Sitting of 28 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REPORT)
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make the further statement I promised yesterday about the latest Report from the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met representatives of the medical and dental professions this morning. They put to us in the strongest terms their view that the publication of the report should not be delayed until after the General Election.
My right hon. Friend and I reaffirmed the Government view that the report and the Government's decisions on it should be published simultaneously. But in view of the strength of the representations made by the professions, we informed them that the date of publication, with the announcement of the Government's decisions, would be brought forward to Thursday, 4th June.
The representatives of the professions then sought, to use their own words, " an unequivocal assurance that the Government would not in its decisions in any way modify the Kindersley recommendations either by phasing or by reducing the totality of the award."
My right hon. Friend, in reply, stressed that the Government had not yet completed their consideration of what is an extremely complex report and that he could not agree to give any indication
2038
of the Government's decisions before publication on 14th June.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the right hon. Gentleman has given way so far, why will he not announce the decision now to accept the recommendations? I am sure that we all hope that the professions will accept the position, but does not the Minister see that, on past experience, they are fully justified in fearing that he will recant and make an award subject to arbitrary Government action contrary to the intention of the Royal Commission?
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance, will he at least give the assurance that, as the Review Body has to take account of the economic situation of the country, if he varies the award, which no Tory Government had to do, he will explain to the House and to the country how the magic improvement in the economy has so rapidly vanished that he cannot afford whatever sum it is?
Mr. Crossman: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, I explained to the House that I had been asked by the professions to publish the report. I replied that I would consider publishing the report and the Government's decision. This I have done, and I have acceded to their request on the ground of the strength of feeling in the professions.
Now a new demand is suddenly put forward that, in addition to publishing on 4th June, I should anticipate publication by announcing a decision now. This is plainly ridiculous. The decision will be announced when the report is published.
Mr. Lipton: While I greet with modified rapture the Government's decision to publish the report and their decision on 4th June, which is only a few days ahead, may I take it that my right hon. Friend's assurance still holds good, that the delay between the final report of the Review Body and 4th June will not be to the prejudice of the medical profession, and, in particular, junior hospital doctors?
Mr. Crossman: I think that I gave a somewhat better assurance than that. I said that no doctor would lose a penny in the sense that it would be retrospectively paid from the day on which we received the report.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we totally dissociate ourselves from the remarks made by the spokesman for the Tory Party? We think that it is perfectly reasonable that the Minister should not make any statement in advance of publication on 4th June, although we reserve the right to criticise any arrangements which are not in accordance with the Kindersley Report?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This was the point that I put to the doctors and dentists. I said, " It will come out on 4th June. I do not ask you to do more than weigh it and make up your minds about it. But I think that it is reasonable, when we have changed the plan to suit their demand, that you should give us time—because it is an extremely complicated report—to give really considered judgment to it."
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House feel that the junior doctors have a real case and, therefore, welcome the Government's decision to bring forward the date of publication? But is it not also a fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite are totally hypocritical in their demand that the Government should make up their mind at this stage, especially as the Tory election manifesto says that the Government should not make hasty decisions?
Mr. Crossman: I agree with my hon. Friend. I put it to the Opposition spokesmen that they might be unwise, before they have read a line of it, to assume that they can unequivocally support the whole of the Kindersley Report. It would seem to me much better to have our discussion and our thoughts about it when it has been read. That is the point that I put to the doctors; I did not think that I would have to put it to the Opposition as well.
Sir D. Renton: Is it not painfully obvious that if the Government had intended to accept the recommendations of the report they would have published it—and their acceptance of it—with alacrity? Is not their failure to do so to be regarded with great misgiving?
Mr. Crossman: No, I would not have thought so. Reports vary in importance.
2040
This is the first basic report. It was promised last year. Last year, there was an interim report, and it was said that this present one would be a basic, far-reaching, and deep-thinking report. Therefore, it is of infinitely greater importance, and it was obviously impossible to publish it without consideration.
Mr. Michael Foot: We all accept that my right hon. Friend will deal with this matter most fairly, but will he undertake not to accept too literally the recommendation made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Macleod) quite recently, namely, that the way to deal with the wages problem was for the Government particularly to reject all wage demands in the public sector—a policy that would be most unfair to the doctors as it was when it was applied to the nurses by the previous Conservative Administration?
Mr. Crossman: I can tell my hon. Friend that in our thoughts about the Kindersley Report we have borne in mind the fact that we should disregard the advice of the right hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Macleod).
Mr. Doughty: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a statement of Conservative policy what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr Michael Foot) is wholly inaccurate? Secondly, nobody on this side of the House—or the other side, except for the right hon. Gentleman—knows the contents of the report. It is only part of the whole National Health Service. Can the Government make their recommendations without regard to the many other sides of the Health Service, of which this report can form only one part?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I wish that he could persuade his Front Bench to be equally reasonable.
Mr. Rankin: When my right hon. Friend says that the report will be published on 4th June, does he mean that it will be available for those in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland on 4th June?
Mr. Crossman: I have considered that point. We shall be publishing the report at mid-day on 4th June. I shall consider the problem raised by my hon. Friend and make sure that copies are available in the

2041
North at the earliest possible moment. I regret that the report will be published when the House is not sitting, because I would have liked to present it to the House first.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the acceptance of the report will not contribute to a wages explosion, about which the Opposition complain so much? Can he say whether his statement today will result in the B.M.A.'s withdrawing its threat of withholding medical certificates?
Mr. Crossman: The threat was not by the B.M.A., but by certain individuals—[Interruption] Well, yes, it was put by the B.M.A. to its council today and yesterday and passed. I told them that I deeply regretted the fact that doctors were making these apparent threats of strike action simply because a report which they wished to see published was being published six days later than they desired. I thought that strike action in hospitals was a little peremptory and violent in response to that.
I am distressed by this and by the mood growing up, especially among junior doctors. I agree that junior doctors have a very strong case, but I do not think that they strengthen it by threatening violent tactics. I really do not. [Interruption] I think that they could learn a lesson from the behaviour of the nurses and what the nurses achieved by not doing what they have done.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the profession accepted the original recommendation of the Royal Commission—under Sir Harry Pilkington—only on the basis expressed in the report that this award was to be implemented as rapidly and as wholly as possible, in order to keep the question of doctors' remuneration out of political considerations? That is why the doctors are suspicious. It is not because the report is not to be published when they wanted it.
Mr. Crossman: There is something in what the hon. Member says about the memories of 1966, although the situation then is not closely similar to the present situation. I would have thought that the doctors themselves should remember that at present they are almost the only
2042
group that has a special commission of this kind, and that it is impossible to demand that a Government should automatically and without proper consideration accept anything that the Commission says. That was certainly not the intention of the Government that set up the commission.
Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Government accepted the last Kindersley award within a few weeks, but that the B.M.A. rejected it, and negotiations dragged on for a long time, not because the Government would not accept it but because the B.M.A. would not?
Mr. Crossman: I agree that that is a fair summary of what happened.

OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS (MR. SPEAKER'S THANKS)
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement.
As we approach the end of this Parliament, I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express our deep gratitude for the splendid and devoted services of all who have assisted us in our work—the Clerks at the Table and elsewhere, whose wisdom, experience and advice have been at the service of every hon. Member; the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, and the police, who have protected us and served us in many ways HANSARD, which has faithfully reported all that we have said—wise or unwise; our excellent librarians; those who have delivered our post and handled our telephone communications; those who in cramped rooms have worked the annunciators and sound equipment: those who have prepared our massive daily Order Papers and other documents; those who have printed them through the night so promptly and so faithfully that there is scarcely ever an error; those who have fed us; those who have guarded us and kept scrupulously clean the House and the various offices; our friends in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, who look down on us with a critical and sometimes friendly eye; all who, with us, love Parliament and have helped it to function in the freest democracy in the world.
On behalf of the House I thank them all, and I add my own special indebtedness to the Clerk of the House, Sir Barnett Cocks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  2.48 p.m.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I rise to draw attention to the case of Mr. Robert Dirk Smith, a South African citizen aged 23. In so doing I must declare an interest, as is appropriate in the House. It is well known that I have been associated for a number of years with the David Brown Corporation, and I am proud so to be. If other people's export records had been as good as ours this country would be in a very different situation.
  I want to refer to the problem of Mr. Dirk Smith as briefly as I can, and I shall try to deal with it in the most factual fashion possible and to make it clear to the Government that I am not trying to push them into a corner. There will be plenty of other days when we can try to push them into a corner. This is not the day. Today is the day to deal with this problem. The problem is complicated to the extent that Mr. Robert Dirk Smith is the stepson of Mr. Ian Smith, of Rhodesian fame. He was born a South African citizen of a South African father, and has only adopted the name of Smith.
  The situation is as follows. Mr. Robert Dirk Smith came to this country on 5th April as a visitor. Some time in the middle of April he was walking along Piccadilly when he saw the David Brown Corporation offices. He went in and asked for a job as a graduate trainee. I should explain that he is 23, and was educated in Rhodesia and at the University of Cape Town, where he has a B.Sc. in mechanical engineering. He held various student jobs in vacation employment in mining and engineering and in other engineering plants in Europe.
  Mr. Smith was visiting this country and, I understand, came to like it and felt that he would like to stay here and have an opportunity to study some of our technological skill. When he walked into the David Brown offices, I do not
  2044
  think that anyone there had the slightest idea that he had anything to do with his stepfather or with Rhodesia. It was only later that we learned this.
  When the application was made through the normal channels the Manager of Training and Management Development in the David Brown Corporation, Mr. J. S. Hudson, consulted both the local office of the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Home Office. He consulted Mr. Anderson on extension 236 in the Home Office. Mr. Hudson was informed that it was possible for an application to be made, was given guidance as to how it should be made, and was informed by both the Home Office and the Department of Employment and Productivity—he has given me this assurance himself—that it was not necessary for Mr. Smith to leave the country to make an application, that the form of entry by which he had entered this country could be transferred if it was done under a suitable form. The only form under which it can be done is form AR 1 (ST)—the " ST " stands for student trainee.
  The application was submitted, and on 21st April a reply was received from the Home Office. The application was made to the Home Office because in normal circumstances it takes about three weeks for it to be dealt with, and Mr. Hudson was advised by the Home Office that if the application was made to it directly the whole affair could be expedited, as Mr. Smith was here for only a month and was due to leave on 4th May. On 27th April the David Brown Corporation received a reply from the Home Office saying:
  " Dear Sir,
  Thank you for sending the passport relating to Robert Dirk Smith…
  We are dealing with the matter and the documents mentioned above will be returned as soon as possible.
  Meanwhile this letter may be regarded as authority for the holder to remain in the United Kingdom pending a decision on any application made for an extension to his stay."
  That was the last the David Brown Corporation heard of the matter until some strange things happened in the middle of May. On 15th May a gentleman alleging that he was a South African who had arrived from Paris telephoned Mr. Hudson and spoke about wanting to

  2045
  get in touch with Mr. Smith, whom the David Brown Corporation was employing. Mr. Hudson explained that it was not employing him at that moment. Mr. Hudson made subsequent inquiries of Mr. Smith, who had no knowledge of this South African. On 16th May, a local reporter appeared at the David Brown Corporation offices seeking information about Mr. Smith on behalf of the Sunday Mirror On 17th May. an article appeared in the Sunday Mirror. Where did the leak come from?
  I have here a copy of a letter sent from the Home Office on 18th May, Home Office reference 5306056, saying:
  " Dear Sir,
  I am replying to your letter of 21 April 1970 about Mr. R. D. Smith.
  A foreigner wishing to come here for employment or as a student trainee is expected to obtain a work permit issued by the Department of Employment and Productivity in respect of a specific post before coming to the United Kingdom.
  This was explained to Mr. Smith by the immigration officer who interviewed when he arrived in this country on 5 April 1970. Mr. Smith said that he fully understood that he could not take a job in this country and, the immigration officer being satisfied that this was the case, he was admitted for a visit of one month.
  In the circumstances I am afraid that we cannot agree to Mr. Smith extending his stay here for the purpose of employment or training…"
  and the " employment and training " was to be employed as a graduate trainee for 12 months‖
  " Mr. Smith called at this office this morning and the decision was conveyed to him. His passport was handed to him."
  There are certain other factors involved. There is, first, the very strange point as to how the newspaperman came to make his inquiries, because very few people knew the background. I should be very interested to know the source of the inquiries. Was it the Home Office? If not, what could it have been? That is a minor point, but it is disturbing.
  Secondly, the notes on the back of form AR 1 (ST) say that
  " the student employee shall be surplus to the necessary labour requirements of the employer; "
  That is absolutely the case in this instance.
  " permits are normally granted for periods of up to twelve months on the expiry of
  2046
  which the foreigner is expected to return to his or her country."
  There is no problem about that, either.
  The Department of Employment and Productivity guidance leaflet, "Employment of foreigners in Great Britain ", AR 100, says, in paragraph 8:
  "Permits are issued to enable foreign student employees (as distinct from students coming for educational courses only) to accept short-term employment with British employers in the industrial and commercial field in order to improve their English and to widen their experience."—
  It is the second reason in this case—
  " There are special arrangements for the issue of permits for student employment in agriculture, horticulture…."
  with which we are not concerned here. The leaflet repeats some of the things said in form AR l(ST). At the beginning, it says:
  " A foreign worker who wishes to take a job in Great Britain must have a permit issued by the Department of Employment and Productivity."
  We all accept that.
  " The permit is not issued direct to the foreign worker, but to his employer, who has to apply to the Department of Employment and Productivity for it."
  So this is not an issue to Mr. Smith specifically in technical terms; it is a question whether the permit is issued to the David Brown Corporation.
  It has long been the practice of successive Governments to encourage as many foreign students as possible to come here, for the obvious reasons. It is certainly the case that the David Brown Corporation has encouraged them because it has found them an extended arm of our export effort. It makes it much easier to employ foreign nationals to run our export business; every large engineering corporation will confirm that sort of practice.
  Secondly, in the case of the David Brown Corporation there is a general policy made clear in a letter written by it to Mr. G. R. Denman, of the Board of Trade, on 1st January, 1969, in response to a letter asking about the company's policy regarding the training of overseas nationals. I shall not go into the details, but it was made clear that it had long been the practice of the corporation to encourage this for the reasons I have said. In 1966, there were 1,110 foreign nationals employed by the corporation

  2047
  in 1967, 770; and in 1968, 1,020. On average, it employs about 1,000 foreign students of one kind or another every year.
  Then there is the question of form AR 1(ST), the only form to support an application for an alien to receive training in a United Kingdom company irrespective of whether he is in this country or overseas at the time of application. Clauses 2(g) and 4 of the form support this statement. In this case it was made clear to Mr. Hudson by both the D.E.P. and the Home Office that it was not necessary for Mr. Smith to leave the country. I wish to emphasise that. Further, when aliens wish to work in this country there are two forms—one when the alien is in the country at the time of application and one when he is not.
  The Home Office reason for rejection ignored the fact that Mr. Smith was already in this country and that it is common practice to resubmit a passport for endorsement so that the conditions may be varied to cover student employment. That is common practice with the David Brown Corporation. They have an almost exact parallel with an Italian student, Mr. Paul Delbosco, who sought a transfer in the form of his visa to remain here in student employment. The Home Office reference is D.64777. Mr. Delbosco was in this country at the time of the application by the David Brown Corporation and his permit to stay was varied and given.
  I want to know how many of these permits are constantly given by the Home Office, because it is common practice. The company has made many applications under the Aliens Order, 1953, for permission to engage foreigners as student trainees. These applications have covered individuals in this country at the time of the application as well as individuals not in this counrty at the time of application. All have been successful until now. If there has been any omission or error in David Brown's applications they have not been made aware of it, and they have all been made in consultation with the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Home Office.
  The problem which arises, therefore, is extremely serious. Has this been done because he happened to be Mr. Ian
  2048
  Smith's stepson? That is central to the question.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): That is not true.
  Mr. Donnelly: Let us get it clear. Let us have the denial made clear and placed on the record.
  Is it, then, because he is seeking a transfer from one form of entry to another? Is that it? If that is the case —and it is the employer who is making the application; I emphasise that the permit is given to the employer—may we have an assurance from the Government that if Mr. Smith moves from Fishguard to Cork and the corporation applies from there, he will be given a re-entry permit to this country and that the application will be granted? That seems to me to overcome the Home Office difficulty.
  Or if he applies from Calais or Boulogne, does that overcome the difficulty? Because if it is not a question of Mr. Ian Smith being involved, that suggestion must overcome the difficulty. How does the Home Office explain the fact that there have been transfers in the past in parallel cases of this nature? That is the whole issue.
  In whichever part of the House we sit, we have certain duties to preserve the standards and traditions of freedom and parliamentary democracy. I recall an occasion on which many hon. Members on the other side of the House—and I was sitting on that side of the House at the time—joined together in fighting for Chief Enahoro so that he might be allowed to stay in the country. We do not all agree with all that he has done since then, but the principle was that of the individual, regardless of his views.
  I remember another occasion on which the late Sydney Silverman had been denied a visa to go to the United States. At the time this country was being visited by two gentlemen, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine, who, so we were told by the newspapers, were investigating Communist activities within the B.B.C. on behalf of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mr. Silverman rose from the corner seat opposite and asked the Government to give an assurance that visas would be granted to these men although he himself had just been refused a visa for the United States.He asked for

  2049
  the assurance so that these two gentlemen would have the opportunity to come here and to see how a tolerant and free society worked. If there is today, therefore, any argument about Rhodesia on the case which I have raised, that is the answer.
  If I am told that it is only a question of a technicality—whether Mr. Smith leaves the country or another application is made—I must ask, how bureaucratic do we get? And if he leaves the country, may we have an assurance that he can come back—or will it be as in the case in which the Attorney-General for Ghana gave an assurance in respect of Mr. Christopher Shawcross and then had to go back on it on a certain memorable occasion? If the unfortunate Home Office Minister is to reply from that untenable position, I advise him to study the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 26, verses 38 to 46.
  3.5 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), the leader of the Donnelly Party, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his effort on behalf of—I am not sure whether it was David Brown or Robert Smith. Probably it may have been more on behalf of David Brown.
  I want to raise a number of issues which are contained in the Consolidated Fund Bill. First, I notice that the Foreign Office are asking for money to be contributed to international organisations. There is an organisation connected with the sponsoring of, and the attempt to persuade Members during the election to support, Britain's entry into the Common Market. None of the political parties have come out clearly on the issue of the Common Market. We do not seem to be able to get from any of the political parties what are their views. No doubt the issue of the Common Market will be debated during the coming election.
  Some hon. Members may already have received—and if not, no doubt they will receive them if they are standing for reelection—circulars issued by an organisation which is trying to push Britain into the Common Market. I have read in the Press comments on the subject. I hope that the Foreign Office can assure other
  2050
  hon. Members and myself and the country that none of the contributions and subscriptions being made by the Foreign Office is going in any way to support what I term this illegal activity by this body.
  Another question arises on the same page of the Consolidated Fund Bill, relating to the Ministry for Overseas Development. I refer to the Report of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I see that an extra grant is needed. The Commonwealth Development Corporation, I agree, does an excellent job, but I draw attention to some details of expenditure given on page 24 of the corporation's Financial Report and Accounts for 1969. In 1968, the chairman received a salary of £6,642. In 1969, during the period of severe restraint, when everyone was told to be careful about giving salary increases, that figure was raised to £7,042.
  The Press always seem to be correct in their leaks—I do not know how that is—and I read some weeks back that a certain right hon. Gentleman was to be appointed chairman of this corporation. I put a Question down on the subject and the Answer was as evasive as I had expected. I asked whether there was any truth in that statement, but no answer was forthcoming at that time. During the recent Whitsun Recess an announcement was made that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government was to be appointed to this post and that the salary was to be £10,000 a year—plus or minus £100 or so, but we like to talk in round figures. Why is it that a salary which was increased so substantially last year has been increased by a further £3,000 this year?
  Some other figures in this document are even more illuminating. For example, we read that in 1968 only one of the organisation's employees in the United Kingdom had a salary within the £15.000 to £17,500 a year range, while in 1969 there was not even one with such a salary. However, we learn that while in 1968 there was not one employee in the salary range £17,500 to £20,000 a year, there was one in that category in 1969. In other words, this unspecified person who was receiving between £15,000 and £17,500 a year in 1968 had received a salary increase to bring him or her within the salary range £17,500 to £20,000 in 1969.

  2051
  This means that somebody received a wage increase of between £2,500 and £5,000 in one year. Unfortunately, the accounts are not broken down to reveal the precise increase. I also notice that the auditors and accountants fees went up drastically.
  I am at a loss to understand how we can hear daily of restrictions being placed on the wages and salaries of the majority, and particularly of the lower paid, when there is no complaint whatever about the sort of salary increases I have described. The Tories never complain about increases given to people in the £10,000 to £20,000 a year bracket, but when it comes to the nurses and doctors they complain regularly. We rarely get an opportunity to debate the merits, if any, of the enormous wage increases that are given to the higher echelons.
  This brings me to the part of the Bill which is designed to provide further money
  " For the salaries and expenses of the…First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity… salaries and expenses of the National Board for Prices and Incomes… the Monopolies Commission and certain other Tribunals and Committees ".
  I understand that Mr. Aubrey Jones has had several pay increases and that his present salary of £15,000 a year, about which we have never heard a murmur from the Tories—no doubt because he is an ex-Tory Minister—is to be increased by 33⅔ per cent., giving him a salary of £18,000 a year.
  How can a Labour Government and I support at the hustings restrictions on the lower-paid when people like Aubrey Jones can have increases of this magnitude? As soon as a Press leak about his salary appeared, we heard that Mr. Jones was to make a tour of Hungary, Bulgaria and other Iron Curtain countries. Has he been given leave of absence to make that tour, and is this extra money to be used towards his expenses for that purpose?
  I cannot see any point in Mr. Jones touring Iron Curtain countries if his job is to look after prices and incomes here in Britain. I only wish that Mr. Jones had been as efficient, restrictive and obstructive with his own salary increases as he has been with those of the lower paid. If he had been, I probably would not be objecting in the way I am today.
  2052
  Apparently this extra money will help the P.I.B. to do its job. On many occasions I have sent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity not one or a few dozen, but literally hundreds of cases of very wealthy company directors receiving salary increases of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. a year, but not one of these cases has been referred by my right hon. Friend to the P.I.B.
  I have been in favour of what I call a fair prices and incomes policy that applies to all sections of the population. Bearing this in mind, I am puzzled by the Vote which proposes to increase the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords. The peers have had their expenses increased to 6½ guineas, tax free, per day. Some time ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to break down into categories the number of peers receiving between say, £3,000 and £4,000 a year and £10,000 and £20,000 a year as company directors and to equate that 6½ guineas with their salaries, grossed up and taxed.
  I was told that in some instances the 6½ guineas represented as much as £18 a day. It is a bit thick when people complain about the dock and Post Office workers asking for more when certain noble Ladies and Gentlemen in another place can pick up the equivalent of £18 a day for just showing their faces in that establishment and immediately walking out. That is going a little too far.
  We have never debated that subject nor had an opportunity to pass our opinion on it. I can tell my constituents that I have never supported it. I have never been given the opportunity either to support it or vote against it. So now I am taking this opportunity to tell my constituents that I do not believe that noble Lords, who probably have 20 or 30 directorships, should get the equivalent of £18 a day.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, has attacked the workers for asking for too much money. It is surprising to hear people who are getting thousands of pounds from dozens of different jobs telling the workers to be careful not to ask for too much, " So long as I can draw my 6½ guineas tax-free expenses ".
  Mr. Patrick Wall: (Haltemprice): Turning from the other place for a

  2053
  moment, would the hon. Member say whether he would support a rise in salary for Members of this House?
  Mr. Lewis: The Government have already announced, with the acquiescence of the Opposition, that they cannot do anything for Members of this House—I do not know why. They will refer the question to the Prices and Incomes Board after the General Election. I do not want to debate that question now, but having been asked my view I can say that if that action is fair for the Commons it might also have been fair for the House of Lords, instead of their Lordships being given this 6½ guineas a day tax free.
  Looking again at the Bill, I see that the Post Office is to have extra money in order to provide grants to the B.B.C. The B.B.C. is a very efficient, well run and reputable organisation and I say no word against it. It happens to have as chairman one who, again, is an ex-Tory Minister. It is amazing how this Government love to appoint ex-Tory Ministers to these jobs. The chairman recently had an increase in his salary. Parliamentary Questions are not always answered as I like, but after having the benefit of our admirable Library service—and it is a most magnificent service—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is the only man I know of who is holding down what is the equivalent of the chairmanship of a State board whilst taking full-time salaries from public companies of anything, and here I speak from memory, from £15,000 upwards a year in addition to his full-time salary of £6,000 a year at the B.B.C., I must assume that if he attends the House of Lords, he, too, claims the equivalent of £18 a day—
  Mr. Peart: £18?
  Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend could not have heard what I said earlier. He should have listened. I must repeat it.
  I asked by Parliamentary Questions what would be the equivalent of the 6½ guinea tax free daily allowance if one had an income of, say, £15,000 or £20,000 a year. The Treasury said that it would be about £18 a day. My right hon. Friend's agile mind can easily do the mental arithmetic necessary to realise that these noble Lords, whether it be
  2054
  the noble Lord, Lord Hill, or the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, and others of their Lordships, are receiving an allowance equivalent to £18 a day, or, to put it the other way, an allowance of 6½ guineas a day tax free.
  I do not care which calculation is preferred. If I went to my dock worker, my engineer, my bricklayer, or my carpenter and said, Look, old boy, would you like a job for which, provided you could show that you had attended—walked in and walked out—you would be given either £18 a day or 6½ guineas a day tax free? ", he would probably take the 6½ guineas tax free, but I would let him choose. We would then probably debate whether or not it was right and proper and fair.
  This has never been debated or discussed, or referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am all in favour of the board having plenty of references. Only in the week before the Whitsun Recess I asked that these continually soaring food prices should be referred to it. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity refused. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State declined my invitation. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that, for a reason I do not understand, there has been a Press leak saying that she intends to do that very thing. I do not know what has made her change her mind in the interim, but I am pleased that it is so. I should like to see more of that kind of thing happening.
  I am sorry that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has left the Chamber, because I have dealt with his future job, and its salary and expenses, and I now want to deal with his present job and the extra sum shown in page 34 of the Bill. That sum is for various things, including grants to local authorities, loans, and so on. In this case, I want to know why the amount is not larger. Speaking advisedly, and with all the emphasis of which I am capable, I must say, and I have given my right hon. Friend notice, that he has been very dilatory, very backward, very weak, and very unkind to my constituents.
  As Minister of Housing and Local Government he has been responsible for increasing my constituents' cost of living

