Sitting of 4 February 1971

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

  State Retirement Pensions
  Mr. David Stoddart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present the humble Petition of residents of Swindon
  That in the light of rising prices a substantial increase in State retirement pensions be granted.
  The Petition—and associated documents—is supported by 11,500 signatures.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Colleges of Education (Intake)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she is taking to increase the intake to colleges of education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): Applications for non-graduate courses are at about the same level as last January. It is expected that the number of qualified school leavers will rise by 5 per cent. this year and that recruitment will exceed last year's figure. In addition, an increasing number of graduates are taking post-graduate courses in the colleges of education.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the great concern expressed by teachers and by the Chairman of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and
    1884
    Departments of Education on this matter? Is it correct that the shortfall in applications in relation to the target last year was 1,600? Is it correct that the registration of applications this year is 4 per cent. down on last year? Would the right hon. Lady——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has put three questions.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The correct answer to the hon. Gentleman is that nobody would be content or satisfied with a certain level at present. But the figures which I have given, particularly on the increase of post-graduate courses in colleges of education, are surely very encouraging.
    Mr. Alan Williams: In view of the relatively small proportion of increase envisaged in the medium term in those colleges, would the Minister explain how his Department intends to accommodate the 100 per cent. increase in the number of students we shall have in the next decade? In view of his right hon. Friend's comments about the restricted training of teachers in future, what special provision will be made to ensure adequate and suitable facilities for the training of girls elsewhere in education?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Obviously, these are all bound up with the very issues which the James Inquiry is examining. It would be unwise to make decisions for one particular sector until we have the whole picture.

    Teaching of the Metric System
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent syllabi have been prepared, books purchased, and at what annual cost, for the teaching of the metric system in schools and the setting of examination standards at primary, middle, and secondary stages; and to what extent the teaching of and examination in imperial units will be retained, for how long, and at what stages of education.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Preparation of the syllabus and purchase of books are matters for the school authorities. Guidance was given by the Department in 1969 that for some
    time pupils

    1885
    would need to be taught imperial as well as metric measures.
    Mr. Osborn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. While I accept that the first units to be taught in primary schools should now be metric, is it not a fact that too many educationists believe that there is no longer any need to teach imperial units? Will my right hon. Friend take positive steps to ensure that educationists, teachers and others are aware that we shall be using imperial units not only for the next five years but for perhaps the next 25 years'?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that it will be necessary for a number of years to teach imperial as well as metric units.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Lady will be aware that teachers are particularly concerned that the transition to the metric system should be as short as possible because of its educational impact. Will she confirm that the Government intend to put no brake upon the conversion to the metric system? Second, in view of the rather poor rate support grant determination this year, will she reconsider her decision on the provision of finance for metric education books for schools?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not responsible for answering questions on metrication as such. As the hon. Gentleman knows, only a target date has been set, and that is the end of 1975. I am surprised that he should call the rate support grant rather poor. It gave a bigger percentage for improvements than in previous years.

    Secondary Education (Derby)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from parents and teachers in the Breadsall area, objecting to the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in sector A by Derby Borough Education Committee; what investigations she has undertaken; and what action she proposes to take to ensure that adequate consultations are permitted before any scheme is introduced.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Before the Authority submitted its formal proposal on 29th January, 1971, my right hon. Friend had received more than 20 letters
    1886
    from individuals and from a Parents' Committee opposing the Authority's intentions. Now that the period for formal objections has begun, I cannot comment further.
    Mr. Rost: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the letters which he has received are only the tip of the iceberg compared with those coming through my post and that, in addition to 50 letters, I have received a petition containing 1,500 names? May we have the assurance that this matter will be looked into again so that parents and teachers in this part of South-East Derbyshire can have a fair deal from education?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that the very purpose of the procedures which I outlined in my original answer is that all points of view may be properly taken into account. Meanwhile I repeat, with no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, that it would be improper for me to make any comment.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has received from Derby Borough Education Committee for the reorganisation of secondary education sector A; whether she is satisfied the scheme is educationally viable, complies with her Circular 1070, and that adequate finance has been allocated to provide the necessary facilities to implement a satisfactory reorganisation; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Authority submitted formal proposals under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944 and gave public notice of its intentions on 29th January. 1971. There is now a period of two months during which objections may be lodged with my right hon. Friend who will thereafter make a decision on the proposals taking into account any objections.
    Mr. Rost: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is extreme anxiety among a large number of parents and teachers in the area because they are seeing a bulldozed and botched-up scheme of comprehensive education reorganisation forced through against the majority will? Will my hon. Friend

    1887
    undertake that the situation will be properly investigated?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will want to take very careful account of any objections that she receives. I am sure that my hon. Friend will therefore ensure that she receives them.

