house-building programmes? We want no bromides; we want some action, which has been needed ever since 1968.
Mr. Channon: Needless to say, the hon. Member is sensitive about the record of the Labour Government, who broke every pledge in housing. They did not build the houses; they clamped down on mortgage plans; the number of homeless has risen—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise from the Opposition Front Bench.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Non-Vocational Education
  Non-Vocational Education
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  School-Leaving Age
  School-Leaving Age
  Bradford (Medical School)
  Bradford (Medical School)
  Arts Council and Phoenix Opera Company
  Arts Council and Phoenix Opera Company
  Students (Residence and Meals Charges)
  Students (Residence and Meals Charges)
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  St. Helens (Schools)
  St. Helens (Schools)
  H.M.S. "Belfast"
  H.M.S. "Belfast"
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Students (Loans)
  Students (Loans)
  Historical Manuscripts (Export)
  Historical Manuscripts (Export)
  Computer Education
  Computer Education
  National Gallery (Purchase Grant)
  National Gallery (Purchase Grant)
  School Toilet Facilities, London
  School Toilet Facilities, London
  University Places
  University Places
  Failsworth Schools (Official Visit)
  Failsworth Schools (Official Visit)
  Central Advisory Council for Education
  Central Advisory Council for Education
  Head Teachers (Dismissals)
  Head Teachers (Dismissals)
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Direct-Grant Schools
  Direct-Grant Schools
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Old Schools, Derbyshire
  Old Schools, Derbyshire
  Primary Schools, Northern Region
  Primary Schools, Northern Region
  Bio-degradable Plastic
  Bio-degradable Plastic
  Educationally Sub-Normal Schoolchildren
  Educationally Sub-Normal Schoolchildren
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Migraine
  Migraine
  School Books (Primary Schools)
  School Books (Primary Schools)
  Teacher/Pupil Ratio
  Teacher/Pupil Ratio
  Teacher Training (Inquiry)
  Teacher Training (Inquiry)
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Citizens (Legal Rights)
  Citizens (Legal Rights)
  Minor Works Programme, Leicestershire
  Minor Works Programme, Leicestershire
  Medical Examination Rooms, Schools
  Medical Examination Rooms, Schools
  Non-Vocational Education
  Non-Vocational Education
DEFENCE
  Voters Roll (Serving Personnel)
  Voters Roll (Serving Personnel)
  Deserters
  Deserters
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Singapore
  Singapore
  Diego Garcia Base
  Diego Garcia Base
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Period of Engagement)
  Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Period of Engagement)
  R.A.F. (Aircraft Purchases)
  R.A.F. (Aircraft Purchases)
  Army Command Structure (United Kingdom)
  Army Command Structure (United Kingdom)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Army Officer Cadet Training Unit, Mons
  Army Officer Cadet Training Unit, Mons
  R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve
  R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve
  R.A.F., Church Fenton
  R.A.F., Church Fenton
  N.A.T.O. Air Defence Ground Environment Network
  N.A.T.O. Air Defence Ground Environment Network
  H.M.S. "Centaur"
  H.M.S. "Centaur"
  H.M.S. "Lion"
  H.M.S. "Lion"
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Emergency Voluntary Services
  Emergency Voluntary Services
  Prisoner 654761, Armley Gaol
  Prisoner 654761, Armley Gaol
  Household Cleaning Agents (Carbon Tetrachloride)
  Household Cleaning Agents (Carbon Tetrachloride)
  Public Services (Emergency Committee)
  Public Services (Emergency Committee)
  Race Relations Act, 1965
  Race Relations Act, 1965
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Motorways (Rescue Helicopters)
  Motorways (Rescue Helicopters)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons, Durham
  Disabled Persons, Durham
  Furnishings (Inflammable Foam)
  Furnishings (Inflammable Foam)
  Earnings (Purchasing Power)
  Earnings (Purchasing Power)
  Wool Industry Training Board
  Wool Industry Training Board
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Soft Toys (Flame Retardent Filling)
  Soft Toys (Flame Retardent Filling)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Nurses (Union Badges)
  Nurses (Union Badges)
  Strip-Tease Clubs (S.E.T.)
  Strip-Tease Clubs (S.E.T.)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Homeless Families (Greater London)
  Homeless Families (Greater London)
  Live Foetuses (Allegations)
  Live Foetuses (Allegations)
  Supplementary Benefits (Scottish Bakery Workers' Strike)
  Supplementary Benefits (Scottish Bakery Workers' Strike)
  Special Discretionary Benefits (Retirement Pensioners)
  Special Discretionary Benefits (Retirement Pensioners)
  War Pension (Communtation)
  War Pension (Communtation)
  Retirement Pension (Purchasing Power)
  Retirement Pension (Purchasing Power)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  National Health Service Charges
  National Health Service Charges
  Hospital Beds (Flame Retardent Material)
  Hospital Beds (Flame Retardent Material)
  Mass X-Ray Service
  Mass X-Ray Service
  Drug Addicts (Rehabilitation)
  Drug Addicts (Rehabilitation)
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Mentally Handicapped (Adult Training Centres)
  Mentally Handicapped (Adult Training Centres)
  Cigarette Smoking
  Cigarette Smoking
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia House
  Rhodesia House
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Rhodesian Airways
  Rhodesian Airways
  Hijacking
  Hijacking
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (Speech)
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (Speech)
  Diego Garcia Base
  Diego Garcia Base
  U.S.S.R. (Treatment of Jews)
  U.S.S.R. (Treatment of Jews)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Consumer Council
  Consumer Council
  Price Freeze
  Price Freeze
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry (New Investment)
  Electricity Supply Industry (New Investment)
  Agricultural and Horticultural Imports (Romania)
  Agricultural and Horticultural Imports (Romania)
  Tidal Power (Dee and Severn Estuaries)
  Tidal Power (Dee and Severn Estuaries)
  Fishing Fleet (Iceland Waters)
  Fishing Fleet (Iceland Waters)
  British Steel Corporation, Wales
  British Steel Corporation, Wales
  Petroleum Gas (Exploration)
  Petroleum Gas (Exploration)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Policies (Co-ordination)
  Economic Policies (Co-ordination)
  Decimalisation
  Decimalisation
  Public Expenditure, Wales (Increase)
  Public Expenditure, Wales (Increase)
  Nationalised Industries (Profits)
  Nationalised Industries (Profits)
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
WALES
  North Wales Hospital
  North Wales Hospital
  Pembrey Gunnery Range (Inspector's Report)
  Pembrey Gunnery Range (Inspector's Report)
  Mid-Wales (Growth Towns)
  Mid-Wales (Growth Towns)
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Transport Functions (Minister's Advisers)
  Transport Functions (Minister's Advisers)
  Paediatricians
  Paediatricians
  Dentists, Flintshire
  Dentists, Flintshire
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Bank of Wales
  Bank of Wales
  North Wales Coast and Dee Estuary (Pollution)
  North Wales Coast and Dee Estuary (Pollution)
  Educationally Subnormal Children
  Educationally Subnormal Children
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Centres, Easington
  Community Centres, Easington
  Public Local Inquiries
  Public Local Inquiries
  Chesterfield Borough Council (Home Improvement Grants)
  Chesterfield Borough Council (Home Improvement Grants)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Appointments)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Appointments)
  Nottingham-Derby Coalfield Intermediate Area
  Nottingham-Derby Coalfield Intermediate Area
  Rock Ferry Bypass
  Rock Ferry Bypass
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Local Authority Rents
  Local Authority Rents
  Security of Tenure (Advertising Campaign)
  Security of Tenure (Advertising Campaign)
  Evictions (Unsupported Mothers)
  Evictions (Unsupported Mothers)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
SCOTLAND
  Public Local Inquiries
  Public Local Inquiries
  Klebsiella Aerogenes (Killearn Hospital)
  Klebsiella Aerogenes (Killearn Hospital)
  Development Applications
  Development Applications
  Hunterston
  Hunterston
  Ayr Bypass
  Ayr Bypass
  West Central Scotland Steering Plan Committee
  West Central Scotland Steering Plan Committee
  Road Building, Ayrshire
  Road Building, Ayrshire
  Specialist Maternity Hospitals, Glasgow
  Specialist Maternity Hospitals, Glasgow
  Rate Fund Subsidy
  Rate Fund Subsidy
  Jordanhill College School
  Jordanhill College School
  EAST PAKISTAN
  EAST PAKISTAN
  PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL (TALKS)
  BURTON-ON-TRENT (VISIT)
  BURTON-ON-TRENT (VISIT)
  CENTRAL CAPABILITY UNIT
  CENTRAL CAPABILITY UNIT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RACE RELATIONS ACT, 1965
  RACE RELATIONS ACT, 1965
  MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  MARINE ENVIRONMENT
  INDIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  INDIA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish Authority
  White Fish Authority
  Fowl Pest (Poultry Prices)
  Fowl Pest (Poultry Prices)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Premature Retirement)
  Civil Servants (Premature Retirement)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: END OF STATE OF EMERGENCY
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty to deliver to your Lordships a Message, signed with her own hand, respecting the State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"Her Majesty by Proclamation dated December 12 1970 having declared that the industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the electricity supply industry did in her opinion constitute a State of Emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and it having appeared to Her Majesty that the State of Emergency has now ceased to exist, Her Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation dated December 17 1970 to declare that the said Proclamation of December 12 is revoked."
That concludes the gracious Message, My Lords. I hope that it will be agreeable to your Lordships if, as provided by Standing Order No. 27, I move that this Message be taken into consideration, and that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, when we consider the Motion in my name already on the Order Paper to-day relating to Her Majesty's gracious Message on Monday last.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in
1508
accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following 35 Acts and one Measure:

Income and Corporation Taxes (No. 2) Act,

Family Income Supplements Act,

Contingencies Fund Act,

Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act,

Expiring Laws Continuance Act,

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Glasgow Corporation (Works &c.) Order Confirmation Act,

Stirling County Council Order Confirmation Act,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

Nottinghamshire County Council Act,

Preston Corporation Act,

Lindsey County Council Act,

Northampton Corporation Act,

Pembrokeshire Water Board Act,

Port of Tyne Act,

Barry Corporation Act,

Gateshead Corporation Act,

City of London (Various Powers) Act,

Gloucester Corporation Act,

West End Baptist Church, Hammersmith Act,

East Suffolk County Council Act,

Liverpool Corporation Act,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act,

British Railways Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

Monmouthshire County Council Act,

Port of London Act,

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Act,

Bootle Corporation Act,

Bridge Street Baptist Church, Banbury Act,

Grimsby Corporation Act,

Oxfordshire County Council Act,

Reading Corporation Act,

Wiltshire County Council Act,

Church Commissioners Measure.

THE SPORTS COUNCIL
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 a decision has now been reached concerning their intention to make the Sports Council an independent grant-aiding body.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness about this matter. A statement will be made as soon as practicable.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while we have a variety of Ministers we never get a satisfactory Answer to this Question. While realising that the noble Lord is not responsible for the fact that there is no firm answer to-day and apologising to the House for tedious repetition, may I ask him whether he is aware that I have no alternative but to continue to put down Questions, hoping that one day the Government Front Bench and I will not only travel hopefully but arrive?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I hope her wish will be granted. Our next to-morrow will be her next Question on this subject.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that people concerned with the organisation of sport are very much looking forward to this announcement? Will he ensure that an answer is expedited as soon as possible?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are having discussions at this moment with the Central Council of Physical Recreation and with the Regional Sports Councils, who have to be consulted.

BRUCELLOSIS: DIAGNOSIS TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider the facilities for the diagnosis of brucellosis adequate and what steps are being taken to train technicians in the Rose Bengal Test in view of the intention to designate accredited areas early next year.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, additional laboratory staff and resources have already been allocated to meet the high initial response to the new brucellosis Incentives Scheme. It is too early to say whether this response is representative, but further staff and equipment will be allocated, if necessary. A laboratory technician can be trained to undertake the Rose Bengal Plate Test in a matter of days, but I assume that the noble Baroness is referring to the new arrangements under which trained lay assistants will be able to undertake the field work of obtaining blood samples for this test. Training courses for these lay personnel start next month, with priority to those in the regions from which the final choice of eradication areas is likely to be made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am most pleased with the noble Lord's welcome statement. Without appearing to be critical, may I ask him to bear in mind during the training period that as it takes only four minutes to do the test in the laboratory, the delay at the moment, of, I think, nine days, is a little difficult to understand? Perhaps the noble Lord would undertake to improve the productivity of the technicians whom he is now using.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we are now slightly encroaching on the next Question on the Order Paper. The interest of the noble Baroness in this matter is well known, and I am confident that everything she says on the matter will be studied most carefully.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Lord.

BRUCELLOSIS: ABORTION SAMPLES AND NOTIFICATION
2.44 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average time elapsed between the taking of samples from a cow which has aborted and the notification to the owner of the animal concerned.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the interval will vary appreciably with the type of sample material that is available and the number and complexity of tests involved. For samples tested last month at laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Scottish Agricultural Colleges, the average time was nine days. The noble Baroness will, however, be aware that under our Scheme arrangements a single negative test result will not suffice to release the animal from isolation; this must await confirmation from a further sample taken at least 14 days after the animal aborted.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I would ask him whether he will press his noble friend to speed up in every possible way the results of these tests, and the notification, as there is an enormous increase of the disease if people are not notified fast enough.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, again, the interest of my noble friend is well known in this matter, and my right honourable friend will be studying everything she has said. But I assure her that the Ministry press ahead as fast as possible in these matters.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those answers, which give us great satisfaction, but at the same time it is something that we regret, and I do not know whether the Government realise that the first intimation that we had—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he would couch his supplementary in an interrogatory form.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I thought that I was doing so, but I may be wrong. Do the Government realise that the first information that reached us of the further postponement of the putting into operation of the eradication scheme was given to us at a meeting outside this House, when it was not specifically dealing with the cattle side, and that we were then told for the first time that the Eradication Scheme was not to be put into operation until October of next year?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think we dealt with this subject rather fully on Tuesday, and I feel that it is a little outside the scope of this Question. However, what the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, do the Government realise that this is a question which, however important it may be from the point of view of those who keep cattle, is even more important from the point of view of human health? Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the great spread of brucellosis among the human population; and that unless immediate steps are taken to deal with the problem that spread will increase, thereby causing an immense amount of suffering to people who incur the disease, which is in all forms incurable?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government are certainly aware of the great urgency of this matter, and they are taking the steps which they consider are appropriate.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is it coming home to the noble Lord that in matters of brucellosis testing noble farmers, despite how he may feel, do not like being Lords in waiting?

METRICATION: TRAINING OF YOUNG PEOPLE
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that colleges of education are preparing students for the change-over to metrication.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I am confident that the colleges of education are alive to the importance of metrication and of the need to prepare their students for it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the Metrication Board take the same view that he has just expressed? May I also ask whether his Department have been in contact with the Metrication Board on this issue? If they have not, will they get in touch with the Board, and give them an opportunity of making known to the Department their feelings regarding this important matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, a survey of the colleges' activities in this field is currently being planned by the Metrication Board, and the noble Lord may be interested to know that the Secretary of the Association of Teachers in colleges and departments of education is in fact a member of the Education and Training Steering Committee of the Board.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the basis of his confidence is that colleges of education are preparing properly for the introduction of metrication? Have the Department themselves taken any initiative in the matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question, because it gives me the chance to explain the slightly difficult position of my Department in certain matters, and the way in which we try to resolve our difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will know, the Department of Education do not have responsibility for the curricula in colleges of education, which rests with the colleges themselves and the area training organisations of which they are members. What the Department have done is to try to give guidance in the introduction of school pupils to the metric unit. Guidance is given by the Department's and school council's various publications; and of course Her Majesty's Inspectors advise
1514
the colleges on such matters and have stressed the importance of metrication. Perhaps I might add that H.M.I. courses for serving teachers have also included appropriate treatment of the subject.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that this metrication system, conditioning us to go into the Common Market, may be wasted money? We are now getting such support as anti-Common marketeers that we are satisfied that it will be a colossal waste of money.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to inform the noble Lord that that question falls well outside the remit of the original Question.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the colleges of education throughout this country only about 10 per cent. of the students get exposed at all to any science? Is it therefore likely that they are being given adequate instruction in metrication? Is this not a case for the Government to take clear action in the matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I hoped that I had told the House that the Department of Education had tried to take clear action by dissemination of information, which is where our responsibility lies. As regards the reception of information coming back we shall have to await the findings of the survey of the Metrication Board.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the advice being tendered by Her Majesty's Inspectors is being taken by the colleges? I am aware of the reply he has given to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, but in view of the fact that this is a reasonably urgent matter, may I ask that the Department take serious steps to satisfy themselves on this point? Is the Minister aware that some inspectors in the employment of local authorities are not by any means satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to prepare students for this developing situation?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can only say once again that local authority inspectors are autonomous. May I repeat the fact that we have tried to disseminate information to those local education authorities in whose employ are

1515
those inspectors to whom the noble Lord is referring.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, would the Minister take notice of the fact that I have in my hand an article by an L.E.A. inspector in which he states opinions which quite clearly indicate that he thinks that a great deal more needs doing?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the information that he has given me. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would care to look, for instance, at such publications as Metrication in Schools, to the Administrative Memorandum 15/69, which was sent out from the Department of Education and Science, not to mention various other publications, which really show that the Department is acting as fully as it possibly can within its legislative remit which it holds under the 1944 Act. This was the basis of the noble Lord's original Question.

YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
2.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would be pleasant, at least for me, to think that the Leader of your Lordships' House was more or less incapable of being out of order. I am unfortunately only too well aware that this is not the case. I hope that, with the leave of the House, what I am about to say will be regarded as a Statement of business and so be in order. Your Lordships will doubtless be aware that at the end of this year Sir Kenneth Mackintosh will be handing over his duties to the Gentleman Usher of the Rod. He will then be going on a period of very well earned leave. The sad fact is that when we come back in January we shall no longer find Sir Kenneth in charge of our administrative affairs. I should not like to let this occasion pass without a word of appreciation and gratitude to Sir Kenneth for his 17 years' service to your Lordships.
He came here as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain and Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod in 1953. That was at a time when the Lord Great Chamberlain was Housekeeper and Administrator to the House of Lords
1516
and, as the Queen's representative, had certain responsibilities for the whole of the Palace of Westminster. Sir Kenneth became Serjeant at Arms in 1962 and when, in 1965, most of the Lord Great Chamberlain's administrative responsibilities were divided between the two Houses he continued to carry out, on behalf of the Administration Committee of your Lordships' House, many of the functions which he had previously exercised on behalf of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
I do not know what we should have done without Sir Kenneth's knowledge and experience during this transitional period. He has seen many changes during his service: some have, no doubt, been more palatable to him than others may have been, but he has accepted all these changes with unfailing grace and good humour. It is my belief—and I am sure that this belief is shared by your Lordships—that we owe him deep gratitude for the way in which he has discharged his many and varied responsibilities. Whether it is in carrying the Mace with due pomp and ceremony, or arranging the Opening of Parliament, or solving many of those difficult administrative problems in which it is virtually impossible to satisfy everybody—as, for example, the allocation of offices—we shall miss his firm and friendly guidance. I am sure that it will be the wish of everyone that we should extend to him on the eve of his retirement a special message of warm thanks and good wishes. We wish him and Lady Mackintosh every happiness in the future.
My Lords, at the same time it may be the appropriate moment to announce to your Lordships that, after consultation with all concerned, our other Naval person, Sir Frank Twiss, has appointed Colonel Charles Sayers to be Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod from January 1, 1971, and that the Lord Chancellor has from that date appointed Colonel Sayers to be also the Deputy Serjeant at Arms. This means that Colonel Sayers will be Black Rod's deputy for all purposes and, in particular, will attend the Lord Chancellor in carrying the Mace.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as always, the Leader of the House will receive the leave of the House to make a Statement, and I can assure him that he was entirely in order in what he was

1517
doing. His Statement was, as usual, expressed in amiable and appropriate terms. I should like to share in the tribute that he has paid to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. When I first came to your Lordships' House I was rather frightened of Sir Kenneth—and I think some other noble Lords have been, too. We then moved into the new arrangement and the powers of the Lord Great Chamberlain were changed, although it is worth recalling that the Lord Great Chamberlain still has certain responsibilities and Sir Kenneth Mackintosh has carried them out on his behalf. As a result of the change, Sir Kenneth Mackintosh has had an exceedingly difficult job with no fewer than four—or it may be three—separate masters.
When I became Leader of the House it fell to my lot to give some consideration, along with certain other noble Lords, to the arrangements for the administration, and the roles of Black Rod and the Serjeant at Arms. In order to study this, it was necessary to investigate in some depth the duties of Sir Kenneth. I do not believe that any of your Lordships will ever know how hard Sir Kenneth has had to work in these past few years. It was quite staggering to look at the list of duties drawn up for this careful, objective analysis. However large or small the task, Sir Kenneth was always ready to take the responsibility.
It is in the nature of the job, dealing as its holder has to do with a large number of different people, Members of your Lordships' House of varying temperaments (if I may put it so), that it imposes a great strain and responsibility to ensure that everything works perfectly. We can say with confidence that the very high standards of decorum and efficiency required for the duties which were carried out by Sir Kenneth, under the late Lord Cholmondeley who did so much for your Lordships' House, have been fully maintained. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. When I was Leader of the House I was conscious of the extent to which one could always rely on his discharging any task, however minor or however important, with great efficiency.
It is a fact that we have now settled on new arrangements, which I believe are more efficient, centralising the responsibility on Black Rod, with the new Yeoman
1518
Usher as his deputy. I would hasten to add—and this was always the view of those who were concerned in this connection—that at no time did this in any way reflect on Sir Kenneth's discharge of his responsibilities.
He will now be retiring; and Lady Mackintosh, a most charming person—and I sometimes wish we had been able to see more of her—will be leaving us. I am happy to think that those charming girls who work in Sir Kenneth Mackintosh's office are likely to remain, although how long they will be allowed to remain I do not know. At any rate, I should like to express my personal gratitude, and I am sure that we all share the views expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
My Lords, we should like, too, to wish the new Yeoman Usher all good luck under Sir Frank Twiss. I would only add that I am still a little bothered about the method of appointment, which appears to be shared, for historic reasons, between the Lord Chancellor and Sir Frank Twiss. It is of course a fact that the Lord Chancellor carries a special responsibility for your Lordships' House, but I think that at some stage we shall have to make clear that responsibility for these appointments does rest with the House.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should certainly wish to be associated with the eloquent tributes which have already been paid to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. He has upheld the highest possible traditions of a very important office. I often wonder how many of your Lordships appreciate the exacting nature of some of these jobs behind the scenes, and indeed on the scene itself, which go to make the proper and efficient working of this House. Sir Kenneth has certainly discharged his duties with great distinction. We should also like to associate ourselves with the thought that Sir Kenneth and Lady Mackintosh will live a long time to enjoy a well deserved retirement.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I am sure I speak for him as well as for myself when I say that during the whole time that we shared the Leadership of this House we owed a very great deal to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh.

1519
I do not know whether it was his efficiency or his humanity which was more prominent, but both were always there in full measure at the disposal of all of us in this House. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend and myself, I should very much like to be associated with the proper tribute which has been paid to him and to Lady Mackintosh.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that those who, like myself, sit on the Cross-Benches would wish to endorse and support all that has been said about Sir Kenneth Mackintosh. We wish him well in the future and join with all that has been said.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Monopolies Commission.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
3.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place yesterday afternoon. This is the Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I wish to make a Statement about certain proposals which I have to-day tabled in Brussels"—
that was yesterday—
"regarding United Kingdom participation in the European Economic Community's financial arrangements in the event of our accession.
"In brief Her Majesty's Government have proposed that over the first five years of our membership of the Community our contribution to the Community budget should build up by equal annual steps to a basic key which should lie in the range of 13 to 15 per
1520
cent. of total contributions. Thereafter, for a further three years, the year-to-year changes in our share of contributions should be subject to limitations on the lines of the correctives the Six have provided for themselves up to 1978.
"We have further proposed that there should be provision to review, if necessary, the operation of the financial arrangements in an enlarged Community.
"The House will expect me to explain the significance of these proposals for the United Kingdom. I must first emphasise that any estimates inevitably depend on a large number of assumptions which have to be made about the ways in which the enlarged Community would develop in the years after we and the other applicant countries had joined. To take just two of the most important factors: it is really very difficult to judge what the size of the Community's budget will be at the end of this decade, and what share of the total will be devoted on the one hand to schemes of agricultural support, from which we, with our relatively small and highly efficient agriculture, cannot expect to be major beneficiaries, and on the other to regional and industrial development and other programmes.
"It is because of these uncertainties that in the past the Six themselves have in practice reviewed their own arrangements whenever unforeseen developments have upset the balance which previous agreements were expected to produce. We have therefore proposed to the Six that a suitable review provision should be an essential part of any agreement.
"Having made clear to the House the inevitable limitations of any estimates, I can give some indication of what we expect the proposals we have put to the Community might involve. If we assume that the Community budget in 1977 was to be 4,500 million dollars, as we have suggested to the Community, then under the proposals we have now made, after making an estimate for receipts, our net contribution would build up gradually from about £30 million in 1973 to about £140 million to £180 million in 1977.

1521
If, however, the Community budget remained at its current level of about 3,000 million dollars then our net contribution would reach about £60 million to £85 million in 1977, on the same estimated basis of receipt.
"We have also to take account of the fact that in the short term membership of the Community will have certain other adverse effects on our balance of trade as a result of the increased cost of food imports and the loss of some of the trade preferences we enjoy in other markets. For this reason, it is important that we should move up gradually towards our ultimate contribution.
"Neither this Government nor our predecessors have ever attempted to disguise the fact that membership of the Community will involve a substantial net contribution to the Community budget and, at least in the early stages, other balance-of-payments costs. But again, like our predecessors, we believe that account must also be taken of the prospect of dynamic economic advantages of membership which would be substantial. As to these, one has to make a judgment about the likely response of British industry to the opportunities and challenges that would be presented by our entry into the Community. The Government's judgment—and it is shared by the over-whelming majority of our leading industrialists—is that the response would be vigorous and determined and that we could expect to achieve a significantly higher economic growth rate if we joined the Community than if we remained outside.
"The Government also consider that membership of an enlarged Community will provide considerable opportunities for British farmers. Without underestimating the problems that have to be faced in the early years of our membership, therefore, we hold firmly to the view that our entry into the Community on reasonable terms would be in the long-term economic interests of this country.
"We are also convinced that enlargement of the Community would be in the interests, political perhaps even more than economic, of the whole of Western Europe. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government
1522
have formulated the proposals which I have tabled in Brussels to-day."
My Lords, that is the Statement. I might also, for the convenience of your Lordships, add that it is envisaged that we should have a debate on this subject after the Recess and before the next Ministerial Meeting on February 2.
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. It is, as he has indicated, a matter that will need some careful debate, and I am glad to know that we are going to have an opportunity to debate it before the next meeting of the Council of Ministers. It is a very intricate matter, as I am only too well aware, and I do not intend to press the Minister to-day on any of the points he has made. I simply say that it seems to me at first glance, although I shall want to look at the Statement in greater detail, to be a reasonable opening position to put forward.
I should like to ask two questions. I shall understand if the noble Marquess cannot answer them to-day, but perhaps we can have them answered when we come to debate the issue more fully. My first question is this: are we to understand that this is 13 to 15 per cent. of the total contributions of the Community of ten, or is it a Community of seven, on the assumption that we alone will have acceded when these figures come into operation? Secondly, although it is clear that we are going to contribute 13 to 15 per cent. of the total budget of a Community of seven or ten—or whatever it may be—can the noble Marquess say how this compares, in terms of the percentage of our gross national product, with the percentage of the G.N.P. of the existing and potential members of the Community?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement, which at any rate shows that our very able negotiator, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, is now getting down to the nub of the negotiations. With your Lordships permission, I should like to ask three questions. First, since nobody can predict with any accuracy the precise effect on our economy of the acceptance of the principle of financing of the Common

1523
Agricultural Policy of the Six would not the Government agree that perhaps the most important thing in all these negotiations is an adequate review clause enabling corrective action to be taken in the event of our subscription to the Central Agricultural Fund having an unduly onerous effect on our balance of payments? The second question: is would they not further agree that if we should ever achieve a European monetary union, the effect, positive or negative, on the individual balance of payments of any member of the Community would be quite immaterial? Thirdly, would they not, finally, agree that, pending any progress towards a monetary union, which of course could be achieved only with the consent of the British Parliament, there are real prospects under the Treaty of Rome of a common regional policy which might be of great benefit to some of our own less developed areas?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly answer the first question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? I should require notice of his second question. My understanding is that this does refer to a Community of ten. It is hoped that that is what we shall achieve. His other question I should require notice of, and if I may be so bold I would ask the same indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I note his remarks and I should like to consider them and write to him.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Marquess agree with me that the Statement he has read out, which is a repeat of what was reported in the other place yesterday, indicates with unquestionable clarity that if we join the E.E.C. we are to incur in the future financial liabilities of a most oppressive character, while on the other hand the benefits which are assumed are likely to be of a highly speculative character? If the noble Marquess does not agree with me, will he, with his usual courtesy, give me the reason why?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I do not know whether I can give him chapter and verse as to the reason why, but my feeling is, as with
1524
my right honourable friend, that the benefits that will ultimately be gained by joining the Community will far outweigh the disadvantages.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Marquess is unable to agree with me, how are we going to advise the electors of this country on an important, vital fundamental issue of this kind, which may change the whole character and quality of the United Kingdom? Surely in the circumstances no decisive action should be taken until the electors have had a further opportunity of giving their decision.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, with reference to the last question, is the Minister aware that in another place yesterday afternoon reference was made to the White Paper which was issued by the previous Government in February of this year? Is he also aware that there is a wide divergence of speculation in the White Paper as to the high burdens or the low burdens which might be borne by the British people, and could he give us an assurance that once the negotiations are reasonably reaching a point of culmination a further White Paper will be issued to this country, so that the fears of many people, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may be assuaged?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take into account what my noble friend has said. I do not think he will expect me to give him a positive assurance to-day, but I can undertake to pass his remarks to my right honourable friend.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Marquess please see, if it is at all within his capacity, that this House has copies of the Treaty of Rome available so that they can be read, and read thoroughly, before noble Lords are asked to take any vote whatsoever? Is he finally further aware that on the first famous occasion when this vital question reached the other place the Foreign Office had only one copy of the Treaty of Rome, and that was in French? Will he see that we are well-informed and know what we are doing when we are voting on that written document, which does not suit the British people because of its profound illogicality and lack of wisdom?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I speak subject to correction on this matter, but I imagine that there are copies of the Treaty of Rome in the Library. If not, I will certainly undertake to see that copies are available there before our debate.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, while welcoming the indication of a full Parliamentary debate early in the New Year, and without going into the Statement repeated by the noble Marquess, may I ask whether he will address himself to another related need? Will he say how the British people are to be enabled to exercise their undoubted right to approve or disapprove any terms that may be offered for British membership of the Common Market; and is it proposed that the matter will be decided in this Parliament? If so, will it be by a free vote, or will it be at a General Election, or by a referendum? Will the noble Marquess please give a clear answer to this crucial point?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lady really expects me to give a complete answer to that point on the Statement I have made this afternoon, but I shall naturally take note of what she said.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Marquess not tell us what will be the intentions when the terms arrive—whether this Parliament will decide or whether the British people will have a voice in the decision? The economic argument now is fading into insignificance because of the argument that the political issue is greater. To me the political issue means the end of sovereignty and the abolition of the Commonwealth. Can the people not say something on this matter?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, are we really to assume that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, thinks that the present Parliament does not represent the British people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has actually taken the words out of my mouth. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, feels very strongly about this matter, but I think we should wait a little longer to see how we get on.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Marquess will agree with me that if we sign any treaty, be it the Treaty of Rome or any other, it will require ratification by Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Treaty of Rome contains no escape clause, will Her Majesty's Government consider the advisability of suggesting to the present members of the E.E.C. that in the event of this country adhering to the Treaty of Rome, provision should be made in the future, by mutual arrangement, that should any member of the E.E.C. find that for political, economic or social reasons their continued membership is deleterious to their national interest they should be able to withdraw, say, on the giving of five years' notice?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is a very wide question, but I will undertake to pass it on to my noble friend.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that these are matters that we shall discuss very fully in the debate? And is he aware that the views from the different ends of the House do not necessarily represent the views of the majority of your Lordships' House?

BUSINESS: POSTPONED STATEMENTS
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question on Business? We have followed a rather unusual procedure in postponing yesterday's Statement until to-day. I have no doubt that that was entirely correct and that it would have done great damage to yesterday's excellent debate if we had in fact taken that Statement then. But may I ask the noble Earl whether he will pursue his personal studies further, with a view to trying to find solutions, such as the one we adopted in this case, to remove some of the inconvenience with regard to Statements? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and others have raised this

1527
question. In particular, I wonder whether we ought not in such circumstances, where the Statement is repeated on a later day (and we might even do this on occasions when we missed a Statement entirely because the House was not sitting), to have not the whole Statement read out—because, after all, it is already printed in the Hansard of another place—but a shorter one, in order to enable questions to be asked upon it—and I stress "questions".
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think there is a general feeling in your Lordships' House that the questions which arise from Statements and the timing of Statements are matters which need looking into. This matter has already been discussed in the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House, and certainly I shall be very glad, both personally and, if need be, with reference to the Procedure Committee, to consider carefully the specific questions which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just put. I very gladly give that undertaking.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some of your Lordships will already be familiar with the provisions of the Bill, which have been pressed for by the friendly societies for a long time. A Bill similar to the present one was introduced in the last Parliament and completed all its stages in your Lordships' House, ably piloted by two "Frank" supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowles. It reached the Committee stage in the other place when it was overtaken by the Dissolution. Since then the Bill has been slightly enlarged. It now contains provisions which confer powers on the Registrar to inspect societies and branches, to make orders forbidding them to contract new business, and to petition the court to wind them up. Otherwise, there are no substantial changes. In these circumstances, I am sure that your Lordships will not wish me to speak to the Bill at great length.
1528
The friendly societies have a long and honourable history. They were the forerunners of our present system of comprehensive National Insurance, but although they still have a very valuable part to play in our national life, they are to some extent fettered by the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act of 1896. To my mind, their most valuable contribution is their encouragement of self-help and mutual help within a comprehensive Welfare State. They allow many of the most provident and worthy of our citizens to save for their future welfare and to make provision for their old age. This old-fashioned virtue of thrift is surely one which all of your Lordships will wish to encourage, and it is undoubtedly true that the friendly societies embody it in their very essence.
The Bill has two purposes: first, to simplify the procedure for the merger of registered societies, which may take place either on amalgamation or by transfer of engagements of one society to another; secondly, to simplify the procedure for the dissolution of registered societies. It also makes a number of small amendments to the 1896 Act which prepare the way for consolidating legislation which we hope to introduce before too long. For some time the membership of the friendly societies has been slowly reducing, although it is worth noticing that they still have funds totalling over £800 million. This reduction in membership, together with a substantial increase in management costs, has meant that a number of the smaller societies have ceased to be economically viable. The answer is to amalgamate in order to form larger units, but with the law as it is at present this is a lengthy and an expensive process. The law compels a society wishing to amalgamate to obtain the support of five-sixths of its members and beneficiaries. It is most unlikely to gain this support, not because of active opposition but because of the indifference of what need only be a small proportion of the total membership, who will not trouble to respond or express a view. Only once this procedure has failed can a society apply to the Registrar to dispense with consent, which he may allow with the approval of the Treasury.
Clause 1 abolishes the present requirement to obtain the individual assent of five-sixths of all the members for the amalgamation of two or more societies.