  2055
  by increasing their rents and rates by refusing to fight the Treasury to ensure the reimbursement of those who suffered from the Ronan Point disaster. It is shocking to realise that though we can provide all the thousands of pounds that I have mentioned, when a block of flats collapses through no fault of the occupants, and there has been loss of life, the Minister—and I am glad to see him back in his place—should originally have said that he could not grant more than 40 per cent. I have battled with him consistently on every conceivable occasion, and now I find that he has raised the grant to 50 per cent.
  Incidentally, we have never had a debate on that disaster.
  The result of the Minister's decision is that West Ham now has to find 50 per cent. of the cost of strengthening and rehabilitating those flats. I do not think that that is fair, right or proper.
  We have always accepted in the House that if there is a national disaster the Treasury should foot the bill. My local ratepayers will have their rates increased or both their rates and rents increased because they have to find nearly £1 million. It is true that they will be able to borrow the money, but that will be at rather high rates of interest even with the advantages which the Government give by means of the Public Works Loan Board. They will be saddled with this debt.
  My local people have been saddled with debts for the last 25 years. Ours was one of the first areas to be blitzed; it suffered during the whole of the blitz. We lost over one-third of our habitable accommodation and we are still paying for that. The country has never met its full obligation. Perhaps after 25 years one may forget these things, but one should not forget that in this instance West Ham ratepayers are saddled with a 50 per cent. debt for something which was not caused by them.
  We have a very serious and difficult housing problem. We have a marvellous council which has done an excellent job in rebuilding, but because of the Ronan Point disaster, as a result of which blocks of flats still remain empty, we are losing rent and rate income and still suffering from the niggardliness of the
  2056
  Treasury. It is a pity that there is no Treasury Minister present now. However, it is the job of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to fight for his Department. I accuse this Minister for not standing up to the Treasury and fighting the Treasury as he should have done. I hope that when he takes on his new job if he finds any difficulty he will fight the Treasury a little more.
  The Association of Municipal Corporations, an all-party organisation, has supported me, as have most if not all local authorities, even those which are not concerned in this problem.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: What about the bookies?
  Mr. Lewis: Another matter with which I am concerned relates to the county courts, the judiciary and the legal system. Money is to be given to meet the extra cost of Law Officers of the Crown, the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution's department, and so forth. I hope that this means that for extra money we might get some productivity and perhaps some improvement in the judiciary system. It is a crying shame that in, as Mr. Speaker said, this greatest democracy in the world—we accept that —in London today men can be kept incommunicado under arrest for three months or six months by this system by which they are taken to court and then put back on remand.
  It is terrible that we have a situation in which people have been in prison for six months awaiting trial although they are still innocent until they are found guilty. We had the case recently of a former colleague. I shall not go into that in detail. He was kept in prison for three months and there was the continual question of remand. I shall not go into the details, because that would be out of order, but I believe in justice and in fighting for what I believe to be right whether that is popular or unpopular and whether my own Front Bench likes it or not. I do not think that we should have an hon. Member of the House kept for two years " on ice " without being brought to trial. His parliamentary career can be ruined because of the lack of—
  Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Member is referring to a case which is at present sub judice
  Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker I was not referring to any case. I was saying that I do not think it right that such a thing can happen. I was not going into detail in the case to which I referred and which has been settled, that of Mr. Will Owen, who was kept in for three months and then found not guilty.
  Anyone who knows the working of the judiciary system knows that it is a shocking situation when cases can go on—I am speaking in general and not in particular —for year after year without a person having the chance to prove himself not guilty. As more money is to be spent in the county courts and the Director of Public Prosecution's department and the judiciary system, I hope that an attempt will be made to improve the whole legal system.
  It may or may not be known that £5 million of fines go year after year unpaid. It is the job of the judiciary to see that fines are paid, yet no one worries about this. If a person goes to court and refuses to pay his fine, no one worries; and he can keep on refusing. Eventually, he might get a suspended prison sentence but he laughs at that because it means nothing at all. Hence, I ask that the whole judiciary system should be looked at and this money should be used to improve it. It should be used to expedite dealings in the courts and to see that so far as possible the Department of Employment and Productivity may make an investigation into productivity.
  I referred in the House 18 months ago to a case which is not sub judice. It is still being investigated. When I put a Question to the Attorney-General he gave evasive replies. [HON. MEMBERS: " 0h."] Oh yes, I say this because constituents ask me, " What has happened to the matter you referred to 18 months ago?" The Attorney-General knows the case, because he is affected. I refer to cube cutting. There has still been no positive action taken one way or another on that. It is still being investigated to find whether action can be taken.
  Of my last two points the first is a small one and the second concerns my hobby-horse. The first is the question of a reference in the Bill to the Home Office being granted extra money for fire-fighting purposes. When the Home Office gets this extra money will it see
  2058
  that there is fire drill and such activities because, to the best of my knowledge, none of he Government Departments has any fire drill. None of the Home Office staff has fire drill. If the Government want to save the hundreds of millions of pounds which are lost through fires they should see that their own Departments actively pursue a system of regular fire drills. This should be done in schools, too, where it is not being done at present.
  I come, lastly, to my hobby-horse. I am glad that extra money is to be given to the Ministry of Transport to deal with the enforcement of road fund licensing. This is an improvement. But will a genuine attempt be made to seek to enforce road fund licensing? A recent G.L.C. survey in three roads in the North of London showed that 15 per cent. of vehicles there were unlicensed. This is wrong. Everyone affected by a tax should pay it. If, as it now suggested, the tax is virtually unenforceable, it should be dropped; and the 85 per cent. should not have to pay the extra money to carry the 15 per cent. who refuse to pay the licence fees.
  The Ministry of Transport, the Home Office, the police, the Greater London Council enforcement department, all say that the offence is so prevalent and widespread that they can do nothing about it. They can. If this Government want to be returned at the next election, let them announce that, as this tax is unenforceable, it is to be dropped. This would be, not a gimmick, but an election proposition. Let them announce that, as they cannot enforce it on 15 per cent., they will waive it for the other 85 per cent. This would be good, fair and right, and would ensure the Government's return at the election.
  I have raised a number of issues which, over the years, I have tried to raise on the Floor of the House. As this is virtually the last day before breaking up, I now express the hope—God willing and my constituents permitting—that I shall be back in the next Parliament to see how far the Labour Government, when they come back, progress on these issues.
  3.43 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The reference by the hon. Member for

  2059
  West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to getting on the Floor took my mind back to the time when he lay on the ground outside the Savoy Hotel. The hon. Gentleman's speech was so kaleidoscopic that I shall not follow him, beyond saying that he was much more impressive when talking about the interests of his constituents after the appalling tragedy of the collapse of the multi-storey block at Ronan Point than when he was being abusive to certain former Members of this House who are now in another place.
  I wish to raise a question which is of direct concern to the Leader of the House, because in his capacity as Lord President of the Council he prefaced a recent White Paper dealing with the whole question of the oceanology side of the natural environment. This afternoon the Government have published a White Paper—Cmnd. 4373—entitled " The Protection of the Environment. The Fight Against Pollution ".
  The House knows that in two respects I have a deep interest in this question. The first is because I have been Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which dealt with coastal pollution problems in the light of the " Torrey Canyon " disaster. Secondly, I was Chairman of another Sub-Committee which reported to the House on 24th July, 1969, in Paper 400, as the Third Report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology—the Natural Environment Research Council.
  On more than one occasion during Business Questions I have asked the Leader of the House when we shall have a White Paper commenting on the Select Committee's report. The right hon. Gentleman has made soothing and hopeful noises, but that is as far as we have got. The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, when giving evidence recently to the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology dealing with population problems, volunteered the information that the Government regretted that there had been so much delay in producing the White Paper commenting on the Report on the Natural Environment Research Council's work, but that the report was expected at an early date.
  2060
  It now appears that in the long chain of deathbed repentances which are taking place in the last few days before this Parliament expires the Government will not find time to include a White Paper dealing with the Select Committee's report. I deeply regret this, because the fact that the Government have decided to publish their new White Paper this afternoon indicates their awareness, which I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite is entirely shared on this side, that there is an intensive interest and deep concern amongst the public in the threats to our environment, and not least the threats which taken the form of atmospheric and water pollution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), whom my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has very propertly appointed to pay special attention to this aspect of the nation's affairs on behalf of the Opposition, is deeply concerned to ensure that appropriate action is taken as soon as possible.
  The White Paper published this afternoon makes no mention of the work done by hon. Members on both sides—I pay tribute to the help which hon. Members gave me in my capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee—in studying the work done by the National Environment Research Council. Yet many of the matters discussed in the White Paper are cognate to the report from my Sub-Committee.
  One of the things we especially mentioned in our report was the whole question of atmospheric pollution, which is of increasing concern. We said in paragraph 124 on page XXXV:
  " We are concerned at N.E.R.C's. lack of involvement in the field of atmospheric pollution. Professor Wynne-Edwards told us that ' We are not at present interesting ourselves in atmospheric pollution. We have done nothing about it.' Research on such pollution is left to M.R.C."—
  that is, the Medical Research Council—
  "but the Professor admitted that the field was ' fragmented' and would be difficult to bring together. We would have liked to have had time to consider atmospheric pollution, not least to establish whether M.R.C. by itself is capable of ensuring effective action."
  Since we reported last July there has been, not only the Government's decision to appoint the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) as Secretary of

  2061
  State for Local Government and Regional Planning with special responsibility for pollution, but also the establishment of a Royal Commission.
  All of us welcome the Royal Commission. Our one misgiving—it arises from long experience—is that Royal Commissions tend to take several years before anything emerges from their deliberations upon which action can be taken by a Government. All of us recognise that, however dedicated to its duties the Royal Commission may be, inevitably the implementation of its thinking and its recommendations will be a matter of years rather than of months, still less of weeks. Yet we know all the time that the threat to the environment is increasing day by day.
  This is made all the more difficult by the continual rise in the population of this country, and many of our pollution problems are closely allied with population policy. It is, indeed, a tragedy that the work of the Select Committee dealing with population problems was not completed by today and that, therefore, we shall not have a report from the Select Committee on that subject; but at least, it has been established beyond doubt from the evidence already published and made available to the House that this is a problem with which one cannot deal in isolation. It is a complex problem involving population and sociological policies and problems, as well as policies designed to ensure that the proper conservation takes place of our natural environment that we all love so much.
  What worries me a little about the publication of this White Paper is this. We have, of course, got to fight against pollution wherever it appears, but there seems to me very little recognition in this White Paper, so far as I have been able to digest it in the short time available since it was published, of the need to exploit sensibly and rationally many of the resources within our environment. One cannot merely say that one is going to fight for conservation—just like that. It is not a black and white issue as between total conservation and total pollution. It is a grey situation in which the most scientific and capable thought available to the Government and, indeed, to individuals and industries must be
  2062
  brought to bear to ensure that there is a proper and sensible balance to enable the country not unnecessarily to deprive itself of essential raw materials and essential conditions for the furtherance of the strength of our economy, but also to ensure that in pursuing those aims, at the same time, we pay regard to the love of our countryside and the need to preserve all the natural amenities that we can.
  My constituents living as they do in the Fens, no one can possibly be more conscious of the pollution that is involved in the scenery as a result of the electrification of this country. If a pylon is erected it can be seen for miles. There is nothing to hide it. These areas are becoming all to reminiscent of bird cages, there are so many wires in the air. Yet one knows that the provision of electricity to various areas throughout the country has made an improvement in the standard of living almost uncontemplated 20 years ago. All these things have enriched the lives of those who live in the more isolated villages. The extension of electricity supplies has brought not only light and heat but the benefits of television. These things matter enormously. Yet we must ensure that we have the right balance.
  What I find so distressing—and this is why I am speaking this afternoon—is that a Select Committee of this House has spent many hours taking the highest quality of evidence available and trying to digest it, that it submitted a report to the House as long ago as last July, and we still await a single comment from the Government on that report. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services who, as Leader of the House, put into practical form recommendations which had repeatedly been put to the Government over the years before by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee that there should be a Select Committee on Science and Technology. We all welcomed the creation of that Committee. Yet we find increasing delay in receiving Government comments upon the report, and still longer delay in ever getting a debate on the Government's White Paper and the report.
  I should like to say a word about the other report to which I referred earlier, the Report on Coastal Pollution. I recognise that the Government were not

  2063
  entirely happy about some of the criticisms we made of what happened over the " Torrey Canyon " disaster. I can only say that those criticisms would have been much more severe than they were had we been as free as we would have liked to have been, and had it not been for the court case which was pending in Singapore. Nevertheless there are one or two things embodied in the latest White Paper which I welcome very much indeed. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as I.M.C.O., has taken some further strides forward on the international front over the question of not only discouraging but also dealing with pollution from oil at sea. I believe that much that has happened since the report of the Select Committee is consistent with what we recommended, and for that reason I welcome it.
  However, reading rapidly through what the latest White Paper has said, I sensed some lack of awareness in the minds of the Government about the importance of considering the insurance aspects of the matter. In our Report on Coastal Pollution we went out of our way to point out how important it is that a full review should take place of the insurance aspect, because up till now the main insurance risk covered has been the hull of the ship. One of the conclusions that we inevitably had to draw in our Report on Coastal Pollution was that in future it may sometimes be more important to ensure that the cargo of oil inside a tanker does not reach the nearest coast, than it is to save the ship herself. The moment one moves into a field of that sort the more one becomes involved with the whole question of insurance policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman—indeed the Government, and, not least of all, the Board of Trade—must know that in the City of London there is a wealth of absolutely supreme world authoritative opinion available to the Government on the question of insuring ships and their cargoes. Therefore, I am extremely disappointed to notice that in the latest White Paper there is no mention of this aspect of the matter. Nevertheless, that does not in any way diminish the welcome which I give the progress which has been made by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and
  2064
  the Government's support of what that organisation is seeking to do. Indeed, if there be any justification for the existence of the United Nations at all, I would have said that probably in no field is it more significant and marked than it is in the matter of co-ordination of international efforts to prevent pollution at sea.
  I recognise that my raising this matter this afternoon has given the right hon. Gentleman little time in which to brief himself to reply adequately to my remarks. Nevertheless, I stress that the Government have had plenty of time to consider the report of the Select Committee and the right hon. Gentleman has had ample warning that I was anxious to know what are the Government's comments. He himself is personally involved in one particular aspect of the matter, namely oceanography. The National Institute of Oceanography plays a vital part not only in preserving the environment of the seas around us but also in ensuring the proper exploitation of the ocean which, if it were to be used properly and scientifically, could be of immense value to our country's prosperity.
  Not very much is said in the White Paper indicating that the Government fully comprehend the enormous potential which lies in the waters around us to enrich our economy and the life of our people. I hope that, in these few observations today, I have been able to convey to the Government that, whichever party forms Her Majesty's Government hereafter, the House of Commons will be 100 per cent. united on one thing, that is, the need to ensure that our environment is not changed more than is absolutely necessary to make sensible and constructive use of the natural resources which we enjoy.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Before coming to the two matters which I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully remind you that, when you were thanking various people for what they have done, you omitted one name, that of Mr. Speaker himself. I suppose that you could not mention that name, but I know that I have all right hon. and hon. Members with me in expressing our grateful thanks for the wonderful and patient way in which you have guided the deliberations of the House. When I say the two words. " Thank

  2065
  you ", I assure you, Sir, that they do not in any way adequately convey our appreciation of the service which you have rendered.
  I come now to the matters to which I shall direct attention, the first of which concerns the old-age pensioner. I was very worried—I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) was, too, so it is not a party matter—when I found that an extra £4 telephone charge was to be imposed on old-age pensioners, among others. Occupants of the Front Bench and many other right hon. and hon. Members may feel that £4 a year is no great sum and they may be able to bear it. We have broad shoulders. But the old-age pensioner cannot bear this charge, and it may mean that he or she will have to give up the telephone. In many cases, the telephone represents the only link between an old-age pensioner and the outside world, sometimes, indeed, a very life-line when the doctor is needed.
  I put this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on the day before the increased Post Office charges were debated—I forget the date for the moment, but it was only a short time ago—and he informed the House that if old-age pensioners wanted benefits they could apply to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would institute a scheme so that old-age pensioners would be exempt from the £4 increased telephone charge. In his speech the next day, he said that he would do everything in his power and lie would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure —he used the word " ensure "—that people who were entitled to supplementary benefits were aware of their entitlement.
  I waited a week. Then I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what had happened to the publicity campaign on which he was about to embark. I had the reply that there was no publicity campaign at all.
  Many of these old-age pensioners know nothing of their right to receive from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, if necessary, the amounts which they would otherwise not be able to find. I urge the Government either to devise a
  2066
  scheme to exempt such people from these extra telephone charges which they cannot afford or to make absolutely sure, through the Press, television and any other way they can think of, that these people know that they can receive the extra £4 from the Commission so that they will not be deprived of their telephone. I make that earnest appeal to the Government.
  I come now to the question of the North Orbital Road in Watford. Some time ago, when my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State was Minister of Transport, I asked her to come and sit with me on the Rickmansworth Road in Watford. I said that she would be able to sit there because the traffic grinds absolutely to a halt, taking half to three-quarters of an hour to cover half to three-quarters of a mile. The only solution is an extension to the North Orbital Road. Ultimately, there was a meeting presided over by the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Transport. He assured me, he gave me a solemn pledge, that the North Orbital extension would go through.
  Since then, there has been a public inquiry, there have been objections raised, and the matter is still, so to speak, in the pipeline. I ask the Minister of Transport to expedite matters so that traffic will no longer grind to a halt on the Rickmansworth Road in Watford and cause such confusion. I beg him to do it quickly. Watford now has a development plan which it is carrying forward in three stages. When the third stage is reached, we shall have a really good transport system, but it cannot work unless the North Orbital Road is extended. I urge the Minister of Transport to expedite the matter as much as he possibly can.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) when he thanked you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness to us all, not only collectively as Members of Parliament, but, perhaps more important, individually. We are all—I know that I speak here for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—deeply grateful to you.
  I made up my mind to try to intervene in this debate only just before it started.

  2067
  As hon. Members on the back benches have the right to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill and put their constituents' views or other views, I felt that it was only right for me to bring to the attention of the House the situation in the smallest and one of the poorest Commonwealth countries of Africa, from which I returned only a few days ago. I refer to Lesotho.
  I begin by assuring the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who is to reply to the debate, that I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Overseas Development for allowing me, yesterday, immediately after my return, to speak to her officials and for meeting me personally today. I shall not, in the circumstances, expect a long reply from the right hon. Gentleman. None the less, I think it right to put these matters to the House of Commons before Prorogation and the end of this Parliament.
  The background to the matter is that there was a general election in Lesotho last January. There was some doubt about which party won, and there was considerable intimidation on both sides. The Government of the day in Lesotho decided to suspend the Constitution and arrest the Opposition. Perhaps the Leader of the House may feel some sympathy for them when 18th June comes, but, be that as it may, it was an unconstitutional act, and admitted to be such.
  As a result, Her Majesty's Government did not accord recognition to the new Government of Lesotho, and they also suspended aid. They were perfectly right in not according recognition if they felt that that was the correct attitude to take, but I believe that they made a grave mistake in suspending aid, for this inevitably means interference in the internal affairs of Lesotho. By suspending aid they have obviously come down on the side of one party or the other—in this case, the Congress Party—and one must accept the opposite argument that, if they restore aid quickly, they will be regarded as coming down on the side of the other party, the Nationalist Party. That is the inherent difficulty created by the action which they took.
  I come now to the present political position in Lesotho. I know the Leader
  2068
  of the Opposition there, and I met him; he was released from detention to speak to me privately. I know the Prime Minister. Also, I met the Queen, who is acting as Regent, and many political leaders on both sides. I believe that the political situation is improving. The leaders of all political parties have met twice to discuss the future, and I understand that they are to meet again soon.
  I took it upon myself to say to the Prime Minister that, if he wanted the restoration of aid, he should, I felt, have the report of the Electoral Commission published as soon as possible, he must release the Leader of the Opposition and his parliamentary supporters from detention, and that these steps would show Her Majesty's Government that the situation in Lesotho was returning to normal. There has been no disturbance in the country for the past six weeks, since the bomb plot was discovered in April. I think that one can take it, therefore, that on the political level the situation is improving.
  The point of concern which I put to the House now is that this part of Africa is suffering from intense drought. Lesotho is a mountainous unproductive country with precious little agriculture. Most people have to go to the Rand mines to earn money to support their families in their home country. The present position is disastrous. The crop has failed because of the drought. The winter crop has to be sown within the next two or three weeks, and for this fertilisers and seed will be needed. The fertiliser and seed subsidy is part of the aid which has been suspended by Her Majesty's Government, so if the crop is planted at all, it will be only a very small portion. This means that the present serious food conditions are likely to continue to the end of the winter season and the country may then be facing starvation conditions.
  In addition, the teachers, who are mainly mission teachers, have been told that Government subsidies cannot be continued after the end of June, and 1,000 teachers have been given notice towards the end of that month. These teachers administer assistance such as the Aid to Children Fund and other children's relief schemes, and there will be very serious repercussions on the children if these acts are carried out.

  2069
  Many development projects, such as the conservation of soil and agriculture and fisheries—about which the right hon. Gentleman would have some particular knowledge and I believe, sympathy—are gradually running down and will have to be ended unless aid is restored quickly. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, once these schemes are run down, it is difficult to get them started again, and it will take a lot of time and money before they can be as productive as they were when aid was suspended.
  One minor matter, which is of some importance, is that the pensions of the Basutoland Pioneer Corps which fought so gallantly in the war are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for whom the Lesotho Government acts as agent. I understand that no money for these pensions or for the administration of the pensions has been paid since January this year, when aid was suspended. The Lesotho Government are continuing to pay the pensions in the hope that the money will be forthcoming from Her Majesty's Government in the near future. I add that to my catalogue of woes because I do not think that Her Majesty's Government intended this to happen when they took this action which was based purely on the question of recognition.
  Lesotho depends for its higher technical advice on expatriots and some of more junior ex-patriots are not signing further contracts. It is now difficult to recruit the doctors and senior technical assistants which are needed because of the suspension of aid.
  By next month the situation in Lesotho will be most serious and there will be some starvation amongst the children. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government do not want this and I appeal to them to think again. The new British Government, of whatever party they are, would have to reassess the position and by that time it may be too late to do anything to prevent a crisis. By August Civil Service will have run down seriously, and their could be a situation amounting to anarchy by September if nothing is done.
  I appeal to Her Majesty's Government on humanitarian grounds. The right hon. Lady obviously could not express to me a view one way or the other although she listened with great sympathy. A large
  2070
  number of people may starve within the next few months, which I do not believe is what the Government intended. I hope that they will take action at least to restore some of the subsidies, for example, for seed, fertilisers and education, even if they cannot see their way to give recognition or, as yet, to undertake the whole aid programme as it was agreed some months ago.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me for raising this matter without giving notice, but it is of such importance that I hope he will pass on to his right hon. colleagues in the Cabinet the request that some action humanitarian should be taken well before the date of the General Election.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I desire to support my hon. Friends who have objected to the expenditure of public money on the document called " Britain and the Common Market " which is, apparently, published by Europe House. During the past year many hon. Members have drawn attention to the way in which this organisation spends public money, and the view has been expressed that this has been an improper use of public money. If that be so, the spending of public money when a General Election is upon us is even more improper.
  The document purports to set out the arguments why this country should enter the European Economic Community. Many candidates in the General Election, including myself, have grave reservations about our entry, and it would therefore appear that the document might be of direct advantage to those candidates who wish to advocate our entry into the Community. As even those of us on this side of the House who favour such a procedure are far more cautious than hon. Gentlemen opposite, the publication of the document might be thought to give an advantage to certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ponder this matter seriously when he comes to reply.
  Is any of the money concerned to be used to persuade the building societies to reduce the mortgage interest rate? It is several weeks since Bank Rate came down by another½per cent., making a

  2071
  fall of 1 per cent. in recent months. As yet we have heard nothing from the building societies, although I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in constant touch with them.
  The figures show that money is flowing in great spate into the building society coffers. Whenever Bank Rate goes up, the building societies race ahead to put up their mortgage interest rate. Why has there been no reduction? Is it because the building societies feel that if the rate were reduced they would be intervening in the General Election on the side of the Labour Party?
  Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government give an assurance that during the next few days he will enter into further negotiations with the building societies, produce the books and demand in strong terms that they immediately reduce the mortgage interest rate? My right hon. Friend has been a most successful Minister of Housing and Local Government, faced as he has been with sabotage by many of the associates of the Conservative Party. It would be the crowning glory of his career if he could bring about a fall in mortgage interest rates during the next few days.
  I wonder whether, during the next few days, any money will be spent by the Department of Employment and Productivity on drawing aside the veil which the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party have drawn upon their proposals for a value added tax. If that iniquitous tax were to be introduced—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. On the Consolidated Fund we can discuss administration, but not taxation or legislation.
  Mr. Roebuck: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not seeking to discuss that, but the administrative arrangements of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. With the utmost respect, it is not unknown for Ministers to cost the proposals of the Opposition, and I was wondering what administrative arrangements had been made for such costing.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made an offer to hon. Gentlemen opposite to place at their dis-
  2072
  posal the whole facilities of the Government to cost their programme. Are there any plans to inquire into the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce a value-added tax, a matter of important national interest?
  The Conservatives have said during the past few weeks that one of the great debates which must take place in the country is the whole question of the cost of living. It is, therefore, important that we see that the money which Parliament votes is properly spent; and it would be properly spent on inquiring into what the Conservative proposals would cost and by how much they would increase the cost of living.
  I want an assurance that the negotiations into which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is entering with the doctors will not be affected by certain views which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example. in the Budget debates the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) bitterly attacked what he described as recent wages increases.
  It is obvious that wages increases given to those who are not productive workers are inflationary, in economic terms if in no other. The right hon. Gentleman attacked recent pay increases, and these have related to teachers, police officers and various other public servants. We need a strong assurance that the Minister will not be influenced by what has been said by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, the logic of whose argument is that the Conservatives do not want doctors to receive pay increases.
  What other efforts are being proposed, as a result of this expenditure, to keep down the cost of living, particularly in the Greater London area? I am concerned, as are my constituents, about the proposals of London Transport, supported by the Conservative-dominated G.L.C., to increase fares. This will have a serious effect on those I represent as on many others in the Greater London Area.
  I invite the Government seriously to consider referring these proposed fares increases to the P.I.B. There is no doubt that since powers relating to London Transport have been transferred to the Conservative-controlled G.L.C., there has been a constant threat of greater increases.