    Sandwich Meals
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many education authorities are charging those children who eat sandwiches instead of a cooked lunch.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None to my knowledge.
    Mr. Carter: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that reassuring reply, may I ask what action she intends to take where local authorities at present do not permit children to eat sandwiches at school?
    Mrs. Thatcher: A circular of guidance will shortly go out to local authorities on the whole topic.
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration she gave to the food values of various forms of sandwich meal before she decided to increase the price of school meals; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: None, Sir. The school dinner itself will continue to be suitable as the main meal of the day for those who take it, and there will be no change in its nutritional standard.
    Mr. Cocks: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. In view of the great care which, as she says, the school meals staff take in producing a balanced diet, I thought that she would have given more thought to a measure that may throw more children on to their own resources for their midday meal. Will she put some guidance in the circular to which she referred when replying earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter)?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is not possible to consider the nutritional value of sandwiches as such. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it varies from one sandwich to another. The total cost of the school
    1888
    meal is 2s. 10d. The food part of that is only Is. ld.
    Miss Lestor: When it was announced that ultimately the price of the school meal would be the economic cost, did that mean the economic cost at the time the announcement was made or the economic cost at any time in the future when it rises?
    Mrs. Thatcher: So far the only provision made has been, first, to raise the cost of the school meal to 12 new pence and then to the full present economic cost, 2s. 10d. or 14 new pence, on the appointed days.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Lady accept that it is very easy to be clever and jocular at the Dispatch Box, but that it is totally unfair to do so at the expense of children in primary schools? Will she now answer the question whether she has taken account of the damage that may be done to children as a result of having to take sandwich meals as compared with receiving meals of the nutritional value to which they have been accustomed?
    Mrs. Thatcher: If there is any nutritional damage, the matter will undoubtedly be very quickly brought to my attention by the Chief Medical Officer. Already about 635,000 children receive free school meals, and the number is expected to rise to 800,000 as a result of measures the Government have taken.

    Professional Teaching Qualifications (Failure Rate)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many persons obtained professional teaching qualifications from departments and colleges of education in England and Wales in the years 1965 to 1970; how many failed to satisfy the examining authorities over the same period; and, of that number, how many failed to obtain qualifications solely on account of an inadequate practical performance.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The failure rate in each of the years mentioned was between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. No information is available about failures due solely to inadequate practical performance. I have arranged for detailed figures to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of anxiety among practising teachers and student teachers about the general and detailed arrangements for teaching practice? In view of the fact that there was no specific reference to this in the terms of reference of the James Committee, can the hon. Gentleman say that due weight will be given to the subject in the deliberations of the Committee and its subsequent recommendations?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not think it likely that an inquiry of this eminence into teacher training will not look closely at teaching practice.
    Following is the information:
    Students successfully completing initial professional training, and students failing examinations, in departments and colleges of education, in the academic years 1964–65 to 1968–69 were as follows (excluding students in Art Teacher Training Centres and Colleges of Education, Technical):

    Academic year

    Passes

    Failure

    Failure Rate

    1964–65

    …

    20,132

    667

    3·2

    1965–66

    …

    22,827

    778

    3·3

    1966–67

    …

    26,137

    936

    3·5

    1967–68

    …

    31,182

    1,008

    3·1

    1968–69

    …

    33,949

    1,228

    3·5

    Similar figures are not yet available for the academic year 1969–70 nor it is known how many students failed solely on account of an inadequate practical performance.
    These figures include a number of students who successfully completed professional teacher training at the end of three years but who continued in college for a further year to take a Bachelor of Education degree.
    The figures relate to students taking the examination for the first time; students who failed but were later recommended by the A.T.O. or later passed on re-examinations are included in the failure figures.
    Total wastage through failure and withdrawals has varied in recent years between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent.

    Educational Priority Areas
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the Government's future policy for educational priority areas.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Through the Urban Programme and in other ways it is my policy to help local authorities to give special attention to the educational needs of socially deprived areas.
    Mr. Spearing: I am surprise at that rather general answer. Is it not a fact that the period of E.P.A.'s is due to finish in some areas this March? Since the origin of these grants was in November, 1968, there may be new needs which have arisen since then which the right hon. Lady would want to look at closely.
    Mrs. Thatcher: There are no specific areas designated. But a number of schools receive special attention. Areas which have multiple social deprivation will continue to receive help under the Urban Programme in the way of extra teacher quotas and by other means.
    Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us from non-priority areas, while fully supporting the Government's policy towards priority areas, are delighted by the prospect of increasing resources for non-priority areas, especially for the replacement of antique primary schools? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is definitely her intention and hope?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The last improvement programme for primary schools was divided approximately equally, about half going to the socially deprived areas and half to other areas. I cannot say precisely how the next programme will be divided. There are a number of ways. It might possibly be done on the basis of the distribution of pre-1903 schools in the country.
    Miss Lestor: Can the right hon. Lady be a little more forthcoming on the future of educational priority areas, bearing in mind that the recent Douglas Report and the earlier Newsome Report demonstrated clearly that it is the working-class child who is discriminated against in areas which are culturally, educationally and socially deprived, and that this is a real and urgent problem?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is why special help was given by the hon. Lady's Government. It has been and is being continued by my Government.
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for the expansion of resources allocated to the educational priority areas in the Northern Region; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Northern Region's share of the 1972–73 major school building programme is £12·4 million compared with £11·5 million in the 1971–72 programme. £249,000 for educational purposes has recently been approved for the Northern Region in the third phase of the Urban Programme.
    Mr. Armstrong: Would the right hon. Lady accept that the children concerned in these areas have been permanently deprived of the opportunity to reach their potential? Is it not a strange order of priorities that the right hon. Lady can be so generous towards direct-grant schools, which in the main are catering for children who have not been deprived, and yet so mean towards educational priority areas where there are children who need attention and who are being done an injustice?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I would point out that the amount allocated under Phase 3 of the Urban Programme was greater than the amount allocated under Phase 2 or Phase 1. We are doing better.