1529
Instead, a special resolution has to be passed after full information regarding the terms of the proposal has been given to all members—and under Clause 4 a special resolution requires a majority of three-quarters of the members voting. Clause 2 gives to members or persons affected by the amalgamation rights of appeal to the Registrar. Clause 3 allows the dissolution of a friendly society with the consent of three-quarters of its members instead of five-sixths, but in this case it is three-quarters of the total membership who must consent. This will bring friendly societies into line with other registered societies. The clause also clarifies the right of a member who is dissatisfied with the terms of the dissolution to apply for relief to the county court.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are the new clauses which give power to the Registrar to inspect societies and branches and to petition the court for their winding up. He may also make orders forbidding societies and branches to contract new business and may require them to produce documents. The powers conferred by these clauses are not regarded as likely to constitute a major new sphere of operations for the Registrar, and their exercise will not require any increase in public service manpower or in staff costs. The powers are regarded as reserve powers to be used in those exceptional cases in which registered friendly societies get into financial or administrative difficulties and in which the interests of the members or the public call for action on the part of the Registrar.
My Lords, the remaining clauses consist mainly of technicalities. I hope that I have said enough to succeed in making clear the purpose of the Bill and that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has moved the Second Reading of the Bill with commendable clarity and brevity. He will not be surprised to know that I support his proposition that the Bill be given a Second Reading, because I did spend a good deal of time helping to get it through
1530
this House against the assiduous efforts of his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who, I have no doubt, is now a 100 per cent. supporter of the Bill. There are the three clauses, Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which are new since the House gave it previous support in the last Parliament. The explanation which the noble Lord has given of the intentions behind these clauses seems to me entirely adequate, but, as he knows, there is a liaison committee of the friendly societies which has expressed anxiety about these intentions. I hope that they are satisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord has given. But I wonder if he can tell me whether any inquiry has been made, any consultation has taken place with them, and whether they have expressed to him or to his Department that they are satisfied with what is behind the new clauses? I hope he can assure us on that. At any rate, I am quite sure that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether he can tell me if, for these purposes, building societies come within the definition of "friendly societies".
3.31 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I am most grateful to both noble Lords, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I know did a great deal of work on the previous Bill. I am grateful to him for treating me with greater kindness than perhaps my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn treated him. May I say, on his point about the friendly societies liaison committee, that they have been consulted throughout and they have given a general welcome to these new clauses. They have raised just one point with us, on the question of the amount of notice that is given to a friendly society under Clause 6, where the Registrar has power to suspend the business of a registered friendly society and, before making an order, has to give 14 days' notice. They are anxious that this should be a longer period. We have undertaken to look into this point and, if necessary, to move an Amendment at the next stage. So far as concerns the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Rovle, the answer is that building societies are not covered by this definition.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the Registrar is the same.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered. In rising to move this Motion, I should like to tell your Lordships that certain manuscript Amendments to this Bill have been tabled. They are numbered 6A, 6B and 10A respectively, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and, again, with regard to Amendment 10A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Copies of these Amendments are available in the usual way. I am asked to point out that in the supplementary Marshalled List the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has been erroneously omitted from Amendment No. 10A.
Moved, That the Report be now conconsidered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11 [Sentences imposed by Crown Court]:
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 27, after ("of") insert ("whichever is the shorter of the following periods, that is—
(a)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships probably know, Clause 11 as at present drafted is designed to perpetuate the present practice at assize and quarter sessions whereby a judge of assize or court of quarter sessions may change a sentence at any time during the assize or the sessions, as the case may be. Now that assizes and quarter sessions are to be abolished and there will be a Crown Court in almost continuous session, that practice must clearly be modified, and for the ordinary case Clause 11(2) provides that the sentence may be varied or rescinded within 28 days. That was an arbitrary date, though to be right, bearing in mind that there are 28 days within which to appeal.
When, however, one gets to subsection (3), dealing with two men tried on an indictment, one of whom pleads guilty and the other not guilty, the final trial, when alone the judge can assess what is the proper sentence, may be at some distant future date. As originally worded it provided that the sentence might be changed within 28 days of the conclusion of the whole trial. It has been pointed out that that might mean a very distant future date, when maybe the judge concerned had forgotten all about the case. The object of the first Amendment here is to provide that the period during which a judge can alter a sentence or order will be whichever is the shorter of the two periods—28 days from the conclusion of the joint trial, or 56 days beginning with the day on which the sentence or order was first imposed.
The next Amendment, which substitutes a new subsection for subsection (5), is really to clear up ambiguities. It is to provide that the varied sentence shall take effect from the date of the original sentence, unless the court otherwise orders; but for the purposes of calculating the time within which one may appeal the period during which one may appeal is to start, as is the present practice, from the date when the sentence was varied.
Finally, subsection (6) is designed to cater, as it were, for exceptional cases: by paragraph (a) for cases in which two men may be tried quite separately but on related facts, where some special period of time can be determined by court rules. Paragraph (b) is designed to deal with cases, among others, where the sentence or order which it is proposed to vary is not a sentence or order connected with the offender. It may be an order, for instance, in the case of a breach of recognisances on a surety, somebody who is not before the court as an offender. These are technical matters which have been pointed out by the Criminal Appeal Office. In these circumstances, I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have absolutely no hesitation in advising the House to accept all three of these Amendments in turn, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice for having moved them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
"(b) the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which the sentence or other order was imposed or made."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having perhaps dealt wrongly with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in speaking to them at the same time as moving Amendment No. 1. They are all technical points, to clear up the provisions of Clause 11. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) Where a sentence or other order is varied under this section, the sentence or other order, as so varied, shall take effect from the beginning of the day on which it was originally imposed or made, unless the court otherwise directs:
Provided that for the purposes of section 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (time limit for notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal) the sentence or other order shall be regarded as imposed or made on the day on which it is so varied.
(6) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, as respects cases where two or more persons are tried separately on the same or related facts alleged in one or more indictments, provide for extending the period prescribed by subsection (2) above.

(b) may, subject to the preceding provisions of this section, prescribe the cases and circumstances in which, and the time within which, any order or other decision made by the Crown Court may be varied or rescinded by the Crown Court."—(Lord Parker of Waddington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Right of audience]:
LORD TANGLEY LORD TANGLEY moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 41, at end insert—
"(A1) Solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the Crown Court on any hearing of or in connection with any appeal or any proceedings on committal to the court for sentence."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing
1534
in my name. Some of your Lordships may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment dealing with this subject matter. That Amendment had three branches, all dealing with the right of audience of solicitors in matters before the Circuit court which are at present dealt with at quarter sessions. The first branch of the Amendment dealt with the case where a solicitor has represented a client in proceedings in the court below, there is an appeal, which is a rehearing at quarter sessions (and will be a rehearing at the Circuit court), and the client wishes the solicitor to appear again.
The second branch proposed that a solicitor should have a right of representing his client before the court on a question of a plea of mitigation of sentence when the client had been sent from the magistrates' court to quarter sessions (in future to the Circuit court) for sentence. The third branch of my Amendment went much wider than that. After considering the weighty views which were expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I have come to the conclusion that it went rather too wide. I have omitted it from my present Amendment and have confined it to the first two points.
May I remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Viscount, expressed strong support for my Amendment, and even went so far as to say that it should be voted for; and they said that they would vote for it if it were cut down to the extent to which I have cut it down to-day. I do not know what their attitude will be to-day.
I do not think your Lordships would wish me to take a long time in moving this Amendment or to repeat a great deal of what I said on the Committee stage. I think perhaps I have said enough already, subject to one point. This Amendment seems to be the first of what I may term a maze of Amendments on Clause 12 of the Bill, and those Amendments include a number put down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which, between them, virtually transform the original Clause 12 into a new clause, and a new clause which would give much wider and deeper

1535
powers to the noble and learned Lord and subsequent Lord Chancellors.
Perhaps I may permit myself this observation. I believe it would be very much for the convenience of your Lordships if, in referring to my Amendment, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could give us some idea of the reasons for widening the scope of Clause 12 in the way that he has, and possibly some prevision of the way in which he might be prepared to act in the event of his being given those additional powers. If that were done, I believe it would be for the convenience of your Lordships' House, and would be a clue to getting through this maze of Amendments on Clause 12.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, as Amendments to the proposed new subsection (A1), Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Line 1, leave out ("Solicitors") and insert ("The solicitor who appeared for an accused person in a magistrates' court");
Line 2, after ("Court") insert ("on behalf of that person").
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg formally to move Amendment No. 5, and I will at the same time, if I may, formally move No. 6. I say "formally" for this reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has indicated, there are Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which appear to overlap with his Amendment, and to deal with the same problem. It would save time and would, I think, be to the convenience of the House if we had explained to us, while we are discussing Lord Tangley's Amendment, the purpose and effect of the Lord Chancellor's Amendments. If, at the end of that discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley felt that he should withdraw his Amendment, then there would be no need for any debate on my Amendments to his Amendment. If he felt that he should not withdraw his Amendment, then I would ask, with the leave of the House, to put forward the reasons why I have tabled Amendments to his Amendment. I think that it would take up perhaps unnecessary time were I to do so now.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will readily accede to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, to
1536
take this opportunity of explaining both what has happened since the Committee stage, when this matter was last before your Lordships, and also the effect of the subsequent Amendments, which I intend to move in due course, if circumstances permit me to do so, and to explain the reasoning which underlies them. I hope that the effect of my so doing will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, to withdraw his own Amendment, since I believe that my own give him as much as he could reasonably ask for if his own Amendment were carried, and perhaps more.
As he has correctly told your Lordships, although my own Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9 on the Marshalled List, appear in a somewhat mystifying and unintelligible form, they were intended really to recast Clause 12 into virtually a new clause. I think the best service I can do your Lordships, before I give my reasoning and explain why I have put this Amendment down, is to read Clause 12 as it would read on the assumption that these Amendments were moved into it; because as I say, it is intended as a new clause, although the actual mystery of the draftsman's art has led the Amendments to be put down in this form. If Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 were passed, Clause 12 would read as follows:
"(1) The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct that solicitors may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings in the Crown Court, or in proceedings in the Crown Court of such description as is specified in the direction.
"(2) A direction under this section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits, or as respects a specified area, region or circuit, or as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits.
"(3) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section as respects any one or more places where the Crown Court sits the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to any shortage of counsel in the area in question, any rights of audience formerly exercised by solicitors at any court of quarter sessions in the locality in question, and to any other special circumstances."
I think it is at that point that the manuscript Amendment (No. 10A), of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne comes in, to omit the word "special" before "circumstances", and insert after "circumstances" "affecting the public interest". May I say, in passing, that if we get so far, it is my intention to accept that manuscript Amend-

1537
ment, subject to any drafting improvement that the drafters may subsequently desire to put in. The final subsection, at present subsection (3), of course remains unchanged. It reads:
"Any direction given under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient".
Having discharged that task, I should like to make it clear that in doing this I am aiming in this and the subsequent Amendments, Nos. 13 and 15, relating to Clauses 16 and 21, respectively, to perform the obligations that I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at the Committee stage of the Bill. I made it clear, both in discussing the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Committee stage, that my overriding motives throughout have been to preserve the integrity and improve the efficiency of English justice—a priceless trust which we have all inherited from our predecessors and which I earnestly desire to hand down to my own successors untarnished, and improved by such reforms as this Bill seeks to effect. Even the interests of the client, which I have sought to serve all my own professional life, and which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, so rightly emphasised in his speech during the Committee stage, can be safeguarded only in the context of this overriding requirement.
Both branches of the legal profession are working under strain at the present time. Both, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, reminded us at the Committee stage, are seriously undermanned as a result of the constant increase of legal business since the war and possibly also of the increases in taxation and shorttages of ancillary manpower which have been the characteristics of those post-war years. The solicitors' branch is seriously undermanned and, probably as a result of shortage of ancillary staff, if anything worse understaffed than the Bar. Both are working under strain. It follows that if either, or both, choose to make dossiers at the expense of the other, both can uncover some failure in the standard of public service which they ought legitimately to wish to supply.
It also follows that a sufficient supply of really mature barristers and solicitors to fulfil each their separate functions will
1538
not be fully available for some years to come. Given adequate recruitment, both branches of the profession can hope to provide qualified practitioners fairly rapidly, compared with some other professions which have longer periods of training. But good lawyers, like good port, mature slowly, whether in bottle or in cask, and I am mainly concerned with the mature version which we produce.
The remedy for this situation can, I think, be found in two related prescriptions. The first is to remove unnecessary inefficiencies in our court administration. That is what we are trying to do by this Bill. But it would be quite wrong to adopt panic measures which would undermine the foundations on which judicial and professional integrity have been slowly built up over the years. The second prescription, however, is at least as important as, and perhaps more important than, the first. With two branches of the legal profession working under strain, it is vitally necessary to reduce to a minimum mutual friction between the two, and to increase to a maximum mutual co-operation and trust between the two. Maximum co-operation and maximum communication must be the order of the day, and not mutual recrimination and suspicion.
Although I hope I may say this without giving offence to either of these branches of a distinguished calling, it is no use pretending that this issue does not have some of the features of a demarcation dispute, just as the disputes which take place, let us say, between the boilermakers and the engineers give rise to something in the nature of a demarcation dispute. But I should not myself recommend fusion or federation as a remedy in this case. The formula in any kind of dispute of this kind is to wish to create the maximum of trust. The way of doing that is to exhaust, and use to its fullest, existing negotiating joint machinery, or, if such machinery is not available, to see that it is made available; and at all times to keep the channels of communication open and unblocked. By that I mean the channels of communication between the two bodies concerned and the sponsoring Department—in this case, the Lord Chancellor's Office—and not simply the mutual communication channels between the two.

1539
That brings me back to the situation as I left it at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, very kindly, at my request, did not press his Amendments to Clause 12, in exchange for an undertaking by myself to bring about a meeting at which he and I could discuss the matter in the presence of the representatives of the Bar Council and of the Law Society, with a view to an honourable and reasonably rapid improvement in the terms of the Bill. The Amendments which I have now put down are the result of that meeting, in the sense of their being the consequence of that meeting. But I must make it clear that they are my Amendments. They are not the result of some secret bargain which was arrived at in that meeting, or some secret bargain between the Law Society and the Bar Council. I put the Amendments forward on their merits, and their merits are what I now wish to discuss.
Your Lordships will remember that Clause 12, as it stood unamended and as it stands now, gives the Lord Chancellor power to open the Crown Court on a geographical basis—in our discussions the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, described it happily as a horizontal basis—when a case is made out for so doing. The noble Lord put down on Committee, and has now put down in a revised form, an Amendment which would open the courts automatically and without inquiry on what he called, equally happily, a vertical basis; that is to say, the opening would be nationwide and dependent oil the type of case and not on the geographical area.
It seemed to me, on looking at these Amendments, that there were three main defects or criticisms which could be made of them. The first was procedural. The case was attempted to be made, I thought, without adequate previous discussion, rather than on the basis of the full use of the machinery which exists between the Law Society and the Bar Council in the form of joint committees and which ought to be used if the professions are to go forward on a basis of mutual trust and co-operation, as they should.
The second was that the Amendments lacked the flexibility which I hoped was one of the main virtues of the present Bill. There could, it seemed to me, be
1540
no case for making the provisions relating to the opening on a vertical basis rigid and virtually immovable, while those for the opening on a horizontal basis remained discretionary. I should have thought there was no reason for rigidity in either; no reason to suppose that both professions, which are evolving very rapidly, will stay as they are for another hundred years, which may be the interval before another Judicature Act, and will not require further adjustment from time to time as their relationships develop.
The third criticism which I pointed out at the time and which was also strongly emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, was that the cases differed wholly, both in nature and in virtue; tile first two, which remain upon the Marshalled List now, depending upon the type of jurisdiction possessed in the higher court, and the third depending upon an unrealised potentiality of a jurisdiction in the lower court.
But by far the most significant feature of the debate on the Committee stage, at any rate so far as my own thinking was concerned, lay in the support given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, to the first two of the then Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and their opposition to the third. I made so bold as to draw the attention of the Bar Council to this, which I regarded as the most significant factor in our discussion. This was the state of affairs when I had the pleasure of joining the meeting which was called as a result of my promise to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley.
When the meeting was called, I found, not wholly to my surprise but to my great sorrow, that there had been a lamentable lack of communication between the two branches of the profession, and between them and my Office, and that the existing negotiating machinery had not been wholly exhausted or even used as fully as it might have been. At the meeting two documents were produced—a printed document and a Press handout—neither of which I had seen at the time of the debate on the Committee stage, although the former was subsequently shown to me by a Member of the other place who