  2073
  At one time the excuse of decimalisation was given. When that was shot down in flames by my hon. Friends, hon. Gentlemen opposite thought of another excuse. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider referring this matter to the P.I.B.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the extra money which it is proposed to give to the P.I.B. under the Bill should be used to enable the Tory-controlled G.L.C. to implement the Labour promise of allowing the aged, the sick and the blind to have free travel on the public transport services of London?
  Mr. Roebuck: That is another matter to which the attention of the P.I.B. should be drawn.
  In almost every area advantage has been taken of legislation, initiated by Labour, to allow our more unfortunate citizens to have concessionary fares. But the G.L.C., dominated by the Conservative Party—dominated by gentlemen who are not noted for their compassion; they are noted perhaps even less for their compassion than for their brain power—has refused to take advantage of this legislation. This, too, has an effect on the cost of living, and in considering my request that certain matters should be referred to the P.I.B. perhaps the Government will consider including this question of concessionary fares in such a reference.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I wish at the outset, as Leader of the House, to associate myself with your remarks, Mr. Speaker, about the staff and all employees of the House. I also wish to associate myself with the tribute that was paid to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck).
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) appreciated that some of the questions which he asked—this applies to a number of other points that have been made by hon. Members—might not be answered by me in reply. If I miss answering any specific points, I assure the hon. Members concerned that I will bear them in mind and make the necessary representations to the Ministers concerned.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: But not next week?
  Mr. Peart: No. I shall be busy next week on other matters, as will all hon. Members. I have also been busy this week. It will be realised, therefore, that if I miss answering any points, I am not being discourteous.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) raised the case of Mr. Robert Smith. I see the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I was not aware that he had progressed to that position in Opposition. Nevertheless, he has high hopes of being an Opposition hon. Member.
  I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman's raising of this case, of which I was given notice. He was right to raise it and I have taken advice from the Home Office. If, in my remarks, the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not dealt with certain matters, perhaps we can discuss the issue later, when it might be possible for me to pursue the subject.
  I wish to make it clear that the way in which the Department has treated Mr. Smith's case has in no way been influenced by his relationship with Ian Smith. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
  I, too, pay tribute to the David Brown Company. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I always recognised the work of this great company. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about its export success and I pay tribute to it.
  Mr. Donnelly: I wish to put it on record that the right hon. Gentleman has been a very good friend indeed of the export drive of this particular corporation. I pay tribute to the work he did in furthering this work when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Peart: I made those remarks to ensure that there would be no question arising of prejudice about either Mr. Smith or this company.
  Any other foreigner making the same application in the same circumstances would be treated in exactly the same way. Mr. Smith arrived in this country on 5th April with a South African passport. He told the immigration officer at the port that he would like to stay here for three months. He had recently, as the

  2075
  hon. Gentleman said, qualified as a mechanical engineer at the University of Cape Town and was anxious to obtain practical experience in this field.
  The immigration officer explained to him the need to obtain a work permit in advance of his admission into this country if he wished to work here. Mr. Smith indicated that he was mainly interested in working in the United States and said that he had written to two or three oil companies there asking them to reply to him care of South Africa House.
  Mr. Smith told the immigration officer —I emphasise this because it is particularly important—that he fully understood that he could not take a job in the United Kingdom, and he said that he would pursue his inquiries about employment in the United States. On this basis he was granted leave to land for one month, on condition that he did not enter any employment, paid, or unpaid.
  A little over a fortnight after his arrival a firm applied to engage him as a student employee for 12 months. I have the details of the allowance which was proposed, but I need not go into that. A foreigner who wishes to come to this country for employment as a student is required to have previously obtained a work permit, just as a foreigner must do if he wishes to come here for ordinary employment. The work permit procedure is, of course, the main method by which the influx of foreign labour is controlled in the interests of British workers.
  This procedure would be undermined seriously if we allowed foreigners to come here as visitors and then take employment, even if we restricted permission to those cases in which the Department of Employment and Productivity was prepared to approve the proposed jobs. This would mean letting any foreigner come here to look for work, and the situation would get out of control.
  That was the main view. The practice on this is rigid. There are bona fide cases in which foreigners come here as visitors without thought of employment or any type of engagement for which the issue of a work permit before arrival is necessary and who then unexpectedly are offered jobs for which they and no available British labour are qualified. In such cases, the Home Office raises no objection to their staying and taking the
  2076
  jobs, if the Department of Employment and Productivity is prepared to approve them.
  When the Home Office received the application for permission to engage Mr. Smith as a student employee, it carefully considered whether the case could properly be regarded as one of the kind to which I have just referred. It came to the conclusion that it was not such a case. It took into account the basis on which Mr. Smith was admitted to this country, when he was given clearly to understand that he would not be allowed to take employment here, a position which he fully accepted.
  The firm which wished to take him on was told on 18th May that the Home Office could not agree to his engagement, and the decision was conveyed to Mr. Smith when he called at the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office on the same day. He was given an extension of his stay to 4th June to enable him to regularise his position.
  I think that anyone hearing those facts could not think that the decision was unreasonable. The case cannot he compared with the granting of a visa to an hon. Member of this House by the United States Government. The cases are not comparable.
  Mr. Donnelly: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two quick questions? First, is he aware that the proposed employment of Mr. Smith is as a graduate trainee? He is supernumerary to the requirements of the David Brown Corporation. It is quite normal for anyone with an engineering, medical or any other degree to seek experience for a time before proceeding with his normal career. This is so in the case of Mr. Smith.
  As for the American point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I have had personal experience of the fact that there is a great deal more difficulty in going to the United States and seeking a work permit, in view of the present American recession. That is why Mr. Smith did not go to the United States. He likes this country. I want merely to sort out the position. If Mr. Smith goes to Ireland or France, and then David Brown apply in the normal way, given that Mr. Smith will be here as a trainee, will that regularise the position?
  Mr. Peart: I cannot give a categorical assurance on the point, but I will look into it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Peart: No. I do not want to be delayed. My hon. Friend made a lengthy speech, and I am coming to his points. I am now speaking to the Shadow Opposition.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Mr. Peart: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend.
  I mentioned just now that a little over a fortnight ago the firm concerned applied for permission to engage Mr. Smith as a student employee. I understand that he was to be paid an allowance of £1,125 a year. However, I will look into the hon. Gentleman's second point. I repeat my assurance that there the decision was not influenced by Mr. Smith's relationship with Mr. Ian Smith.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps I might refer my right hon. Friend to the almost identical case of a constituent of mine who is a Cypriot. I hope that he will be treated in exactly the same way as Mr. Smith. We must have fair shares for all.
  Mr. Peart: I am always available in the House and would be delighted to see my hon. Friend. If he gives me details of the case, I will pass them to the Home Office. However, my hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and I am surprised that he has not made his own representations to the Home Office.
  I come now to the lengthy speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). It was quite atour de force. He emphasised a number of points. He referred, first, to the Foreign Office contributions to international organisations. We have to be sensible about these matters. The Foreign Office makes several grants to various international bodies. One has been mentioned specifically in the Press, and I think it is to that that my hon. Friend has referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) spoke about the grant to the British Council of the European Movement. Grants of this kind
  2078
  are not unusual. We make grants to the East Europe Centre, to the Royal Commonwealth Society to finance its Commonwealth Interchange Study Group operation, to the Commonwealth Press Union, and to many other bodies. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred, the grant was first made in 1963 following an approach from the Britain-in-Europe movement to the then Lord Privy Seal, who is now Leader of the Opposition. It has been continued ever since.
  Fears have been expressed that there would be a danger of intervention into the affairs of our General Election and that the funds would be used to sponsor activities of this kind. I think that all hon. Members agree that this would not be proper, and I accept that. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in touch with the organisation concerned, and discussions will continue. I cannot go beyond that.
  Mr. Roebuck: In these discussions, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ask why this document was sent to hon. Members this morning? It is clearly designed to influence the General Election in one way or another. The fact that it is a load of old rubbish and will probably assist those who are against the Common Market, is not precisely relevant. I hope that, in his discussions with these people, my right hon. Friend will inquire why the document has been sent out at this time.
  Mr. Peart: I cannot go beyond what I have said. I think that what I have said is sensible and satisfactory. My hon. Friend has made his point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North chided the Government about the salaries of the chairmen of various bodies, and referred specifically to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. However, for a highly responsible position of that kind, I would not have thought that the sum in question was large. It is an important body, after all, and I would resent any attack on an individual who is at the head of such a body.
  Mention was also made of the chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Again, I do not think that we should attack individuals.

  2079
  My hon. Friend then referred to some of our colleagues in the House of Lords. I think that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) answered that effectively. My hon. Friend laid stress on the tax-free allowance. I am not against it. I do not think that my hon. Friend was against the earlier allowance, which was increased to 6½guineas.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, I was.
  Mr. Peart: I thought that my hon. Friend acquiesced in it. After all, he may receive it one day. One never knows.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do.
  Mr. Peart: I am sure that if my hon. Friend was there, he would support it. However, it would be wrong for me to pursue this point. People in the other place are not paid salaries, and I think that the allowance is reasonable.
  My hon. Friend then referred to Ronan Point and asked for better treatment for his constituents. I understand that Newham Borough Council recently submitted proposals for strengthening six blocks of flats, including Ronan Point, at a cost of nearly £1 million. It applied for loan consent for £553,000 which it anticipated that it would have to meet after grant.
  I gather than the council has not yet made a formal application for grant, so it is not possible to say. how much it will receive. I have noted my hon. Friend's arguments about the original 40 per cent., which he stressed, and that the increase to 50 per cent. is not in his view sufficient. I cannot go beyond what has happened. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has acted reasonably in this case.
  My hon. Friend went on to discuss many other matters, of which I will take note. He talked about improvement being needed in the judiciary system and of people being held on remand for long periods. Again, I cannot comment on this generally. If my hon. Friend has in mind any individual cases I suggest that he should take them up with the Ministers concerned. If he will give me the details I will proceed as I said I would concerning an earlier case which he mentioned.
  2080
  My hon. Friend mentioned his old hobby-horse about grants for fire purposes and the need for fire drill in the Home Office and other Government Departments. I note that as well. I have been asked about fire drill in this House. I believe that our arrangements are adequate. I should hate to burden hon. Members with fire drill every week. It might be salutary for some. I will take up my hon. Friend's point about road fund licence enforcement.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely raised an interesting topic which I should have liked to follow in greater detail. The hon. Gentleman referred to my interest in a White Paper on oceanography and marine science and technology. I thank him. I also thank him for the work that he has done on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Whilst I may disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter, I pay him that tribute most sincerely. He has worked very hard and has also inspired many of our colleagues to work hard.
  The hon. Gentleman raised questions arising from the new White Paper, " The Protection of the Environment, The Fight Against Pollution." He then dealt, quite properly—I make no complaint—with his Select Committee's Report on the Natural Environment Research Council. In a way, I thought that he repeated criticisms which he has raised on previous occasions. He asked why we had not had any debate and whether the Government had really taken notice of the Select Committee's work.
  Concerning debate, as I have often said, we have so many very good Select Committee Reports that the question has been purely one of time available in the House. I really mean that. I have to balance priorities. I am pressed every Thursday by hon. Members to debate many matters. We still have an important Select Committee Report on Parliamentary Privilege which I should like to debate. We also have an important Report on Members' Interests (Declaration). I give those two as examples which affect this House. There is now a new Report on the Bank of England from another Select Committee. We have had some reports debated. But, even if a report is not debated, the Government take note of it.

  2081
  I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that probably the Government should have responded more quickly to the report that I have mentioned. I accept that criticism. I will convey these views to the Ministers concerned. But I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed our earnest desire to fight against pollution and that he broadly supports the main aims and decisions in the new White Paper, Cmnd. 4373. I hope that all hon. Members will read it carefully.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that the right hon. Gentleman may have been slightly confused. I was trying to put emphasis on the length of time which has elapsed since the Report of my sub-Committee came out and publication by the Government of the White Paper commenting upon it. I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's view that it ought not to be automatic that every report from every Select Committee should be debated on the Floor of the House. However, we are entitled to have the Government's comments on the reports.
  Mr. Peart: I thought that I had accepted that criticism.
  I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to I.M.C.O. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation has done some wonderful work, and we must follow it up. I make no complaint about the hon. Gentleman raising this matter. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise it, but just before he spoke he indicated to me that he would be mentioning it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who is not present, mentioned telephone charges. Again, I will make representations to my right hon. Friend on the points that he raised about publicity for supplementary benefits.
  My hon. Friend also stressed the north orbital extension and asked me to prod the Minister of Transport to speed up road development. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend made a major announcement about road development. However, I will note and convey my hon. Friend's views about Watford to the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice dealt with the problems of Lesotho. He said that he had spoken to officials and to
  2082
  the Minister. I am sure that the Department will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said, as he has just returned from Lesotho. I agree that if there is a drought and crops are harmed, action must be taken quickly. It takes time to prepare plans and to do something practical. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I regard the matter as urgent. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted action. He said that we must not wait until July because it will be too late.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, whose point about the document from and publicity by the British Council of the European Movement I answered earlier, mentioned building societies. Incidentally, one of the better manifestos in the General Election contains the views of the Labour Party on this point. My hon. Friend asked about—
  Mr. Roebuck Mr. Roebuck rose—
  Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should not anticipate me. I was about to suggest that he should read the document. I have read it.
  Mr. Roebuck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Peart: No. My hon. Friend must wait.
  Reduction of mortgage interest rates is an important matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is present and he has noted what my hon. Friend said. We are aware of its importance.
  I should be out of order if I went deeply into the question of a value-added tax. It is not covered by the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it is an important matter. If it were implemented, it would lead to considerable increases in the cost of living, as we have seen in other countries.
  I was asked about discussions with the doctors. I take note of what was said about inflationary wage increases, which has been stressed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod). I also carefully note what my hon. Friend said about fare increases by the London Transport authority.
  In view of the replies that I have given, I hope that we can now get our legislation.
  Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not here, so this places you in a difficult position. But, as far as I recollect, at the beginning of public business no one moved the Consolidated Fund Bill. Where does this leave us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I understand that the Bill was moved.
  Mr. Donnelly: Further to that point of order. I was watching very carefully. It may be that we are all getting stiff-necked in our old age, but I did not see anybody nod. The right hon. Gentleman formally moves it now, does he?
  Mr. Peart Mr. Peart indicated dissent
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee [pursuant to Order 26th May]; reported without Amendment
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agred to
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  4.52 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Barbados) Order 1970 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 8th May, 1970.
  I bring before the House this Order and three others relating to Botswana, Germany and Israel. I do not think that any of these Orders has unusual features to which special attention needs to be drawn, but if any hon. Member has any special questions to ask about them I shall be glad to reply.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Barbados) Order 1970 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 8th May, 1970.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Botswana) Order 1970 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 8th May, 1970.—[Mr. Taverne]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th May, 1970, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.—[Mr. Taverne]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
  Resolved
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of Israel of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Israel) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, 1970. an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.—[Mr. Taverne]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS)
  4.45 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move,
  That the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970, dated 1st May, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
  I shall be brief, but I should like to make two principal points. First, these Regulations follow the Representation of the People Act 1969 and prescribe versions, partly in the English language and partly in the Welsh language, of forms prescribed by regulations under that Act. Those regulations needed an affirmative

  2085
  Resolution of the House before coming into force, and so, therefore, do these.
  Secondly, this is in the nature of a minor corrective operation. Welsh versions of the predecessors of these forms were prescribed in 1964 and will be available for use as necessary at the forthcoming Election, and, therefore, they will be available from this time onwards.
  In the case of the poll-cards, the polling hours will simply need to be amended to read 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. In the case of Forms A, which is the canvass form, a Welsh version has been prescribed previously, and was used last year, and forms based on the Regulations now before the House will shortly be printed for use in Wales this year.
  As I am sure the House is aware, these translations form only part of a substantial bulk of translations of forms into the Welsh language which have been prepared over the last few years. Other Home Office official forms include 86 forms in use in the courts, and five forms in use for purposes of Sunday polls under the Licensing Act. Other Departments, too, have been responsible for the translation of forms, notably, of course, the Welsh Office, which, at the moment, has about 250 forms translated into the Welsh language in current use, more than 200 of these having ben translated since the coming into force of the Welsh Language Act, 1967.
  I trust that the maximum use will be made of these forms. Not only are they of benefit to the persons whose first and natural language is Welsh, but the Government believe that they create an atmosphere which is favourable to the preservation of the Welsh language, and that is something upon which the Government set great importance.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Does my hon. Friend know why the representative of the Welsh Nationalist Party is not here for these important deliberations? Has my hon. Friend had a note from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) to explain why he is absent?
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I do not think that I would want to make a party point on that. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been in hospital for a
  2086
  week or two, but I believe that he is now recuperating.
  These forms can create a background which will make it possible for support to be given to the Welsh language, which is not only an important facet of Welsh nationhood, but is, at the same time, one of the great cultural institutions of Britain.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Elections (Welsh Forms) (No. 5) Regulations 1970, dated 1st May 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

  APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  4.58 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
  That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
  This Amendment Order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, under which the principal Order was made in December, 1966. The Amendment now before the House will have the effect of increasing from 30s. to 60s. per acre the maximum rate of annual charge which may be levied on registered growers of apples and pears by the Apple and Pear Development Council.
  The Apple and Pear Development Council Order was made in 1966 after my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had satisfied himself that substantial numbers of growers within the apple and pear growing industry wanted a Development Council and that it had the full support of representative organisations.
  The Council set up under that Order has now completed the first three years of its life and my right hon. Friend in accordance with the requirements of the Act of 1947 has consulted the Council and organisations representative of persons in business and employment in the industry as to whether it should continue

  2087
  in being, and if so, whether the Order of 1966 should be amended in any respect.
  My right hon. Friend, having noted the views of the Council and the support expressed by the National Farmers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, together with the views of other people and organisations, has concluded that it is desirable that the Council should continue in being.
  He has also concluded that he should agree to the Council's proposal that the maximum rate of annual charge should be increased from 30s. to 60s. per acre. Hon. Members may share my surprise to learn from a consumer survey carried out by the Council that the majority of housewives interviewed were unaware that apples and pears were grown commercially in this country. It is against this background that the Council's main function of promoting this sale of homegrown apples and pears can be assessed.
  The Council has mounted full-scale campaigns in 1968 and 1969, concentrating its main advertising efforts in the retail shops where the housewife buys her fruit. No doubt hon. Members have seen some of the Council's eyecatching and attractive publicity material, and if they have missed the point of sale material they will perhaps have seen posters on hoardings exhorting the public to buy Worcester Pearmain, Cox's orange pippin apples and Conference pears.
  In the North of England the Council has also undertaken television advertising and presented demonstrations in local department stores in order to boost the sale of home-grown apples and pears. Retailers in these areas have reported increases in sales of up to 300 per cent during the campaigns.
  The Council's publicity campaigns are welcomed by producers and distributors and research has determined that most retailers carrying out special promotions have achieved increases in the volume of their sales of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent., directly attributable to the Council's activities. Nevertheless, the awareness of the public of the qualities and availability of our apples and pears remains less than it should be and the Council is very conscious that if it is to extend consumption and compete successfully for an increased share of the apple
  2088
  and pear market its activities must be expanded.
  The Council has collected a levy at the maximum rate of 30s. per acre over the past three years, but after low expenditure in 1967 because of the light home crop it has been spending at a level in 1968 and 1969, which represents a rate of 40s. per acre, using up reserves accumulated in 1967. If the Council is to be able to continue to expand its promotional activities, guard against possible increases in costs and have room for some flexibility in fixing each rate of annual charge—which is subject to Ministerial approval—a greater maximum than is now current is necessary. An increase in the maximum to 60s. per acre, within which the Council will determine year by year what is required, will reasonably meet the needs of the situation.
  This Measure has been generally supported by the industry and I take pleasure in commending it to the House
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: I am delighted that the Minister has brought this Order before us on the concluding day of this Parliament, because apple growers form the one section of British horticulture that may have a rawish time if we enter the European Common Market. It is therefore imperative that the House does all that it can to support and assist growers. The work done by the Apple and Pear Development Council has been extremely good. The Minister has rightly reminded us of the 300 per cent. increase success story in the North of England. I believe that in Glasgow there have also been great successes as a result of the Council's promotional activities.
  Another aspect of the Council's work that should be praised before we part with the Order is the careful, wise and efficient management of the Council and its staff. The Council has not engaged too many staff. It is run absolutely on a shoe string. The chairman and his senior executives should he warmly congratulated for the way in which they have conducted themselves. These levy-based boards can be a bit of a drag on an industry, but this one, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, is well respected throughout the industry. There are one or two dissentients even now, but

  2089
  the bulk of growers and fruiterers welcome the activities of the Council. I believe that other sectors of horticulture may copy this example in the future, although they may not adopt the levy-based aspects of it. The general activities and the spirit of the Council have been extremely good.
  I hope that the House will think of this not in isolation but as a forerunner of other schemes—not identical but similar—because the more Sir Richard Boughey and his team get on with the work the better respected they will be. I hope that in increasing the levy from 30s. to 60s. we are taking a step in the right direction. One could make the side point that it is perhaps the devaluation of cash in the last three years since the Measure was first introduced—[Interruption] If hon. Members want to buy themselves an apple they can go to the cafeteria and get one. There will not be an English apple there at this time of the year, unfortunately.
  I suggest that this is a valuable Measure, and hope that we shall see its similar children in the future.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: That the Apple and Pear Development Council is perhaps the least criticised of all the boards and councils that exist in agriculture is one of the best tributes that can be paid to it. Perhaps we could make an exception in the case of the Central Council for Agricultrural and Horticultural Co-operation, but that has the happy task of simply giving money away. It is a tribute to the chairman of the Council and to its members for what they have done for so long, on a shoe string, that praise is due to the Council.
  It has a task ahead of it. My hon. Friend has said that it is the one branch of the horticultural industry that would have a rawish time in the Common Market. I am less optimistic than my hon. Friend I think that it would spell almost the death of a large part of our historical industry, quite apart from apples and pears. That is one of the several reasons why I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)
  2090
  Undoubtedly, if we go into the Common Market we shall have far more Golden Delicious apples coming in—apples that can be grown more cheaply abroad, with a higher yield—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not debating the Common Market. We are debating whether the charges should be increased. It is rather a limited debate.
  Mr. Body: I hope that I am not deviating too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the purpose of the Development Council is to get this branch of horticulture equipped and able to compete with the challenges of tomorrow.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: But on this Order we are not debating the general functions of the Council; we are debating only the question of the increase in the charges.
  Mr. Body: My point is that it will need even more money than this if the Council is to meet the challenge. That would be too tall an order to expect, and I do not expect it on this occasion. I am saying that I do not grudge the extra levy because it will be needed to enable the industry to do sufficient research and to carry out publicity to overcome the dangers which may be quite close at hand, though I hope those dangers will not materialise. I will do my utmost to oppose our entry into the Common Market.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is the hon. Member saying to the House that in view of the contingency—and I use the word advisedly—of our entering the E.E.C. the amount proposed in the Order is grossly inadequate?
  Mr. Body: Indeed. I have said time and again that the whole horticultural industry will be in real danger if we go into the Common Market.
  I should like to mention one of the recent decisions made by the Council. The decision concerns a constituent of mine who only last week was prosecuted and fined £250 for failing to register with the Development Council.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going wide of the terms of the Order. He must restrict himself to the charges in the Order.
  Mr. Body: But we are concerned with the funds of the Development Council, funds which can be raised only by growers registering and paying the levy. On this occasion a grower was going to give up growing apples—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying very ingeniously to circumvent Standing Orders but he must relate his remarks directly to whether or not the Order should be approved, stating the reasons why the increase is not enough or is too much.
  Mr. Body: I will not try again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will make my representations elsewhere about this particular prosecution of a man who had decided to abandon growing apples and, despite that, was prosecuted, some would say unfairly prosecuted, for the offence of not registering when he had not been told how to register.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must abide by my Ruling which I have already given twice.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye): I should like to lend the support and approval of hon. Members on this side of the House to the work of the Apple and Pear Development Council. The words used by the right hon. Gentleman in expressing his support and the support of the Ministry for the work of Sir Richard Boughey and his men are reciprocated by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  There is one aspect of the publicity which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. From time to time certain examples of it are fixed to the windows of my motor car and they have found their way into New Palace Yard. These are excellent little notices which, once removed, still leave their imprint on the windscreen, so that one cannot get rid of them even if one wants to.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to the excellent way in which the Council is run. He will recall that he took the chair of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture which dealt with horticulture and that Sir Richard Boughey and others gave evidence before him. They then said that they were running the
  2092
  organisation with only four people, which is a commendably small number of people with which to manage an organisation of this sort. The Council deserves the greatest congratulations for the fact that only 10 per cent. of its total income is spent on administration. This is an example which might well be followed by other organisations in regard to other crops.
  It is essential in horticulture to have both good marketing and good publicity. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Order was designed to deal with possible increases in costs. A letter was sent out by Sir Richard to growers stating that one of the reasons that the Order was being asked for was that costs are rising all the time. It was not merely a question of possible increases in costs, but that costs had in fact risen. This among other reasons had led the Council to go to the Minister for an additional levy.
  The levy was negotiated in 1964–65, which is now some time ago. There are a number of precedents involving people who, having had their remuneration set at that time, have since received increases. Sir Richard in a note to his letter went on to say that if the present maximum rate was maintained the purchasing power of the rate would be reduced to only 21s., or half the level at which it at present stands. This was at a time when there was increased competition, which would mean difficulties for the Council and for growers.
  The other point Sir Richard made was that the average spent on advertising is 2·5 per cent. of the retail value of goods sold. The present rate spent by the Council amounts to 0·3 per cent. of gross values paid to growers. Therefore, even if we pass the Order, this will mean that the total rate will go up to only 0·6 per cent. which, compared with a national average of 2·5 per cent., is very small indeed. Sir Richard went on to say that the rate which was paid in other countries is as follows: United States, 6d. per bushel; New Zealand, 5d.; Denmark, 3½d: and the United Kingdom, 2d.
  So that, whatever criterion is used, the Council is being most efficiently run and when one remembers that a bushel of dessert apples is 40 lbs., culinary apples 44 lbs., and pears 48 lbs., the total amount spent of Id. or 2d. is very small

  2093
  indeed. The total amount spent on publicity by the Council is remarkably small. In 1968–69 it was £110,000 and in 1969–70 £109,000. This is another reason for sending our good wishes to the Council so that this Order may help it on its way.
  I suspect that it would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to mention that this may be the last occasion on which we shall have the privilege of seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Dispatch Box. In the circumstances perhaps you will allow me to remain in order by saying that we on this side of the House have greatly appreciated the diligence, courtesy and assistance shown to us by him over a large number of years.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I shall be very brief. I too wanted to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), and hope that I may be allowed to remain in order. We on this side of the House wish to be associated with the kind of remarks of the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has been both a good Minister and a good Member of Parliament. We wish to associate ourselves very much with what has been said.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: May I first of all say how grateful I am for the kind way in which this Order has been received and for the very kind remarks which have been made about me. This will be the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of addressing the House, not only from this Box indeed from any other part of the
  2094
  House. I have enjoyed my time here very much and I am most grateful to all hon. Members for the kindness shown to me in my 25 years in this place.
  I am grateful to hon. Members foi the tributes which they have paid to Sir Richard Boughey, his Vice-Chairman and the members of the Council for the magnificent job they have done. They have done a supremely important job on a shoestring. When one considers how little money it has cost the industry and the return the industry has had for the money, great credit is reflected on those who form the Development Council.
  The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said that the only things which had entered the House were bills for display purposes. In fact things even better than bills have come into the House, and we have all enjoyed the fruits of them. We are grateful to the Council.
  The Order places the limit at £3, although that does not mean that the figure will immediately go up to £3. It relates to a further period with a £3 maximum.
  I hope that the Council will continue to do its job—and, indeed, will do an even better job in the future. The results which the Council has already shown give all in this House the greatest confidence in the work it will do in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