    Museums and Galleries (Entrance Fees)
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in discussing with the representatives of museums and galleries the imposition of entrance fees.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The considered views of nearly all the institutions on the details of a scheme of charges have now been received and there have been preliminary discussions about the collection of charges.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the large number of exemptions which will be necessary to make this entrance tax tolerable, would not it be better to drop the whole silly and abnoxious proposal now?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, with his usual generosity, that there would be a flexible scheme allowing exemptions in appropriate cases. No doubt he will be pleased with the scheme when he hears it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that last point, is my hon. Friend giving special attention to the needs of students and of those parents who desire to take their
    1892
    children frequently to museums and galleries to familiarise them with the treasures contained in them?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I know that both those groups are very much in the mind of my noble Friend.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of representatives of museums and galleries whose opinions have been made known are hostile to the idea of introducing charges?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: What is interesting is that there has been a change of view in certain places, including one very well-known person who originally campaigned against the principle but now concedes that there is much in it.
    Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) would normally raise this matter, but unfortunately he is confined in hospital where, of course, there are no admission charges——
    An Hon. Member: Not yet!
    Miss Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, what is likely to be the net cost of administering these charges; second, what is expected to be the net yield; and, third, what arrangement will be made for the exemption of school children, and will it have to be paid for by local authorities?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: As Parliament would expect, all those matters will be made clear in the comprehensive announcement which is to be made by my noble Friend.
    I am sure that the House regrets the absence of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). However, I think that the hon. Lady is doing pretty well in comedy.
    Miss Lestor: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has answered my question about the net cost.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I thought that I had made it clear that this will be part of the comprehensive statement to be made by my noble Friend.
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a decision has now been reached about the need for legislation before fees can

    1893
    be charged for entrance to the British Museum and the Natural History Museum.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Trustees of the British Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) have been advised that legislation may be necessary to put beyond doubt their power to charge for admission.
    Mr. Strauss: I am glad to know that, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be strong opposition to this legislation in view of the fact that none of the tax raised will accrue to the museums and galleries and in view of the arguments of those who want to see art made more and not less available to the public?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not know why there should be strong opposition. There are at least two respectable precedents established by legislation. I refer to the Imperial War Museum and the National Maritime Museum.
    Mr. Hunt: When my hon. Friend introduces the legislation will he remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that a substantial proportion of those who visit our museums and galleries are tourists from overseas and that British taxpayers see no reason why they should be asked to subsidise these people to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I take note of that. At the same time, we in this country like to think that our national treasures are widely shared. But it must be accepted that, if we want increased provision, we need to have the kind of provision that I have been dealing with in answering this Question.

    Grant-Aided Secondary Independent Schools (Finance)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of financial subventions from all public funds to grant-aided secondary independent schools in 1970–71; and whether any increase is contemplated in 1971–72.
    Mrs. Thatcher: In 1970–71 the Exchequer grant to the direct-grant secondary schools in England and Wales is expected to be £6·4 million and fees from local education authorities of the
    1894
    order of £10 million. The level of Exchequer grant for 1971–72 has not yet been settled.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that those figures denote continued support for this system generally and in principle? Will she reassure the House that she intends no change in the arrangements for grant-aided secondary education in the early future?
    Mrs. Thatcher: In the early future, no change. In the more distant future I hope to receive representations from the Direct Grant Committee about how further we can help it. I think that it is important that these schools continue, because for a number of parents they are the middle way between the wholly independent system and the wholly State system.
    Mr. Edward Short: Would the right hon. Lady care to elaborate the statement she made at the Conservative Party conference that if a local authority did not take up its places she would find ways of assisting these schools directly, that is, by-passing the local authority?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That could already be done under the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman left.

    Drug Addict Centres
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make an official visit to a drug addict centre at the earliest convenient opportunity.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not at present.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why did the Department register a formal objection with the Government business manager, the Lord President of the Council, to a Ten Minute Rule Bill on this whole complex subject, which at least would have allowed adult parliamentary discussion of an urgent issue? Why was it stifled by the Department?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that that arises from the Question. But I am certain that any advice I gave objecting to anything that the hon. Gentleman said would have been advice very well given for very good reasons.
    Mr. Dalyell: Oh no!

    School Milk
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she had with the British Medical Association before she took the decision to discontinue school milk to the over-sevens at primary schools; what advice she received; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Pupils up to 12 who need milk on health grounds will continue to receive it on the certification of the school medical officer. The answer to the first part of the question is, "None, Sir".
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that before the Labour Government decided to stop giving school milk to secondary pupils they studied the advice of the British Medical Association, and that there is very strong medical opinion that it will be detrimental to children's health if we cease giving them milk when they are over the age of seven? Will she now seek medical advice before the Government take this niggardly action?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It would have been most unusual to consult the British Medical Association. The Government would have been much more likely to consult the Chief Medical Officers Committee. But as milk is to continue to be given on medical grounds, there did not seem to be any need to do that.
    Mr. Edward Short: What is to come of the right hon. Lady's plan to sell milk in primary schools now that she has discovered that she has no power to do so?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that legislation will be introduced later in the year.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question, may I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment?