1541
had had it sent him by a constituent, and neither of which had been seen in advance of distribution by the Bar Council.
I mention this not in any sense of reproach but simply as fact when I say that they both contained complaints of a breakdown in the administration of particular courts, which complaints, at any rate in my view, ought not to be kept to be used as ammunition in argument but ought to be raised at once between the two branches of the profession as soon as they arise; and which, if satisfaction is not obtained at that level, ought to be brought in good time to the Lord Chancellor's attention for remedy, and not saved up for some future date in the event of legislation. My Lords, if our meeting has achieved no other result, I would hope sincerely that one consequence will be the unblocking of the channels of communication between the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor's Office. In the event, I found the Bar Council resentful at having, as they thought, been put into the dock without an adequate opportunity to reply; and the Law Society suspicious because they believed themselves to be in deadlock with the Bar. I hope that this will never happen again.
My Lords, I next had to deal with the substance of the Amendments we were there to discuss. In this connection I thought it decisive that the Lord Chief Justice's speech required that something should be done. I could not overcome the resentment of the Bar or, as it seemed to me, do justice to the case unless I gave an opportunity for their side of the matter to be considered. I could not overcome the suspicions of the Law Society unless I made it clear beyond a peradventure that the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as expressed in your Lordships' Committee, backed as it was by the opinion of my noble and learned friend, should be given adequate weight. I accordingly proposed that Clause 12 should be re-cast on the lines of my present Amendment. If this be accepted, both vertical and geographical cases will be placed on the same footing and made to depend on an argued application in which all interested parties have an opportunity to state their views.
1542
Moreover, I think an added advantage is that full flexibility will be maintained. Not only will the first two parts of the Amendment originally set down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tangley, be open to discussion, but the third as well, and any other adjustment which either branch may wish to make from time to time. There will be no need to wait for another Courts Bill; no need to mount a Press campaign with resulting damage to the public interest and to the prestige of both sides of the profession. The third point is that it must be recognised, and I think recognised by all, that the expressions of opinion which fell from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, must be expected to weigh with me very heavily indeed if, as I assume to be the case should my Amendment go through, an application under the new Clause 12 is made to me immediately after Royal Assent.
I can therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, as I have promised him privately to do, that in the event of my Amendment being accepted in preference to his own, and in the event of such an application being made, I would pay high regard to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne in coming to any conclusion on such an application. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation myself, or shall have no hesitation if I am permitted to do so, in commending my own Amendment to the House. It is not designed as a compromise; it is not, to use a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on the last occasion, "a carve up". It represents a considered opinion of my own as the best possible and most honourable solution to a genuine dispute, after listening to the debate on the last occasion, which included such weighty opinions as those I have described from the Cross-Benches, and after listening privately to the representatives of both the Bar Council and the Law Society in the presence of one another. My Lords, should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tangley, as I hope he will, accept the assurances that I have given, I shall at a later stage have much pleasure in moving my Amendment.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am not too happy about any of these Amendments, but I hope that the House will accept the proposals made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may take the same course. These proposals have the great advantage, as I think, of flexibility, which indeed is one of the objects of this Bill—to introduce into the administration of justice a great deal more flexibility than we have now. Without taking up more of your Lordships' time, I hope the House may so agree.
4.6 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am of course very grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the trouble he has taken—and he has indicated part of the trouble that he has taken. I want to make just one or two points clear before I finally make up my mind whether or not I should ask your Lordships to proceed with this Amendment. The first point is that I absolutely disavow the idea that this is something to do with a demarcation dispute between the Bar and solicitors, or indeed that this can be settled by way of a deal between barristers and solicitors. As I tried to say on the Committee stage, this is a matter where the public interest, and in particular that of the client, is mainly involved, and the client's interests are not and can never be subject to a deal between two branches of the same profession. I would never have taken part in any of the discussions to which the Lord Chancellor has referred if I had felt that I was taking part in any such deal, which I certainly was not.
Therefore, it was with some apprehension that I heard the noble and learned Lord say that if these Amendments to Clause 12 which stand in his name go through, he would consider an application. My Lords, I should have thought he ought to consider this matter of his own motion, not on an application from solicitors or from barristers. That is entirely the wrong atmosphere in which to consider this. It may very well be that the matter will be brought before him either by the Bar or by the solicitors, but I would beg the Lord Chancellor not to wait for an application and to treat this as though it were a dispute between two parties which he had to decide, but to
1544
bear in mind, as he says he will, the very weighty remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, and to consider this matter of his own motion as soon as the Bill goes through.
Before I finally decide whether or not to proceed with this Amendment, I think perhaps your Lordships may wish to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Viscount, because their support was far more important than anything I could say on the Committee stage, and it was unequivocal, to the effect that something must be done now. May I finally thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack most gratefully for addressing me as "the noble and learned Lord"? I only hope it does not get him into any trouble with the Bar.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a layman one has great hesitation in intervening in a debate in which so many notable and learned Lords are taking part, but I should like to know the reception, perhaps, of the House to the advice of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House. My understanding is that our Standing Orders prevent us from taking manuscript Amendments on Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not Third Reading.
LORD SHEPHERD: If I may develop this point, I say again, on Third Reading; and the obvious reason is that the House should not have put before it a manuscript Amendment and be asked to accept it without having another opportunity, before the Bill moves to another place, to look at what has been finally agreed. It is perfectly true that we are to-day on the Report stage. We have had, rightly, a manuscript Amendment moved—or it is likely to be moved, or it is now being considered whether it should be moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may interrupt at this point, I think that the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There is no manuscript Amendment before the House now. Lord Tangley's Amendment appears on the Marshalled List; mine appears on the Marshalled List as well. It is not a

1545
manuscript Amendment; it is an Amendment to Clause 12. These Amendments appear on the Marshalled List as Nos. 8 and 9. I think that what may have misled the noble Lord is that I ventured to read out the whole of the clause as it would be if the Amendments were passed. But what I was discussing is in no sense a manuscript Amendment. The only manuscript Amendment—if my Amendment is passed—which the House may be asked to consider is No. 10A, which stands in the name of Lord Goodman.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the matter under discussion at the moment is the printed Amendment in my name to an Amendment of Lord Tangley. No manuscript Amendment is now being discussed. I should have thought, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that it was not in accordance with the customs of this House to introduce a discussion about manuscript Amendments, which may or may not arise, in the middle of a debate on an Amendment to an Amendment, when both are printed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is clearly a case where a layman should not have intervened, but I have been listening to the debate with considerable fascination and interest. I was clearly wrong in thinking that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was speaking to a manuscript Amendment. Since he was not, all my fears have been dissipated. The only reason I rose was to seek the protection of the House to see what we were being expected to send to another place and to make sure that we understood what we were doing.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, no one would wish to impute the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the slightest degree. He was perhaps premature in what he said: future events will show whether or not he was.
My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House, for I have moved my Amendment formally; but the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, rather threw out a suggestion that it might help him to make up his mind (and I hope it will) if he heard my views on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I do not know
1546
whether it is right to call this a demarcation dispute or not; it rather depends on from what angle one looks at it. It has some of the features of a demarcation dispute; but I am sure of one thing—that the Lord Chancellor has not considered himself, holding the office he does, as an arbiter in a demarcation dispute. What he has had to consider—and it is his duty to consider it—is where the public interest lies. There are two professional bodies, with views as to the public interest which may differ but which are held by both with the utmost sincerity. It was his duty to make up his mind what should be done.
Speaking for myself, I think that the Amendment that he has put upon the Marshalled List is a very considerable improvement upon what was suggested initially by the noble Lords, Lord Tangley and Lord Goodman, and on what was suggested in the debate by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and myself; because it does give the Lord Chancellor and his successors flexibility over the whole field, which I think is very desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, commented upon the Lord Chancellor's reference to his considering the substance of Lord Tangley's Amendment on an application being made to him. I do not attach so much importance to the use by the Lord Chancellor of those words on an application", because I should have thought that if an application was necessary it would certainly follow upon the Royal Assent to this Bill. I do not myself think that it will be necessary. After our discussion in Committee and again to-day I believe that the Lord Chancellor will inevitably give consideration to this problem over the whole field.
May I say a word with regard to the Amendments that I tabled to Lord Tangley's Amendment now under discussion? The case that Lord Tangley made in Committee, and made again to-day, was to give a solicitor who had appeared on behalf of a defendant in a magistrates' court a right of audience on the hearing in the higher court of an appeal from the decision of the magistrates, and the right of audience where his client had been sent on committal for sentence to a higher court. I must say, as I have said before, that I think that the case for

1547
that change is made out; but the Amendments I have moved are to restrict it to that change and no more.
When I raised this point on Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said absolutely clearly—I need not quote his words—that that is what he intended. But his Amendment as drawn then, and as drawn again to-day, really goes much wider, for, as it stands, it would enable one solicitor to brief another solicitor to appear in the higher court; it would enable one solicitor to get another one to act, maybe a member of his own firm or of another firm, in the higher court. That was not what Lord Tangley asked for. No case was made out for that. The case that was made out was that the solicitor who appeared in the lower court for his client should have the right in those cases to appear for him again—and not that any other solicitor should have that right. I am sure that, inadvertently, in putting down his Amendment this was overlooked; and that is why I tabled my two Amendments.
I personally support the proposition that the same solicitor should have the right of following the case in the public interest and in the interests of his client, to the higher court only in those two categories of cases: appeals from the magistrates' decision where the solicitor has acted for the defendant at the original hearing; and in those cases which are sent for sentence to a higher court and where the solicitor is fully acquainted with all the circumstances. But one thing is absolutely clear: the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which he has so clearly explained, can give full effect—and the Lord Chancellor has given a clear intention that it will—to the proposal of Lord Tangley, as, I think, qualified by what I have said. If that be the position, how satisfactory it is!
I hoped when we had our last debate that an adjournment and discussions between the Bar Council and the Law Society would lead, if not to complete agreement at least to a very substantial measure of agreement. From what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has said, and from what the Lord Chancellor has said, I think it has become clear that a very large measure of agreement has been reached. If the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is accepted, I think that it will give
1548
him the power to do all that is required in the public interest. He will have flexibility; he can make adjustments from time to time; he can see how things are working out. So, believing as I do that that is right, I should like to withdraw my Amendment which we are now discussing. But I can do that only if the noble Lord, Lord Tangley (who can also speak again, as I have spoken again, with the leave of the House) intimates that it is his intention and desire to clear the way for the Lord Chancellor's Amendment by withdrawing his own Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, would interrupt and say that he will withdraw his Amendment, then I think we can keep in order, because then I could proceed to withdraw my Amendment without saying anything more.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, as some of your Lordships may remember, on Committee stage I expressed myself rather strongly in favour of much wider rights of audience to solicitors and indeed indicated that, as then advised, I would vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, if it was confined to what were then paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Amendment, which are now the subject of the Amendment which he has moved. Since then I have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. One thing that really impresses me—and it is something to which I drew attention on Second Reading—is that the real virtue of the recommendation of the Beeching Commission is its flexibility; and it seems to me that Clause 12, if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is accepted, introduces that flexibility which is required in this, as in other matters in the Bill.
The clause as amended would provide extensive power over a wide area to regulate the rights of audience both geograpicaily—that is, horizontally—and vertically. There is complete flexibility, and to that extent I venture to think it is more extensive than the Amendment which now stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley. I was interested in the point which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, brought forward about the Amendment as at present drafted permitting solicitors to instruct other solicitors. I am sure that the noble

1549
Lord, Lord Tangley, never thought to provide for that or would think that the clause should cover that. But it might well be thought right—and this is another instance of where flexibility is required—that a solicitor who was unable to appear in an appeal against sentence might get one of his partners to do it and not instruct another firm at all. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but it illustrates how dangerous it is to put matters of this sort into a Statute. For my part, I would much rather leave it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, under subsection (3) of this clause, would have the right to give directions, subject to any conditions or restrictions he thought right according to the circumstances of the case.
In these circumstances, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, may feel justified, particularly in view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this Amendment. I was not able to be here on the last occasion, but as chairman of a quarter sessions in the North for over 25 years, I have had a great deal of experience of the difficulties which often occur as a result of the Bar being undermanned. What I like about the noble and learned Lord's proposed Amendment is, as the Lord Chief Justice has just said, its flexibility. We must remember that we are at the beginning of an important reorganisation of the law, and while we all hope that it will lead to smoother working it is difficult to forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 to 15 years.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that we cannot expect to get another Bill of this importance probably for 100 years. What he has got, if he gets his Amendment, is the discretion to adapt his decisions to the situations that may arise under the new Bill, and this seems to me to be very important indeed. I, too, hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will not continue to feel too hot under the collar. There has been a lot of dispute about this—whether one might call it a demarcation dispute does not matter. The public interest requires that something should be done about it. In the 18th
1550
century solicitors became scriveners and there is no doubt that that was in the public interest. I think that the present proposals are very much in the public interest and it seems to me, as one with some experience in this work, that the proposals which are to come from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will give us the very best method of dealing with the situation. So I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and we can then get on to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I shall relieve your Lordships' suspense by saying that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I must withdraw my Amendment first to keep in order. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, having made it clear that when the time comes he will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendments to his Amendment.
Amendments to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
4.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the measures which the Government are taking to strengthen the machinery for promoting competition in industry, and for providing safeguards against the abuse of market power.
"We shall in due course introduce legislation to re-shape the Monopolies Commission, to widen its scope and powers, and to make it more effective. Meanwhile, within the scope of the existing legislation, we shall make important changes of practice which will foreshadow the legislative proposals

1551
we shall eventually bring forward, and set the Monopolies Commission on a course enabling a smooth transition to be made to the new Commission which will replace it.
"In the transitional period we shall increase and strengthen the staff of the Commission, and appoint additional full time members as necessary.
"The Commission will be encouraged to become the expert and authoritative source of information to the Government on situations of imperfect competition, and I shall be ready to consider proposals from it of possible subjects for formal inquiry. The power to make references will remain with me, but I shall have no objection to the Commission making its proposals public if it so wishes.
"To enable shorter inquiries to be undertaken in appropriate cases the Commission will be asked, so far as is possible within the existing legislation, to direct its attention to specific issues as an alternative to the traditional wide-ranging monopoly inquiry. For example, the Commission may be asked to investigate a particular practice by a company or industry, or to report on prices in a monopolistic situation. I hope, too, that these limited inquiries will permit simpler procedures to be adopted.
"I shall make further references as necessary. I shall continue to use the power to refer proposed mergers to the Commission if I consider that competition in the relevant market would be restricted to a damaging degree as a result of the merger. I shall also hope from time to time to issue guidance on the principles being followed in making references to the Commission.
"The Commission has in the past been used to inquire only into the activities of private industry. In future, I shall be ready to make use of the power in Section 2(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948 to ask the Monopolies Commission to give the Government information and assistance on questions arising out of the operations of publicly owned enterprises which are in a monopoly position. But I shall bear in mind the need to avoid burdening those
1552
industries with a wholly unreasonable succession of investigations as has happened in the past.
"These measures will start to strengthen the authority of the Commission at once, and to make it a more effective body for promoting competition throughout the economy. But the Commission cannot be fully effective in the new directions I have outlined without legislative changes. In preparing such legislation we shall aim in particular to provide for a reconstituted Commission; for appropriate new powers to collect information and to propose inquiries; and for its powers of formal inquiry to be extended to cover public monopolies such as nationalised industries and other statutory trading bodies which are in a monopoly position.
"The Government are also reviewing the restrictive trade practices legislation with a view to extending its scope and making it more effective. In particular, we shall be considering the case for bringing services within the legislation, for making registrable certain anti-competitive practices by single firms, and for making certain types of restrictive agreement illegal. I should like to emphasise that in the preparation of legislation I shall want to consult fully with representative bodies in the light of experience of the steps outlined above."
4.30 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for making that Statement to us. It is an important Statement, because since the prospective end of the I.R.C.,, the Prices and Incomes Board and the Consumers Association, we are left with few Government institutions for investigating matters that need to be investigated in our economic industrial life. What we felt when we were in Government was that the term "Monopolies Commission" was really a misnomer, and that what was needed was a body to protect the consumer and to ensure an increase in industrial efficiency. That was the reason for the Commission on Industry and Manpower, which we had drafted and were in the course of debating when the Government changed. The use of the phrase, "departures from perfect competition", is a little frightening. It sounds

1553
too purist. And with its openings to give the Commission rights to investigate Rolls Royce, which is a near monopoly, I.C.I., Courtaulds, the railways or coal, it worries us.
The questions that I want to put to the noble Earl are these. First of all, can we have a Green Paper? I know that setting out the proposed underlying principle is difficult, because we found great difficulty in stating the principles behind references to the Commission when we were in Government, but it is an important matter to get the Government's reshaping of the policy of the Monopolies Commission.
Secondly, I am puzzled about the references to nationalised industries. Will the Commission carry out an investigation of the National Coal Board, the Railways Board or the C.E.G.B., for example? And in the event of their making a recommendation, is it then within the purview of the Government to alter the Statute which set them up by the issuing of an order?—because these are the ordinary terms of reference of the Monopolies Commission when they investigate private industries.
There is in the Statement a reference to the inclusion of services. This puzzles me a little, because my understanding is that the Monopolies Commission can already investigate services so long as there is a 33⅓ per cent. combination of people giving these services who are, to speak, colluding together. Finally, can the noble Earl say anything about directing the Commission particularly to look at competition in the context of international trade? I personally, along with many others, have always been worried as to whether what is regarded as monopoly, which is actually oligopoly, would be considered in the context of how much of the internal trade of this country people got, instead of taking into consideration the very severe competition that comes to firms in the home market from the external suppliers.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's questions are concerned, I do not think I can promise him a Green Paper, but certainly I will pass on the suggestion to my right honourable friend. As for nationalised industries. I speak subject to correction but it would
1554
certainly be my understanding that in anything which required a change in the Statute under which the nationalised industry in question operates it would not be the Government's intention to proceed other than by Statute.
Thirdly, so far as the question of international competition is concerned, it would certainly be my view (and I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about this) speaking, as it were, without the book, that the monopolies reference would cover the type of international situation which the noble Lord has in mind, if it was creating a monopoly situation within this country; and I think it is possible to imagine circumstances in which that would be so.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Statement, especially as it gives further proof of the dogmatic rage of the Government which confuses the economics of the 20th century with those of the 19th century, may I ask whether the Government have thought out how this situation of perfect competition can be established, deviations from which will be referred to this new Commission?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the Secretary of State would make references where he was satisfied that there was an abuse of monopoly power. I cannot go beyond that. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this Statement. I see nothing dogmatic, ideological or doctrinaire in it. If he does, then of course he is entitled to his opinion.

COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("in any place where the Crown Court sits which is specified in the direction")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as a result of what took place prior to that welcome interruption, I take it that Amendments No. 6, 6A, 6B and 7 are not moved. It now falls to me to propose my own Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, on the subject of manuscript Amendment No 6A, which stands in my name, it is a procedural accident that it is there at all, because it was originally an Amendment to Lord Tangley's Amendment, which also was associated with my name, and I was informed on putting it down that one could not move an Amendment to one's own Amendment. Accordingly there is no intention to have a substantive Amendment. But I wonder whether I might seize the opportunity, without remotely wishing to introduce a discordant note into what I sense is going to be a highly amiable discussion on previously controversial points—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, as a matter of procedure, might I know what we are doing? There is nothing about a manuscript Amendment here. The first reference that I heard to a manuscript Amendment was from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHEPHERD: No; from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: He said that there might be one later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if we can disentagle ourselves from what has rightly been called a maze, and if the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will allow a suggestion, it may be as well if I move my Amendment. He can then make whatever remarks are appropriate on it and be wholly in order.
I want to make only two remarks about Amendment No. 8, which is coupled with No. 9, the contents of which I have already fully explained in the previous debate. First of all, I am extremely sorry to see the raised hackles which accompanied my reference to "demarcation dispute". I am afraid I was expecting them. But if the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, could have seen the faces on the Labour Benches, as well as the Cross-Benches, from the distance of the remote place on which he sits, I think he would have seen that the shaft went home. I did not actually say that this was a demarcation dispute; I said merely that it had some of the characteristics of one. I was delicately hinting to both learned professions that they must make better use of joint negotiating machinery than they
1556
have done in the past; and they must keep in close touch with the Lord Chancellor's Office if they want things to move smoothly and redound to the prestige and distinction of the profession to which they are both related. If they want any advice, I am sure that they can get some from the T.U.C.
The second thing I want to say is this. Again with great deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, quite obviously I have the power, if my Amendment is passed, to operate (to use the phrase used on the occasion of the gracious Speech) by my "certain knowledge and mere motion". But it is an extremely incautious thing for a Minister responsible to Parliament to do. I shall most certainly receive a number of representations from the Bar Council. I have already received a long document from the Criminal Bar Association (I think it is called), the association of practitioners at the Criminal Bar. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that the public interest, in the sense that I tried to describe it, has to predominate. But who knows about these difficulties? The answer is: the two branches of the profession. The Lord Chancellor, with the best will in the world, does not go round the courts on the circuits. Of course he is informed by the Judiciary of what goes on. Of course he is in touch with the registrars of county courts, and the appropriate officers of the quarter sessions courts—or Crown Courts, as they will become. But he looks to the two branches of the profession to give him information, and not to assume that he has it.
If this is going through, and is going to work, I should expect to receive full information from all the persons who can give it to me. It is futile to expect me to say, and idle to say, simply because my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice have made speeches in this House—to which I have already told them I will give the weightiest consideration, because they operate in a decisive way upon the course of these discussions—that I must just pull a lever and operate my powers without considering what anybody has to say—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give way for a moment?

1557
I never suggested that he would act without consulting others. The phrase under question was, "on an application". I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on any proposal that comes forward, will take the views of both sides of the profession. He should not say that it is idle for them to suggest, if by "them" he is referring to me and anybody else, because I never suggested that he did it of his own motion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not intend to refer to my noble and learned friend at all; I was referring, to the complaint that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, of my earlier speech. It is not sensible to say that I must operate entirely of my own motion just because two of my noble and learned friends have made important and weighty speeches in this House. I expect to be informed by both branches of the profession and, without reproaching them in any way, I hope to be informed by them, even better than I have been informed in the past, of their needs and complaints. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will not regard that as in any way a reproach or criticism of anybody. I feel that these things do not advance the public good and that the proper use of channels of communication is one of the lessons that we all ought to learn from what has taken place. I beg to move.
4.44 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I said a moment ago that the last thing I want to do is to introduce any discordant note into what I hope is going to be a highly amicable atmosphere this afternoon. I should like to make some observations. First, I am not as horrified by the reference to a "demarcation dispute" as are some of my colleagues. In a demarcation dispute I have always found that one side is also on the side of the public. If I may venture to say so, I believe that to be the situation here, if you care to regard this as a demarcation dispute.
I have listened with great attention to the statement which the Lord Chancellor was making; and after I had listened to it my first impression was, what a superb advocate he is! I was carried away wholly by it, until at the end I asked myself what he had said. I then arrived
1558
at the conclusion that he did not appear to have said anything that I could identify as amounting to the remotest pledge or promise. But I have total confidence in the integrity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If he gives us an assurance, then that is good enough for me.
There are some of the younger members of the Law Society—and even some members of its Council—who are acutely anxious about the position. I should like on their behalf to say that the sooner the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate his intentions in this matter and, particularly, fulfil the assurance he gave when he said that his Amendment would give in this situation as much as Lord Tangley's Amendment, or more; and the sooner he can confirm the reality of that situation then, from the public point of view, the better.
He has made references to what appears from his point of view to be the rather unhappy situation when a difference of opinion between two sections of a great profession is publicised. May I venture to say that I do not accept this? If the matter is referred to the public in moderate and courteous terms this can be nothing but good. I do not think these matters are best dealt with by discussions between the profession themselves behind closed doors.
I am sure he will not take it amiss if I also say I hope that, in listening to the representations that are going to be made to him by the solicitors and the Bar, he will make available to each side the arguments of the other. I hope he will not regard this next comment of mine as remotely unfriendly. I have noticed that both sides appear to be persuaded quite often by extraordinary arguments. It will be highly desirable that each side should know what the other side is saying on this matter. I do not think it would be appropriate to say any more than this. For my part I am happy to withdraw this Amendment and to rely on what I take to be the good will of his statement rather than the absence of positive assurances.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just say, as I think I may do by way of reply, that I am extremely grateful to noble Lords about this? I have tried to do my best to

1559
achieve a just solution in the public interest. It is inevitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out, that if you have only heard one side—which is virtually the position—you cannot make an absolute promise to that side. I have given as strong an indication as I thought it appropriate to do as to the way my mind is likely to work in the absence of arguments to the contrary. I know, as I said in my opening remarks, that I found the Bar resentful and the solicitors suspicious. It is a great mistake to underestimate the depth of that resentment or the depth of those suspicions. They can be overcome only over a period of time and by mutual co-operation and trust.
One of the people I hope that both professions will trust is the Lord Chancellor. By that I mean rather the corporation sole than the person who happens to sit physically on the Woolsack at any given time. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Office will continue to be, as it has mainly been, an object of trust, by which I mean not merely the occupant of the Woolsack for the time being, but the whole staff with which he co-operates. I hope that by experience even the younger members of the solicitors' profession will realise that they will get a fair crack of the whip and a fairer crack the more they communicate both with their opposite numbers at the Bar—because there are young members of the Bar trying to make their living, too—and with the Lord Chancellor's Office, if they think that things are going wrong. I should not like in any way to diminish my gratitude for the kindly references to myself which the noble Lord made in the course of his remarks. I thank him very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("In exercising his powers under this section") and insert—
"A direction under this section may have effect as respects all places where the Crown Court sits, or as respects a specified area, region or circuit, or as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits.
(3) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section as respects any one
1560
or more places where the Crown Court sit."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 were discussed with Amendments Nos. 4 and 7. Amendment No. 10A is a manuscript Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which perhaps he will be good enough to read out to the House.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 9, line 5, leave out ("special") and at end insert ("affecting the public interest".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 10A was to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the opportunity of making his decisions in this matter on the fullest possible basis. As the clause was originally worded he was entitled to take into regard the shortage of barristers, the previous availability of audience to solicitors and "any other special circumstances". It was felt, purely as a drafting matter, that that might restrict the total freedom of his discretion. Hence I have suggested in this Amendment that for "special" circumstances there should be substituted circumstances "affecting the public interest", or such other wording as equates to the same thing. I gather from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that it is his intention to accept that Amendment which, if I may say so, will be found to be greatly encouraging to those people who still entertain certain doubts on the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I indicated, I am very happy to accept this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who, quite rightly, does not like manuscript Amendments—will take it from me that this is virtually a drafting Amendment and an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appointment of Circuit Judges]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 22, after ("barrister") insert ("or solicitor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 12 is concerned, I believe that what is involved will much depend on certain observations that may fall from your Lordships. So perhaps I might invite your Lordships to comment before we decide on the question of withdrawing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is right. It is really my Amendment No. 13 which raises the issue which the noble Lord wants to discuss. I take it, therefore, that the noble Lord does not move his Amendment No. 12.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 22, at end add ("or a Recorder who has held that office for at least rive years").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I now come to move my Amendment, No. 13. The significance of this Amendment can only be seen if your Lordships moved on to the Amendment standing in the names of, I think, the noble Lords, Lord Tangley, Lord Goodman and Lord Annan, on Clause 21, because they really ought to be considered together. Although my Amendment is not strictly a paving Amendment, it ought to be treated as one for the purposes of this discussion.
These Amendments together put forward my own proposed solution to the second of the two controversies between the two branches of the profession which have been ventilated in the course of dealing with the Bill. The first, the extent of the right of audience, has now been fully ventilated in our previous discussions. The second is concerned with eligibility to the Circuit Bench. This controversy was discussed on Second Reading, but in the light of what has taken place on Clause 12 it was not proceeded with on Committee. The Amendment which I have put down is again put down on my own authority, but I have only put it down in consequence of and after the discussions which have taken place in the interval between Committee and Report.
By a paradox—because it is a paradox, which I do not wholly understand—the main controversy in public has been about this second matter. I do not know myself why this should have been the
1562
case. My own opinion, which I did not attempt to conceal from the House on Second Reading, is that the question relating to rights of audience is of greater immediate practical importance and logically a question which has to be discussed first, as it has already been discussed to-day. Each problem has to be seen in the light of the other and each needs some separate discussion. But in one respect relevant to this Amendment the problems are different. The right of audience is now discretionary in the Lord Chancellor as the result of what we have done to Clause 12. It never has been so discretionary before. The right of appointment to the Bench, which belongs to the Crown, has always been discretionary and has always been exercised on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, or in the case of the highest Judicial offices, the Prime Minister. That will still be the case in what ever form Clause 16 emerges from this House.
What we are now discussing are the legal qualifications for eligibility to the Circuit Bench. The qualification for eligibility to the county court bench—its predecessor—has always been seven years' practice at the Bar. The higher standing of the new Circuit judges is reflected in the more stringent requirement of 10 years' practice contained in the present text of the Bill. I do not suppose that the particular qualification will necessarily make a great deal of difference to actual appointments. If I may give an example rather nearer home, I do not think that any legal qualification is necessary to be Lord Chancellor. Notoriously, bishops who have never been lawyers, and deans who have never been lawyers, have been sitting on the Woolsack in the past—I think the last was Lord Keeper Williams in the 17th century—and sometimes I think even laymen have held this position. But I suppose something ought to be written into this Bill as it has been in previous County Courts Acts and in Judicature Acts.
As I said on Second Reading, my original principle in framing the Bill was to maintain the status quo with matters not essential to the radical reforms which the Bill proposes. But as the debate proceeded I became more and more conscious that I had been guilty of at least one inconsistency which orginally I had

1563
thought of as immaterial, which I now do not think is immaterial and which I now seek to put right. As matters stand—that is, before the passage of this Bill—solicitors can be qualified and paid chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions, though they cannot be recorders of boroughs. They cannot, unless the Bill is amended, be the new part-time judges christened "Recorders" by Clause 21. Although these judges are christened Recorders, they are really something quite different. It could therefore be reasonably argued that I had not maintained the status quo but actually moved it against the solicitors, and to their detriment.
I therefore suggested to the meeting that I held that, at least in the interests of consistency, I ought to offer Recorder-ships to the solicitors' profession. It was then pointed out to me by one of the representatives of the Law Society that, if I did so, I would have the opportunity of opening up the Circuit Bench itself to solicitors, without any of the dangers and disadvantages which I had foreseen on Second Reading and without the necessity of the solicitor transferring to the Bar with all the potential insecurity which such a transfer would involve. I would then be able to appoint mature solicitors who had had experience with juries and had proved themselves in a judicial capacity. I found this argument attractive, and I hope the House will find it attractive, too, for it is the genesis of the present Amendments. If these Amendments are accepted, solicitors will be eligible for the Recordership and, after five years of part-time judicial experience, they will be eligible for full whole-time and pensionable membership of the Circuit Bench.
For the reasons indicated on Second Reading, I do not expect a long queue of suitable applicants, but I realise that more than practical advantage is at stake here. As has been indicated more than once, solicitors are sensitive to what they regard as partly a slur upon the standing of their profession. I do not myself feel that this feeling is justified. The solicitors' profession has long since risen to the ranks of the top professional qualifications, equal to any other in the land—the Bar, the surgeon or the Prelate—in the estimation of the public. But the matter has significance, and if there
1564
is a supply of suitable candidates to be got by this road I shall be only too happy to avail myself of it. I still think that if in early life a solicitor harbours judicial ambitions he would probably be wise to transfer to the Bar, just as, I may say, one of my most distinguished pupils, realising that advice and not advocacy was his forte, transferred to the solicitors' branch of the profession and is now a senior partner in one of the most eminent of London firms of solicitors, and, on the appointment of my predecessor, represents his profession on some of the most important legal committees in the land.
But, my Lords, I can put forward these Amendments as genuine improvements to the Bill, and if they add to the harmony of the legal profession they will do more than serve their purpose in the short term. If, in addition, they serve to create a new supply of suitable judges to an already pre-eminently distinguished Bench, they will also justify themselves as a permanent addition in our legal system. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment and I trust that the House will accept it. I daresay some solicitors will say that this is a back-door way of entry, but I have been long enough in your Lordships' House now to have learned the lesson that when you can get the substance you should not go chasing shadows. Here is a way in which solicitors can become eligible for appointment as Circuit judges. It is a way in which probably, if my Amendment had been accepted, one would have expected the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to proceed in the first instance in order to find out who the candidates were and whether they were willing, and I hope very much that acceptance of this Amendment will go a long way towards assuaging certain of the difficult feelings to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred in the earlier part of the debate.
5.1 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, in discussing this Amendment it is obviously convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 15 which, associated with it, will produce the result the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack desires to effect.

1565
The first thing I wish to say is that on any compromise one must not expect to achieve all that one set out to do. The effect of a compromise is that part of what you want you do not get; but so far as this compromise is concerned I am satisfied with it. I think it meets both points of view: it allays the groundless anxieties of a number of people who think that solicitors would only be qualified to carry out high judicial office if they had had a probationary period as recorders. I am only too pleased that that should take place, and I believe that after a while the quality of the solicitors who are appointed will amply demonstrate the wisdom of the course that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has adopted.
I will also say this in relation to the Lord Chancellor: I do not believe that making this compromise was easy for him, and in my view it is greatly to his credit that he has decided that in the interests of harmony and of maintaining a proper relationship between the two professions he is prepared to make a concession about which I know he has had grave personal misgivings. On that account I thank him; and I thank him not only on behalf of solicitors but also on behalf of the general public, whose interests I believe will be served in this way.
There are one or two other observations which I think it is pertinent to make. The extent to which the Amendment will be of value to the public and to the administration of justice depends upon the use that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes of it. I hope he will not take it amiss if I remind him of one or two things that he said during the period of high controversy and that he may perhaps, like myself, regard as more appropriate for immurement for all time. He said that he wondered why solicitors regarded themselves as eligible for appointment, since they had always been eligible for appointment as chairmen of quarter sessions and as deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. As only two of them had ever been appointed he took this as an argument that they were not specialty qualified. I venture to think that that again is rather a remarkable argument: only two of them were appointed because only two were invited.
1566
In fact, what he was saying is that because they had not been appointed, therefore they were ineligible.
I believe I am right in saying that not a single solicitor Member of this House—and there are some extremely distinguished solicitors in your Lordships' House—has ever been invited to be either a chairman or a deputy chairman of quarter sessions. I make that observation not in order to revive controversy but because I think it has high relevance to the question of who is appointed in the future. I think he must make himself acquainted with the field that is available, and I hope he will bear in mind that the Lord Chancellor is—and again I do not say this critically; it is almost inevitable—nearly always a Metropolitan animal. Much of what has been said about the solicitor's profession of which a great deal is true, relates exclusively to London and not to the profession throughout the country. An immense amount of advocacy is carried out by solicitors all over the country. If one reviews the situation since undefended divorce became triable in county courts one finds, so I am told, that much more than 50 per cent. of all undefended divorce cases are now conducted by solicitors, and obviously conducted satisfactorily.
I believe the Lord Chancellor will make available to himself a very rich human pool which will greatly improve the quality of the Judiciary because it will make available a number of people who are not only learned in the law, not only learned in advocacy, but people who, on the whole, have much better contacts with ordinary human beings, because the nature of barristerial activities often debars that. Although, on the face of it, this is only a slight change, in my view it is an important one that will lead to great benefits.
The other thing I should like to say is this. I abstained, and continue to abstain, from any references to fusion, because that was not the issue in this case. This proposal is not to be taken as remotely any advance towards fusion. I do not believe that this change is an advance towards fusion; and since it would be unfair that anyone should have regarded the intention to make these proposals in the light of possible fusion, I wish to say emphatically that it was never my intention to advance the cause