  RATE REBATE (INCOME LIMIT)
  5.22 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
  The purpose of this draft Order, which I commend to the House, is to maintain broadly the coverage of the rent rebate scheme which was first introduced in the Rating Act, 1966, in provisions now consolidated in the General Rate Act, 1967. The House has already approved in February this year the corresponding Order for Scotland. This Order is being debated in another place today.
  As the House knows, the object of the rate rebate scheme is to cushion the impact of domestic rates on those householders with low incomes who are not already being fully helped with their rate bills by way of supplementary benefits. I know that the whole House will agree with me that the rate rebate scheme is of the very greatest social importance. For example, in the financial year 1968–69 the number of rate rebate recipients in Herne Bay as a proportion of the domestic ratepayers in the area was 15·9 per cent. with an average rebate of nearly £19; in Morecambe and Heysham, it was 14·9 per cent., with an average rebate of £26; in Thornton Cleveleys, it was 13·4 per cent., with an average rebate of £18; in Margate, it was 1·.6 per cent., with an average rebate of £20; and in Chepstow, it was 13·7 per cent., with an average rebate of nearly £16. In all, in 1968–69 nearly 850,000 ratepayers benefited and the average rate rebate was just over £16.
  The scheme provides for rebate of two-thirds of the amount by which the applicant's half-yearly rates exceed £3 15s., provided that the ratepayer's income is within certain limits. It is with the income limits that we are concerned in this Order.
  At present the income within which the rebate is payable is £11 a week for a married couple and £9 a week for a single person, with additions of £2 a week for each dependent child in the household.The Order proposes that the
  2096
  qualifying limits should be raised to £12 5s. a week for a married couple and £10 for a single person. There is no change in the addition for a child. In the Order the revised income limits are expressed in terms of the six-monthly rebate period.
  The reasons for raising the income limits are that over the last two years money incomes have been rising and, in particular, last November the State retirement pensions were increased. About 80 per cent. of those who are entitled to rebate are pensioners. Although the income limits of the scheme are well above the amount of pension, more and more people who are retiring will have a little income in addition to the State pension—perhaps as a result of savings, perhaps as a result of a pension from their previous job.
  It is these people, who may be on or near the present qualifying limits, who would stand to lose part of the benefit of the increase in pensions if the limits were not raised. Two years ago, after the 1967 increase in retirement pensions, we took steps to increase the qualifying limits for rate rebates. We think it right to increase them again.
  The increases will also benefit some householders with low earnings which may have risen so that they have found themselves temporarily above the qualifying limits and also a few householders whose incomes have hitherto been just a little above the limits and who will benefit for the first time.
  When the new limits come into effect it will mean that a married couple with, say, three children will still he eligible for full rebate if their income, including family allowances, is around £18 5s. a week, or £20 5s. a week if they have four children. Benefit does not, of course, cease suddenly at these limits. Some rebate is payable even if income is a little above the limit, but it is on a reducing scale.
  The Order, if approved, will come into effect in time for the next rebate period which begins on 1st October. The date from which applications may be made for that period is 1st August. That explains why the Order is to come into operation on that date.
  It is very difficult to estimate exactly how many people are likely to have the

  2097
  particular combinations of income, family circumstances and rate bills which entitle them to benefit. Almost 900,000 households in England and Wales benefited from rebate in the first full year in which the scheme operated—1966–67. The numbers fell in the following year, but rose again to a figure just short of 850,000 after the income limits were raised in October, 1968.
  For the last year, 1969–70, the returns are only now being received, but they suggest that the number in the second half of the year was about 800,000. If the Order is approved, the effect, by and large, will be to restore the number of recipients of rebate in England and Wales to round about the 850,000 mark.
  In financial terms, rebates have totalled £12 million to £14 million a year. I expect this sum to increase slightly in the coming year, not so much because of increased numbers of recipients—since the purpose of the Order, as I said, is to maintain the coverage of the Scheme—but because of somewhat higher rate bills. A total of 75 per cent. of the cost to the local authorities is met by Government grant.
  In asking the House to approve the Order, I hope that I may be allowed to say how much I appreciated the kind references which were made to me by the hon. Members for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and Poole (Mr. Murton), two days ago. In saying goodbye to the House, for which I have great affection and respect, it is only right that I should place on record the sense of privilege which I have that I should have been a member for so a long a period and should say, too, how greatly I value the many friendships which I have enjoyed—and which, I hope, I shall continue to enjoy—with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: The rate rebate scheme was intended as a temporary measure pending the reform of the whole system of local government finance which was suggested in the Labour election manifesto in 1964. After waiting for six years, we are as far from seeing the end of this horrid system of rates as ever we have been.
  This scheme, although intended as temporary, seems to have become a per-
  2098
  manent fixture. It is a notable example of a means test—a means test introduced by a Labour Government who say that they do not like means tests. But I congratulate them on this scheme because it has selectively benefited a large number of people. The Minister told us about the cases particularly at seaside towns where there is a serious rate problem because of the number of elderly people who live there. My hon. Friends support the scheme and are glad that it is operating as well as it is. I remind the Minister that when it was originally introduced it was said that it would benefit about 2 million people. We learn that it is benefiting only 800,000 people this year.
  The Minister claimed that the reason for this change is rising money incomes. It was right for him to use the phrase " money incomes ", because this is a relative matter. The true reason for this change is, of course, rising prices. The £ in one's pocket is being constantly devalued. Under Labour we have found the poor getting poorer; and this Order is one means of helping those who are in considerable distress.
  The retirement pension buys less now than it did five years ago and once again we have before us a chance of giving those concerned a little help. The rates burden is particularly heavy on those with small incomes. Indeed, a great objection to rates is that it is a regressive form of taxation which bears most heavily on those who can least afford to pay, who are those just above the supplementary benefit level.
  The Minister mentioned that those at the supplementary benefit level had had their rates taken care of, so that the rates were not a serious matter for them. But rising rates represent an extremely serious problem for those on small incomes and particularly for those on small fixed incomes.
  Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Allason: When this scheme was introduced the average sum paid by a householder in rates was £36. I should be interested to know what it is today. Two years ago it was just on £42 and I suspect that today it is £44, which means that the average sum paid in rates continues to rise.

  2099
  I pay tribute to the other schemes which the Minister has introduced and which have had some effect in helping to stabilise to some extent the appalling increases in rates which householders have had to bear. This burden cannot be measured by the ordinary cost of living index, because it falls particularly heavily on those with small incomes. These are the people who need special generosity.
  Let us consider the generosity of this scheme by comparing it with the position relative to the cost of living. When the scheme was first introduced in 1966, the cost of living index stood at one figure. Today it is up by 20 per cent. on that figure. It is 10 per cent. higher than it was in October, 1968, when the current figures of the scheme were made known. We are not really interested in the cost of living index figure today but rather in the figure at which it will stand on 1st October of this year; and here we want to know what price rises are likely to take place in the next few months.
  The cost of living index increased by 1½ per cent. in the last month. We hope that that was just a flash in the pan, but we fear that the cost of living will go up this year by at least 7 per cent., which means that if we calculate the remainder of the months of this year until October at that 7 per cent. figure, we see that the cost of living will be 25 per cent. higher than it was in April, 1966, or 14 per cent. higher than it was in October, 1968.
  Let us consider the benefits of the scheme, remembering that the cost of living figure is 25 per cent. higher than what it was when the scheme was introduced. For the married couple the figure is 22½per cent. better and for the single person it is 25 per cent. better, so that there is certainly no improvement in the scheme compared with when it was first introduced.
  What is the improvement over October, 1968, when the figures relating to the scheme were last increased? In this event the single person must look at the figures with a jaundiced eye because on the basis that the cost of living will have risen by 14 per cent. since October, 1968, the single man will, under this Order, receive an increase of only 11 per cent. He will not feel particularly generously treated. The married man is slightly better treated, but not sufficiently to corn-
  2100
  pensate for the likely increase in the cost of living between October, 1968, and the time when this increase comes into force.
  We must then consider the child allowance, and here some surprising facts are revealed. There is no increase at all on the October, 1968, figures, although these are the very children who need help; the under-privileged quarter-of-amillion children whose families are living at below the supplementary benefit level. In consequence, these children are below the poverty line. The children comprising this group should be helped.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: The House appreciates the concern of the hon. Gentleman for these children. Has he any statistics to indicate what proportion of children in poverty whom he is describing are the children of persons who own their own houses and pay their own rates?
  Mr. Allason: One does not need to own a house to pay rates. Indeed, virtually everybody pays rates. Many people pay rent with a rate element. I cannot think of anybody who can escape paying rates, except perhaps those who live in institutions. I am not aware of the precise position in their cases.
  Mr. Brooks: I was thinking of those who are tenants of private landlords, in respect of whom there are all sorts of formulae for working out the weekly rental payments.
  Mr. Allason: Rates are, nevertheless, paid, even if it is the landlord who signs the cheque for the rates. In the end, the rates are paid by the tenants and there is no escaping rates.
  The vast majority of these quarter-ofa-million children are, by definition, within this scheme. The Government have been searching for methods to help these children, but they have not succeeded. They tried by increasing family allowances and drawbacks. By these means they succeeded in dealing with a substantial number of children in difficulty, but this quarter-of-a-million were left. I find it surprising that this opportunity is not being taken to help these children through this scheme.
  We must then consider the question whether the scheme reaches the proper beneficiaries. The total income of the householder is calculated and there is no

  2101
  system of disregards, particularly for the disabled, and this seems extremely harsh.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot, in discussing this Order, go into the merits of the rebate scheme. He may only discuss the increases proposed in the Order.
  Mr. Allason: It would have been possible for the Government to have made this scheme variable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The Government could have done anything they wished, as long as the House approved, but we are discussing only what is in the Order, and not what might have been in the Order.
  Mr. Allason: Surely we must be able to criticise the Order for what it omits as well as for what it contains.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: When an Order such as this is before the House one can only discuss that which is in the Order, because the Order cannot be amended.
  Mr. Allason: I agree, with respect, but on the last occasion, when this very question arose, the Government spokesman undertook to look into the case. We have not heard what he did about it. It would be most valuable if we could be told why the Government did not go ahead with a variable scheme, which is perfectly feasible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be in order even for the Minister to discuss that which is not in the Order. We can only discuss the increases recommended in the Order. We cannot discuss the general rebate scheme at all.
  Mr. Allason: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me the latitude to refer to the children who have been omitted from the Order.
  I should like to pay a tribute from this Front Bench to the constant courtesy and good humour displayed by the Minister. Over the years during which he has been Minister of Housing we on this side have had a very great deal to complain of, and we have complained, but he has always put an extraordinarily cheerful face on things, even though it
  2102
  must have been very galling for him to see so many of his hopes fail. We wish him a very well earned retirement as Minister and great enjoyment in his new post as Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We hope that we shall see a good deal of him in that position, as we have done over the years when he has been a Minister.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I warmly welcome the Order, which raises the income limits governing entitlement from £11 a week to £12½5 for married couples and from £9 to £10 for single persons. This further increase in the entitlement levels is part of the Government's plans to cushion those of our citizens who, because of their low incomes, face a heavy rate burden unless something is done for them.
  I thought it very odd that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) should have spoken as he did. He first of all assailed my right hon. Friend on the whole rating system. He complained bitterly that it had not been reorganised. But it was my right hon. Friends who set up a Royal Commission to investigate the whole subject. That Commission has since reported. We have recently had right hon. and hon. Members opposite complaining about the speed of government. Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition was complaining that the Government were proceeding at too fast a pace.
  On the other hand, we have had the Report of the Royal Commission for only a few months, yet now we have the hon. Gentleman pressing for immediate action—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a fair amount of latitude, but he seems to be starting to stray very wide of the Order.
  Mr. Roebuck: We great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was given enough rope to hang himself. All I ask is enough time to pull the lever to hang him. I am dealing with the precise points he raised. I certainly would not dream of introducing anything that was outside the rules of order, or reply to anything that had not already been said in the debate. I believe that what I am saying is very relevant.

  2103
  As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman's reason for opposing these increases was that something should be done about the rating system. All I ask is that he be patient and wait until we are returned after the General Election, when we shall certainly reform the rating system.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman did not listen sufficiently carefully to what I said. I did not oppose the increases, but welcomed them as far as they went. As to the Royal Commission he mentioned, the reform of local government taxation was outside its terms of reference.
  Mr. Roebuck: I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman supports my right hon. Friend's proposals. It is astonishing to note how the ice of indifference which is among hon. Members opposite about the old, the sick and the pensioners is broken at election time. They have suddenly discovered compassion. The hon. Member speaking for his party, has suddenly discovered compassion. I suspect that after 18th June he will quickly forget all about it again.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been converted like Saul on the Road to Tarsus, and is in favour of selective capital punishment? He has already said that he wished to use the rope to hang my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason).
  Mr. Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman is historically inaccurate. The form of capital punishment at the time of the conversion of Saul was crucifixion. I appreciate that it may have been some time since the hon. Gentleman consulted the proper work on the subject, but if he will care to join a little class that I should like to start I am prepared to give him instruction on the matter.
  What is the alternative to supporting these present proposals? The alternative is to go back to the system introduced by the party opposite, which resulted in the citizens of the Borough of Harrow getting not one brass farthing out of that rebate scheme. My right hon. Friend gave us a catalogue of areas which had benefited considerably from the different Measures he had introduced, and quite clearly those areas will benefit from this Order. My right hon. Friend did not mention the London Borough of Harrow
  2104
  — he is very modest—but perhaps he will write to me to let me know how many citizens of the London Borough of Harrow, and particularly how many of my East Harrow constituents, have benefited so far, with an estimate of how much better they will be as a result of the Order.
  The hon. Member made all sorts of comparisons, but it is quite clear that the only people who benefited under a system which he must clearly have supported were those in Worthing, and such places; not those in Harrow, in Paddington, in East Ham, or West Ham, or Bebington—only a few people in a few selected areas which always return Conservative Members. That system was nothing more nor less than an extramural donation from the Conservative Central Office. In contrast, the Order will benefit all sections of the community equally, and that is a good reason for supporting it.
  My right hon. Friend gave a number of reasons for the change. One reason is the increase in pensions and in supplementary benefits. This is a continuing thing. The hon. Member said a good deal about pensions and the cost of living, and indicated that the pension was now worth less than it was in 1964. That is nonsense. In real terms, the pension is worth 20 per cent. more now than when this adventurous Government took office—
  Mr. Allason: I spoke of five years ago. I do wish that hon. Gentleman would be accurate.
  Mr. Roebuck: I do not see that that makes any difference at all to my argument. I understood him to say 1964, when we came into office. Since then, taking account of the increase in the cost of living, the pension has gone up in real terms by 20 per cent. That is one reason for bringing in the Order.
  I observe that the Order does not come into force until 1st August, and the hon. Gentleman was quite rightly concerned about what is to happen between now and then, and possibly during the rest of 1970. He is worried, as he ought to be, about the cost of living. Quite clearly, whether or not we support that Order depends on various possibilities, which are very important. For instance, I have heard a story, I do not know whether it is true,

  2105
  that hon. Members opposite want to introduce a value-added tax. If that were to come about, the effect on the pensioner, on the sort of person who is benefiting under the Order, would be absolutely disastrous. That would increase the cost of living straight away by 7 per cent. Then clearly this Order would be inadequate.
  I wonder whether we could have some indication from hon. Members opposite whether, should there be some aberration through the happening of a thunder-clap which caused sensible people to stay at home on 18th June and hon. Members opposite got back to office, they would increase the provision made in this Order by 7 per cent.? That is a question which my hon. Friends may wish to put in other places, but if the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead would like to give an answer now, I will give way. He will not do so, however, because V.A.T. is under wraps and hon. Members opposite are afraid to reveal their plans. We cannot therefore come to a proper appreciation and determination on this issue.
  Another factor to be taken into consideration when considering this Order, is the possibility of entry into the European Economic Community, talks on which I understand are likely to go on within the next few days. I do not know whether when compiling this Order my right hon. Friend gave any attention to that possibility. He told us that he took into account various factors when drawing up the Order, but he did not tell us whether he had taken into account the possibility of V.A.T. He perhaps thinks that not worth considering, because hon. Members opposite will not be returned to office, but he also did not tell us about the effect of entry to the Common Market. Some of us may think it a little otiose to enter into the negotiations, because it is a foregone conclusion that the terms will not be acceptable.
  Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has the Common Market to do with a rating Order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) is, I hope, making only an incidental reference. I am just about on the point of pulling him up.
  Mr. Roebuck: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your perception, which, as always, is much more acute than that of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I was about to draw to the end of that parenthesis. If the hon. Member thinks that I have not explained the point to his satisfaction, I am prepared to go over it again. The point was that, whereas my hon. Friends possibly want to negotiate very toughly on this matter, hon. Members opposite would not negotiate so toughly but, as they are not likely to be returned, there is a reasonable excuse for my right hon. Friend not to take that matter into his consideration.
  I turn to a point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) with reference to tenants. It is true that tenants are as entitled to claim rate rebate as are owner-occupiers, but this fact is not sufficiently well known. I have come across many cases in my constituency in which people have been in rather tough circumstances and I have said to them, " Have you applied for a rate rebate? " They say, " We cannot do so because we are tenants and do not own a house." It takes some time to explain that although they are now owner-occupiers they are still entitled to the rebate. One also finds council tenants who do not understand that they pay rates. On this matter great responsibility must rest with hon. Members opposite and their friends who are Conservative councillors.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member's right hon. Friend would be out of order to answer that query.
  Mr. Roebuck: With respect, I am seeking to know what my right hon. Friend is prepared to do to give appropriate publicity to the terms of this Order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister would be out of order to answer the hon. Member's query.
  Mr. Roebuck: It may be out of order, but I hope that my right hon. Friend has taken appropriate note of the question.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) could explain to my right hon. Friend a number of points in the Order which are not clear to him and

  2107
  ask my right hon. Friend to write to him to explain so that he can explain them to tenants in his constituency.
  Mr. Roebuck: As always, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is most helpful and I am grateful to him.
  For all these reasons I reject entirely the unworthy and unfounded criticisms made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, who clearly is in an electioneering mood this evening. I entirely support the terms of this Order, by which my right hon. Friend has done one more great service to the people of this country.
  Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

  INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.55 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill, which passed through another place in a comparatively short time, is uncontroversial, short and important. It amends Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, which, to say the least, was passed some time ago. That Section reads:
  " Any advertisement relating to any venereal disease shall be deemed to be printed or written matter of an indecent nature, if the advertisement is affixed to or inscribed on any house, building, wall, hoarding, gate, fence, pillar, post, board, tree, or any other thing whatsoever, so as to be visible to a person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath, or is affixed to or inscribed on any public urinal or is delivered or attempted to be delivered to any person being in or passing along any street, public highway or footpath."
  The effect of this enactment is to put at risk any local authority or public body such, for example, as the Health Education Council, a body which was sponsored by the Government and established in 1968, if it seeks to advise and advertise the treatment of venereal disease. There is the necessity at present to put in a cautionary note such as the Health Edu-
  2108
  cation Council, is compelled to place in its publication on the various types of venereal disease and their cure, which reads as follows:
  " Caution. If this leaflet is displayed where it would be visible to someone passing along a street, public highway, or footpath, or if it is handed to anyone in these places, there is a risk of prosecution under Section 5 of the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889."
  This, I am advised, has a gravely limiting effect in these days when much improved methods of cure of venereal disease are available. This is a matter of considerable concern.
  The only object of the Bill is to add a proviso to Section 5 of the 1889 Act saying that advertisements relating to venereal disease are not deemed to be indecent if they are published for a local or public authority or otherwise with the approval of the Secretary of State. So the position, if this Bill goes through, will be that a local or public authority will have the opportunity without any risk of prosecution to publish intimations as to venereal disease and its cure with the approval of the Secretary of State so that the exemption proposed by the Bill should be used.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee a the whole House.—[Mr. Concannon]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  CHILDREN, WIRRAL (SPINA BIFIDA)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon]
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: The closing moments of this Parliament deserve their place in the history books, for on the very eve of dissolution we have enacted a Measure which will bring the hope and promise of a better life to

  2109
  Britain's chronically sick and disabled citizens.
  On such a day, for which we owe so much to the patient and constructive work of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) it gives me particular pleasure that Mr. Speaker should have given us this opportunity to debate the educational problems of one such group of disabled persons, those suffering from spina bifida and hydrocephalus.
  Spina bifida, which means literally " split spine ", is the defect which results when the bones of the spine, and the spinal cord which they protect, are not properly formed during a baby's development in the womb. Until recent years, the vast majority of these children died in early infancy, particularly as many—though not all—of them were affected by hydrocephalus. This condition arises when an obstruction occurs to the normal circulation of the so-called cerebrospinal fluid, which is a clear water-like fluid produced in the ventricles of the brain and which functions as a protective cushion to safeguard both the brain and the spinal cord from injury.
  Should obstruction prevent this normal circulation, the fluid is, in effect, dammed up, producing commonly an accumulation in the brain ventricles and subsequent distension and enlargement of the baby's head. About, 80 per cent. of babies born with spina bifida have some degree of hydrocephalus, but it can also arise without the overt symptoms of split spine, or because of such ailments as meningitis in infancy.
  Time precludes me from discussing the numerous and sometimes grave problems which are associated with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, at least in any detail, but the excessively high infant mortality rate until recently bears testimony to the hazards such children face from birth.
  There have, however, been major advances in the past decade which have revolutionised the expectation of life, and of even a relatively normal life, for such children. There have been various developments and advances upon the original Holier valve, first used in 1958 for reducing the abnormally high pressure within the head of the hydrocephalic infant; and if treatment is applied early enough, a virtually normal childhood
  2110
  becomes possible even in cases of quite severe initial hydrocephalus.
  During these same years of the 1960s, major advances have occurred in surgery and medicine for the treatment of the spina bifida child, and today, given proper care, well over half of those born alive can survive the critical first year, and subsequently grow up to adolescence and adulthood. Such children are now surviving in numbers which even ten years ago would have seemed a miracle; and the skill and dedication of those who have contributed to this medical advance deserve the highest praise.
  But problems remain, and it should not be forgotten that the parents of spina bifida children have major responsibilities and worries now thrust upon them which the community must do its best to relieve.
  During the past four years, I have been approached from time to time by such parents in my constituency, and I have deep admiration for the determined way in which so many of them have striven to overcome the handicaps which an accident of birth has placed upon their youngsters. Their children are generally paralysed below the waist, to a greater or lesser degree, which produces obvious problems of incontinence and failure properly to use muscles. These problems require, not only special toilet facilities, say, but also an understanding by both adults and other normal children of the strains such a difficulty presents to the spina bifida child.
  Despite these problems, most of the surviving spina bifida children are mentally well within the range of normality, and since they have full use of their bodies above the waist, including their arms, they have considerable potential, both in terms of work and play.
  For society, through its medical expertise, to ensure the survival of many of these children, and then not to apply its skills and energy to ensuring the fullest possible life for such survivors, would be unforgivable; and I wish to suggest several urgent priorities in this respect with reference to my local area.
  The Wirral peninsula, which is administered by two county boroughs—Birkenhead and Wallasey—and a further two municipal boroughs and three urban districts within the Cheshire County Council area, has a population of about half a million. However, calculations of

  2111
  the incidence of spina bifida in terms of mean national percentages of live births, must be qualified by the higher incidence of the affliction in the Celtic western areas of Europe.
  Figures of the rate to be expected are often complicated, too, by the incidence of still births, but according to the Liverpool Association for Spina Bifida, as many as nearly five per thousand babies are affected in that city.
  This may reflect the high Celtic contribution to the Merseyside population, but whatever the reason for this curious genetic variation, the Association claims that spina bifida is
  " the most prevalent congenital condition in the Liverpool area."
  Even accepting, as I think we must, that the rate in Wirral is rather lower—I am told that it is between two and three per thousand live births—the fact that today most of these children are surviving presents quite new problems for both the health and education services within the peninsula.
  In an effort to quantify the demand for school places during the next 10 years, I obtained in 1968 figures from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science which showed that 72 children were at that time assessed as suffering from spina bifida within the seven local authority areas of Wirral; 28 were of school age, in other words over 5 years old, and 18 were receiving special education.
  In the autumn of 1969, a year later, I sought to bring the figures up to date; and in a letter dated 15th October I was told by my right hon. Friend that the total had risen to 79, with a rather larger proportionate increase in the number of school age to a total of 38. Of these, 29 were listed as receiving special education.
  However, in Circular 11/69 of 28th May, 1969, the Department of Education and Science stated that
  " where possible it is desirable that children "
  that is, spina bifida children—
  " should start their education at the nursery stage, for example, by attending part-time or whole-time the nursery units which are increasingly to be found at special schools for the physically handicapped."
  2112
  The Circular was at pains to stress the advantages for both children and parents of such nursery provision, and I think it follows that the statistics I have just given of children of school age minimise the scale of the demand for educational facilities which should properly be met.
  Some of the children may be able to attend a normal school, but with all the qualifications necessary, my evidence would suggest that there will be about 120 children in Wirral suffering from spina bifida who will require special school places during the second half of the 'seventies, when the infant survivors of the 'sixties will have reached the top school forms. We shall have children in the other forms correspondingly.
  Bearing in mind that there are many other categories of handicap, such as cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy, we are clearly facing a problem of some magnitude, for which remedial planning cannot start too soon. Circular 11/69 showed itself fully aware of the scale of this growing need, and sought both statistics of spina bifida from local authorities, and also their proposals for increasing or improving special school provision. I do not want to suggest for one moment that this is a problem peculiar to my area of the country, but I would contend that Wirral has one or two special peculiarities which do need to be stressed.
  The regional variation in incidence, for example—that is, the higher proportion in the western areas of the country—shows that nationally derived statistics would produce an unduly complacent forecast of local need in Wirral during the 1970s. Furthermore the peninsula is at present relying, in its treatment of spina bifida, upon facilities which were either not purpose-built to deal with such children, or which were designed especially with the needs of quite different ailments in mind.
  The most notable example of this is the Cerebral Palsy Unit at Clatterbridge Hospital, in my constituency, which was constructed on the initiative of the Spastics Society and is now the responsibility of the regional hospital board. This unit has for some years been accepting spina bifida patients—and I stress that the word is " patient " rather than " pupil " at such a unit—and at this moment there are five children from Birkenhead alone at this unit. The pressure