    School Curricula (Responsibility)
    Mr. Roger Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will review the present system whereby education authorities allow heads of schools to bear responsibility for school
    1896
    curricula, particularly with regard to reading matter issued to teenage children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Education Act gives control of the curriculum to the local education authorities and the governors of aided secondary schools. They can decide how best to exercise their responsibilities and how far they should delegate them to head teachers.
    Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parents are disturbed to find that their 14-year-old daughters are being given books like "The Catcher in the Rye" to read in school? Will she look into the possibility of laying down guidelines to education authorities rather than giving head teachers carte blanche?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Head teachers do not quite have carte blanche. The secular responsibility for curriculum matters is laid upon the local education authorities. On the whole they are sensitive to opinion on this matter. I should be very reluctant to issue guidelines on a matter of this kind.
    Mr. Marks: Would not it be better to give parents the opportunity to serve as parent representatives on boards of school governors and managers so that they can make clear their point of view and that of other parents?
    Mrs. Thatcher: There are many ways of parents making their point of view clear, and I think that they do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) for raising the question, because I think that parents feel that the teaching given in the schools should help pupils to uphold the best moral standards of our society.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the Bill which the right hon. Lady mentioned at the North of England conference give parents representation on school governing bodies?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the Bill is not yet ready for introduction, I would rather leave that matter until the proposals are laid before the House.

    In-Service Training for Teachers
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals there are for expanding opportunities for in-service training for teachers.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: My Department is expanding its own provision for in-service training and is also providing funds to promote greater and more effective use of the resources of universities, colleges and local authorities under the auspices of area training organisations.
    Mr. Cocks: I welcome that reply, but I urge the matter on the hon. Gentleman as being the most effective way in which modern advances in educational thought and practice can be rapidly disseminated throughout the profession.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I would not enter into dispute with the hon. Gentleman on this. My answer shows improvement, for example, in relation to the Department's own provision, which is what I am talking about. This represents a 12½ per cent. increase on last year.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that adequate facilities are available in particular for in-service training for the B.Ed. qualification? Could he give the strongest possible lead to education authorities, advising them to make time available to teachers to attend such courses?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Department has given every encouragement over the whole field of in-service training. The previous Government recognised, as we do, that progress in this matter must be made by degrees.

    Qualified Teachers (Numbers)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified teachers are expected to be trained by the colleges of education and university departments in the years 1975 and 1980.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: About 43,000 students are expected to complete initial courses of training in colleges and departments of education in 1975. It is too early to make a realistic forecast for 1980.
    Mr. Hardy: I am grateful for that reply but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that recent pronouncements by the Secretary of State suggest that there will not be an adequate increase in the number of teachers to be produced by 1980? Does not he agree that this will become increasingly inadequate in the light of
    1898
    the increasing demand which will be experienced in the next ten years, and that this will give rise to grave and growing disappointment among educationists and parents during the 1970s?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that there was widespread understanding of the point of view which was admirably expressed by my right hon. Friend—that we need not concentrate solely on numbers in this field. I thought it was a valuable thing to have said.
    Mr. Lane: Does my hon. Friend expect to see a continuing steady improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio in the early 1970s?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir, although there may be a temporary check in the year in which the raising of the school-leaving age takes effect. With that reservation, I confirm what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Lady indicated in a speech that she envisaged a restriction in the rate of increase of the number of entrants to education colleges in the mid-1970s. Will the hon. Gentleman spell out in some detail precisely what she meant?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall not attempt to spell out in detail a matter which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is under close and professional scrutiny at present. My right hon. Friend was charting a course, and I have found widespread agreement with what she said.

    School Places (Cost)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital and revenue cost per place of nursery, primary and secondary education, respectively.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Capital costs per pupil place at present are:
    for nursery schools between £412 and £574 depending on the size of the unit;
    for primary and secondary schools £371 and £702 respectively.
    Current expenditure per pupil for 1970–71 is estimated at:
    £202; £97; £186 for nursery primary and secondary schools respectively.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for those figures. Before dismissing the provision of nursery education as being too expensive from the capital cost point of view, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when we provide nursery schools through the urban aid programme we are providing for two children in one place, because they attend on a part-time basis? Will he therefore bear in mind that it is possible to spread the benefits of nursery education at a lower cost per child than the cost of secondary and primary education appears to suggest?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I accept much of what the hon. Lady said.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to further what the hon. Lady is asking for, because nursery education is of enormous importance? Its importance is often unrecognised and underrated.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not underrate its importance. I am sure it is not necessary to remind my hon. Friend, however, that we always have to work within the limits of resources available.
    Mr. Marks: Nursery classes and nursery schools are taking children parttime—one group attending in the morning and another in the afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman urge local authorities to make extra provision, therefore, for clerical and other assistance, because the system involves twice as much work as would be the case if half the children attending were to spend all day at the school?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I will look at this point, but the hon. Gentleman is illustrating the financial problems in such provision.