1567
of fusion by making the proposals that I made in this matter.
Certain references were made that I think it would be wrong to leave on the record without some comment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the course of a speech made a number of observations as to the possible awful consequences that might ensue as a result of this change and other changes connected with increasing the area of advocacy by solicitors. I do not know whether the House was impressed by those observations. It is a sad fact that a man of his outstanding distinction should have that particular blind spot. I would only say to the House that if the awful consequences that he apprehended come about, then I and my colleagues here to-day who have advocated these changes will have a most awful burden of responsibility on our shoulders. But I do not believe that the Bench or the Bar or solicitors will be debauched as a result of these changes; I do not believe that we shall see witnesses suborned by judges all over the place. Those apprehensions are totally fanciful.
I believe that what has been brought about to-day will effect a great improvement, and particularly in the general atmosphere between the two professions. I confidently believe that one day—it may be 100 years hence, it may be 50 years hence, it may be 20 years hence—there will be a review of the whole professional relationship in this country. I hope that will come speedily. I do not think any solicitor here to-day is very strongly associated with me, although I believe my noble friend Lord Fletcher has expressed the view that on the whole his bias is towards change. Whether or not that comes about, it is imperative that until it does the two professions should operate in total harmony. In so far as some discord, some differences of view, have been introduced by the discussions which have taken place, I hope the attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the ready reception of his proposals by solicitors, will go a long way to put it right.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what I regard as a very statesmanlike suggestion on his part. I do this particularly because for years past, as possibly
1568
he will remember, when he was here in another capacity I tried to get his predecessors to accept the idea of solicitors becoming judges of the county court. I failed, although I had some support from eminent judges who are members of your Lordships' House. So it is particularly satisfactory to me that at this stage the Lord Chancellor should have taken this step.
So far as I am concerned, I am not an applicant and I shall not trouble him with my qualifications, such as they are, but I want to reinforce the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in two respects. First, I think, as he says, that the Lord Chancellor, because of his position and previous experience, is probably more concerned with the London scene than he is with the scene outside London. After all, the man who becomes a judge inevitably has been a silk and therefore has practised under the Lord Chancellor's eye, so to speak, in London. So far as my own country, Wales, is concerned, I am sure we could put up a number of distinguished solicitors who in time would be eligible for appointment as recorders. Therefore perhaps his net could be extended a little more widely—I mean not only his net so far as the "fish" are concerned (that is, to catch possible solicitors as judges) but also his net to catch those who would advise the Lord Chancellor on who are eligible. Many of us know such people. Take Wales, for example; it is quite a small country and we know practically everybody who is likely to be in this particular field. I am certain that several of us could, without any difficulty, put up names to him.
The other point on which I wanted to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was that regarding fusion. I am a fused animal in a sense, because I am a solicitors in this country and I am still a member of two Bars in Commonwealth countries, Malaysia and Nigeria, where the professions are fused. For many years I practised in what was then the Straits Settlements, now part of Malaysia, as barrister and solicitor. In fact so far as I was concerned, although I am a solicitor in this country, I practised as a barrister in the Straits Settlements. By a curious chance, the leading advocates at the Straits Settlements Bar, who also generally appeared in the States up country, were solicitors, not barristers. There is a

1569
reason for that which I need not go into, but it disproves any suggestion that solicitors do not make good advocates. As a result, many of the judges had been solicitors, because they were appointed from the local Bars.
I should like it to go on the Record that I do not think the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had any great weight, because quite frankly they had not. As I say, I practised for years in a fused profession, and although there are difficulties about fusion the noble and learned Lord did not mention any of them—and those he did mention were not difficulties. On the whole, I think that in time to come there will be a fused profession in this country. You will still want specialists, of course.
I gave evidence myself before the Ormrod Committee, which I hope will report fairly soon—I have not heard anything about it lately. I suggested one system of legal education and examinations, after which you would have one profession, as in the medical profession, but some of them would become specialists. That in fact is what happened to a large extent in Malaya. And if you wanted to take in a man from another firm, if it was necessary, you did so. Your clients never went to him afterwards.
I remember that in one important case I was acting as junior counsel in a case in which we sued the Government—you could sue the Government in Malaya long before you could here. We sued them because the "Rajputana" coming into Penang had run down a junk. We sued the Government in tort. I appeared in the High Court. When we went to the Court of Appeal we took in as leading counsel a senior member of another firm in the same place. So there is no difficulty about that. We did not think that the steamship companies who were our clients would ever go to him, nor did they; there was no jealousy on that account at all. So I think that we need not be too worried about the allegations or criticisms of those who have never experienced this particular form of legal organisation. I am quite certain that in time to come some such form will arise in this country.
With those few words, I should like once again to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I hope that what he is now doing will have great
1570
success in, as he put it, providing the flexibility which is so needed in our legal administration in this country.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I say a word in reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said? I had an experience in America—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, are we discussing fusion? Fusion is not the subject of an Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if your Lordships do not want me to speak, I will not, but I was going to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. This Amendment is all right, but I hope that it does not end in fusion, because I think that would be a bad thing for this country. I will not give my reasons, as your Lordships apparently do not want to hear them, but it was an experience that certainly impressed me a great deal. If your Lordships do not want to hear it, I will not give it.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, as in the case of the previous group of Amendments, while not very happy about these Amendments, I hope that the House will accept the proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If I may explain why I am not happy about them, it is simply for this reason. With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think it is quite right to raise the question of fusion, because I am passionately convinced that the people of this country have an inestimable advantage in having a divided legal profession. I will not repeat what I said in Committee, or the graphic picture painted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States about the appalling disadvantages of their fused system.
But you cannot have a divided profession without a dividing line. The Bar accept that they can have no dealings whatever direct with the client; that they must not see the client unless the solicitor is present; that they cannot make any financial arrangements with the client; they may not, even if they are clerk to a local authority, do any conveyancing, which may effectively stop them being so appointed. They may not see any witness except the client and

1571
expert witnesses. They may not become a director of their client companies. On the other side of the dividing line, there is nothing except rights of audience in the higher courts and eligibility for High Court and Crown Court judgeships—nothing else at all. For some years now that side of the line has been gradually moving and disappearing.
What troubles me is that unless we bear this carefully in mind we may find that we have fusion without the advantages or disadvantages ever being discussed. We must be quite clear in our minds that if High Court advocacy and eligibility for High Court judgeships go, there is no possible object whatever in anybody being a barrister. All lawyers would be solicitors and could do everything. I am sorry to stand here, in a sense, wearing the mantle of Cassandra, but I think it is a point which is vital to the future of our legal profession, and I hope that it will always be borne in mind on this sort of question.
LORD FLETCHER: My Lords, I am not sufficiently familiar with the rules of your Lordships' House to know whether it is in order, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, questioned, to discuss fusion, but I observe that both the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner have referred to the subject of fusion. That is not the reason why I rose. I really rose to support some of the observations of my noble friend Lord Goodman, and I do so because the main question we are discussing on these Amendments is one to which I referred in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much I welcome the corn-promise which has been arrived at as a result of the discussions which have taken place since Second Reading.
I regard the solution which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has proposed to the House as being, if I may say so with respect, of eminent wisdom and common sense. I think it gives the solicitors' branch of the profession all the satisfaction that they require, both as regards the status of the profession, and as providing an adequate opportunity for those solicitors who are eligible and qualified by their attainments and experience
1572
for judicial office to be appointed to Circuit judgeships. And I observe that it goes even further, because by reason of the operation of Clause 23 of the Bill, as I understand it once a person has been appointed a Circuit judge he will be eligible to act, on the request of the Lord Chancellor, as a judge of the High Court, which I think is something which will be appreciated. For myself, if I may say so parenthetically—I am sure my noble friend Lord Goodman will agree, but I am sure some of the noble and learned Law Lords sitting here will not—I look forward to the day when a solicitor who happens to be a Privy Counsellor can also be qualified to sit on a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
On the question of fusion, because of the remarks that have fallen from my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I am tempted to say that I thought his observations made it more necessary than ever that the Lord Chancellor should give serious consideration to the proposal, which was put forward by myself and a number of my colleagues who sat on the Evershed Committee some years ago, that the time is really ripe when a Commission—perhaps a Royal Commission, but at any rate some suitable Commission of Inquiry—should be set up to consider the whole question of the Judiciary. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, could put his point of view, and others could put their point of view.
But it is no use blinking the fact that there is a substantial body of opinion in in this country which thinks that, however admirable our present system of the legal profession, divided as it is, may be, nevertheless there could be advantages in the public interest if there were some change in the present situation. That does not mean necessarily in the direction of fusion, but perhaps in the direction of a modification of the present rigidity and in the interests of providing more flexibility, and with the object of removing what in a great number of cases must be the inconvenience and undue expense to the public of being compelled, without any necessary advantages to the clients, to consult and pay for the advice of both a solicitor and a barrister, when they could equally well be served without having to submit to that necessity. Therefore, without expressing any final questions or views on the subject, I would

1573
repeat the plea that I have made on a number of previous occasions, that this is a subject which is now overripe for discussion by some independent body, preferably constituted by a predominance of laity.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say that I, for one, think that the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor are reasonable and right, and give him the measure of flexibility that is desirable. The reason why I interrupted the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was because we really are not discussing fusion in this Amendment; we are on the Report stage of a Bill, and we are discussing whether solicitors can be appointed as recorders. When the time comes to discuss fusion, as has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, there will be those who take and can express powerful arguments against it, in what they believe to be the public interest.
I am rather sorry that fusion has been introduced into this debate, because it is a very controversial subject. We were proceeding with great harmony, and I was hoping for increased harmony between both sides of the profession. I well remember the reaction years ago, to the practice that then existed, of solicitors, of non-practising barristers in local government services doing conveyancing. I think the dispute was then called a demarcation dispute. I cannot remember. But I do remember that the Bar gave way upon that point. I think it would be much better rather than discussing the difficult question of fusion here to-day, to let that rest and to get on with this Bill.
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I should like to say two or three things in answer to what I seem to remember was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. In the first place, I should like to thank all noble Lords for the various kindly remarks made about myself. I have sincerely applied my mind to this problem, and I thought that this was the best way of achieving a just result. It was also based upon a logical principle which did not involve wider implications than those which I desired
1574
to raise. In particular, it did not, and I hope it will not be thought that it did, raise the question of fusion at all.
But I should like to say one thing about the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, without lifting the veil too much over the mystery of judicial appointments. Judicial appointments are probably, day-to-day, by far the most difficult work which a Lord Chancellor has to undertake, and probably the most responsible; because if you once get a bad judge you cannot get rid of him, and he can do an infinite amount of harm during quite a long judicial life, Therefore an enormous amount of expertise on the part of the Lord Chancellor's advisers takes place in selecting suitable judges. Of course, in principle—and the higher you go the easier in that sense it is—a Lord Chancellor knows the leading members of the Bar himself, most of them by their Christian names, often as fellow Benchers of his Inn; and those of them he does not know, he can very easily find out about owing to the very close discipline and fellowship which exists in the barristers' profession. If you once embark upon the course upon which I have embarked, even to the limited extent to which I have, that advantage disappears. Moreover, it is difficult to compare a solicitor with the kind of references a solicitor will have, with a barrister with the kind of references which will be available to him.
What I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and through the House to the solicitors' profession, was this. Of course in principle a Lord Chancellor can let out his fishing line into the sea, or he can hunt the coverts, or do whatever you do, to see whether he can find a suitable number of solicitors or barristers to be judges. Up to a point, in the higher reaches of the profession that is exactly what he does. He knows what he wants and he finds it, and he knows where to find it. If he wants a good patent lawyer, he knows where to go. But you would be surprised how many people ask, although I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would be a bit surprised.
If you are dealing with a wider range of applicants or potential talent for recorderships (which are the equivalent of chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter

1575
sessions) then they must not assume that they will be noticed unless some responsible body brings their name to the attention of those who may be looking. When you are dealing with the Bar you are dealing with a profession of 2,500 people plus—2,584, and it is going up fairly fast. But when you are dealing with solicitors you are dealing with 20,000 plus, which is a different order of magnitude, and an altogether different problem of selection is involved.
Therefore, I say to these solicitors of this country who may contemplate an appointment of this kind that they must not necessarily assume that the Lord Chancellor will notice them unless they bring themselves, with a suitable series of references, preferably accompanied by a reference from a judge who has seen them work, to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and then investigations can be made. But to keep the kind of separate records about 20,000 people, on the scale which is now kept by the Lord Chancellor's Department about every barrister of ten years' call, is utterly out of the question. It presents practical difficulties, and I hope that the noble Lord will bear this in mind and bring it to the attention of those with whom he is in contact.
The last thing I wanted to do was to argue the question of fusion at all; but I must say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about it. I believe that the difficulty about advocacy is that nobody can see the sleight of hand that it involves. You cannot see an efficient advocate at work unless you yourself are an efficient advocate. In fused professions there are many people who can win the confidence of lay clients by their qualities, which are no doubt most agreeable, but they waste a lot of time and money of their clients both in the courts and thereafter. Even if they win their case, they take about six times as long in doing it, and that costs everybody money.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was greeted with derision by some Members of this House, when he said that, quite apart from the question of ethics and integrity, which are very real facets of the matter, an important American lawyer was quoted as saying that four judges in London did the work
1576
of 30 in New York, and that the figures for Germany were even more startling. The reason for that is because Bench and Bar have an expertise which no other country has. When the time comes to argue fusion, I hope that the House will not throw it away in a fit of enthusiasm, because I will not be on their side if they do. All I am saying is that I have done my best to solve this particular dispute, and I am very grateful for the way my efforts have been received.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Pensions of Circuit judges]:
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 18, after ("of") insert ("the Lord Chancellor and").
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved on Committee and which had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. When one looks at Clause 18 of this Bill one sees that the Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine what salary shall be paid to a Circuit judge, and in subsection (5) that the judges will get
"such allowances as the Lord Chancellor may with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service determine".
Then in Clause 19,
"the Lord Chancellor may from time to time recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service …"
All that language is no doubt very carefully chosen.
However, one then sees in subsection (2) how the service is to be calculated. The point I raise is in connection with subsection (7), where it is said,
"The decision of the Minister for the Civil Service shall he 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."

So far as I can see, that is the only place where the Lord Chancellor is excluded. As I said in Committee, I feel it is wrong that the Lord Chancellor should be excluded. Therefore, I propose that

1577
subsection (7) should read, with the insertion of the words "the Lord Chancellor and":
"The decision of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for the Civil Service shall be final on any question …"
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor (he did not describe it as "weighty pressure" but perhaps he might have done so) said:
"I think I must agree to consider this Amendment before Report."
Then he said,
"…with the leave of the Committee I will take this back and consider it again before the Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/12/1970; col. 737.]
The noble and learned Lord has not tabled an Amendment to deal with the matter. I hope the pressure, plus the consideration, has been sufficient for him to be able to say that at this late stage and hour he will accept the Amendment without any further debate.
I think it is right that the Lord Chancellor, whom I described on the last occasion as the father of both professions—and then the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, rather astonishingly is reported in Hansard as having described the noble and learned Lord Chancellor as "a young father"—should certainly be a party to the final determination of this question, and it should not be left solely to the final decision of the Minister for the Civil Service. Unless the Lord Chancellor is a party to the decision, it seems to me that the line of distinction between the Executive and the Judiciary, which is well worth preserving, is going to get somewhat blurred. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in spite of paternity and pressure, both of which I find agreeable on occasion, I must, I fear, disappoint my noble and learned friend. I have done what I promised to do, which was to take this proposal back and consult colleagues and advisers, but I am sorry to say that I still come up with the same answer. The Bill, as it stands, in both the branches the noble and learned Viscount referred to, preserves the status quo of the role of the Treasury. The Civil Service Department (which is not very happily named in some ways; it ought to be
1578
"Public Service Department") is the residuary legatee of the old functions of the Treasury as provided by the old Acts, the County Courts Act and so forth. The Bill simply perpetuates that. No new constitutional principle is involved.
The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would be resisted on three broad arguments. I do not want to weary the House with them at any length at this hour. The first is that the Amendment is in fact contrary, in a sense, to the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility, because it is unthinkable, in the present machinery of government, that any decision of this kind could be taken without the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. There would have to be consultation and concurrence in relation to the pensions of judges. The second argument is that the Amendment, if it were written into the Bill, could, at least in theory, produce deadlock. The noble and learned Viscount said nothing about what happens if the Lord Chancellor does not concur with the Civil Service Department. The third reason is, and I think it is a sound one, that it breaks with a precedent which has existed certainly for the past fifty years and has, so far as I know, never produced any difficulty.
I have reflected about this matter with as open a mind as I can summon to a subject in which I confess myself not particularly well versed. I have consulted with colleagues, and I have consulted between advisers, and the answer I come up with is an answer which is disappointing to my noble and learned friend. I am sorry to say this, but the answer is still what it was on Committee stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that is an answer that we did not get on the Committee stage, because the noble and learned Lord merely said that he would look into the matter. I have listened with great care to what my noble and learned friend said. I thought his first two reasons were mutually contradictory. First of all, he seemed to argue that it was quite unnecessary to mention the Lord Chancellor because of the collective Cabinet responsibility which he would have with the Minister for the Civil Service. Then he put forward the other argument, that the Amendment did not resolve the difficulty, as the Minister

1579
for the Civil Service and the Lord Chancellor might disagree. What about collective responsibility in that case? The third argument is perhaps the best: that it has worked all right up until now and there is no reason why it will not work all right in the future By tabling this Amendment again, we have had the benefit of my noble and learned friend's cogitations. I certainly do not propose to press the Amendment at this time, but I am glad to hear that he will continue to exercise a beneficial influence on the Minister for the Civil Service. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Appointment of Recorders]:
5.39 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 20, after ("barrister") insert ("or solicitor")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you need not be apprehensive that you are about to have a second speech from me. This is the Amendment that enables solicitors to become recorders and enables them thereafter, if they bring themselves sufficiently to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, after five years' service possibly to become judges. It is of course the crucial part of the agreement that has been reached. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Temporary High Court and Circuit judges]:
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("to do so") and insert ("as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this subsection")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne at the Committee stage. He raised various points about the provision for temporary judges, and this Amendment is to bring out the purely temporary nature of their appointment. I have no doubt that they will probably be called "commissioners" in the same way as they have always been called "commissioners" in the past, just as the Old
1580
Bailey continues to be called the "Old Bailey" when for more than a hundred years it has been known as the "Central Criminal Court."
But I do not feel it appropriate to accept my noble and learned friend's suggestion that the word "commissioner" should be written into the Bill. I still think that you cannot have a commissioner unless you have a commission, and one of the main objects of the Bill is to destroy the commission. I realise that from one point of view I am being inconsistent about this. I made fun of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for complaining that the Common Serjeant was neither common nor a serjeant, but I think he has gone on so long and to upset him would cause so much trouble, that one can let that particular sleeping dog repose in such peace as his judicial appointment gives him. But I really do not think one should start by writing into the Bill a new set of solecisms and, therefore, I could not go so far as my noble and learned friend went on the Committee stage. But I hope that what I have said will show that I have given genuine consideration to what he said, and that I have tried to meet the difficulty which he feels. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for going as far as he has gone, because to my mind this Amendment emphasises—and rightly emphasises—the temporary nature of the appointment. But the noble and learned Lord has really gone further than speaking to this Amendment. He has made his reply to an Amendment which is in my name, and which so far I have not moved, so that in a sense I am forewarned as to what he would say were I to move that Amendment. It might be to the convenience of the House if I said now what I would say if I were moving that Amendment, and then it may not prove necessary for rue to do so.
I think it is a pity, if no distinction is drawn in the description of High Court judges, if in future we have people who are permanent High Court judges and people who are temporary High Court judges, who will, if I understand correctly, at least when they are sitting judicially, all be referred to as High Court