  2113
  for accommodation at Clatterbridge is now severe, coming from as far away as Chester, and I understand that further classrooms would be needed as a short-term palliative.
  However, I would not regard such a palliative as in the best long-term interests of the children. It is surely not desirable for children to be educated constantly within a hospital environment. These children need a school, just like other children, where their special requirements can be met with skilled and sympathetic help, and where they are given the status of pupils in pursuit of learning and skill.
  Ideally—and I know this is the Government's policy—special schools for the handicapped need to be purpose built, in order to respond to the very different requirements of different types of handicap; equally they need to be outside, but not too far away from, the district hospitals where specialist medical help can be provided whenever necessary.
  Against this background, I have been watching with some interest and concern the efforts by Birkenhead education authority to gain Ministry approval for a day special school for physically handicapped pupils at Woodchurch, in that part of my constituency which falls within Birkenhead. This is planned to offer 100 places for pupils aged five to 16, including those with spina bifida.
  Furthermore, and essentially as a short-term measure, the authority proposes to open a nursery class for up to 10 preschool children in October, 1971, attached to a normal infants' school. This, it is stressed, will only be an interim measure designed to cover the period prior to the opening of the day special school, where the authority tells me that it is hoped to take children of nursery age initially. On 24th January the authority submitted its application for the day school to the Ministry again, and I see that a forecast of some 33 school places for spina bifida children in Birkenhead alone has been made for mid-1974. This figure, incidentally, excludes nursery places.
  I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in her reply, would clarify what is now happening to this request, particularly as time is marching on and the Department has several times indicated
  2114
  that a reply could be expected in the near future. The authority's case will, of course, have to be judged on its merits, but on that score I would feel a good case has already been made.
  However, I would like to clarify the future rôole of such a day school in relation to neighbouring local authorities in Wirral. The present pattern is kaleidoscopic, with children crossing administrative boundaries in all directions, en route to Clatterbridge, or to the Day Special School at Elleray Park, Wallasey, the Children's Convalescent Home and School, West Kirby, the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital, Heswall, and the Children's Hospital, Birkenhead.
  Furthermore, they are transported in all sorts of different and more or less unsatisfactory ways, often via ambulances which have other, sometimes urgent, calls upon them, resulting in erratic journey times for the handicapped children going in and out daily.
  In a few years time, if the Maud recommendatons are broadily implemented, the existing pattern of divided responsibility for education in Wirral will in any case have vanished—although I personally trust that it will remain firmly bedded in the peninsula as Maud urged. This is surely, therefore, a time to plan for Wirral as a whole, not least in this matter of providing specialist facilities for a small minority of youngsters who are thinly scattered across the homes of the peninsula. In my maiden speech in this Parliament I urged the case for a more rational structure of local government, and it is no less urgent a plea four years later as this Parliament—but not, of course, its Members—draws to its end.
  My concern then is to seek some clarification from the Department of the sub-regional provision required for the education of the physically handicapped during the first half of the 1970s—a period when the school leaving age is to be raised, and when ever more adolescents, including handicapped adolescents, will wish to pursue studies after the age of 16.
  In the case of spina bifida children, as with other categories of handicap—such as autism—for which society is now accepting much wider responsibility, it is inevitable that there will be need for flexibility and experimentation, for in this

  2115
  field, more than most, it is true that no two children are entirely alike.
  But flexibility within a broad strategy is one thing; what we cannot permit is the sort of erratic and arbitrary situation in which the chain of responsibility is tangled up in administrative red tape. One particular example of this deserves mention, because I think it raises a general point about the definition of capital grant.
  I mentioned a moment ago the inadequate transport facilities available to children being taken to and from hospitals as day patients. Recently, I was told that the new Birkenhead Social Services Centre was severely restricted at first by a lack of specialised transport, particularly for the elderly and frail. My general question, therefore, is to what extent, when projects for the handicapped are considered by the Department—and, indeed, by any Department—explicit attention is given to this aspect of equipment. Clearly, it is self-defeating to have a purpose-built centre, with all the sophisticated fitting and specialist staff, if the handicapped people for whom it caters have difficulty in getting there at all, or at least getting there and away on time.
  I assume that certain items of equipment, such as special toilets, are normally included in the initial planning of a handicapped persons' building, but I do not know whether it is Departmental policy to leave the responsibility for supplying transport equipment to the local education or the local health authority to meet out of recurrent grant, via the rates, or what have you.
  In this particular case of the Day Special School at Woodchurch, Birkenhead, can we be told what plans have been made for this priority of transport? It seems to me that there should at least be an effective nucleus of transport laid on, with the bricks and mortar as it were, to avoid the present situation where the regular daily transport of handicapped children, and others, seems to be the residual legatee of the local ambulance service.
  I have here an account written by a local parent to me recently, which surely makes the point clearly. He refers to one example of
  2116
  "a young, handicapped child getting up early to be ready for the ambulance at 8.10 a.m. and arriving home at 5·15 p.m. exhausted, falling asleep over tea…. Another day the transport arrives at 10·15 a.m. In these erratic conditions, child patients are tearful, tired and bored—and it is a daily routine. The wide variations complicate parents' lives and arrangements with other children. At the school, with time out for treatment, valuable hours are lost by late arrival and early departure, planned treatment schedules are upset."
  There are many other support facilities, as well as transport, which time alone forbids me raising now, although I am tempted to mention the need to encourage further research into specialist appliances, such as tricycles designed for these children. which can help spina bifida children enormously.
  But my final point is on behalf of the parents, as much as the children. Those who have not their experience of having a handicapped child in their family can only marvel at the patience and loving kindness which so many parents provide. But they have enough anxieties without having to worry incessantly about their children's educational future. As one parent said to me:
  " I believe that it is important that physically handicapped children should be educated and not miss out on education, giving them another handicap."
  Another stated:
  " Parents whose children are settled in schools feel tremendous relief both for the child and themselves. Some mothers talk of being released from a prison."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend, whose long record in Parliament is testimony to her compassion and concern for these human dilemmas, will feel that the problem I have raised is worthy of her final speech in the House to which she has for so long brought so much distinction and grace.
  6.20 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): I am always grateful when hon. Members draw attention to the needs of handicapped children, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) has given me an opportunity to speak on the needs of children suffering from spina bifida, and of those in the Wirral in particular. He has raised many matters, and he will realise that some of the points which he made could more properly be put to my

  2117
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Comparatively speaking, this is a new problem, though one to which both my Department and local education authorities have already given a good deal of attention. We must all welcome the recent great advances in surgery for the newborn. Many children who, even a few years ago, would have died in infancy, or lived as helpless cripples, now survive to school age and beyond. Where the handicap is less severe, they can even take their place, with suitable care, in ordinary schools. Others will need places in special schools for physically handicapped children, and some may need to remain in hospital and be educated in hospital special schools.
  Generally, school is preferable to education in hospitals if the child's physical condition permits. But there is no denying that the rapid developments now taking place present us with problems with which the existing special schools provision is not adequate to cope.
  As my hon. Friend realises, this is not a problem peculiar to the Wirral, although that is the area under discussion now. The most recent estimate of incidence made by the General Register Office is that per thousand live births there are 1·73 children affected by spina bifida, with or without hydrocephalus. This would mean 1,500 children annually so afflicted in England and Wales, of whom in future about 600 a year are expected to survive to school age. However, as my hon. Friend has said, the incidence is not uniform throughout the country. As yet, little is known of the extent of the regional variation.
  My Department recognises the need for special action to meet this growing call upon us and has taken the following steps. First, in a Circular issued towards the end of 1968 we drew the attention of local authorities to the need to include in their building programmes for 1971–72 and onwards schemes of school building which would benefit children suffering from spina bifida as a matter of priority. Many local authorities have already submitted proposals, and these are at present being considered.
  The funds available for building special schools are being increased year
  2118
  by year, from £5·6 million in 1969–70 to £7·7 million in 1973–74. Also, we have sent out to local authorities a Circular of general guidance on the incidence of spina bifida and on the educational problems which children suffering from this handicap present. This has been generally welcomed.
  Fortunately, the severity of the handicap varies greatly, and it is not always necessary to provide education in a special school. At present, many authorities lack experience in treating such children, but, with increased numbers, experience should rapidly develop, and arrangements suited to the individual children's needs will be made.
  I come now to the special problems of the Wirral, which my hon. Friend has so feelingly described. This is not the first time my attention has been drawn to them, and I fully accept that there is a need to be met as quickly as possible. I welcome the initiative of the Birkenhead local education authority in putting forward a proposal for a day school for physically handicapped children. This proposal is now in my Department. As my hon. Friend will realise, there are great pressures on our building programme for the year 1971–72, but the urgency of this proposal is clearly appreciated. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that my Department will be writing in the near future to the local education authority with a favourable decision.
  The present proposal from Birkenhead is for a school for 100 pupils aged 5 to 16. My Department has not yet discussed the schedule of accommodation with the authority, but as at present it includes no provision for a nursery unit, I shall draw the attention of the local authority to the need for one for about 20 children to be added.
  There remains for me to say a few words about the provision made at Clatterbridge Hospital, whose exceptional work in caring for these children and providing space for a hospital special school is much appreciated. I understand and fully accept that at present the hospital is feeling the need for increased space for the school. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but I understand that at present funds are not available for building within the hospital precincts. In

  2119
  general, also—I believe that this is agreed between the hospital board and the local education authority—there is a lot to be said for making additional provision in schools rather than in hospitals, thus keeping the children, if their physical condition permits, in the main educational stream. This is another reason why we want to see the proposal adopted at Birkenhead.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of transport for the children to the school. This is a matter for each of the local authorities which send children to the school, and I hope that they will make every effort to provide a satisfactory service. I must say that, in dealing with special schools, this is the first time I have had criticism of the provision made for transport. Most local authorities usually provide it satisfactorily.
  Mr. Brooks: I apologise for not making my original point clearly. I was referring specifically to the children being taken to Clatterbridge Hospital, not to the Elleray Park School, Wallasey.
  Miss Bacon: In that case, it is a matter not for my Department but for my right hon. Friend. A local authority with special school services usually provides excellent transport facilities for taking the children to and from such schools.
  I hope that, with the assurance I have given about the school at Birkenhead, my hon. Friend will feel that his efforts have not been in vain.
  After 25 years in the House, this is the last speech that I shall make, and it seems that it will be the last speech in this Parliament.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I am not sure.
  Miss Bacon: My maiden speech 25 years ago was on the Industrial Injuries Bill, and my swan-song is about children with spina bifida. I think it appropriate that the House should take time to consider these children in the closing stages of this Parliament. One of the great features of the British House of Commons is that, in addition to time devoted to debates on world affairs and great economic problems, there is always time to consider the less fortunate. I am pleased that it has fallen to me to make my last speech in the House on the care and provision which we make for this small group of less fortunate children who suffer from spina bifida.

  SLAVERY
  Sir Douglas Glover Sir Douglas Glover(Ormskirk) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The last speech was to have been a swan-song, but apparently there is another swan-song coming.
  6.30 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, for taking away from her the privilege of making the last speech in this Parliament, but it gives me the opportunity to pay a tribute to her. She has been a great Parliamentarian for 25 years. Although we have disagreed from time to time, she has graced the House with great ability and wisdom for a long time. The House will be a poorer place for her departure. I hope that she has many happy years in retirement.
  My arrangements seem to have gone wrong. I wrote to you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to say that I was proposing to raise the question of slavery and primitive peoples if the House finished its official business, and I notified the Foreign Office. I am surprised that the Foreign Office is not represented on the benches—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has said. He notified the Foreign Office, and a Minister was to come, and probably will be coming. The business today has gone more swiftly than could be anticipated. In the ordinary course of event I would deprecate a speech being made on the adjournment without an opportunity for a Minister to reply. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is free to speak.
  Sir D. Glover: What I am about to say is not controversial, and I would not in any way expect the Minister to be able to give me a concrete answer. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will convey to her colleagues in the Foreign Office that I do not feel insulted that the Minister is not here to reply.
  As I am retiring from Parliament, I thought that this would be a suitable opportunity for me to make my last speech in the House on a non-party issue on which there is no controversy in the House although in the world at large there is a great deal of controversy.

  2121
  The Sudan is a nation largely made up of Arabs in the north and negroid tribes in the south. The Arab people in the north have always dominated the southern Sudanese. Their word for the southern Sudanese is the Arabic word for " slave", and the southern Sudanese therefore come under the orbit of the Anti-Slavery Society of which I have the honour to be chairman. It is appalling to think that there are at least 250,000, if not 500,000, refugees from the southern Sudan who have had to flee from their territory because the dominant majority element of the population is carrying out a form of genocide.
  I know that there is a limit to what we can do, but in recent weeks there has been a great controversy about apartheid and the cricket tour. It seems to me that our values are wrong when there is so much controversy about 11 men coming here to play cricket, yet nothing has been done by the Government, the United Nations or anyone else to highlight the deplorable situation in the Sudan which has existed for some years. If that were an isolated case it would be understandable, but it is not.
  In Zanzibar the Vice-President of Tanzania, who is the head of the Zanzibari part of the government of that country, recently tried to force Persian girls of 16 into a form of morganatic marriage with him. Because they refused, their parents have been made non-acceptable residents and are to be expelled from the country. This is perhaps a minor issue, but it is important in terms of human rights. Where have we heard the voice of Britain speaking loud and clear against these appalling injustices? The voice has been very muted. Our grandfathers would have been far more vociferous.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: One of the great Opposition back benchers is making a plea on a late Adjournment debate and it is incredible that until I entered the Chamber he should have been making it to an empty House. This is very unusual, but it is even more regrettable that there is no one on the Front Bench to answer this fine speech—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This point was raised before the hon. Gentleman came in.
  Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which I welcome—I also welcome his presence. It makes matters a little more realistic, even if the person to whom I am speaking is behind me. I have been speaking to Mr. Speaker, who always listens with such attention to all my speeches, a privilege which after today he will have to forgo.
  I recently made a speech in the House about Brazil, when I said that the Government-organised body whose duty it was to look after the Amerindians in Brazil had been so perverted as to bomb the Amerindians from the air, shoot them with machine guns, lace their food with arsenic to poison them—
  Mr. Speaker: With respect, I know the hon. Gentleman's devotion to this subject, but he must link what he has to say in some way to Government responsibility, or say what he wants the Government to do.
  Sir D. Glover: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am about to do that. Doctors are also injecting people with smallpox. I know that the British Government have no direct responsibility in this matter, but we were one of the founding fathers of the United Nations, which was given the responsibility of dealing with problems concerned with human rights and human dignity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when have these problems been raised by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations?
  Nobody more regrets this than the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but we allow criticism of our activities in Rhodesia and of our trading arrangements with Africa to be debated in the United Nations. We are brought time after time into the dock of that great organisation, but the things for which we are hauled in front of the bar of history at the United Nations are minor misdemeanours compared with those I am speaking of tonight.
  Why has not the United Kingdom Government raised these matters at the United Nations and demanded that it should take a more forceful attitude to deal with these problems? A large amount of slavery still exists in the Philippines and also in Indonesia.
  I have a great affection for Australia, but the situation of the aborigines in that

  2123
  country is disturbing. We have an enormous amount of influence with the Australian Government. Although I would not like to see this matter raised at the United Nations, if the British Government were to say to the Australian Government, " If more speed is not shown in the rehabilitation of the aborigines, we shall at some stage be forced to raise the matter publicly ", it might have a great effect in speeding up progress for those people.
  We have not today the same power that we possessed 100 years ago, but Britain still has enormous influence in the world. When I was a delegate at the United Nations what worried me was that we were not using that influence to try to remove some of the evils in the world today. We were so much on the defensive. I am speaking of about eight years ago, when we were in process of our retreat from Empire and countries were either battling for or receiving their independence. If it was not one country it was another at the United Nations demanding that Britain should do something about the matter. However, that time has passed and now there are not many matters on which the United Nations can haul the United Kingdom before the bar of international judgment.
  The time is now ripe for the United Kingdom Government to take a much more positive line on the matter of human rights at the United Nations and to highlight the injustices over a large area of the world. If we were to take this course we should be developing a role for ourselves in the second half of the 20th century. Although we are no longer the great power we were, we are still, in my view, one of the most influential nations in the world and we should use that influence correctly.
  I do not criticise the empty benches in the House, because hon. Members have gone to the hustings to receive a new mandate to return here to speak with further authority in future. However, I ask that the next Parliament should reassert its moral rôle in the world which, over the last 20 years or so, has happened too rarely. We all know the evils in the world, but we do not speak about them. If our own Parliament would take more time to deal with some of these problems it would have a much stronger feeling of moral probity and integrity. It
  2124
  should seek to deal with the problems which face the world and to protect the under-privileged elements of humanity who are unable to protect themselves. This is why I am raising the question of slavery this evening.
  The one bloc of people who cannot send a delegate to the United Nations to plead for them are the slaves. They need somebody to speak on their behalf, and in my inadequate way I have tried to speak for them. Last week, a distinguished Egyptian, Dr. Awad, was in this country. He has been asked by the United Nations to produce a report on the machinery to deal with slavery. A previous report had estimated that there are at least 10 million slaves in the world today, which is the size of the population of Belgium or Holland.
  The figure does not include the even worse forms of slavery, like the sham adoption, by which children in West Africa and in the Middle East are adopted officially, perhaps for £5 or £10 at the age of 5 or 6, then work as household drudges until they are 12 or 13, and are then probably sold into a brothel. That is a far worse form of slavery than chattel slavery. But that goes on in a massive way in the countries which spend their time criticising us for this or that misdemeanour.
  We have a duty to highlight these matters and to see that action is taken to eradicate them from the face of the earth. We in this House have a bigger responsibility than we have so far taken upon ourselves in this respect. We led the world when my great predecessor as chairman of our society, Richard Wilberforce, headed the campaign 170 years ago to eradicate slavery. At that time an enormous change occurred in the whole thinking of the human race on this great problem. Then, during the remainder of the 19th century, there was a great process of eradication in East Africa, in Zanzibar, and in the Arab countries. But vestiges of it still remain. Perhaps an ever greater evil has now grown up. That is the ill-treatment and injustice to people in the developing countries of the world such as the bush-men in the Kalahari. the Amerindians in South America and other peoples. Their problem today is that they are treated worse than slaves. They pose a difficult problem which needs highlighting and

  2125
  bringing to the minds of the public, not only of this country but throughout the world.
  I do not want to detain the House long at this time at the end of a Parliament, but I earnestly ask that when Parliament reassembles it will accept the challenge to bring these matters to light and see that they are dealt with by the world community at large so that a solution is found.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I wish that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had made the speech he has just made when he was a United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations about eight years ago.
  Sir D. Glover: I did.
  Mr. Lipton: If the hon. Member did, then I am sorry that his efforts were so fruitless.
  In his compilation of the denial of human rights throughout the world, the hon. Member did not seem to lay very much emphasis on the denial of human rights in Rhodesia and South Africa. He did get near the fringe when he mentioned the Kalahari, but he did not make it clear that the Kalahari was part of the Union of South Africa. I mention these two points for the purpose of clarification, with which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will find it possible to deal.
  6.50 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I did not hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) open this short, sharp but very important debate—
  Sir D. Glover: I have already said that I did not mind the right hon. Gentleman not being present.
  Mr. Peart: I am not technically the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Minister concerned thought that this matter would be raised at about 8 o'clock. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no discourtesy was intended.
  I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech. His subject is an important one.
  2126
  He has been a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations, and, obviously, he has a great interest in the matter and feels passionately about it. Indeed, that was obvious from his eloquent speech. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not heard by many hon. Members. Most of our colleagues are speeding to their constituencies to take part in a great debate which will continue during the coming weeks.
  At times, the hon. Gentleman rather overstated his case. It is not for me to comment too much on areas where we have no direct responsibility. I know Australia. I visited that country when I was Minister of Agriculture, and I travelled extensively in the rural areas. The hon. Gentleman was a little hard on the Australian people when he spoke of their treatment of the aborigines in today's circumstances.
  The hon. Gentleman then traversed other parts of the world. I do not dispute his facts. I have not come prepared with a brief, but I take note of what he said and I will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Gentleman asked that we should use our influence, and he stressed that we should take a more positive line at the United Nations on the subject of human rights. I think that successive Governments in the post-war period have all stressed the importance of this—the first Labour Government, even our predecessors, and the present Labour Government. It has been done by every British Minister representative and delegation at the United Nations and other assemblies.
  I have in mind, for example, my own experience at the Council of Europe, where I was a delegate for a long time and where we continually stress the importance of human rights. Only recently, at the Council of Europe, there was a debate on Greece, when this matter was again raised.
  I do not want to be controversial, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that we have stressed over and over again the rights of individuals in Rhodesia and South Africa and the whole subject of racial prejudice and religious intolerance which

  2127
  mars human freedom and dignity in many parts of the world. I am proud to say that my Government have played their part in condemning these and in trying to create situations where we can move from the state of barbarism among many people who claim to be civilised.
  We are not apathetic. I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I know that he feels strongly about these matters. He analysed the changing role of our country and pointed out that we are no longer the imperial power that we were. However, as he said, Britain still has a great influence. We have a strong economy. We are a gifted people and a mature democracy. Our attitudes in world affairs are taken note of by many people, and Britain has still a major rôle to play in international diplomacy. We have nothing to apologise for when we talk of the importance that we place upon human rights.
  The hon. Gentleman asked us in the next Parliament to take on a more moral rôle in the world today. Without being priggish or pious, I think that I can say that we are already doing this. British influence in the world is strong, and it is backed by our common sense and history. I do not agree that we have done too little. We are anxious to extend human
  2128
  freedoms and, above all, to further human dignity. We oppose the racial and religious prejudice which mars these concepts.
  Then there are the other ways in which we can help. British businessmen, experts, technical assistants, scientists and other qualified people, such as veterinary surgeons, are doing a great deal to raise the standards of living of men and women in parts of the world where people still live in terrible conditions. One of our great Foreign Secretaries, the late Ernest Bevin, said that it was impossible to build peace out of hunger. We have led the world in dealing with this problem. We are sometimes criticised, but we have created a Minister of Overseas Development. Whatever the criticisms, we should always be proud of our contribution in that respect.
  I have noted carefully all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He was right to raise the subject, and I compliment him. But I hope that he will not be too pessimistic. I believe that we have a good record.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Seven o'clock