    Nursery Classes (New Infant Schools)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now encourage local education authorities to include proposals for a nursery class or classes when preparing plans for new infant schools, if they wish to do so.
    Mrs. Thatcher: In appropriate cases local authorities will, I hope, bear in mind the possibility of the later addition of nursery classes when planning new
    1900
    primary schools. But for the present, resources should be concentrated on the replacement and improvement of old primary schools and on the expansion of nursery education under the Urban Programme.
    Mrs. Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many local education authorities are very keen to provide nursery classes, are able to do so from their existing capital means but are being prevented from doing so by the circular which she issued some time ago which militates against it? Will she therefore let local education authorities know that where they can find the money, she will not prevent them from doing so when new plans for infant schools are being submitted to the Department for approval?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that I can go quite as far as that. Many of us are very keen on the extension of nursery education but the limiting factor, as the hon. Lady will have gathered from the reply to Question No. 23, is resources. I hope that where new primary schools are built they will be built in such a way as to leave room for expansion for nursery classes later.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in the context of financial resources, that every parent who sends his or her child to a private fee-paying independent school is lifting the whole of that financial burden off the taxpayers and ratepayers?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I agree. I should not, in addition to everything else, like to take on the burden of costs which these parents bear.
    Miss Lestor: In view of what the right hon. Lady said about the commitment to nursery education, and what was said in the Conservative Party manifesto, will she now allow and encourage those local authorities which have schools with empty classrooms in them to use those rooms for nursery classes for pre-school children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot go as far as withdrawing the circular which prevented that from happening. Nursery school places are being expanded this year, however. An additional 5,000 places are being provided under Phase 3 of the urban programme.

    Teachers and Pupils (Safety and Health)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation akin to the Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, to provide for teachers and pupils the same safeguards as are provided for office workers and others.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Substantial safeguards for teachers and pupils are already provided under existing law and it would be premature to consider new legislation before the Committee on Safety and Health at Work has completed its task.
    Mr. Jones: Does it please the right hon. Lady to hear of youngsters using archaic accommodation, such as outside toilets, and working in unhealthy out-of-date so-called classrooms which are really storage rooms, cloakrooms or corridors? Does not she agree that such shameful physical conditions in industry would result in walk-outs by those involved? Why should the long-suffering teachers have to put up with such conditions?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I realise that I have been left a very considerable problem in this respect and I am trying to tackle it as rapidly as I can.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Lady look at the appalling conditions in which speech therapists have to work in many schools? Is she aware that often they have to work in a room which is little more than a cupboard, It is not easy for them to do their very serious work in such conditions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not want anyone to work in appalling conditions. We are steadily doing all we can to increase the school improvements programme.

    Choice in Welfare 1970
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has read Choice in Welfare 1970, showing results of a survey under the Institute of Economic Affairs, a copy of which is in her possession; and if, in the light of that survey, she has any proposals to encourge parents who so desire to pay for the education of their children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have read the Institute of Economic Affairs' third report on
    1902
    Choice in Welfare with great interest. I trust that parents who wish to will continue to support the independent schools.
    Mr. King: Does not every financial forecast indicate the growing difficulty of financing the improved education system we all want to see if taxation is to be the only source of revenue? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, through the taxation system or otherwise, do her utmost to see that private money is injected into the system?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I could not possibly agree to that because it is not my Ministerial duty so to do. I think that this report will contribute greatly to the discussion of independent education in future.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Lady look again favourably at her hon. Friend's suggestion following the dictum of the Secretary of State for Social Services on Monday? Would not charges of this kind provide a financial incentive to children to look after their own educational interests and thus provide financial savings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could use for further tax reductions for the better-off?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite sure that I got the full impact of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. It seemed to me somewhat abstruse and at one point I was not quite convinced that jocularity was confined to the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Marks: Would the right hon. Lady give protection to parents who misguidedly pay for their children's education by publishing the list of the 1,300 independent schools not recognised by the Department as efficient? Will she publish it so that they do not have to come to London to look at the manuscript list before they can find out?
    Mrs. Thatcher: There is a later Question about that subject on the Order Paper. The majority of these schools have never applied for or wished to have recognition as efficient, since some of the best-known ones can stand on their own reputations without having to have such recognition added to their qualifications.
    Miss Lestor: Can the right hon. Lady say what attention she is giving, in view of the question about parents who pay

    1903
    for their children's education, to the rate relief received by public schools registered as charities? Should not that list be made more widely known among those who have to bear the brunt of the rate relief?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I trust that the rate relief to educational charities will continue.

    Primary School Classes, Northern Region
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary school classes in the Northern Region have more than 35 pupils; and what proposals she has for eliminating oversize classes in the region.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In January, 1970, 3,877. The local education authorities will be helped by their
    share of building programmes and the rapidly increasing supply of teachers. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider applications for increased quotas of teachers.
    Mr. Armstrong: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the greatest educational reform for primary school children would be to reduce the size of class, to enable individual teaching and attention to be given? In view of the distressing number of over-size classes in the Northern Region, would he consider making extra allocations of resources so that not only will there be an extra quota of teachers—the cost of which will fall on the local authorities—but there will be extra building resources to give the children the opportunity they deserve?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not dissent from the hon. Member's view that the ratio between teacher and taught is significant in effective teaching. I do not question that for a moment. But I hope that he will have noted the increased resources that have been made available. I do not want him to read any complacency into my answer.
    Mr. Cordle: Dealing with hygiene, is it not possible for the Minister to look carefully at the provision of conveniences to see that some of the primary schools are very soon equipped with less isolated buildings and that pupils have fewer difficulties in getting to them?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad to say that that is the kind of important matter which flows directly from the replacement schemes for old primary schools which have already been announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the Northern Region the distribution of overcrowded classes is extremely patchy so that it is possible to have, as I have in my constituency, a large number of classes with over 35 pupils whereas there are none as far as I know in other constituencies within the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne? Will his Department, in future approvals of the building programme, bear in mind that when an area is developing with new housing estates, overcrowding can occur even though nearby slum clearance reduces the size of classes?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: These are all matters to take into account, but they are surely also very much in the minds of competent local education authorities in submitting plans to my right hon. Friend.