1581
judges. In the court lists and in the papers, while they are sitting, they will all be High Court judges and, I imagine, so referred to. It is a pity if the present status and permanence of the High Court judges is in any way impaired. I shall not dilate upon that. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows that I have certain fears in that connection.
Therefore, I think it advisable and desirable that, if possible, some name should be given to those who are appointed to these temporary positions to act temporarily as High Court judges. Heretofore, they have always been referred to as "commissioners", which has been well recognised. Of course, that name derives from the fact that they were appointed under the Commission of Assize, and it is quite true that the Commission of Assize will go. But I do not think that that is really a valid argument for not giving them the name "commissioners". After all, under this Bill we are going to have recorders, although the recorders of boroughs are being abolished; and I must admit that I am entirely ignorant of what a recorder has ever recorded. So there is nothing so very anomalous.
I hope I am not treading on the toes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, by saying that the Common Serjeant is well recognised. There are no uncommon Serjeants. But we are used to these various names, and I think that some name is desirable. If I cannot sell the name "commissioners" to the Lord Chancellor—he said before I spoke that he would not accept it, though some Lord Chancellors have second thoughts—but he will say that he will give further consideration to the matter, then I shall welcome that. Perhaps he will say that he will find some other name. When he spoke in Committee he said,
"I am quite prepared to think of another name for them."
May I put forward the suggestion that they should be given the name, "Assistant judges of the High Court"? I should be quite happy.
I leave it to the Lord Chancellor to choose what name he thinks most appropriate. I prefer "commissioners", because that is a name by which those acting temporarily as High Court judges
1582
have for so long been known. But if he prefers "Assistant judges of the High Court", I shall be quite content. All I am concerned to see is that the distinction is preserved between the High Court judges who are permanent and those who are not. I have said my piece on this. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make some encouraging response, so that I need not move the Amendment which raises this issue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I certainly will think of alternative names. I certainly will consider "Assistant judges "or" Acting judges", or any other name that may be suggested by ingenious Members of your Lordships' House, and if I feel that I can accept any one of them I will certainly do so.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock has just informed me that in Australia they are referred to as "Acting judges".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps: they can have acting rank as I had during the war, or local and temporary rank. But I am quite happy to consider this in the spirit in which it is suggested. I should not like to accept it ex improviso.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say that the expression "Acting judge" very much appeals to me?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very much obliged, my Lords. We seem to be moving towards a consensus. But if I may reflect deeply upon this and see whether it needs to be written into the Bill, I will do so. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have made suggestions.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("to be a temporary") and insert ("a Commissioner to act temporarily as a")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of what he would do should my Amendment be moved, and assuming

1583
that he will do it without my Amendment being moved, I do not propose to move it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18, which is of the same complex and is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("to do so") and insert ("as a temporary measure to make an appointment under this subsection").—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of accommodation]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 31 after ("State") insert ("for the Environment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope I am not being too optimistic in thinking that, as the next four Amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could only have effect as being consequential on No. 19, that is an indication that he proposes to accept my Amendment. In those circumstances, I propose to say practically nothing. Your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage I moved a similar Amendment. It is based on the view that, where possible, Acts of Parliament should say what they mean, so that educated people reading them can understand them, and that if you are referring to a Minister you should say which Minister you are talking about. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is perfectly right. I intend to accept this Amendment, with gratitude that he should have proposed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20, which is consequential on the last one.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("said Secretary of State").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may now move Amendments
1584
Nos. 21 and 22 together, because they are both consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("said Minister's duties") and insert ("duties of the said Secretary of State").
Page 21, line 1 after ("State") insert ("for the Environment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("of") insert ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [The ballot, and swearing of jurors]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 24, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"(7) Proviso (b) to section 1 of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 (under which a judge may order that a jury be composed of men only or of women only) shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, may I also speak to Amendment No. 34? This Amendment is based on the view that, although we are only continuing existing law, in a new Act in 1970 we should not enact a law based on an assumption that there are cases which either men as men are not fit to hear, or women as women are not fit to hear. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us on the Committee stage, these one-sex juries have been ordered on only three occasions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On four occasions.
LORD GARDINER: And it looks, from the nature of those cases, as if, on any view, they were in each instance wrong. I cannot think it right that in these days we should continue to have such a law. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. Probably I should have been in favour of letting this provision wither

1585
rather than be killed. There are three reported decisions and, I think, a number of unreported cases. Of the three reported decisions, two were obviously wrong and the third was arguably right, because it was ordered at the request of the defence. But, having regard to the expressed view of the Committee at the Committee stage, I have decided to advise the House to accept this Amendment. This is probably the better course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
Clerk to Magistrates Courts' Committee
" . Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule IV to the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall be amended by inserting after the words 'shall also appoint a' the words 'Justices' Clerk to be the'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Merthyr and myself. May I be allowed to offer an apology to your Lordships for what happened at the Committee stage? This same Amendment was tabled for the Committee stage, but it so happened that on that day (a week ago last Thursday) both Lord Merthyr and I were not well and, without either of us knowing about that, we expected that the other would be moving the Amendment. I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner for his effort that evening to keep the Amendment alive, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the remarks that he passed about it, although he said that he hoped that what he was saying would encourage Lord Merthyr and myself not to move it on the Report stage. I am sorry I cannot agree to that course, because both of us feel strongly about this Amendment.
It may well be that we are now approaching a completely different subject—indeed we are—from anything which has been discussed so far on Report stage, or even previously on the Committee stage; and it may be that the Amendment I am now moving does not seem to have the same amount of importance as the matters which we have already
1586
discussed. But in view of the fact that the magistrates' courts of Britain try something in excess of 90 per cent. of the total number of cases coming before the courts, it might be wise that we should consider anything that can be done to improve the administration of those courts—and that, I claim, is the purpose of this Amendment. If it were carried, paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 4 of the 1949 Justices of the Peace Act would read as follows:
"A magistrates' courts committee shall appoint one of the members to be chairman of the committee and, subject to the following sub-paragraph, shall also appoint a Justices' Clerk to be the clerk to the committee and may appoint such other officers … as the Secretary of State may approve".
My Lords, if the Bill goes through as now drafted, the position in all the counties of Britain with the exception of Rutland (and, obviously, there are reasons for that, because it is the smallest county) will be that a magistrates' courts committee may appoint anyone to be their clerk. Usually the county clerk or the clerk of the peace occupies that position, and more often than not they are the same person. But in the case of the boroughs the justices' clerk is ex officio clerk to the magistrates' courts committee, and this Amendment seeks to put the counties in line with the boroughs.
In his speech last week the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that this might be done by persuasion instead of by putting it into the Bill. With deep respect, I suggest to him that that would be a very ragged arrangement. One or the other must apply; and I cannot for the life of me think that it would be advisable to leave it entirely to persuasion. I want to tell your Lordships why I think both should be dealt with in the way in which we deal with the boroughs. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was wrong to fetter the committee's choice. In that sense, he means the magistrates' courts committees of the counties. But, again with respect, I would say to him that in the case of the boroughs this fettering, as the noble and learned Lord called it, has applied since 1949, and it has been a fettering which has been a very great success since then. I have not heard or read of any complaints or criticisms of that system or any suggestion that it has not been a success in the boroughs.
To my mind, no one can be as capable of understanding the problems of a magistrates' courts committee or of a bench of magistrates as the clerk to that particular bench, and he, I believe, should act as their executive officer. Justices' clerks are in daily contact with the system. They are professionally involved, and they are therefore much more aware of its effects than either the lay justices or the council clerks. My noble friend Lady Wootton, in a small intervention made at the same time as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was speaking about this question, suggested that if this Amendment were carried county magistrates' courts committees would have to change their clerk. As those clerks are invariably the chief officers of a county council, is my noble friend suggesting that they are so unoccupied that they must have a multiplicity of jobs, including the job of clerk to the magistrates' courts committee? I should have thought that a responsible, important officer like the clerk to the county council had quite enough to do to look after the affairs of that county council, without coming in on the work of magistrates' courts committees.
It has been suggested to me outside this Chamber that clerks to the counties have an influence with the county councils, the local authorities, which no clerk to the justices could possibly have. I would criticise that suggestion as being a very unfair commentary on the county councillors' ability to judge on merit cases put to them by magistrates' courts committees. It is a bad thing for the administration of justice in this country if what is done for benches of magistrates in a physical sense, in the way of provision of buildings and the like, depends on the influence of the man who happens to be the clerk at that time. In my 30 years as a magistrate I have not found any difficulty arising from the presentation by the clerk to the magistrates' committee of his case to the local authorities. I believe that what happens in the boroughs in that respect could happen in the counties, but if the clerk to the council was the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee there could be divided loyalties, and that would not be conducive to good administration.
The 1949 Act introduced a new system leading to—I hope that I am not putting
1588
it too high—the independence of the Judiciary from the undue influence of the Executive. In the course of my magisterial life I have always been very concerned about any fusion—we have been using that word a lot to-day—between the Executive and the Judiciary. It is for this reason that I have always suggested in Standing Committees in another place that magistrates should not sit in the police authorities of our country. I believe that they should be completely apart and should have nothing to do with the administration of the police.
It is that principle that I am now adopting on matters like the provision of court houses. My mind goes back to an experience in Brighton when we had to erect new law courts. I remember how the local authorities came forward with plans which were completely inadequate for the needs of the courts of Brighton. The magistrates' clerk, knowing the great needs of the town in that respect, was able to put to the local authorities a strong case on behalf of his magistrates' court committee, to show the need. What would have been the situation had the clerk to the magistrates' courts committee been the town clerk of the borough? It would have been an impossible situation. So the provision of court houses, offices and equipment, the training of staff, the training of new magistrates and the appointment of staff should be determined by the magistrates' courts committee and their clerk as their chief officer. Then the justices' clerk would be the clerk in the counties to the magistrates' courts committee. To me that is logical. I cannot see that there is any better way of doing it.
Before 1949, the clerk of the peace was the clerk to the justices when sitting in sessions; so he then had some claim for an appointment as clerk of the magistrates' courts committee. The present Bill abolishes that office and so severs his connection completely from the justice of the peace. From the time of the passing of the Bill the clerk of the county council will have no direct dealings with the work of the magistrates' courts committees and their courts. I believe that here is an opportunity to create a uniform system in this respect for the boroughs and the counties. I am asking your Lordships to agree that the time has come to

1589
rationalise the position. It may be, referring to what we have already said several times in the course of previous Amendments to-day, that this is another form of demarcation. It may be that there is a slight division between the counties and the boroughs. In the light of what the present Bill does, I believe in putting both under the same heading so that what applies at the moment in the boroughs must apply in the counties. I beg to move.
6.16 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that you will not accept this Amendment. To start with, it is quite out of order, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out at Committee stage. This Bill does not deal with magistrates' clerks at all. My noble friend Lord Royle is very ingeniously riding his hobby-horse into this Bill. I realise that any clause in a Bill which goes through Parliament and receives the Royal Assent becomes part of the law of the land. It is like the famous case of the town clerk at Gloucester who in the General Clauses Bill of Gloucester inserted far down the Bill (I believe it was about Clause No. 189) a provision to the effect that the marriage between the town clerk of Gloucester and his wife was "hereby dissolved". That is a famous story; and in very much the same sort of way, my noble friend Lord Royle is trying to ride his hobby-horse into the Bill.
I ask the House to say that this clause ought not to be put into the Bill. This Bill deals with the higher courts of criminal jurisdiction. The magistrates' courts are good courts, but this is not a Bill concerned with them. It may be that before long there will be a further inquiry into the working of the magistrates' courts. There has not been one for quite a long time. The last was a Royal Commission of which for a short time I was myself a member. As a result of the Commission's Report the excellent Justices of the Peace Act was passed. I think that it is time that we had a look at that, and it may be that this is a matter which should be carefully discussed during the coming years by a Royal Commission, or by some other inquiry into the work of the magistrates' courts. If that were to happen, it
1590
would be a suitable opportunity to put forward this proposal.
Nor do I think this is good on its merits. As I see it, we are introducing a new system. Why start interfering with the position in the courts below? My noble friend said that this works well in the boroughs. That may be so: my experience does not lie in the boroughs. But the present system works very well in the counties, and they are satisfied. The clerk of the peace is the man (in my county, at any rate) whom the justices like to have as the clerk to the magistrates' court. There is a great deal to be said for this in the counties, because in the majority of cases as Lord Royle said, the clerk of the peace is also the clerk to the county council. So, apart from trying to fetter the great counties system in this country and thrust upon them what is done in the boroughs (which I suggest is completely unfair) it would be taking out of their hands a system that they are working and which they like and fettering them in the appointment which they prefer to make. That is wrong.
The present system has the great advantage (on which Lord Royle rather poured cold water) that because the man is the clerk to the county council as well as clerk of the peace, he is in an extraordinarily good position for organising the whole thing. He is in a very much better position than any single justices' clerk throughout the country, because he knows exactly how things work; and he is the obvious person to act as mediator, if need be, between the magistrates' courts committee and the appropriate committees of the county council. This Amendment, I suggest, is an attempt to interfere with a system that is working perfectly well and to thrust on the counties what may be a very good system in the boroughs, though in fact boroughs and counties differ in all sort of ways. I think that the counties would be upset if my noble friend's proposal were accepted, and I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I cannot possibly hope to rival the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Royle on this subject. Indeed, I had no idea that it would lend itself to such flights. I should like to make two points

1591
on a much lower level. My noble friend raised the point that this was a case of the interference of the Executive with the Judiciary. I would respectfully point out that the functions of the magistrates' courts committees are entirely administrative, and therefore the issue does not arise. My second practical point is the one that I made in Committee. If this Amendment is carried, every county in the country except one (which I think is the smallest) would have to remove the holder of this office and appoint somebody else, not necessarily of their own choosing. It may be that the clerk of the peace has too much to do and that some counties may be willing to make a change, but I think that it is an outrageous suggestion that this change should be forced upon them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I had some hand in setting up a magistrates' courts committee in my own county after the passing of the 1952 Act, and I remained chairman until the end of last year. The experience that I had in this respect makes me think, though I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and for the Justices' Clerks Society, that I cannot possibly support this Amendment. I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, have said. I think that we must resist this Amendment on two grounds—first, on the question of principle. As has already been mentioned, we spend a good deal of time paying lip service to the principle that local government bodies should have freedom to manage their own affairs, and then we start whittling away that principle on occasions like this. To my mind, one cannot possibly justify an Amendment like this unless there is reason to believe that things are going wrong. My experience over 16 or 17 years with the clerk of the peace and the county council staff serving the magistrates' court committee has proved that this arrangement is the right one. Nothing ever went wrong, and none of the horrid things the noble Lord suggested might go wrong ever did.
The position in the county with a number of magistrates' courts is quite different from the position in a borough, where the work of the court is concentrated and
1592
where, as likely as not, the court itself is in the town hall. In the county, one is dealing all the time with planning, with the architect, with the treasurer, and everybody else. That is not to say that the magistrates' courts committee do not want the advice of the magistrates' clerk on many occasions. The way we dealt with this in my own county was to have a magistrates' clerk appointed as liaison officer with the clerk of the committee. He attended the committee on all occasions, except when his own salary was in question, and we gained a great deal of benefit from this system. If this system has worked in my county for 17 years, there seems to be no reason why anyone should think that the present position is wrong, and therefore I hope that, so far as counties are concerned, matters will be left as they are.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to say on behalf of the County Councils Association that they are totally opposed to this Amendment, and they also object to the way in which it has been introduced. If the workings of the magistrates' courts committees are to be examined, let them be examined properly and impartially. In my own experience—and I became a member of a magistrates' courts committee at its inception—I found that there was no objection to magistrates. Indeed, most of the members of the magistrates' courts committee appointed by the county were magistrates. There was no question of the Executive having influence over their Judiciary, or anything of that kind.
I feel that there is something more behind this proposal. I think there is a resentment because magistrates have to come to the county or borough for their money, and that this has some bearing on the general question of how the courts are administered. One must realise that in the county, at any rate, the treasurer has an important function, because he must budget for the county, and the county architect and other officers have important functions. It is an advantage to have these officers working together with a clerk of the magistrates' court who is closely associated with them. My own experience is that the system works very well. If there is any evidence that it does not work, that is the time when the law ought to be amended. But it should not be done under this Bill, and not until the