  NATIONAL PLAN
  NATIONAL PLAN
  PRICE INCREASES
  PRICE INCREASES
  MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  MINISTRY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  SOUTH AFRICA
  SOUTH AFRICA
  SOUTH AFRICA AND PORTUGAL
  SOUTH AFRICA AND PORTUGAL
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  MEMBERS (TELEPHONE TAPPING)
  MEMBERS (TELEPHONE TAPPING)
  SECURITY COMMISSION CASE (PRESS INFORMATION)
  SECURITY COMMISSION CASE (PRESS INFORMATION)
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  CIVIL SERVANTS
  CIVIL SERVANTS
  HOUSE-BUILDING PROGRAMME
  HOUSE-BUILDING PROGRAMME
  CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
  CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
  U THANT (VISIT)
  U THANT (VISIT)
  UNITED NATIONS (VISIT)
  UNITED NATIONS (VISIT)
  MOSCOW (VISIT)
  MOSCOW (VISIT)
  DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (REMUNERATION)
  DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (REMUNERATION)
  QUEEN'S AWARD TO INDUSTRY
  QUEEN'S AWARD TO INDUSTRY
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS)
  CUBE-CUTTING (INVESTIGATIONS)
  CUBE-CUTTING (INVESTIGATIONS)
  EUROPEAN MOVEMENT
  EUROPEAN MOVEMENT
  LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (LAW COMMISSIONS' REPORTS)
  LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (LAW COMMISSIONS' REPORTS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Salaries (Public Servants)
  Salaries (Public Servants)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Public Employees (Leave)
  Public Employees (Leave)
  Dismissals
  Dismissals
  Cost
  Cost
  Vacant Posts
  Vacant Posts
  Public Relations and Press Officers
  Public Relations and Press Officers
  CIVIL SERVANTS
  CIVIL SERVANTS
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farming Net Income
  Farming Net Income
  Agricultural Net Output
  Agricultural Net Output
  Spitalfields Market
  Spitalfields Market
  Kew Gardens
  Kew Gardens
  Caesar's Camp Quarantine Kennels, Folkestone
  Caesar's Camp Quarantine Kennels, Folkestone
  Food Distribution (Profit Margins)
  Food Distribution (Profit Margins)
  British Agricultural Export Council
  British Agricultural Export Council
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education, Portsmouth
  Comprehensive Education, Portsmouth
  Primary School Classes, Leicester
  Primary School Classes, Leicester
  Educational Priority Areas, Lambeth
  Educational Priority Areas, Lambeth
  Museums (Visitors)
  Museums (Visitors)
  School Leavers (Higher Education)
  School Leavers (Higher Education)
  Girls' School, Norwood
  Girls' School, Norwood
  Schools (Metrication)
  Schools (Metrication)
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Universities (Grants)
  Universities (Grants)
  Welsh Sports Council
  Welsh Sports Council
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Employment, Wales
  Employment, Wales
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Lost Working Days (Industrial Disputes, Sickness and Accident)
  Lost Working Days (Industrial Disputes, Sickness and Accident)
  School-leavers, Wirral (Apprenticeships)
  School-leavers, Wirral (Apprenticeships)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Aubrey Jones
  Mr. Aubrey Jones
  Commission for Industry and Manpower (Chairmanship)
  Commission for Industry and Manpower (Chairmanship)
  Nationalised Industries (Changes)
  Nationalised Industries (Changes)
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Executive and Professional Register
  Executive and Professional Register
  University Technicians (Salaries)
  University Technicians (Salaries)
DEFENCE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  British Forces, Muscat and Oman (Casualties)
  British Forces, Muscat and Oman (Casualties)
  Service Hospitals
  Service Hospitals
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Arms Reduction, Europe
  Arms Reduction, Europe
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  CS (Use)
  CS (Use)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Portugal
  Portugal
  British Forces, Germany
  British Forces, Germany
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  H.M.S. Eagle " (Refit)
  H.M.S. Eagle " (Refit)
  Forces East of Suez
  Forces East of Suez
  Naval and Merchant Ships (Airborne Early Warning)
  Naval and Merchant Ships (Airborne Early Warning)
  Malta (Infantry Battalions)
  Malta (Infantry Battalions)
  Aircraft (Nuclear Missiles)
  Aircraft (Nuclear Missiles)
  Soldiers' Widows (Pensions)
  Soldiers' Widows (Pensions)
  Mr. Jan Ellery (Pension)
  Mr. Jan Ellery (Pension)
  Basutoland Pioneer Corps (Pensions)
  Basutoland Pioneer Corps (Pensions)
  Soviet Navy
  Soviet Navy
  Middle East (Arms Supply)
  Middle East (Arms Supply)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Caribbean Islands (Cuban Exiles)
  Caribbean Islands (Cuban Exiles)
  Arrested Yacht Crew, Somalia
  Arrested Yacht Crew, Somalia
  British Import and Export Businesses, Uganda
  British Import and Export Businesses, Uganda
  Northern Ireland (Irish Republic Army Security Forces)
  Northern Ireland (Irish Republic Army Security Forces)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Hi-jacking of Aircraft
  Hi-jacking of Aircraft
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Portugal
  Portugal
  African Commonwealth Countries
  African Commonwealth Countries
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
  European Movement
  European Movement
  Middle East (United Nations Resolutions)
  Middle East (United Nations Resolutions)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  General Election (Electors on Holiday)
  General Election (Electors on Holiday)
  Lorries (Theft of Goods)
  Lorries (Theft of Goods)
  Electoral Roll (Correction of Mistakes)
  Electoral Roll (Correction of Mistakes)
  Prisoners (Cost of Maintenance)
  Prisoners (Cost of Maintenance)
  Remand in Custody
  Remand in Custody
  Mr. Will Owen
  Mr. Will Owen
  South African Cricket Tour
  South African Cricket Tour
  Metropolitan Police L Division (Crime Prevention and Detection)
  Metropolitan Police L Division (Crime Prevention and Detection)
  Committee on Privacy
  Committee on Privacy
  Lambeth (Urban Aid Programme)
  Lambeth (Urban Aid Programme)
  Immigration Adjudicators
  Immigration Adjudicators
  Unsolicited Pornographic Material
  Unsolicited Pornographic Material
  Winson Green Prison (Colin Greenhall)
  Winson Green Prison (Colin Greenhall)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Environmental Improvements (Assistance)
  Environmental Improvements (Assistance)
  Housing, Southampton
  Housing, Southampton
  Rate Rebates, Southampton
  Rate Rebates, Southampton
  Housing, Lambeth
  Housing, Lambeth
  Financial Aid, Lambeth
  Financial Aid, Lambeth
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Environmental Pollution (White Paper)
  Environmental Pollution (White Paper)
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments Accounts
  Balance of Payments Accounts
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Overseas Debt
  Overseas Debt
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Capital Gains
  Capital Gains
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Tax Tables (Decimal Currency)
  Tax Tables (Decimal Currency)
  Service Industries
  Service Industries
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Taxation (Overseas Comparisons)
  Taxation (Overseas Comparisons)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Merseyside Development Area
  Merseyside Development Area
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Dividends (Interest)
  Dividends (Interest)
  Personal Savings
  Personal Savings
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Budget Proposals (Taxation)
  Budget Proposals (Taxation)
  Taxation and Incentives
  Taxation and Incentives
  The Citizen and the State
  The Citizen and the State
  Half-Crowns
  Half-Crowns
  Monthly Trade Figures
  Monthly Trade Figures
  Maintenance of Law and Order (Expenditure)
  Maintenance of Law and Order (Expenditure)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Post Office Report and Accounts
  Post Office Report and Accounts
  Postal Stamps (Revenue)
  Postal Stamps (Revenue)
  Post Office Giro
  Post Office Giro
  B.B.C. Chairman (Appointments)
  B.B.C. Chairman (Appointments)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Crown Buildings (Bishop Auckland)
  Crown Buildings (Bishop Auckland)
  Portsmouth (Minister's Visit)
  Portsmouth (Minister's Visit)
  Fire Drills
  Fire Drills
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  London Zoological Society (Report)
  London Zoological Society (Report)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Cyprus (Colonial Service Pensions)
  Cyprus (Colonial Service Pensions)
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
  Malta
  Malta
  Rhodesia (Students)
  Rhodesia (Students)
SCOTLAND
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge (Infilling)
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge (Infilling)
  Secondary School Teachers
  Secondary School Teachers
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Workers, Aberdeen (Movement to South)
  Workers, Aberdeen (Movement to South)
  Primary School Classes
  Primary School Classes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Spina Bifida Patients, Wirral Peninsula
  Spina Bifida Patients, Wirral Peninsula
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Mass X-ray Service
  Mass X-ray Service
  Kettering General Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Kettering General Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Hospital Facilities, Portsmouth
  Hospital Facilities, Portsmouth
  The Samaritans
  The Samaritans
  Old People
  Old People
  Sickness Benefit Payments (Decimalisation)
  Sickness Benefit Payments (Decimalisation)
  War Pensioners
  War Pensioners
  National Insurance Contributions (Decimalisation)
  National Insurance Contributions (Decimalisation)
  Hospitals (Bed Occupancy)
  Hospitals (Bed Occupancy)
  Hospital Facilities (King's College and St. Thomas's)
  Hospital Facilities (King's College and St. Thomas's)
  National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill
  National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill
  Departmental Offices, Portsmouth (Cases)
  Departmental Offices, Portsmouth (Cases)
  Attendance Allowance (Contribution Conditions)
  Attendance Allowance (Contribution Conditions)
TECHNOLOGY
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  South-West Durham
  South-West Durham
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Government Research Establishment
  Government Research Establishment
  B.A.C. 3–11 Project
  B.A.C. 3–11 Project
  Research Programmes
  Research Programmes
  Cammell Laird (Reorganisation)
  Cammell Laird (Reorganisation)
  Smokeless Fuel
  Smokeless Fuel
  Inter-City Vertical Take-off Air Services
  Inter-City Vertical Take-off Air Services
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  North-West Development Areas
  North-West Development Areas
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
BOARD OF TRADE
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Hotel Development
  Hotel Development
  British Footwear (Japan)
  British Footwear (Japan)
  Pinnock Finance Limited
  Pinnock Finance Limited
  Export Services and Promotion (Expenditure)
  Export Services and Promotion (Expenditure)
  Solid Fuels (Moisture Content)
  Solid Fuels (Moisture Content)
  Portugal and South Africa (Trade and Investment)
  Portugal and South Africa (Trade and Investment)
  Dollar Land Holdings Company
  Dollar Land Holdings Company
  Trade Policy (U.N.C.T.A.D.)
  Trade Policy (U.N.C.T.A.D.)
  Edinburgh Airport
  Edinburgh Airport
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council (Geneva Meeting)
  E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council (Geneva Meeting)
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
TRANSPORT
  Road Fund Licence Payments (Evasion)
  Road Fund Licence Payments (Evasion)
  Pedestrian Crossings and Speed Restrictions
  Pedestrian Crossings and Speed Restrictions
  Worboys Committee's Report
  Worboys Committee's Report
  Harrow Manorway, Bexley (Flyover)
  Harrow Manorway, Bexley (Flyover)
  Inner-City Traffic (Priority Categories)
  Inner-City Traffic (Priority Categories)
  M62, Liverpool
  M62, Liverpool
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Devices)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Devices)
  Road Works (Contractors' Lorries)
  Road Works (Contractors' Lorries)
  St. Ives-Cambridge Transport Services
  St. Ives-Cambridge Transport Services
  Lorries (Tail Ends)
  Lorries (Tail Ends)
  Roads Expenditure, Portsmouth
  Roads Expenditure, Portsmouth
  A6, Hazel Grove (Diversion)
  A6, Hazel Grove (Diversion)
WALES
  Oxford Road Maternity Home, Llandudno
  Oxford Road Maternity Home, Llandudno
  Health Service Area Boards (Representation)
  Health Service Area Boards (Representation)
  British Agricultural Export Council
  British Agricultural Export Council

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

BARONESS DACRE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been pleased to terminate the abeyance of the Barony of Dacre in favour of Rachel Leila Douglas-Home. The Barony has been in abeyance since the death in 1965 of her father, Thomas Henry Viscount Hampden. A Writ of Summons has been issued in pursuance of Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963, and the noble Lady attends at the Bar to take her seat.
After which, Baroness Dacre took the Oath.
The Lord Annaly—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAXATION AND INCOMES: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 by how many million pounds the taxation on personal incomes in 1969 exceeded that in 1964; and by how many million pounds wages and salaries in 1969 exceeded those in 1964.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in 1969 taxes paid on total personal income were £2,372 million greater than in 1964; wages and salaries were £6,385 million greater. The tax figure given covers taxes on all forms of incomes, and so should properly be compared, not with wages and salaries, but with total personal incomes, including National Insurance benefits, which were £10,820 million greater in 1969 than in 1964.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is this the Administration that forecast they would be able to fulfil their programme without any increase in taxation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the wit of the noble Lord's supplementary escapes me, I am afraid.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very enlightening and satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that it will give great satisfaction throughout the country, especially to wage and salary earners? Would it not be in the interests of the nation if as wide publicity as possible were given to these enlightening figures?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to pursue that point before I reply?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords; I hope the noble Lord will answer that question first.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I thought would be relevant, too, is not only the taxation increase, but the fact that the number of roads, hospitals and schools and also other social benefits were increased. It is further true that during that time we increased our exports in two years by some 24 per cent., and had it not been for our fiscal policy that undoubtedly would not have been possible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Australia the sort of Question which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has asked, and the sort of Question which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is about to ask is called a "Dorothy Dix", the definition of which is a question inspired by a Minister who wants to take some credit before he disappears into oblivion, and that it is usually greeted with the jeers it deserves?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am sure it must be most disappointing that the figure which the Opposition use so often in their propaganda is seen to be not quite so certain as they try to make out.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is all very well for the people who have had these vast wage increases, but the people suffering are the ones who have not the power to extract them, and these are the people we should worry about?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree; and that of course hag some relevance to the Order which will be moved later to-day about supplementary benefits.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the instructive figures which he has given us, may I ask whether he could add a commentary or explanation as to whether they are in real terms, or whether these figures are in terms of a devalued pound?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was comparing like with like. Both the taxes and the personal incomes are in money terms.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that it really is a matter of constant inflation?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend not be prepared to wager a pound with any member of the Opposition that he would still be reluctant to lose a pound?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition probably knows more about the Australian lady Dorothy Dix than I do, but am I in order in asserting now—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD LEATHERLAND: Am I in order in asking now whether it is not a fact that I inspired this Question myself, that I was its complete author and—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I do not know what has come over your Lordships. It might almost be thought that there was going to be an Election. But I think the noble Lord has extracted the maximum advantage from his Question, and the Opposition have done their best, too.

ARTS SUBSIDIES: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money has been provided by means of subsidy for the Arts during the last five years as compared with the five-year period up to 1964.]
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I should introduce this with music. Government expenditure on the Arts for the five-year period 1965–66 to 1969–70 amounted to £87·8 million. For the period 1960–61 to 1964–65 the corresponding figure was £40·1 million.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether the very satisfactory rate of increase during that period was an annual rate of increase, or was it a more uneven increase?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I happen to have some of these figures. In 1964 it was £10 million and then it rose steadily to £13, £15, £18, £20 and £24 million.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question was inspired purely for my own information?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me that this is evidence of the improvement and liberalisation of our education?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I am quite certain that whatever your Lordships have to say about some other pieces of activity of this Government you certainly cannot criticise the tremendous expenditure on and increase in enthusiasm which has taken place in the Arts generally.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, in view of the wide term "the Arts", may I, purely for information, ask whether it includes the art of pornography and the art of electioneering?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could give us some idea how these figures compare with the expenditure in the same years in other countries—West Germany, Holland and other Continental countries.
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that that is another question. All I can say is that in the debate we had on the Arts I was able to show that our figures compare very favourably with those of any country in Europe.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us any assurance that, following up this excellent work for the Arts, when the Labour Government are returned after this Election they will do something equally for the authors?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, naturally I cannot commit any future Government, though I assume that the noble Lord will as always, be very assiduous in looking after the interests of the authors and I am sure will put the Question again.

SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET TOUR AND B.B.C. INTERVIEWS
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I would like to alter the word "does" to "did not".
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the continual interviewing of demonstrators against the Test Match tour by the B.B.C. does not constitute a direct incitement to violence.]
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, programme content is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities alone and the Government do not intervene. The B.B.C.'s duty is to report the news fairly and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality. The B.B.C.
1170
have told my right honourable friend, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, that they took care to maintain a fair balance between those who were in favour of the cricket tour taking place and those who were not.
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would she not agree that mass media communication is a most dangerous instrument which can stir up emotions and hysteria much in the same way as Hitler did in Germany, and that the B.B.C. should take great care, as she said they have? I would ask her to consider whether both the producers and the announcers should not keep a fair balance and above all be careful not to betray their own preferences, as they do at present, by inclination or by accident.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, of course the mass media are dangerous, but they are also extremely educative. I am sure the noble Baroness would be the last to ask for any form of censorship over what goes out over television. I do not think that all of the last part of her supplementary arises. It is quite clear that it is a controversial subject which must be handled very carefully, but I have every confidence in the way the B.B.C. and Independent Television deal with these questions.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—or perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be the better to answer my Question, which is very erudite and precious. The Question is whether the Statement of the Prime Minister on this subject, which was reported fully verbatim by the B.B.C, might not have amounted to the felony of seditious libel—a felony which I think only the Lord Chancellor would understand—and whether the Attorney General and the Law Officers had considered this matter.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that that question ought to be treated with reserve; and I do not mean contempt.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us consider that the B.B.C. have been fair in putting both sides of the question? And is she further aware that there was

1171
quietude on the Opposition Benches when South Africa stopped d'Oliveira and nobody is making this a political gimmick because the Election is coming about.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, nobody can improve on what my noble friend says.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness why she said that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, was not asking for censorship of the B.B.C.? I thought that that was exactly what she was asking for.
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to realise that I was not asking for censorship; I was asking for a fair deal for both sides. Now she has given me that assurance I hope we shall see it carried out.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that on the whole I was putting more politely what the noble Baroness was saying, but I am delighted that she is satisfied with my reply
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I know that this is a different question, but does the reply given by the noble Baroness apply to the dramatic exploitation of crashes, fires and other disasters, and is the way that this is done in the national interest?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, that is another question, and perhaps the noble Viscount would care to put it down.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say, further to her point that the duty of the B.B.C. is to report news faithfully, whether she is aware and whether the B.B.C. are aware and will admit to a current report that freelance producers make themselves available to the B.B.C. to produce a telegenic happening at a point in time and space convenient to television cameras; and does not this constitute a distortion of news?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I have heard of that, but of course I am quite unable to answer at this sort of notice.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does my noble friend think it appropriate that people who have not demonstrated but have merely expressed their opinions should be referred to as "demonstrators"?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that in this Election period it is very important that the B.B.C. commentators and questioners, who like asking very steeply slanted questions, should be careful to preserve a neutral balance?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not going to try to help us?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend also say whether there is any way of requiring the national and local Press to observe a similar neutral balance?

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION
2.54 p.m.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I met representatives of the medical and dental professions this morning. They put to us in the strongest terms their view that the publication of the Report should not be delayed until after the General Election.
"My right honourable friend and I reaffirmed the Government view that the Report and the Government decisions on it should be published simultaneously. But in view of the strength of the representations made by the professions, we informed them that the date of publication, with the announcement of the Government's decisions would be brought forward to Thursday, June 4.

1173
"The representatives of the professions then sought, to use their own words, 'an unequivocal assurance that the Government would not in its decisions in any way modify the Kindersley recommendations either by phasing or by reducing the totality of the award.'
"My right honourable friend, in reply, stressed that the Government had not yet completed its consideration of what is an extremely complex Report and that he could not agree to give any indication of the Government's decisions before publication on June 4."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for making that rather unexpected Statement. The "usual channels" seem to have broken down on this occasion. I am beginning to expect it: I understand that the noble Lord had some trouble yesterday at Transport House, so perhaps this is just another indication of the way things happen. May I just ask the noble Baroness one question? Do I understand from the Statement that there is to be another meeting on June 4, or after June 4? Or what is going to happen after publication?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should think that there will be a meeting after publication. What I am announcing is the publication—the advancing of the date of the publication and the Government's decisions. I do apologise if the "usual channels" broke down.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not complaining about that, but after the publication presumably something is going to happen. I was asking, what is going to happen after publication?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we do not know. That is between the Government and the B.M.A.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord. We do try our best, sometimes in difficult circumstances, and I realise that he is not complaining too much. I did not understand his reference to communication between me and Transport House yesterday morning, because I was in New-foundland.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness for clarification and to thank her for making the Statement. Actually I did know about it, because I asked whether there was to be one. May I ask exactly what is going to happen next Thursday? Are we going to get the publication and the Government's decision on that day? I am not clear about it.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the B.M.A. have asked for an unequivocal assurance that the Government would not in their decisions in any way modify the Kindersley Report. The answer is that the Government have not yet completed their considerations and could not agree to give any indications of their decisions before publication on June 4. I think noble Lords will get them both together.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I understand that. Are we therefore going to get the publication of the Report and the publication of the Government decision on it?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.

BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I do not propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. ADMINISTRATION
The Committee have reviewed in detail the duties at present entrusted to Sir George Mills, as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh, as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, Serjeant-at-Arms and Agent to the Administration Commitlee. They take account of the facts that The Queen has recently approved the appointment of Admiral Sir Frank Twiss to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to Sir George Mills with effect from 1st September, 1970; and that Sir Kenneth Mackintosh will be retiring from his various posts at the end of the year.
The Committee have approved a recommendation from the Administration Committee that, on the retirement of Sir Kenneth Mackintosh, the latter Committee should appoint as their Agent Admiral Sir Frank Twiss, to carry out on their behalf the control of the accommodation and services in the House of Lords area of the Palace of Westminster.
So far as ceremonial duties are concerned, the Lord Great Chamberlain has agreed that, in due course, the Gentleman Usher should take over the Secretarial responsibilities hitherto discharged by Sir Kenneth Mackintosh.
The Yeoman Usher will act as Deputy to the Gentleman Usher for such duties as may be assigned to him.
The duties of the post of Serjeant-at-Arms are left over for future consideration.
1176
Subject to this reservation, the Committee seek the approval of the House for the principle of concentrating in the office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod the administrative and ceremonial responsibilities at present carried out by Sir George Mills and Sir Kenneth Mackintosh respectively.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee were informed that approval has been given for the scheme to provide additional accommodation for the House of Lords by building over State Officers' Court.
Work on the scheme will start in the Summer Recess 1971 with completion by the end of the Summer Recess 1972.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee agreed to the Report of the Sub-Committee on the grading of the two posts of Principal Clerk, Judicial Office, and the Principal Clerk, Committee and Private Bill Office in the Parliament Office. The Committee authorised the salary consequent upon the revised grading of these posts with effect from the 1st March, 1970.
4. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishment Circular D.E.O. (70) (Pay) No. 7 (Central Pay Increase) dated 9th April, 1970, to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons, requesting "that the Lords will be pleased to return to them the Administration of Justice Bill because an Amendment which the Commons had made to the Bill was not communicated to your Lordships": read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this Bill be returned to the Commons as requested?
The Bill will be returned.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
Returned from the Commons yesterday, with certain of the Amendments agreed to; with certain other Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment; with one other Amendment

1177
disagreed to, with an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill; and with the remaining Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL
Returned from the Commons yesterday, with the Amendments disagreed to and with a Reason for such disagreement.
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons yesterday, agreed to, with Amendments.

RATE REBATES (LIMITS OF INCOME) ORDER 1970
3.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the purpose of this particular Order which I commend to the House, is to maintain broadly the coverage of the rate-rebate scheme. The House has already approved in February this year a corresponding Order for Scotland. Since this is an unusual day in the life of this Parliament, I do not propose at this moment to go any further into this matter, in the belief that the House will already know what this is about and approve the purpose of it. If, however, any noble Lord would like any more background detail or information, I stand ready to give it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1970 laid before the House on May 15, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE MENTS) REGULATIONS 1970
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before the House on May 15, 1970, be approved. These Regulations increase the rates of requirements laid down under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966. Together with an allowance for rent, they will, if approved, make up the new guaranteed levels of income for retired people, and others not in full-time work, from November 2. In view of the time, I will move this formally, and I will reply if any noble Lord wishes to raise a point. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on 15th May 1970, be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL
3.3 p.m.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (44) as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out "or"
Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert:
"or
(c) to purchase or store building materials for supply to any public body for the construction of any new buildings or works."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason: —
Because it is not in the public interest to prevent local authorities from co-operating in the purchase of building materials.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the House debated and passed these Amendments, at the beginning of April, the Government have of course given very careful consideration to the points which the noble Lord who moved them made during the debate. I am sorry to say, however, that they have not felt able to accept the Amendments. I am sure the House will not want me to repeat in detail the points made on behalf of the Government by my noble friend Lord Kennet, in the earlier debate, but perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the general issue was covered very clearly during that debate. I think there is not very much point in going over the details again. If there are any particular points to be raised, I can of course look at them, but I cannot feel that there is any danger to the builders' merchants, and they have nothing to fear from this Bill. In the circumstances, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Dovies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with a further Amendment to the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the further Commons Amendment to the Administration of Justice Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their further Amendment. The further Amendment is:
Schedule 2, page 39, line 18, leave out from ("Rolls") to end of line 19 and insert (", the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor").
This Amendment was carried in the Commons but was not carried into the Bill as it came up to your Lordships from the Commons. The Bill was accordingly
1180
returned to the Commons, and this Amendment has now been made. It is purely consequential to Amendments 1 and 2 which were considered by your Lordships on Tuesday of last week. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their further Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 71 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "sum" insert "or sums".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. As your Lordships know, when the imminence of Dissolution was announced there were a number of Bills in different stages of completion. Some of them it was impossible to complete—for instance, the Animals Bill, which some of your Lordships will remember: it was allotted to a Committee in the other place in January but never in fact started in Committee. Some, like the Administration of Justice Bill were very near completion. Then there were other cases in which all parties had to consider what was the best course to take. The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill had received a cordial welcome on Second Reading. It had had three days in Committee; it was anticipated that it would be another day, or possibly two days, in Committee. The choice, therefore, was between either dropping the Bill altogether and all Parties agreeing that the Bill should go through in substance as it then was but with certain agreed Amendments, and that anything in substance contentious should be dropped. All Parties agreed to that. So the Bill now comes to your Lordships, after such Amendments as were

1181
made in Committee, and with a number of further Amendments which have been agreed and nearly all of which are primarily of a drafting character.
Amendment No. 1 was an Opposition Amendment carried in Committee. The clause as originally drafted provided for a judge being able to order one spouse to pay a lump sum to another spouse. The Amendment added the words "or sums". This proposal was resisted by the Government, but was carried, and as it has been agreed that that which is contentious shall be dropped the Government have accepted the position and are not seeking to restore it. In those circumstances, I do not think I need go into the detail of the arguments on one side or the other. I doubt whether the Amendment will have very much effect, but I do not think it will do any harm. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3.]
Clause 5, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;"
line 27, at end insert—
"( ) any physical or mental disability of the child".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I will take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. These linked Amendments specify physical or mental disability of a spouse or a child of the family as matters to which the court must have regard when considering an order for financial provision. I should have thought it was clear (and it was our original view) that a court should have regard to such a factor wherever it was present. The Opposition took the view that it would be more satisfactory that it should be stated in the Bill, and the Government have accepted that. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4.]
Clause 9, page 10, line 28, after "(b)" insert "or".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This Amendment merely inserts the word "or", which was inadvertently omitted in the printing. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
Clause 10, page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (10).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. May I also speak to Amendment No. 14, which is really the same point. I am taking these Amendments rather shortly, but if any noble Lord would like me to explain any of them I shall be most happy to do so. I propose now to state what is the effect of these Amendments. This Amendment omits from Clause 9 the provision in subsection (10) which entitles a would-be applicant for a variation order after the death of the payer to be treated for the purposes of Section 162(1) of the Judicature Act as a person "interested in the estate" of the deceased person. The provision has been omitted not because it was wrong, but because it was found to be already provided for in existing legislation. As I have said, Amendment No. 14 is virtually the same point. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 6 and 7.]
Clause 11. page 11, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Where on an application made under this section in relation to an order to which

1183
this section applies it appears to the court that by reason of—

(a) a change in the circumstances of the person entitled to, or liable to make, payments under the order since the order was made, or

(b) the changed circumstances resulting from the death of the person so liable,

the amount received by the person entitled to payments under the order in respect of a period after those circumstances changed or after the death of the person liable to make payments under the order, as the case may be, exceeds the amount which the person so liable or his or her personal representatives should have been required to pay, the court may order the respondent to the application to pay to the applicant such sum, not exceeding the amount of the excess, as the court thinks just.
This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 1, 2(1)(a) or (b). 3(2)(a) or (b), 6(5) or 6(6)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of this Act."
Ciause11, page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
(3) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for—

(a) the variation or discharge of the order to which this section applies, or

(b) leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under that order;

but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
(4)An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the Order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may deal also with Amendment No. 7 and speak also to Amendment No. 40, which is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The drafting of Clause 11 was found to have a number of defects so it was redrafted, and these linked Amendments have a dual effect. In the first place, they confine Clause 11 to the recovery of excess payments made under an order which ought previously to be reduced by reason of a change of circumstances and, secondly, they enable an application for this purpose to be made notwithstanding that the order in
1184
question has already ceased to have effect. There are cases in which such an application should be possible. Amendment No. 40 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is worth saying one word on this, because the noble and learned Lord will probably agree that two new clauses, Amendments Nos. 18 and 22, are, as it were, the other half of these Amendments, and they raise the same point. It may be that we can expedite matters even further if we take that into account when we consider those Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8—13.]
Clause 15, page 15, line 26, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (2A)".
Clause 15, page 15, line 26, after "Court" insert "or a county court".
Clause 15, page 15, line 29, after first "the" insert "High Court or a county".
Clause 15, page 15, line 31, at end insert—
"(2A) A county court shall not entertain an application under this section, or an application for permission to make an application under this section, unless it would have jurisdiction by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (which confers jurisdiction on county courts in proceedings under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 or section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 if the value of the deceased's net estate does not exceed £5.000 or such larger sum as may be fixed by order of the Lord Chancellor) to hear and determine proceedings for an order under the said section 26 (application for maintenance out of deceased's estate by former spouse) in relation to the deceased's estate."
Clause 15, page 15, line 32, leave out "the" and insert "a".
Clause 15, page 15, line 41, leave out second "the" and insert "a".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 inclusive, and may I speak also to Amendment No. 15 which is on the same point? These Amendments give to the county courts jurisdiction to vary a maintenance agreement after the death of one of the parties where the estate of

1185
the deceased does not exceed £5,000 in value. Your Lordships may remember that when, in 1938, power was first given to make a grant out of an estate, for example to somebody who had been cut out of her husband's will, this was something quite new, and accordingly it was thought better to confine the jurisdiction to the High Court. Then in 1966 the Chancery Court drew attention to the fact that where an estate was something less than £5,000 the proportion that might be used up in costs in the High Court was undesirable, and expressed the view that under that figure the county court should have jurisdiction. In 1966 we extended the jurisdiction and allowed to go to the county court those cases where the estate was less than £5,000. This will bring the matter into line so far as these applications are concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 14 and 15.]
Clause 15, page 16, line 3, leave out from "9" to end of line 9.
Clause 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
"(6) Subsection (3) of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (transfer to county court of proceedings commenced in the High Court) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) thereof (provisions relating to proceedings commenced in county court before coming into force of order of the Lord Chancellor under that section) shall apply in relation to proceedings consisting of any such application as is referred to in subsection (2A) above as they apply in relation to any such proceedings as are referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 7."
3.16 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together, because I have already spoken to them in moving other Amendments. I referred to Amendment No. 14 when dealing with Amendment No. 5, and to Amendment No. 15 when dealing with Amendments Nos. 8 to 13. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 16 and 17.]
Clause 16, page 16, line 14, leave out from "applicant")" to "against" in line 15.
Clause 16, page 16, page 17, line 32, after "child" insert "of the family".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects may I take Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together, and move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments? These are merely linked, drafting Amendments intended to clarify the wording of Clause 16(1) and Clause 16(4). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18.]
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage
".—(1) Where—

(a) an order to which this section applies has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

(b) the person liable to make payments under the order or his or her personal representatives made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such remarriage in the mistaken belief that the order was still subsisting,

no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives; but on an application made under this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) below.
This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 2(1)(a) or (b) or 6(6)(a) or (b) of this Act and to any such order as is referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of section 21 thereof.
(2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
(3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 11 of this Act shall apply to an application made under this section and to an order made on