    Public Libraries (Expenditure)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of per capita expenditure on public libraries by each of the largest 20 cities or county boroughs in England and Wales outside London; and whether she will make a statement on Government policy towards those authorities with below-average expenditure.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The information requested is published in the annual Public Library Statistics issued jointly by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and the Society of County Treasurers. Per capita expenditure is one of the factors taken into account in assessing the adequacy of a local authority's public library provision. A lower-than-average expenditure would not necessarily of itself be sufficient reason for Government action.
    Mr. Judd: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are a number of boorish local authorities, including, I am sorry to say, the Conservative-controlled City Council of Portsmouth, with an absolutely disgraceful record in terms of public library service? What does he

    1905
    intend to do to promote greater interest and greater attention on the part of these local authorities to this public service?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The statistics do not bear out that unreasonable criticism of Portsmouth. The central problem, as the hon. Member must know better than I, is the replacement for the Central Library. That, as he knows, is in hand.

  BIRMINGHAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on 11th January, in which he advocated progressive and substantial reductions in wage increases, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham on 11th January on prices, economic and related matters, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Sillars: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor's policy statement is the exact opposite of the Prime Minister's policy statement on 16th June when he guaranteed progressive and substantial decreases in prices, not wages?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Chancellor's very clear analysis he will find that it exactly corresponds with my own policy and that of the Government.
  Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that wage increases in excess of productivity must mean increases in prices? May we assume that those who are in favour of the one are also in favour of the other?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is very logical but I doubt whether anyone would agree.
  Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister aware that in this speech the Chancellor quoted what other people called the "British disease", and this at a time
  1906
  when British management and workers had produced very good export figures? Would he now take advantage of this opportunity to declare that he does not agree that there is such a thing as the "British disease" and that British management and British workers are to be complimented on their endeavours?
  The Prime Minister: I always pay tribute to what is achieved in exporting, whether visible or invisible. What the Chancellor was dealing with was the question of the impact on exports of rising prices through rising costs as a result of excessive, inflationary wage increases.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: At what point did the the Chancellor's statement of 11th January refer to reducing indirect taxation, reducing the surpluses of nationalised industries to reduce their prices and bringing down unemployment, which were the three salient points of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 16th June?
  The Prime Minister: The Chancellor has always made it plain that we want to get unemployment down, and to do this it is essential to get on top of inflation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that full well. That is the object of our policies. I should have thought that it is becoming apparent that with a high rate of cost inflation, there is rising unemployment.

  BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an economist with special responsibility for balance of payments to serve on the Cabinet Consultative Committee.
  The Prime Minister: The Central Policy Review Staff will include individuals with economic expertise. But the staff will not be so large that any one economist would concentrate exclusively on balance-of-payments questions.
  Mr. Barnett: Can we be assured that the Prime Minister's views on balance-of-payments trends are based on better advice than that which he had last June when, as he conceded last Thursday, he made the most irresponsible statements, including forecasting devaluation based—on the kindest interpretation—on a bad guess?
  The Prime Minister: What I said the other day was what I said in June, that the trend on current account taken over the preceding six months was downwards. This cannot possibly be repudiated. The hon. Gentleman refers to devaluation, and if he looks up that paragraph in my June speech he will see that I said that if we had another four years of Labour Government with the same people pursuing the same policy, that would be the consequence. The electorate fully realised that and took the necessary action.
  Mr. John Wells: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of the Labour Party have tended continually to encourage wage inflation by their inflationary demands, and should not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take a more responsible line by supporting my right hon. Friend?
  The Prime Minister: I would not describe them as "policies" of the Labour Party. It is merely a constant exhortation to go for higher wages regardless of the consequences.
  Mr. Taverne: In the light of the strong balance-of-payments position, will the Prime Minister reconsider the declared policy of the Government to keep the rise in demand to the limit of the productivity potential increase? If this is the policy of the Government, how does the Prime Minister propose to reduce unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is on an important question of policy, much wider than this Question, and one which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always to consider. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that, quite apart from the question of expansion, the demand on the balance of payments to repay indebtedness incurred by himself and his right hon. Friends remains with us.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that he is so thickly shrouded in self-righteousness that he genuinely believes that he was justified in saying in June that the balance of payments was on a downward trend?
  The Prime Minister: I said that the current account was on a downward trend. The right hon. Gentleman agrees
  1908
  with me, and these are facts to which I stick. The right hon. Gentleman might admit, perhaps, that in the fourth quarter of this year there was a remarkable recovery.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying that I agree with him. All I agree with him is that the current account is what we are both talking about. Is he seriously suggesting that the performance of the current account during the last six months has been due to measures taken by himself and his Government rather than by his predecessors? If so, will he tell us which measures have been taken by the present Government to strengthen the current account in 1971?
  The Prime Minister: I am stating two matters of fact: that in the first six months, taking the whole of the six months and not just one month's figures, the trend was downwards; and that in the fourth quarter there was a remarkable recovery.