1593
matter has been properly discussed. The Amendment says that a justices' clerk should be appointed but there is nothing to prevent a magistrates' court in a county from appointing a justices' clerk from another county. What would happen in this case, I do not know. Equally, there is the question of what would happen in a county with five or six petty sessional divisions and one justices' clerk has to be appointed. I do not think it would make for the good working which my noble friend Lord Royle thinks it would have. It would be much better to leave things alone until it is shown that they do not work properly.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, this Amendment would curtail the powers of magistrates. We are urged to stand on our own feet, and who should be better fitted to do this than magistrates? I speak as a magistrate and as a county councillor. I have heard the arguments on both sides, and I think that they are irrelevant at this moment and should not be considered at this juncture. I should be very interested in them when our magistrates' court committee next appoints a clerk; that is the time when the argument should be deployed, when the magistrates can decide for themselves, rather than in this House. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support noble Lords who have spoken against this Amendment and I hope that the House will not accept it. The only reason I rise is to stress the important link between the magistrates' courts committee and the county council. Though the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said that this was not important, in my experience, it is most important, for many reasons. For example, the finances for the probation service and other needs have to be provided by the county council. I would say, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that the counties have no wish to be lined up with the boroughs on this matter, though they may on other things. I think that it would be resented very much indeed if this Amendment were inserted into the Bill.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am also against this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Royle has virtually
1594
made this a battle between the magistrates' courts and the county councils. For many years I have had a foot in both camps. For 22 years I was on my county council as chairman of the Finance Committee, chairman of the Council, and on practically everything there was. For 26 years I have been a magistrate for my county. The only sadness about this is that under the law, enacted on the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I have to preside over my Bench to-morrow for the last time under the age limit. My noble friend Lord Royle said that the magistrates' courts committee under the present system would be likely to come under the influence of a man who happens to be clerk to the county council. Under my noble friend's proposal might it not similarly come under the influence of the man who happens to be the justices' clerk?
LORD ROYLE: My noble friend will forgive me, but I did not say any such thing about influence.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I have a note of my noble friend's words at the time. But let me take the argument and not relate it to my noble friend. There has been flowing through his argument the idea that the county council was not the right organisation to have a voice in the control of the magistrates' courts—that is, irrespective of the fact that they provide all the money. I feel that it would not be right to appoint a justices' clerk as clerk to the magistrates' courts committee, because the justices' clerk would naturally have some interest in the remuneration to be paid to justices' clerks. I feel that that would be giving him a personal interest in the affairs of the committee which it would not be proper to impose upon him.
My noble friend also cited the case of the boroughs. As has been pointed out several times, the circumstances in the boroughs and the circumstances in the county are quite different things. A borough will probably have only one court, or perhaps a couple of courts, whereas a county may have 20 or 30. This is a matter that will have to be faced at some time, because under the Bill now before us quarter sessions will ultimately disappear, and therefore clerks of the peace will disappear. While it may be a fact that in many cases a clerk to a county council happens also to be

1595
clerk of the peace, there are many counties—and they are the most important counties—where the clerk of the peace is an officer appointed in his own right, quite independently of the county council.
It may well be that when the Circuit courts come into operation the clerks to the Circuit judges—that is to say, the people who used to be the clerks to quarter sessions—will have to be civil servants. But obviously this is a matter upon which long and intimate negotiations will have to take place, and it is not a matter to be spatchcocked at the last minute in a Bill dealing with something entirely different. This Bill does not deal with magistrates' courts, and it would be dangerous to put this clause in. The county councils, naturally, so long as quarter sessions remain, will have a financial interest in the running of the magistrates' courts. What their position will be when the new system comes into operation, I do not know. But that again is something that will have to be faced, and something about which there will have to be negotiations at a high level. For all these reasons, I sincerely hope that my noble friend's Amendment will not be adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rather suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and to my noble friend Lord Merthyr, in the light of criticisms which I advanced on the Committee stage, that they should not move this Amendment. They were well entitled to disregard my advice. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Royle, may now begin to see that he has not got the sense of the House with him, and that it might be wiser for him to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I know that I have the right of reply, but the hour is getting late and I do not want to take up all the points that have been made. However, I have two or three thoughts at this time. The first is: "God protect me from my friends!" The second is that I have in mind something which no doubt noble Lords will remember—Casabianca:
"The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled."
So far as my supporters are concerned, they have not fled; they seem never to
1596
have existed. My only regret is that my noble friend Lord Merthyr was not here to share the experience with me.
However, I find a little comfort in that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Committee stage that this was a matter which might be part and parcel of new legislation at some time in connection with magistrates' courts. In any case, I cannot handle two of those ivory sticks alone. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Holders of certain existing judicial offices]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
"(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, in any case where—

(a) any such pension or derivative benefit as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above becomes payable to or in respect of any person; and

(b) the period of that person's service which falls to be taken into account in determining the amount of that pension or benefit includes, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, service in any judicial office specified in paragraph 1(2) above,

rules made by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service may make provision for the payment of contributions towards the cost of the super-annuation benefits payable to or in respect of that person by any authority which, before the appointed day, was responsible, directly or indirectly, for meeting the whole or any part of the cost of the superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of former holders of that office.
(3) Rules made under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not require the payment of any contribution in the case of a person who serves at least fifteen completed years as a Circuit judge, disregarding any period of service taken into account by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.
(4) The power to make rules under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is largely a technical Amendment which I foreshadowed on the Committee stage. It deals with contributions to be made towards the cost of superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of a Circuit judge where those benefits were greater than they would otherwise

1597
be because service in one of the judicial offices specified in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule has been treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 as service as a Circuit judge. It provides three sub-paragraphs to follow the latter sub-paragraph on the authority of which the Lord Chancellor will be able to make rules in the form of a Statutory Instrument to secure that in such circumstances a contribution towards the cost of the benefits in question shall be payable by any authority which immediately before the appointed day was responsible directly or indirectly for meeting the whole or any part of the cost of the superannuation. These paragraphs take the place of paragraphs which originally found their place in the Order Paper but were found to be defective, and which I indicated in Committee would be replaced at this stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think I can honestly say to the House, even though I am tempted to say it dishonestly, that all the Amendments which follow from now on are drafting, technical or consequential. If that he so, and if it is the feeling of the House that I may possibly be right, I will either move them formally or en bloc according to the wish of the House. I am moving now Amendment No. 28.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has omitted Amendment No. 27.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I did it dishonestly. I am sorry. I call Amendment No. 27.
Schedule 3 [Premises formerly used for business of abolished courts]:
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 45, line 10, after ("for") insert ("severance or other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will be quite brief. This Amendment is similar to one that I moved in the Committee stage, and which the noble and learned Lord kindly undertook to look at again to see whether the word
1598
"severance" was really necessary. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the consideration which he gave to the Amendments which were designed generally for the protection of local authorities. I am happy to say that they are well satisfied with the assurances given. In the case of this Amendment, I gather that as a result of further discussions the Lord Chancellor's office is satisfied that it is desirable to have the word "severance" in, and on that basis I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord has suggested, I am happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. I think that what I said before is now true.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can move honestly the remaining Amendments en bloc if the House agrees.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, one of the Amendments is in my name, but I am quite content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the one in the name of the noble Lord is an Amendment which I think we agreed on in Committee. The noble Lord has his "the" in the wrong place. But I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the defective drafting of the Bill.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it is not that. It is Amendment No. 34, which is consequential to Amendment No. 24, and I spoke to it when I was dealing with Amendment No. 24.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I can move the remaining Amendments en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Schedule 8, page 64, line 2, leave out paragraph 16.
line 34, at end insert—
"( ) In section 118(1) for the words from the beginning to 'every such officer' substitute

1599
'Each of the officers specified in Part II of Schedule 3 to this Act'."
Schedule 8, page 68, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) In section 13(5)(a) of the said Act after 'High Court' insert the Crown Court '.
( ) In section 16 of the said Act (power of High Court to vary sentence on certiorari proceedings) for references to quarter sessions substitute references to the Crown Court."
Schedule 9, page 73, line 34, column 2, after first ("(1)") insert (", (2)").
Schedule 10, page 77, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) For the purpose of determining the amount of any benefit which becomes payable to or in respect of a contributory employee to whom this paragraph applies and who, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, paid contributions as if his remuneration had not been reduced, the contributory employee shall be treated as having received the remuneration which he would have received but for the reduction referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above."
Schedule 10, page 77, line 48, at end insert—
"( ) section 9(2) of the Local Government (Clerks) Act 1931."
Schedule 11, page 80, line 34, column 3, leave out from ("(1)") to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("the last 'and' in proviso (a) and the whole of proviso (b)")
Schedule 11, page 89, line 24, column 3, after ("to") insert ("judge of")
Schedule 11, page 90, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 8
Schedule 11, page 93, line 21, column 3, after ("118") insert ("(2)")
Schedule 11, page 93, line 21, column 3, leave out line 27.
Schedule 11, page 94, line 39, column 3, at the beginning insert ("Part II of")
Schedule 11, page 97, line 55, column 3, leave out ("paragraphs 11 and 12") and insert ("paragraph 11")
Schedule 11, page 99, column 3, leave out line 21.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of December 10, 1970):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Courts Bill has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Privilege Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass, thanking your Lordships for the help that I have received.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
6.31 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920; and also for Her Most Gracious Message received this day informing the House that by Proclamation Her Majesty has revoked the Proclamation of December 12 declaring that a State of Emergency exists.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

RHODESIA: PRETORIA TALKS
6.32 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the talks being conducted in Pretoria between Her Majesty's Ambassador and Air Vice-Marshal Hawkins, and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I raise this matter at this last opportunity available to me before the Christmas Recess because I think that the Government have an obligation to that loyal and steadfast minority of Europeans in Rhodesia, and to the 5 million Africans, to keep them in touch with the development of the talks in Pretoria which affect so closely their lives and interests.
I call see that, from the point of view of what might be regarded in certain quarters as the crude interests of Her Majesty's Government, there may appear to be tactical advantages in keeping the whole matter of Rhodesia quiet until after the Singapore Conference. It could be argued, I suppose, that that conference is going to take on the character of a ceremonial leave-taking of many of our fellow members of the Commonwealth by Great Britain—in fact, of the Commonwealth in the form which we have known it up to now—prior to our entry into the European Common Market; and that subsequently we shall be free of the pressures exercised on us by Canada, Australia and the Afro-Asians, with regard both to the sale of arms to South Africa and to a settlement with Mr. Smith, irrespective of any previous commitment made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Five Principles.
I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that the Government in general, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, would be party to such a policy, and I know that this can be dismissed out of hand. I assume—and I know that I am right in assuming—that the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, and repeated by the Lord Privy Seal in your Lordships' House quite recently, mean that the determination of Her Majesty's Government is that no settlement should take place outside the spirit and letter of the Five Principles, and that nothing other than that would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
I would therefore draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that since a decision to start the talks in Pretoria was made, the Rhodesian Front régime has published the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill, which carries racial discrimination in Rhodesia nearer to South African policy on race than has ever happened before. This is not an astute bargaining counter for use in future negotiations with Britain, to be withdrawn, in return for some political concession, at a later date. Let me quote from a leader in the Rhodesia Herald of December 9, 1970—only a few days ago. An extract from this leader is as follows:
"The Conservatives' initiative this year—"
1602
that was the initiative to start the negotiations—
"was undertaken ostensibly to find out whether there was a possibility of a settlement in accordance with the Five Principles.
"It still seems reasonable to regard the publication of the draft Bill"—
that is the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill by the Rhodesian régime—
"as underlining the virtual certainty that the Rhodesian Government does not envisage such a settlement".
I am sure that the Herald, which has played a conspicuously courageous and important part during all this long controversy, is right in the conclusions it has reached.
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of Rhodesia knows that the publication of the Bill in question, which is part of the Rhodesian Front Party's philosophy that was demanded by its members at the last Party convention in September of this year and has now been dutifully produced by Mr. Partridge, on behalf of Mr. Smith, is simply another step towards producing the full position of racial discrimination in Rhodesia. Anyone who knows that country will also agree that, once that Bill is passed into law, Mr. Smith, or anybody else, will be unable to go back on the decision to pass that legislation.
People in Rhodesia are asking: "Why is Britain going through an empty charade of talks about some hypothetical political settlement which they realise, and the British Government should realise and which public opinion to a large extent in Rhodesia realises, cannot be a success from the start?" This is so unless—and here is the nagging fear that is felt by many people in Rhodesia—Her Majesty's Government have decided that there will be a settlement outside the Five Principles, and that the minority of Europeans who have stood by the things that we have stood for in relation to this controversy with Rhodesia are going to be left to be members of an apartheid State, and the 5 million Africans are going to be left to seek their salvation by an eventual recourse to force.
My Lords, from the point of view of those who have tried to sustain the British point of view in this long civil struggle in Rhodesia, and from the point of view of the African population, the fear of

1603
betrayal by Britain is very real and is at the present moment being fed by a continuance of the Pretoria talks. I believe that the right action for Her Majesty's Government to take at this particular juncture—an action that would test the sincerity of the Rhodesian régime, and might eventually lead to a better understanding and a better atmosphere in which those talks could be conducted, if, eventually, they might become successful—would be for the Government to make clear that they would not be prepared to continue even with the talks about talks which are going on in Pretoria at the present moment, unless the Residential Property Owners' (Protection) Bill is withdrawn and no discriminatory legislation is introduced into the Rhodesian Parliament while any negotiations, or talks about talks, between British representatives and Rhodesian representatives are in progress.
I hope that my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, when he answers my Question, will be able to say something about this. I realise very well that in his present position his scope for doing so is circumscribed. But I would emphasise that at this particular juncture it is most important that the suspicions—which are widespread—about the possibilities of a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government within the near future should be set at rest straight away, and that a definite statement that there has been no change, and that there is no prospective change, in policy should be made by Her Majesty's Government, first in the interests of those whom we feel closest to in Rhodesia, and also in the interests of the Commonwealth in general.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has asked for these assurances from Her Majesty's Government, because I entirely agree with him that it would be most regrettable that we should disperse for the Christmas Recess, and before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet in Singapore, without having some reassurances from Her Majesty's Government on the very important matters of principle which the noble Lord has raised—not for the first time, indeed, in this House or in another place of which both he and I were Members.
1604
I entirely share his apprehensions of the legislation which is now proposed in Rhodesia. What they legislate about is of course not directly our affair, but it does very much affect the context in which any possible agreement might be reached with the Smith régime.
I will say quite frankly to your Lordships that I have always been pessimistic about the possibility of reaching any honourable settlement with that régime. One of the most uncomfortable moments in my whole public life was when I had to rise at our Party Conference and defend the policy of negotiating with the Smith régime in the early days after U.D.I. Because I simply did not believe that one could reach an honourable settlement and I think that all previous experience in fact justified me in that point of view. Nevertheless, I would not deny for one moment that Her Majesty's Government were right to attempt the exercise, provided that it was within the Five Principles.
It is because there are fears in all parts of Africa, and in the rest of the Commonwealth where they are concerned with these matters, that it could be just possible that Her Majesty's Government were contemplating some other form of settlement that I think it is right at this time to ask the noble Marquess for reassurances upon this point. These talks about talks have now been going on for some little while, and, my Lords, as I say, it is right that we should ask for this reassurance from the noble Marquess before we disperse for Christmas.
6.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for putting down this Question, and to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for taking part in this debate? I know that your Lordships will not wish me to take up the time of the House at any great length tonight, but it gives me an opportunity very briefly to make a few remarks on the points which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have raised.
The House will remember that in reply to a Question in another place, on (I think it was) November 16, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that the House

1605
would be informed when he had something substantial to report, but that he did not intend to make any statements about the progress of Her Majesty's Government's contacts with the Rhodesian régime. I must say to the House at the moment that that remains the position. At the same time, noble Lords will be aware that we have on several occasions stressed the importance of keeping all exchanges confidential at this stage. I do not think my noble friend Lord Alport has interpreted this refusal, if you like, to disclose the substance of our communication with Mr. Smith as some sinister indication that we intend to abandon the Five Principles. I should like to say to him and to the noble Baroness, quite categorically, that this is not so. Her Majesty's Government have given repeated assurances on this point; and I would also remind the House of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe exactly a month ago in which he said the same thing.
The reason we wish to keep exchanges confidential is quite simple: it is to avoid publicity which might prejudice the outcome of our approach, and we hope that the Rhodesians will do the same. I should like at the same time to make it clear that there have not been any talks between Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria and Air Vice Marshal Hawkins in the sense of negotiations, or indeed of conversations; nor between anyone else on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian régime. There is absolutely no question of negotiations until we are satisfied that enough common ground exists to make them worth while.
Thus, as we have repeatedly made clear, the first step towards resolving this problem is to establish whether or not the régime are willing to negotiate realistically on the basis of the Five Principles. This was the purpose—no more and no less—of the communication sent last month to Mr. Smith through Her Majesty's Ambassador in Pretoria. And I can assure your Lordships that if any developments of substance do occur, a Statement will be made at the earliest opportunity to your Lordships' House. I should like to resist the suggestion made
1606
by my noble friend that this is an empty charade. I think the suspicions that he has alluded to are unfounded in this respect.
It has been suggested that the news of the régime's intention to introduce legislation which will enable Europeans to bring about: the expulsion of non-Europeans from their residential areas shows the futility of trying to reach a settlement. While Her Majesty's Government deplore anything which would increase racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia, I would not agree that this or, for instance, their action against the leaders of the multi-racial co-operative, Cold Comfort Farm, must be regarded as an indication that the régime are not prepared to negotiate within the Five Principles, and that consequently Her Majesty's Government should abandon their attempt to find a settlement on that basis. On the contrary, we feel that these developments underline the urgent need for us to continue our efforts to carry out the commitment, which has been clearly and repeatedly explained, in the hope that we can help to create the kind of atmosphere where constructive change can be brought about. Certainly we are not in a position to do this in present circumstances.
My Lords, we stand firm in our belief that we are pursuing the right—indeed, the only practical—course to solve this problem. I do not know whether we shall succeed, but we must hope that the Rhodesians will recognise the enormous advantage of a settlement for their country, and that they will appreciate that the consequences of failure will be serious for the future of Southern Africa as a whole. For it will encourage those who believe that violent upheaval is inevitable in Southern Africa—a view which Her Majesty's Government are by no means prepared to accept.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  T.U.C. AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  T.U.C. AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  CIVIL SERVANTS: COMPENSATION FOR PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  CIVIL SERVANTS: COMPENSATION FOR PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  FOWL PEST: USE OF LIVE VACCINE
  FOWL PEST: USE OF LIVE VACCINE