1187
such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application, and the references to the court in this section shall be construed in accordance with subsection (3) of that section as applied by this subsection.
(4) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first mentioned order, shall not be liable—

(a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payment under it, and

(b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings orders are to be dealt with,

if, but only if, the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
(5) In this section 'collecting officer', in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. This is the first new clause and it confers upon the court a discretionary power to order the repayment, in whole or in part, of any sums paid under a divorce court maintenance order which have been paid after the remarriage of the payee and in ignorance of that remarriage. It is really a redraft of Clause 11(2) of the Bill as presented. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19.]
Clause 26, page 22, line 27, after "court" insert "(except where the context otherwise requires)".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This Amendment excludes the definition of "the court", as meaning the High Court or a divorce county court, in those cases where the context otherwise requires. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 20.]
Clause 27, page 22, line 44, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, and speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 39 and Nos. 41 and 42 which are the same point. This is merely an Amendment to leave out the word "be" and insert "have been". The drafting Amendment substitutes in Clause 27 for "deemed to be made" the words "deemed to have been made". The object of the Amendment is to achieve consistency of language throughout, and similar Amendments have been put down to Schedule 1 which are in exactly the same form and are Amendments Nos. 33 to 39 and 41 and 42 to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have never seen so many "has beens" in my life, and I am glad that they are confined to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 21.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Validation of certain void or voidable decrees
". Any decree of divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation which, apart from this section, would be void or voidable on the ground only that the provisions of section 33

1189
of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which restricts the making of decrees of dissolution or separation where children are affected) or of section 2 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 (corresponding provision replaced by the said section 33) had not been complied with when the decree was made absolute or granted, as the case may be, shall be deemed always to have been valid unless—

(a) before the commencement of this Act the court declared the decree to be void; or

(b) in proceedings for the annulment of the decree pending at the said commencement the court declares the decree to be void."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This new clause deals with the problem of decrees which might be challenged as being void or voidable fox failure to comply with Section 33 of the 1965 Act. As a result of the new clause, such decrees will be treated as having been valid unless already annulled before the commencement of this Bill when it becomes an Act, or subsequently annulled in proceedings then pending. It is a point on which there has been some conflict of judicial opinion, and it is desirable to clarify it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVJLLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps this is the most important of the new clauses that have been inserted in another place. There are a number of different ways in which one could have dealt with this matter. I am certainly not going into them, and they were discussed, albeit a little briefly, in another place. I would suggest that this method of resolving the difficulty is the right one, is unlikely to cause any difficulty, and certainly will clear up what would otherwise be a grave dubiety in the law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Sums paid after cessation of order of magistrates' court by reason of remarriage may be ordered to be repaid in certain cases
". After section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be inserted the following section—
Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage
13A.—(1) Where—

(a) an order to which this section applies or a provision thereof has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

(b) the person liable to make payments under the order made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such remarriage in the mistaken belief that the order or provision was still subsisting,

no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives, but on an application made under this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by the following subsection.
This section applies to an order in relation to which subsection (4) of section 7 of this Act, as amended by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, applies.
(2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
(3) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
(4) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under an order to which this section applies, but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
(5) An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.
(6) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this section shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application under this section the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
(7) Section 13(1) and (2) of this Act shall not apply to an order under this section.
(8) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first mentioned order, shall not be liable—

(a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order or a provision thereof ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under it, and

(b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with,

if, but only if, the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order or a provision thereof not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
(9) In this section 'collecting officer' in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. This new clause inserts in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 a section corresponding to the new clause, conferring on the Court a similar discretionary power to order repayment of sums paid under a magistrates' court order after that order ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the payee.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on enforcement in High Court or county court of certain orders of magistrates' courts
At the end of section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be added the following subsections:—
1192
'(5) A person shall not be entitled to enforce through the High Court or any county court the payment of any arrears due under an order made by virtue of this Act without the leave of that court if those arrears became due more than twelve months before proceedings to enforce the payments of them are begun.
(6) The court hearing an application for the grant of leave under subsection (5) of this section may refuse leave, or may grant leave subject to such rectrictions and conditions (including conditions as to the allowing of time for payment or the making of payments by instalments) as that court thinks proper, or may remit the payment of such arrears or any part thereof.
(7) An application for the grant of leave under the said subsection (5) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in then-Amendment No. 23. This Amendment extends to maintenance orders made by a magistrates' court and sought to be enforced through the High Court for a county court the same restrictions on the recovery of stale arrears as is imposed by Clause 10 on the recovery of stale arrears under an order made by the Divorce Court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 24.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, s. 7(3)
". Section 7(3) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 (which provides that where after the making by a magistrates' court of a matrimonial or interim order proceedings between, and relating to the marriage of, the parties to the proceedings in which the order was made have been begun in the High Court, the High Court may direct that the order shall cease to have effect on a date specified by that court) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) after the words 'the High Court', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'or a county court';

(b) for the words 'the High Court', where next occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'the court in which the proceedings or any application made therein are or is pending'; and

(c) for the words 'the High Court may specify' there shall be substituted the words 'may be specified in the direction'."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This new clause remedies an oversight which occurred when the Act of 1967 transferred jurisdiction in undefended divorce to the county court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 25.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction of, and appeal on question of fact from, county courts
"—(1) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by section 11 or section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of this Act or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application made under either of those sections or the said paragraph 5. as the case may be, the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
(2) At the end of subsection (2) of section 109 of the County Courts Act 1959 (appeals on questions of fact) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'(g) any proceedings on an application for an order under section 13A of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1.960, section 11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, section 15 of that Act, section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) thereof or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto.'"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25. This new clause confers on a county court jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount involved, in the case of an application for the repayment of excess payments under a maintenance order. It also confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of fact from an order of a county court made on such an application, or on any other applications specified in this new clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 26.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of reference to child in 1965 c. 72, s. 2.
". In section 2(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which provides that in determining an application to allow the presentation of a petition for divorce within three years from the date of the marriage the judge shall have regard to the interests of any relevant child) for the words 'relevant child 'there shall be substituted the words 'child of the family within the meaning of Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. May I also speak to Amendment No. 52? This Amendment substitutes in Section 2 of the 1965 Act a reference to "child of the family" for the existing reference to "relevant child". Your Lordships may remember that the expression in the Bill "child of the family "is of a much wider nature than has previously been covered, and this is to make the two Acts consistent with one another. Amendment No. 52 in consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, one point arises on this subject, and on Amendment No. 52. As I understand that Amendment, the retention of the definition in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 is necessary only on the assumption that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, does not become law. As it is going to become law there will be no necessity for this retention of the reference to Section 41(3) after January 1 next. I hope that this matter can be easily remedied by perhaps the Statute Law Repeals Bill, but, since the matter obviously could not have been dealt with at an earlier stage, before one knew what was going to happen to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it has been left like this. I think it could have been dealt with in a much easier way. I hope this point will be borne in mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 27.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Construction of references to remarriage in 1965 c. 72, c. 26
".Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which authorises the making of orders for maintenance out of a deceased's estate for a former spouse who has not remarried and provides that maintenance by way of periodical payments out of the estate shall terminate not later than his or her death or remarriage) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if after subsection (5) there were inserted the following subsection:—
(5A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to remarriage include references to a marriage which is by law void or avoidable.'"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. May I also speak to Amendment No. 32A? This is a clause which removes a doubt about the circumstances in which remarriage may debar a former spouse from applying for maintenance. Amendment No. 32A is consequential partly on Amendment No. 24, with which we have already dealt, and partly on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 28 to 30.]
Clause 29, page 23, line 24, after "thereof" insert "not being a spouse in whom is vested (whether solely or as a joint tenant) a legal estate in fee simple or a legal term of years absolute in the dwelling house."
Clause 29, page 23, line 24, leave out "purposes of" and insert "purpose only of determining whether he or she has rights of occupation under".
Clause 29, page 23, line 26, leave out from "interest" to end of line 28.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30? These are linked drafting Amendments designed to ensure that Clause 29 carries out the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the Law Commission's Report No. 25 more clearly than it does in its present form.
1196
That is to say, they are, in substance, drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 31.]
Clause 32, transpose Clause 32 to after Clause 27.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. This simply transposes one clause into a more suitable position in the Bill. It transposes Clause 32 to come in after Clause 27.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 32.]
Clause 35, page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. Amendment No. 32 deletes from the Bill a subsection which provided that the courts, in interpreting the Act, might look at the Report of the Law Commission on which the Act was based. That subsection was welcomed, I think, on all sides of this House, and by certain noble and learned Lords, but violent objection was taken to it in the other place by the Opposition. The Bar Council did not like it and the Law Society did not like it and some of the judges did not like it. I have never been able to understand why. I still think it would have been a sensible clause to have. However, under the all-Party agreement by which it was agreed that the Bill was to go through this Session, contentious matters must be dropped and the Government have given way. Perhaps it is a question that we can discuss at some time when we consider what we have not yet considered, an outstanding Report of the Law Commission on the whole question of the interpretation of Statutes.

1197
However, it is obviously a question which arouses differences of view. It has always seemed to me that if one is enacting a Bill which is attached to a Report of a body like the Law Commission, or perhaps even the Criminal Law Revision Committee—a draft Bill attached to a Report in which they explain why they have used certain words rather than some other words, and what the mischief is at which the proposed Act is aimed—it is only sensible, when the judges come to deal with it, that they should be able to read the Report. There are two views about it, and for the reasons to which I have referred the Government have given way. Therefore I respectfully advise the House to accept this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the Law Commission clause, as it has come to be known, has indeed caused a lot of trouble. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that nobody opposed it here; indeed, it was supported by certain noble and learned Lords, and I think it, or an equivalent clause, was inserted into the Animals Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. But the horror and consternation which greeted me in another place, when I told my colleagues there that I had said nothing rude about it at all, took my breath away; and there has since developed in the Press and in various other quarters a tremendous amount of controversy about it. I think that the noble and learned Lord is quite right and that this is not a matter which we ought to consider putting into legislation at the moment without a debate on the wider subject of the interpretation of Statutes.
There is also a further point on this Bill. It was tolerably safe to leave this clause in when the Bill left this House, because all that had been done was to clear up a few very minor, almost verbal, drafting matters. But now, as the House sees, we have no fewer than six new clauses. Moreover, great areas of the Bill have been substantially redrafted, and the more that happens the less use a statutory power to refer only to the Law Commission's Report becomes. It would be necessary to refer to the
1198
speeches, and possibly the Judges would, but they would do so without any statutory authority, without its being possible to argue the matter before them. They would have to refer to the speeches in both Houses which explained why the changes had been made. Certainly, in view of the changes which have been made in the Bill I welcome the fact that the Government have given way on this point and I hope they will not put in another such clause before we have had a wide-ranging debate on the matter.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wish, very briefly, to put the pages of history right. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that nobody in this House opposed this provision at the earlier stages of the Bill. I opposed it, and I explained at some length why I opposed it. I said that it was traditional that when interpreting a law the Judges paid attention to the wording of that law and did not pay attention to any background speeches which Ministers or others might have delivered in explanation of the Bill when they were introducing it into their respective Houses. I do not wish to say whether I think the change is right or wrong. I know that I am usually right on most things, but I shall not press the point now. I merely wanted to have the record right for posterity.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I had forgotten.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. Some day, I agree, we ought to return to discuss in this House the whole question of the interpretation of Statutes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 32A–42.]
Clause 35, page 25, line 35, after "31" insert "(Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act I960, s. 7(3)), (Construction of references to remarriage in Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s. 26)".
Schedule 1, page 26, line 39, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, page 27, line 8, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 17, leave out "be" and insert "have been".

1199
Schedule 1, line 25, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 32, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, page 28, line 6, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 15, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 23, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:—
"5. An application may be made under this paragraph in relation to an order to which this paragraph applies in the like circumstances as those in which an application may be made under section 11 of this Act, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such an application and to an order made on such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application.
This paragraph applies to an order made, or deemed to have been made, under any of the following provisions of the Act of 1965. that is to say, sections 15, 16(1)(a) and (b), 20(1), 21 and 22, sections 16(1)(a) and (b) as applied by section 16(3) and by section 19, section 34(1, in so far as it applies to maintenance, and section 34(3)."
Schedule 1, line 45, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 47, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as they are consecutive, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32A to 42 inclusive. These are all Amendments to which I have already referred when taking other Amendments. I referred to No. 32A when discussing Amendment No. 27; I referred to Nos. 33 to 39 when discussing Amendment No. 20; I referred to No. 40 when discussing Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, and I referred to Nos. 41 and 42 when discussing Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves Amendment No. 43, may I say that it appears to me, although it may be heresy, that Amendments Nos. 43 to 48 inclusive really fall into the category of drafting and consequential. They are mostly minor points of substance and I certainly should have no objection if the House considered them en bloc.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that rather different considerations apply to some of these Amendments. However, I shall take them very shortly and in groups.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 43–45.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 31, leave out ''under" and insert "Part I of".
Schedule 2, page 30, line 33, leave out "'that Act'" and insert "from 'section 22' onwards".
Schedule 2, page 30, line 34, leave out "the said Act of 1965 or under".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45. I agree that these are really drafting and I do not think I need say anything more about them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 46.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 36, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 39 and insert:
"(6) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(3) A divorce county court shall not by virtue of this section have jurisdiction to exercise any power under—

(a) section 26 or 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965; or

(b) section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto;

but without prejudice to the exercise by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 of any power exercisable by a county court under the said section 26 or 27 or to the exercise by virtue of any such provision of the said Act of 1970 as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection of any power exercisable by a county court under that provision;'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This Amendment is consequential on the inclusion in the Bill of the new provisions giving further jurisdiction to the county courts.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 47 and 48.]
Schedule 1, page 30, line 40, leave out from beginning to second "the" and insert:—
"(c) in subsection (4), for the words from "section 24' onwards there shall be substituted".
Schedule 1, page 30, line 41, leave out "or".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. These are linked drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 49.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 43, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert:—
"(2) In section 7(1) of the said Act of 1967 (which specifies the authority having power to make rules of court for the purposes of certain enactments) the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (b) shall be omitted and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words 'or
(d) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of this subsection, Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, and Schedule 1 thereto, except proceedings in the county court under section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. This Amendment substitutes a new sub-paragraph (2) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. The question is whether the proceedings should be governed by the County Court Rules or by the Matrimonial Causes Rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 50.]
Schedule 2, page 31, line 21, at end insert:—
"5. At the end of Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (maintenance
1202
orders to which Part II of that Act applies) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'10. An order for periodical or other payments made under Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. This Amendment includes orders for periodical payments made under Part I of the Bill in the orders to which the enforcement provisions of the Administration of Justice Bill 1970, now awaiting Royal Assent, apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if it is not improper to suggest it, this will work only if the Administration of Justice Bill receives the Royal Assent before this Bill, because otherwise it will be the wrong way round. But will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I am sure that this is right—that this is part of the material on which he has promised consolidation? There really is nothing more unsatisfactory than having two Bills both receiving the Royal Assent on the same day and one amending the other, because it means to say that we have made the most imperfect job of the first. I hope that this will be cleared up by consolidation, because I should be very unwilling to leave it in this form. May I also suggest that the last three Amendments are drafting and consequential?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; I quite agree. I hope that that course can be taken. The difficulty arises because the Government never know which of two Bills is going to receive the Royal Assent first, and they are sometimes surprised by the one which does. This Bill was very much in the balance all last week; that is to say, whether the Parties as a whole would agree to pass it as it was, or whether the whole thing should be dropped. So I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 51–53.]
Schedule 3, page 31, line 33, at end insert "except section 25(4) and (5) as applied by section 28(2) of that Act".
Schedule 3, page 31, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert:
"Section 46(2) except so far as it applies for the interpretation of section 41(3) of that Act".
In the Title, line 9, leave out from "make" to "to" in line 17 and insert "other amendments of the law relating to matrimonial proceedings".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am content to adopt the course suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, if the House approves. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. Amendment No. 51 is in substance drafting; Amendment No. 52 I have already referred to when moving Amendment No. 26, and Amendment No. 53 is a consequential Amendment to the Title of the Bill which is required because of the inclusion in the Bill of the new clauses. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
AGRICULTURE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TREES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
Brought before the Commons.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving the First Reading of the Finance Bill, may I say that it is proposed to take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Bill at the conclusion of other business? I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read la.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
3.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE. BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendment to words restored to the Bill and the Commons consequential Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMEND MENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 67 as first printed for the Lords, Commons Amendments and Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.1 and 2.]
Clause 7, page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) If the amount payable to a seaman under subsection (1) of this section exceeds £50 or such other amount as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 9 of this Act and it is not practicable to pay the whole of it at the time of discharge, not less than £50 or. as the case may be, the amount so prescribed shall be paid to him at that time and the balance within 7 days of that time."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 5, line 2, leave out "his"
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to Nos. 1 to 7, relating to Clauses 7, 8 and 9, which are Amendments and Commons Reasons. Your Lordships will recall our discussions on Report stage on these clauses, particularly on the first Amendment, and will understand from what I said on that occasion why the Government are unable to accept these Amendments. They are conceived in an admirable intention, to enable crews' wages to be calculated ashore in a modern way and to save the master the burden of doing so at a time when he is occupied with bringing the ship to port. However, this will be done largely at the expense of the seaman, who will not always know on discharge what balance of wages is due to him, and will receive only £50 or some prescribed amount at that time; and he may have to wait up to seven days for the balance and for a statement of account. We do not think that that is good enough, and on these grounds the Government are unable to accept the Amendments.
1206
I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the House will agree that it will be quite convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 en bloc, because they all relate to the same vexed question of the wages of seamen, the accounts of wages to be presented to seamen and the regulations relating to both. We have had long discussions on this issue at all stages of the Bill in this House, as they have had in another place. We have sought all along to try to lead the Government from the nineteenth century, which is where these archaic arrangements come from, and to lead them to adopt a more seamanlike, a more sensible and a more up-to-date solution of what is admittedly a difficult problem. We have said over and over again that what we are proposing is not something that will apply in the general case but something that will apply only in the exceptional circumstances (and "exceptional" is a word I have used over and over again) when it is, in the master's opinion, more important that his navigation should be precise than his accounts. In those circumstances, we think that the way things should be is quite clear. However, despite these prolonged and varied attempts of every kind—because we have offered the Government one solution after another of this problem—we have not succeeded, and now, at this stage, I think there is nothing further to be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4.]
Clause 8, page 6, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
"(2) The account shall be delivered not later than the time at which the balance of wages is payable to the seaman."
Clause 9, page 6, leave out line 43.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because a seaman should not have to wait seven days before receiving an account of the wages due to him.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
Clause 9, page 6, line 43, at end insert:
"(f) varying the amounts referred to in subsection (2) of section 7 of this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 4, line 39, to which the Commons have disagreed and they have made an Amendment to the words restored to the Bill.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 15, page 9, line 29, at end insert:
"( ) A seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to wages for any period during which he—

(a) unlawfully refuses or neglects to work when required; or

(b) is absent without leave; or

(c) is incapable of performing his duties by reason of an illness or injury which is caused by his wilful act or default."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will have read the debate in another place, and will have noted that there is now considerable agreement that a statutory provision on these lines is unnecessary. When this Amendment was before your Lordships' Committee I stressed that the Government were not arguing against the substance of the Amendment. I agree that in general a seaman should not expect to receive wages if he unlawfully refuses or neglects to work, or is
1208
absent without leave, and so on. Whether or not a seaman who acted in the manner envisaged here would be entitled to his wages for the period concerned would depend upon the terms of his contract of employment. He would certainly be in breach of contract, and even if the contract were silent on the point a court might well hold that he was not entitled to his wages for the period in which he unlawfully refused to work, or for which he was unlawfully absent. There is no need to have any provision to this effect in the Bill: it is unnecessary. However, if there were really felt to be a need to have written terms to this effect inserted in the contract, or to circumscribe or spell out matters of detail, then these, I submit, are contractual matters for negotiation and agreement, and there is no overriding reason of public policy why we should seek to spell them out here.
I appreciate that the Pearson Report recommended the inclusion of these contractual terms—which was the main reason why the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford, moved the Amendment in Committee—but the Report did make the point that they could
"become a standard clause in articles of agreement".
In this Bill we look forward to the future, to the day when more and more matters will be dealt with by agreement, and to company agreements superseding statutory crew agreements. It would in the Government's view be a retrograde step to write back into the Bill contractual provisions such as these modified re-enactments of the substance of Sections 159 and 160 of the 1894 Act, especially when it is unnecessary to do so.
It was pointed out in another place by the Opposition that there is no certainty that the Board of Trade will approve crew agreements containing such provisions, and I should like here to repeat the assurance given in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade would approve a reasonable provision of this character. For these reasons, I ask your Lordships to accept my Motion. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for that explanation, and particularly for his assurance, which goes quite some way to meet our point. I think the House will be left judging for itself the real reason why another place considers this Amendment unnecessary. Perhaps I might just remind the House that in fact, weighing all the considerations which the noble Lord has just put forward—and a good deal more than that in the six, seven or eight years during which this Bill has been under preparation—the Government came firmly to the conclusion that the Amendment which is now being disagreed to should in fact form part of the Bill. They put it in their own Bill; they supported it at Second Reading; they supported it at Committee stage, and I do not think many people will forget what happened at the Report stage. But, having said that by way of recollection, I would not seek to go any further on this particular Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 10.]
Clause 26, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
"Provided that—
(i) the liability of those persons shall be conditional upon the person so employed or his legal personal representatives affording to those persons every facility to prosecute in his name any claim in respect of such expenses and allowing them reasonable discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or the settlement of any claim in respect of such expenses and to the extent of such conditional liability, surrendering to them all rights in respect of such claim;
(ii) nothing contained in this section shall prejudice any right of recovery of such expenses from a person other than a person so employed."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment would be ineffective.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will recall that the principle behind this Amendment has been very fully discussed in this House and in another place. I think it is true to say that no one would deny that it is desirable that a seaman should co-operate with his employer in
1210
the employer seeking reimbursement from third parties for the seamens' medical expenses which the employer has paid under Clause 26. The difficulty is that this Amendment would be quite ineffective to achieve that end. If it is felt that there should be some provision compelling the seaman's co-operation—and I hope that compulsion will not be necessary—the right remedy would be for an appropriate provision to be inserted in the contract of employment.
I have already explained in detail on Report stage the reasons why such a provision as this would be ineffective in a Statute, and little more than propaganda, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them now. As your Lordships will appreciate, we cannot have an ineffective and useless provision in a Bill, especially when other effective remedies are available. I would therefore ask your Lordships to accept my Motion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree that it would be possible, and I hope will be possible, to deal with these matters in the agreement or the contract. Nevertheless, I regret that it was not possible to obtain a greater degree of symmetry in the Bill between the employer and the employee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 12.]
Clause 62, page 30, line 33, leave out from "Kingdom "to end of line 34 and insert—"
other than by reason that he has—

(i) been arrested or imprisoned for misconduct; or

(ii) absented himself from the ship without leave at the time appointed for sailing; or

( ) a person so employed is taken to such a country on being shipwrecked; or"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the duty of employers to make provisions for seamen left behind should not be affected by the matters mentioned in the Amendment.
The Commons proposed the following Consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
[No. 14.]
Clause 93, page 44, line 32, after "1967" insert "the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970."
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed. This is a matter of who should make provision for maintaining a seaman who has been left behind abroad. The Amendment would relieve the shipowner of liability in cases where the reason was due to the seaman's misconduct in the manner indicated in the Amendment. I think that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 62 imposes a statutory duty to maintain and repatriate. That is one thing. The quite different matter as to the employer's recovering his expenses, in certain circumstances, for so doing is not dealt with by the clause. That is a matter of civil liability under the contract of employment.
The question whether the employer can recover his expenses in the case of a seaman who misconducts himself is a question of the seaman's civil liability to his employer governed by the terms of the contract of employment. If, in the circumstances envisaged, the employer might well have a remedy for breach of contract against the seaman, the damages for which might include expenses such as those for his maintenance and repatriation, that is entirely a matter to be determined under the terms of the contract. I am advised that there is nothing in the clause which would prevent the recovery of such expenses where there were grounds for a civil action for recovery under the contract.
We discussed this Amendment in Committee and it was argued that foreign Governments do not place a similar liability on their shipowners. I understand the desire to place no undue burden on our shipowners in relation to their foreign competitors. However, this is a matter of principle. In our view, on principle these expenses should be a matter for the industry and not for the general taxpayer. The Government see no reason for departing from this principle on the ground that it would impose a financial burden on shipowners. In any case, the additional expense involved will not be large. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will accept my Motion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amount may
1212
not be large. We had some discussion on that; and at the end of the day it was agreed that nobody could say what the amount would be. The noble Lord said that he had no intention of departing from a principle. The fact of the matter is that this particular clause, in this particular Bill, establishes a new principle, one that is not adopted by or adhered to by any other maritime nation in the world—certainly none of any size. By not insisting on our Amendment we are therefore, in effect, putting our own merchant fleet which is such a good export earner (as I reminded the House on Second Reading, it earns us £250 million net a year in invisible exports) at a disadvantage compared to all our major maritime competitors. We are doing this, so far as I can see (though if the noble Lord can correct me on this that will be so much better) without any steps having been taken to persuade the other maritime nations to move into line on the new principle that we are establishing unilaterally.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, for the Record, the principle is that the employer should be responsible for maintenance and repatriation. That is the principle. With great respect, I think that the noble Lord is somewhat exaggerating, in terms of expense, the effect of this Amendment. Without the Amendment there might arise a case where the employer, having paid the cost of maintenance or repatriation for a man, when seeking to reimburse himself from third parties might not receive full co-operation because it was not in the contract of employment. I leave your Lordships to consider the total burden of expense likely to arise in these circumstances. I think it would be small indeed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment No. 14. This Amendment is solely a minor consequential Amendment to Clause 93.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is quite clear and understandable. Before the Bill leaves