  LICENSING BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COMPUTERISATION)
  Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend setting up a Royal Commission for investigating computerisation services for all licensing by Government Departments so that consumers hold only one current piece of paper for all licences, including vehicles, driving, television, radio, dogs, guns and the remainder, with a view to aiding consumer convenience on a large scale, now that the Consumer Council is wound up.
  The Prime Minister: National computer-based systems such as that for vehicle registration and driver licences are now being installed. When these very large systems have been successfully introduced, my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion and the feasibility of further integration can be considered.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I thank my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic reply. Would he not agree that he should resist any temptation in the context of computerised services to appoint the Leader of the Opposition, in view of his known attitude to dog licences?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is on to a point. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in computerisation of this kind, always assuming that he was the programmer.
  Mr. John Fraser: When the right hon. Gentleman is reviewing the licensing arrangements, will he make sure that the numbers on licences are printed in sufficiently large type to be read even by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in the dim light of the Central Lobby?
  The Prime Minister: That is not very relevant to a matter which is engaging a great deal of Government funds and is an important matter of Government organisation.

  ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay a visit to the headquarters of the Economic Commission for Europe.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Sheldon: Since the Commission's reports will show that since last summer Britain has had one of the highest increases in unemployment of all the member countries, and since the Prime Minister promised during the election period to reduce unemployment immediately—he used the words "at a stroke" about this as well—when will he redeem his instant promises?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of a report of the Economic Commission for Europe dealing with this matter, but I would be quite prepared to study it. I am aware that the Commission is mainly concerned with East-West trade relations, and so on, and to this we attach great importance.

  INDIAN OCEAN (DEMILITARISATION)
  Mr. Ted Fletcherasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he had with Mrs. Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Ceylon, at Singapore on the demilitarisation of the
  1910
  Indian Ocean, and the proposed United Kingdom/United States base at Diego Garcia.
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mrs. Gandhi in Delhi in January on the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean and the proposed United States/United Kingdom base at Diego Garcia.
  The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Ceylon presented a paper on the security of the Indian Ocean to the Commonwealth Conference. I also discussed this subject with the Prime Minister of India when I was in New Delhi. The details of these discussions are confidential.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread opposition in Ceylon—I speak as one who has recently visited that country—to the proposal to sell arms to South Africa and to establish a naval presence in the Indian Ocean? Will he assure the House that he will not make a policy statement on these matters until he has had an opportunity of reading the report of the Working Party set up at the Commonwealth Conference to discuss this matter?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have already told the House that I cannot give any such assurance. The desire of the Prime Minister of Ceylon was that there should be no military forces of any kind in the Indian Ocean. Whereas some hon. Gentlemen may be sympathetic to that view, the Comonwealth Conference found it difficult to see a practical way of ensuring it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Why so shy about the truth? Mrs. Gandhi did object, did she not?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do not breach confidences, but the view of the Indian Government is perfectly well known publicly.
  Mr. Hastings: Rather than the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean which is referred to in the Question, is it not more a question of militarisation of the Indian Ocean as carried out by the Soviet Union and demonstrated forcibly during the Conference?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is absolutely right. There is no question of our setting up a new base in the Indian Ocean for maritime purposes and, as I have told the House, Diego Garcia is to be a communications centre.
  Mr. Thorpe: Since the Prime Minister quite rightly cannot make public the private discussions which he has had with the Indian and Sinhalese Prime Ministers, will he at least make public, from his knowledge of the history of this country, whether there has ever before been a precedent for Her Majesty's First Minister considering supplying arms to a country whose armed forces are on rebel territory actively supporting with those armed forces a rebellion against the Crown?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government, like their predecessors, have made representations about this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an historical analysis, he had better put down a Question.

  A FAIR SOCIETY
  Mr. Hardyasked the Prime Minister what further steps he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to create a fair society.
  The Prime Minister: Our fiscal policies are designed to ensure that genuine achievement is fairly rewarded. At the same time we are reshaping social policies so as to direct more effective help to those in greatest need.
  Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to maintain and fulfil his prime aim, which was expressed in the Gracious Speech, to create a fair society? Will he cast aside his smug complacency and tackle the problems of the increasing incidence of malnutrition and rising unemployment?
  The Prime Minister: I am certainly prepared to tackle that. If the hon. Gentleman will also do his utmost to ensure that inflationary wage increases are overcome, he will be helping as well.
  Mr. Bob Brown: I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying something about "one nation" on the steps of Downing Street on 19th June last. Does he not
  1912
  agree that he would be going a step along the road to creating one nation if he stopped Treasury Bench Members making inflammatory speeches and lecturing wage earners about inflationary wage settlements, bearing in mind the Government's attitude to the settlements for doctors, judges, chairmen of nationalised industries and senior civil servants?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that excessive wage increases are inflationary and put up costs. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman does recognise that. Therefore, I suggest that he urges those who are pressing for them not to do so. The particular groups of people he has mentioned were dealt with by inquiries and reports. In fact, the majority of these increases
  were accepted by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister and we implemented them later. The remainder were consequential upon them.