1213
us, I should like, since in defence of our Amendments to which the other place have disagreed I have been rather critical of the Government, to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on their firmness, during the passing of the Bill, in upholding, against pressure from their own Left Wing, the need for discipline afloat. I would also congratulate them on providing in this Bill a legal basis for negotiating industrial relations in the merchant shipping fleet. This is something that we on this side have advocated over all sectors of industry for a long time. Here, at any rate, "in place of strife" and in place of interference by the Government we have a firm and modern framework of law in which further negotiations can go on. Despite the few blemishes that remain in the Bill, we have this framework; and I think that we can safely rely on the Board of Trade, as they now set about preparing no fewer than 35 different sets of regulations, and the National Maritime Board to build up a fine structure of industrial relations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
3.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords I know that many of your Lordships are anxious to leave the House at the earliest possible moment. My intervention on this occasion is going to be very brief. especially as I gather that neither the Government nor the official Opposition are going to participate at this stage. Yet I feel that: at this moment of time the House should not dissolve for what may be quite a long period—and certainly with a General Election—without some slight consideration of the economic situation of this country. I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I expect no reply to the few remarks I am going to make, but I would remind your Lordships of what Mr. Enoch Powell said in another place on April 20 and recommend that you consider his analysis of our economic situation.
1214
He pointed out that three successive Budgets have resulted in the net repayment of debts of over £2,000 million—that is, the last three Budgets. This vast surplus for the repayment of debt is not only, according to Mr. Powell (and I agree with him) over-insurance, but also it has reached a point, as Mr. Powell pointed out, where, instead of the gears biting, the wheels merely slip. We are thus confronted, as a result of this gigantic taxation and debt repayment, with the extraordinary phenomenon, almost unknown in history, of an inflationary recession; and that goes for almost the whole of the Free World. As Mr. Powell said, this is a paradox which creates a challenge to monetary thinking and the budgetary policy of both sides of the House, and in every other country in the Free World.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in fact, accepted for the moment the views of Professor Milton Friedman, of Chicago, hook, line and sinker. For him, money supply is the only regulator of the national economy, and domestic credit expansion must be regulated accordingly in order to achieve his supreme objective of a favourable national balance of payments, to which, I think, we have been paying excessive attention. Because, supposing the United States and ourselves did achieve very favourable balances of payments in the near future, it could only be done in the absence of an increase in international reserves, at the expense of deterioration in the balance of payments of other countries in the Free World. My Lords, the present Finance Bill might well have been written by Professor Friedman himself, in Chicago; except that I do not think that he would have gone so far.
On the other hand, as a Cross-Bencher I must be quite fair and unbiased. Although I cannot agree with the present Budget proposals I must also add that when, on television the other day, Mr. Iain Macleod proposed decreases in taxation amounting to between £800 million and £1,000 million a year, he said nothing at all about what to put in the place of the taxes, or of this money, or where to find it, or how to achieve the economies. That is really the economics of Cloud-cuckoo-land. We cannot decrease present taxation by £1,000 million a year, either by achieving a comparable reduction in

1215
expenditure or by imposing additional taxation, except in new forms, such as an added value tax, of which I am not very much in favour.
My Lords, all I want to say this evening is that there is only one cure for the inflation from which we are suffering at the present time: it is economic growth and increased productivity—and I am sure that I shall carry noble Lords on both sides of the House with me when I say that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given most to encouraging investment in industry in this country, and least to encouraging consumption. In fact, he did the reverse; and, as a result, in the first quarter of this year the gross national product of this country has fallen at an annual rate of 3 per cent., while prices have risen at an annual rate of 6 per cent. My Lords, that is simply no good. As Mr. Anthony Barber, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, said the other day:
"One thing above all else lies at the heart of our troubles; and that is the failure to achieve a rate of growth comparable to that in almost every other advanced country in the world."
That is what has been going on during the last few years, except during the last year—with the exception of the United States where economic growth has ground to a standstill.
Meanwhile, we are back in square one; we are all back at square one. I find myself, as I so often do these days in respect of economic affairs, in agreement with Mr. Enoch Powell when he says that he is not prepared to sacrifice himself on the altar of an unknown god; at least, not until the paradox of inflation side by side with non-inflationary budgeting has run a considerably longer course, and we can see what are the causes of it, and why it has happened.
I am myself, my Lords, a Keynes man. I was brought up under his shadow. I believe that he was the greatest economist we have produced in this century, and perhaps one of the greatest economists of all time. He was essentially an empiricist. He believed that with imagination and intelligence most economic problems could be solved. He said himself, again and again, that the economic problem was a tragic muddle which could be sorted
1216
out. His basic theory was that the size of total demand, whether tending towards inflation or recession, depended mainly on the propensity to consume and the propensity to invest; not on the size of the money supply, which was effective only in so far as it had any effect on these two propensities. The two main themes of his life's work were the conquest of unemployment and a more liquid international monetary system; in his own words:
"The transition from economic anarchy to a rágime which deliberately aims at controlling and directing economic forces in the interests of social justice and social stability."
With this object in view, in 1933 he proposed the issue of international gold notes; in 1941 the establishment of a Clearing Union and in 1945 the creation of "Bancor" to support the Bretton Woods Agreement. In 1946 he put his faith in the International Monetary Fund as a means of expanding the international liquidity of the whole world. In fact, the reverse happened; international liquidity has fallen to about one-third of what it was at the time of the Bretton Woods Agreement—hence eleven currency devaluations.
The primary objective of the international monetary authorities of the Free World at the moment seems to be no longer economic expansion, full employment and increased productivity, but the transformation of national deficits into national surpluses at all, and almost any, cost; and that is no way to run the economy of the Free World. A few months ago I foresaw the present recession—I have not always been wrong—and I suggested to your Lordships that it might be a good idea to raise the price of gold. I thought that that was the easiest, the swiftest and the best way of increasing international liquidity, and I still think so. My proposal was turned down, as I anticipated it would be, with contumely by all sides—there were about two exceptions.
I now turn to another proposal. It is not the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, with whom I profoundly disagree, that we face another devaluation. It is that we should, in international conference, aim at a wider margin than exists between exchange rates under the Bretton Woods Agreement so that there

1217
should be more flexibility. In 1925 we went back to the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange. Keynes wrote that the whole object was to link rigidly the City and Wall Street; and he added that a ripple in the United States could become an Atlantic roller by the time it reached this side of the Atlantic Ocean. That is, roughly, what has been happening in the last 48 hours.
At the moment, my Lords, we have astronomical interest rates for which we have to go back to the Middle Ages to find a parallel; and I believe they are the primary cause of the rise in the cost of living, because the cost of money is the basic factor in cost itself. We cannot go on paying 7 and 8 per cent. for money without a steadily increasing inflation and a rise in prices, which in turn gives rise to increased demands for wages. This is a completely vicious circle. All we are now doing in fact by these astronomical interest rates, which exist now in almost every country in the Western world and certainly in the Free World, is to put glue into the machine.
I believe (and these are my last words) that our great mistake is to have forsaken Keynes and to have adopted Friedman, because Friedman is doctrinaire whereas Keynes was an empiricist and a very much abler man. The whole present economic set-up of the Free World would have horrified Keynes. Those who are against liquidity (and he was very much in favour of it, both domestically and internationally) and who favour tight international money rule, even over the banks, are in total command to-day. For my part, I believe that the basic peril confronting the Free World is not overproduction; it is under-production. Expansion is the prescription that I would offer for a world which is starving, not only for food in many parts but for capital goods almost everywhere; and an abundance of liquidity to sustain and finance it on an international scale. Otherwise, my fear is that the Communists may increasingly prevail. As I say, it is under-production that is the great danger.
Increased wage demands, if not matched by increased productivity and cheaper money, will of course result in a wage-cost inflation and rising prices. The workers will have to realise that, and I only hope that they will not have to learn
1218
it the hard way. There is no doubt about it. But rising prices are better than continuous deflation culminating in recession and an immense reduction of output all over the Free World. That is what is going on at the present time. As I say, I have not always been wrong in the past. I opposed our return to the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange in 1925; I opposed Snowden's ghastly Budget in 1931, rightly described by Keynes as "replete with folly and injustice"; and I opposed our "Stop-Go" tactics in the 'sixties. Therefore my simple plea to-day is for economic expansion. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, thinks that I expect him to give a comprehensive reply to the observations that I have just made, let me hasten to say that I expect no such thing.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wish to detain your Lordships for only a moment or two in referring to Clause 4 of the Bill, which extends the tobacco excise duty to substitutes for tobacco. Why is the clause in the Bill? For a number of years the medical profession have been telling us that there is sufficient evidence that smoking cigarettes encourages a number of diseases, the worst of them being cancer. This evidence is really beyond refutation, and the Government themselves, I think quite rightly, are spending considerable sums of money on warning the public of the possible dangers of over smoking. As a result of the medical campaign, a number of companies in this country set about research into the development of substitutes for tobacco—and here I must declare my interest because I am a director of one of those companies. Because two or three of them are known to be very near finding a substitute, along come the Treasury officials to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must not lose any revenue. So before an "innocent" cigarette has been put on the market the Government extend the enormous tobacco excise duty to tobacco substitutes.
This is not only wrong in itself—it is wrong to prefer taxes to human life—but it is thoroughly unfair on those people who are near to the point of producing an acceptable "innocent" cigarette. Let us consider the difficulty of marketing such a product, against all the entrenched forces of the great tobacco

1219
companies, who are of course determined to see that a tobacco substitute does not attract the public. I listened to my noble friend Lord Boothby saying that if we got our economics right we could get our general situation right; but I have to disagree with him. I believe that what is wrong is that we have not got our feeling for people right. If we did, then I think that many of our economic difficulties would be soluble; and they are not going to be soluble by the old economists' tricks, however clever they may be. I regret very much—and I believe that any Member of your Lordships' House who, like myself, has had a member of his family die from lung cancer will agree—that this clause should be in any British Finance Bill.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I was not expecting that there would be a debate on this Bill to-day, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said, I should like to add just a few words in regard to the problems of economic expansion.
First of all, it is interesting to note that during the period from 1960 to 1970 the growth target set by O.E.C.D. has been more than fulfilled. That was that all the countries of O.E.C.D., stretching across Europe from Sweden in one direction, across North America, and as far as Japan in the other, should increase their total real growth of national product by 50 per cent. The actual figure reached was nearer 60 per cent., which means that the capacity of the Free World to create wealth has been increased in the last ten years by an amount corresponding to something like the United States of America as it was in 1960. That is an amazing achievement, and nobody can say that we have not got economic growth.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, that does not apply to this country.
LORD HANKEY: I am coming to precisely that point, I warmly agree with the noble Lord, and I am going to rub the point home. During the next 10 years, from 1970 to 1980, the Ministers of O.E.C.D., who met last week, have agreed (although your Lordships will hardly have seen it in the Press) to adopt
1220
a new growth target of no less than 65 per cent., which means at compound rates of interest a growth rate of 5·3 per cent. per year.
Some countries have a very high rate. Japan is in a "recession" when it achieves only 7 per cent. a year, and is in "some danger of inflation" if it exceeds about 13 per cent. By the turn of the century Japan will be one of the super-Powers, economically speaking. Some other Powers have only attained a much lower rate, and I am sorry to say that that goes for the United Kingdom, where we are achieving an average of only 2 or 3 per cent. The effect of this is that whereas the rest of the world has been expanding at a rate of which we in this country are hardly conscious (unless we travel a great deal), this country is rather rapidly falling behind. I am sorry to say that if you take the O.E.C.D. statistics of income per head, the United Kingdom has fallen in the last ten years from, I think, sixth or seventh to no less than thirteenth. That is in terms of income per head.
Those figures are rather difficult to compare with one another. Outwardly it appears that France and Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland, and some others in Europe, are all ahead of the United Kingdom in income per head. If one comes to working out the real standard of living which people enjoy, I think it is harder to compare them. But there is no doubt that if the figures are compared from year to year the United Kingdom is going down slowly. I think that one day we may have to answer a very awkward question from some of our children. When our children, or grandchildren, say, "Dad, why was it the United Kingdom became poor in your time?", I do not quite know what we are going to answer. As my noble friend Lord Boothby has said, we must have a greater regard to increasing production in the United Kingdom and, above all, to increasing productivity.
There is some reason to think, quite frankly, that economic expansion is very difficult to separate from a tendency to inflation. When one decides to build a factory one raises a tremendous amount of money; proceeds to spend millions on land, railway lines, roads, cement flooring, buildings and machines, on

1221
training people and building houses for them, buying buses for them to go around in, buying raw materials; and finally the people are trained and the first lot of products are usually not much good. At the end of the process one has spent probably several million pounds before there is anything in the form of products on the market to show for it. That, I believe, necessarily means that beneath expansion there is an inflationary tendency. In an economy which is expanding, therefore, I believe we always have to look out for a certain danger of inflation. If we look at the steady decline of the real value of pretty nearly all currencies since the great periods of economic expansion started, it seems difficult to combat this theory. But certain it is that unless productivity advances with wages, inflation is absolutely inevitable.
The Government have been extremely brave, in my opinion, in trying to make an incomes policy work. I said some years ago that it was excellent economics but it might be bad politics, because in this country our population have got into a state of absolute despair at the way in which their wages have been held back and prices have fairly continuously risen. Prices in this country have not risen as fast as prices in some other countries, but the fact remains that the growth of our people's standard of living has fallen behind the growth of the standard of living of other countries; and the rise of our prices, which is a very serious factor at the present time, has diminished our competitivity in international markets.
I am not one of those who believe that we are in great danger owing to the shortage of international liquidity. I believe that the techniques developed by central banks for exchanging deposits on a huge scale to counterbalance short-term movements, the expansion of I.M.F. quotas and the introduction of S.D.R.s, and various other techniques, which I will not go into, have created a somewhat new situation. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Boothby said, that the reserves in the hands of this country have not increased at a rate corresponding to trade; and that, I believe, is dangerous. I think there is another factor also: that the time taken for the swings of international trade to produce corrective factors is longer than it used to be, because there are so
1222
many social policies which prevent, and indeed have to prevent, many natural corrective factors from operating. Therefore there is some shortage of actual reserves, first-line reserves, in the hands of national banks, when one compares them with the enormous increase in international trade.
However, there is another factor to which I particularly want to draw attention. There is an enormous increase in the amount of money which is lying about waiting to be used, as economic expansion proceeds, and is liable to swing about the world at rather short notice. This amount of money is so absolutely colossal that if it all moved at once I do not suppose any system of international exchange control or exchange regulation, or indeed international exchanges, could stand up to the strain. Fortunately that does not happen; but I feel that the world economy is rather like a truck going along a road, full of liquid. It is rather a "ropey" old truck and swings from side to side, and the liquid in it swings more and more and is liable to overbalance the truck. What do we do in order to protect the truck and the driver? We do not take the liquid away—we must have liquidity. What I think we do is to put a baffle-plate down the truck so that the water can move but it cannot all move at once. That corresponds to the controls on capital movement which we have been obliged to introduce.
What worries me about the present situation is that the United Kingdom is falling steadily behind and, as my noble friend Lord Boothby said, every time the Government introduce further taxes on consumption, everybody—it is almost a universal conspiracy of our people—finds some way round it by asking for extra wages, and so the ability to consume goes on upwards. I do not know how this is going to be checked, but I believe that the economists and everybody else are going to have to think again.
I agree with Lord Boothby that the rate of interest has reached a level where it is discouraging further economic expansion. But we cannot reduce the rate of interest in one country without the danger of producing precisely the kind of capital flows which I was mentioning just now. The duty of the Economic Policy Committee of O.E.C.D., of which I used to

1223
be Chairman, is to see that these changes of interest rates and other internal measures are kept more or less in line, so that the lorry of the world economy, as it proceeds along this bumpy road, is not swung right off the road at any one time.
I do not believe there is any great danger of a recession at the present time, because everybody knows, particularly from Keynes, of whom I am at least an equal admirer with my noble friend Lord Boothby, how a situation of that kind can be controlled. But it certainly is very difficult to reach a satisfactory control in one country without taking account of the developments in another country. The changes in the situation produced by the growth targets, and the tremendous economic growth, give a dynamic factor to the situation which is going to require very close study. My Lords, I believe that O.E.C.D. is a great help in this matter and that if we in the United Kingdom can only get our own situation straight, we shall greatly benefit by it.
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I nearly always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, when he speaks in the House. I must apologise to him because I was not in the Chamber when he spoke this afternoon, but I think I know what he was saying, from the speech made by the noble Lord. Lord Hankey, who has just sat down. The point I was hoping to make was this. It is easy to talk about growth, but it is very difficult to compare like with like. Growth in Iceland, or growth in Japan, is a different matter from growth in Great Britain. We started a long way ahead of other people—in fact. ahead of any other nation in the world that I can think of. It can be said that there has been growth in Brazil; and that would be true. But it costs £1.500 to join the local beach club. This is inflationary growth. The point I should like to make is that we in this country have already grown, and there is little room here for much in the way of a quick increase in the standard of living. It will increase, although more slowly. This point has not been made sufficiently strongly.
The other point that occurs to me is that nowadays our currency is probably one of the few in the world which is
1224
not grossly overvalued—and I mean grossly overvalued. Apart from certain currencies, such as the German mark and the Swiss franc, the pound sterling is now on a basis of real strength; and to my mind this is probably of more importance, from the point of view of the standard of living, than any rise or fall in the annual percentage rate of growth.
4.31 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in the normal way I should seize with both hands the invitation extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and not reply to this debate. But it so happens that we are still awaiting the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and the choice before us is either listening to me for a few minutes or adjourning the House. So in the time available perhaps I might endeavour to make one or two references to what has been said.
May I first of all say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I understand very well indeed why he made the point on Clause 4; and he made his point, if I may say so, very convincingly. As he himself will admit, there is nothing that we can do about this now. The debate on the merits of this is over. All I would do is to repeat the undertaking which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State, in another place when he said:
"I can give this undertaking … that there is nothing in the clause which, when the time comes, will be an impediment to the successful marketing of such cigarettes"—
he was referring to cigarettes with a synthetic tobacco—
"if they can be produced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. 27/5/70, col. 1833.]
I hope that assurance will at any rate be of some help to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, apparently has two admirers in this House—my noble friend Lord Addison and myself. I, too, always listen with great interest to what he says on financial affairs. I have listened to him now over many years and, as he says, there have been times when he has been right. There have also been times when he has been wrong. The noble Lord and I exchanged some words last October about gold, and he made some prophecies. Well, the final

1225
day has not yet arrived, but it has been interesting to me to notice what has happened to the price of gold since that discussion. From 44 dollars an ounce, it came down to 40 dollars at the time of our debate. It then fell to 35 dollars, and even though it is now a little higher—I believe it is 36 dollars—nevertheless I still feel that what I said was right and that what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said on that occasion was inaccurate.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it will go up again!
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we will see. I must also say how much happier I was when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, move from the authority of Mr. Powell and Mr. Barber to that of the late Maynard Keynes. I am bound to say that I was very worried when the noble Lord quoted, at such length and with such approval, Mr. Powell on economic affairs. I really feel that the noble Lord should not allow the stock markets to make him quite so pessimistic.
That leads me to the next thing that I ought to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. While I recognise his qualifications for giving us a warning, I think he will probably agree with me on my first point, that we are in much better shape to meet any difficulties now than we were five years ago, or even two years ago—very much better shape.
The second point is that we ought not to over-exaggerate the difficulties which we see around us. It is true that output has recently fallen in the United States of America, but elsewhere—in Europe and Japan—growth is continuing at a healthy rate, and there are several economies that are running very near to capacity levels. Here in this country, taking account of probable external developments, we have forecast a growth of output of 3½ per cent. between the first half of this year and the first half of 1971. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Boothby, that everyone wants growth. Of course we have had growth in the past, but we have always had a balance-of-payments problem as well, and it is a fact that the past year is the first time that we have had growth and no balance-of-payments difficulties. I do not think we should underestimate the achievement that stands to our credit there.
1226
The Organisation for European Cooperation and Development, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has reminded us, have recently published an assessment of the American economy. They recognise that there is a risk of a down-swing there, but they took the view that renewed growth is probable in the second half of this year and that it is reasonable to expect that the pick-up in economic activity anticipated for the second half of this year may continue into 1971. There has undoubtedly been a severe fall on Wall Street, but I do not think we should allow a fall in share prices to cloud our view that the long-term prospects of the United States economy are sound. Naturally, short-term uncertainties in the United States have had an unsettling effect on share prices in other financial centres, London not excluded, but I trust that settled conditions will soon return, and I am glad to note that although, as the saying is, one swallow does not make a summer, at a quarter to three this afternoon the Financial Times Share Index stood at 329·6, which is 8·6 points up from yesterday's close. So the situation is not altogether depressing.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of concerted action between major financial centres. On that I would say two things. The first is that, although the situation is worrying, what I have said makes it clear that we do not believe this is the verge of any catastrophe. The second (and the noble Lord will agree with me about this) is that the machinery for international financial consultation is profoundly different from what it was on those earlier occasions when he gave a warning. Representatives of the countries mainly concerned are in constant regular contact, under the ægis of the International Monetary Fund, the O.E.C.D., the Group of Ten and the Bank for International Settlements, quite apart from the more informal but very frequent contacts that go on between Governments and central banks by exchange of visits and correspondence. This machinery provides not only the means of international vigilance but the basis on which vigilance can develop into concerted action if and when the need arises. And I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, worried as he is, that this consultation, this expertise that we now have, is a considerable insurance against the sort of risk to which he called our attention.

1227
I do not think it would be light of me to go further. I listened with great appreciation to what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said, and to what was said by my noble friend Lord Addison, who was very apposite. Taking everything into account, I see absolutely no reason why this House should not now give the Finance Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in order to give time for another place to let us have the Consolidated Fund Bill, I hope that it will be for the general convenience of the House if we now adjourn until five o'clock.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, so far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, that is perfectly agreeable, but I trust that it will be somewhere about five o'clock, and will not mean that noble Lords will have to sit about here until six o'clock or nearly seven o'clock.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the Bill does not reach us by that time, it will be my proposal that we then consider it at an agreed time before the announced Sitting of the House tomorrow. From signals I have received, I am assured that the Bill ought to be with us before five o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry that there is this further difficulty, but my information is that the Bill for which we are waiting is actually on its way, and I think it may be more to the convenience of the House if we remain sitting for a short time, when I trust the Bill will be with us. Otherwise, it will be necessary to adjourn again during pleasure.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there appear to be certain difficulties in establishing communications with the other place. The business has actually been
1228
transacted there, but the physical porterage of the document from that Chamber to this seems to be confronting the authorities in another place with certain difficulties, which I must say—and I take the opportunity of putting on the Record—are quite intolerable. It is the second time we have had this take place. It is nothing to do with the legislative side of the thing; it is the sheer machinery of it. They appear to be incapable of putting the document together, wrapping the tape round and sending it to this place. I think that ought to be on the Record, and I hope that maybe the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would care to support me.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Lord, since we are busy wasting time, whose fault this is. It brings the House and the whole Parliamentary system into disrepute when this House sits waiting for something to happen when the other place has finished the Bill. I have just walked back from the other place—it took me 30 seconds. Whose fault is this? Perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip would give an assurance that, even though Parliament is going to be prorogued to-morrow, he might take up this and suggest that everybody in this House, regardless of where he sits, gets fed up with this.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he has said. I do agree with him. I did take it up on a previous occasion, and we received certain assurances that it would not happen again. Nevertheless, we now have the same situation and I see no alternative—I am now told that the Bill is on its way, but it seems to be rather a long way. I think that perhaps the dignity of the House would best be served—does the noble Lord wish to put another point?
LORD CARRINGTON: Who is responsible for this? Is it some office of the House of Commons which is responsible for seeing that the Bill is here? It is nothing to do with anybody in this House. I cannot conceive of another place allowing this to happen, and I do not see why we should.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I put a suggestion to the noble Lord that if this is going to happen we take over the

1229
administration from the portals of the House of Commons and make sure that we bring up the Bill as soon as they have finished with it? It seems to me that they are totally incompetent in this administrative problem.
LORD BESWICK: The Speaker has endorsed the Bill. The inability lies in getting it from there to here. I can see nothing of any dust arising, and I think the best we can do is again to adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
5.20 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before I move the First Reading of this Bill I think it is appropriate that something should be said. I am sorry that procedures here have gone differently from those upon which we had agreed. It was hoped that the Clerk from the other place would be at the Bar of the House in order to hear the displeasure which is felt in this place at what can only be considered as the incompetence of another place. I know that there is this feeling and I think it is right that it should be expressed. In this day and age, when we are trying to modernise almost every institution in the country, one would have thought it would be possible to contrive a system of communications under which the Bill came over here rather more quickly than has been the occasion this evening. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I just support what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said? I think the happenings of the last forty minutes have been absolutely disgraceful. There can be no reason why the House should be treated like this, and I very much hope that there will be some way in which whoever is responsible in another place
1230
is made aware of the feelings of this House. I think that this is the first time in the 25 years or so that I have sat in this House that I have ever seen your Lordships' House sitting here in session with nothing whatever to do, and waiting on the competence of another place to send up a Bill which they had passed forty minutes before. I hope that the feelings of this House, which are very strong, will be made known to those responsible.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to add my support to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just said. It seems to me absolutely absurd that we should be subjected to treatment of this sort. May I suggest that, rather than accept assurances from the other place, we should in future be told what arrangements are made, so that we can scrutinise them and make quite certain they are workable.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since I was not waiting here I have not yet quite reached the pitch of fury which a number of noble Lords have felt, but I have immediately sensed the great and intense irritation. It is the case that this is not the first time, in my experience, that there have been delays which were very much to the inconvenience of your Lordships, not to mention the anxiety that it is bound to cause on the Government Front Bench who are trying to satisfy the House, conscious that people are being kept here. Therefore I am naturally very sympathetic to everything that has been said. It has been suggested that we should buy a pair of roller skates which we should make available to somebody in another place so that he could proceed rather faster to your Lordships' House.
I think that the remarks that have been made by noble Lords opposite, and by my noble friend, Lord Beswick—whom I regard as normally a calm man, but who has reached a pitch of fury apparently equalled only by that of the noble Lords opposite—will not go unnoticed. I am quite certain that the Lord President, the Leader in another place, who in my experience has always been anxious to cooperate, will take note. Perhaps I should add that this is not the only misfortune. There were troubles over the Administration of Justice Bill because there was not

1231
a proper Marshalled List of Amendments made in another place. That had nothing to do with the officials here, who serve us so well. Although some confusion is inevitable, confusion has been added unto us through no fault of our own at all. I hope that that is satisfactory. Does the noble Lord want even stronger expressions?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the House rather left it that somebody might read what has been said. I want rather more than that; I want somebody to make sure that what we have said is made known to another place, not just left to the off-chance that they might read Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will make sure that they do know it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not intend to give that impression. I was trying to ensure the maximum publicity for what was said in your Lordships' House, and I do not doubt that this will be done. I take it that the wish of the House is that I, as Leader—at least "pro tem": I will not say how long the "pro tern" will be—should in fact represent in the right quarters the strong feelings of this House on what has happened.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think we might register this protest more effectively if we voted against this Bill and threw it out?
LORD SHACKLETON: I must point out that it would be an unusual thing to do on First Reading.
On Question, Bill read la.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I can now get your Lordships to agree that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I apologise again for the inconvenience to which your Lordships were put, and I take this opportunity of wishing good fortune in our different ways in the days that lie ahead.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just express my appreciation at having had the highly enjoyable, if sometimes worrying, experience of being Leader of your Lordships' House during the past two or three years. I would echo what my noble friend Lord Beswick has said. I should very much like to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the example of co-operation that we show here—sometimes under difficulties, and sometimes under difficulties inflicted by other people. Whatever may happen in the Election, at least we shall all be meeting on one side or other of the House in the near future.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join both noble Lords who have spoken and to echo what the noble Lord said in his closing sentences. Whatever may happen, we shall all be here next time and I have no doubt will be saying much the same things as we have said in the last six years.
On Question, Bill passed.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GOSPORT CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HARWICH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  PEERS' APPOINTMENTS AND DISQUALIFICATION
  PEERS' APPOINTMENTS AND DISQUALIFICATION
  POLLUTION: PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
  POLLUTION: PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
  M.I.D.As. COST/BENEFIT STUDY
  M.I.D.As. COST/BENEFIT STUDY