POST OFFICE DISPUTE
Mrs. Barbara Castle(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on any further developments about the Postal workers strike.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Since I reported to the House on Monday, my Department has been in touch with both sides and will continue to keep in touch. I am sorry to say that so far there is no change on either side in the positions that I had to report to the House on Monday.
I shall keep the House informed as soon as there is anything to report.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he maintains his attitude of complacent detachment the Post Office workers are growing daily more embittered? Is he aware that only this week Western Union, a privately-owned concern, has reached a settlement with its own overseas telegraph operators under which they are to get, among other things, an immediate 13 per cent, increase in pay on all points in their scales, a built-in guarantee of a further 4 per cent. increase if the cost of living rises by 4 per cent., and a further contraction of their incremental scales,which are already much

1913
more favourable than the scales of their counterparts in the Post Office? In view of this, can the right hon. Gentleman be surprised at the anger of Post Office workers? Is he further aware that the Post Office trains these operators at public expense and then loses them to the private sector, which is under no such restraints as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to put on the public sector? Does he think this is the right way to run the country?
Mr. Carr: I do not remember that comparability was one of the major criteria laid down by the right hon. Lady in her own incomes policy. Since the right hon. Lady has referred to 13 per cent., she should also tell the House that this applies to 230 workers, which is a rather different scale of problem. What is perhaps more important is that that agreement is to last for two years. According to my calculation, that turns the 13 per cent. into a very different annual percentage.
Dame Irene Ward: Although we appreciate what has been done by many of the Post Office workers in paying pensions and family allowances, could my right hon. Friend make a statement as to how retirement pensioners are getting on in collecting their pensions? They must be having a very difficult time indeed.
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend should address that question to my right hon. Friend. I cannot give her and the House a detailed answer, but I hope that the House will express a united opinion that the Post Office and Post Office workers should continue to do what they did until this week, namely, provide an emergency service for pensioners. I hope we can ask them to do this again.
Mr. Charles Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement today is one of a whole series of statements he has made on the Post Office dispute? Is he further aware that during the course of these statements he has identified himself almost without exception——
An Hon. Member: With the public interest.
Mr. Morris: —with the view of the Post Office Board? Since the Secretary
1914
of State has been projected as an understanding man, which feature of the U.P.W. claim does he feel has the greatest merit?
Mr. Carr: I am sure that I should be wrong to do that. I do not know that any of my predecessors ever did such a thing during a dispute. The hon. Gentleman was not right to make the imputation he did. In my statements I have been very careful—as I was, for example, last Monday—to state with equal force the Post Office view and the Union view. I can only say that the view of the hon. Gentleman is not shared by the union leader.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend ask his officials when they are next in contact with the union to convey the disquiet felt in many parts of the country at the growing number of people who are losing their jobs as a result of the dispute? Would he not agree that the general public feel that the Union of Post Office Workers would have nothing to lose by going to arbitration and allowing its case to be justified?
Mr. Carr: I do not want to be drawn further than I can help into this. There is a severe deadlock between the two sides in which both sides sincerely hold to their different positions, and there is no move between them. In these circumstances I continue to believe that arbitration in some form or another is probably the right solution. I very much hope that that is where we shall get to.
Mr. Atkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Acting Chairman of the Post Office Board has said that the Post Office cannot concede an agreement, as a result of arbitration or otherwise, above 8 per cent. without increasing the price of stamps above 7·2 pence? If any arbitration procedure is not competent to deal with the price of stamps, does that not mean the union cannot go to arbitration because of the problems of price and all the other difficulties that will arise? Therefore, would he not consider some extraordinary method of getting negotiations started again between the two sides?
Mr. Carr: We should be clear about the view of the Post Office, which is that if it increases the present offer it will have to make a further increase. This is

1915
why the Post Office feels that it should not increase its present offer, but it has nevertheless said that it would abide by arbitration if more was awarded. It is making clear, as it should make clear, that this would inevitably mean a further increase in price. I have not ruled out any form of investigating inquiry and both sides are well aware of that, but I do not think the House or the country can escape the hard economic fact that any further increase in pay inevitably will mean a further increase in price. This is one of the factors which both parties, as well as the public and the House, have to take into account.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until Seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Rating Bill.
Motions on the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order and on the Police Pensions Regulations.
TUESDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY, WEDNESDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY, and THURSDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY—Industrial Relations Bill: Committee stage (5th, 6th and 7th Allotted Days).
FRIDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 30th March.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in view of the important statement which we gather the House is to have a little later this afternoon—not, as we would have hoped, by a senior member of the Cabinet, which would have been right in the circumstances —obviously questions on the
1916
business for next week must to some extent await this important statement and any change in business for which hon. Members in any part of the House may feel it right to ask?
Apart from asking the right hon. Gentleman a fairly minor matter—whether he will consider adding an hour for the Rating Bill on Monday night, because rather a short period is allowed for it—and apart also from asking whether the Secretary of State for Employment will make another statement to the House on Monday on the Post Office strike, may I ask whether, after the statement, he will agree to answer some questions about the Parliamentary consequences of the statement we are about to hear and that, if we put questions to him rather than to his right hon. Friend, he will answer them?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the statement will be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply, who is the departmental Minister responsible. I should think that it was correct that the departmental Minister responsible should make the statement.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I appreciate and accept that the statement which my right hon. Friend will make may very well have repercussions on next week's business. I think that it may be too early, immediately after the statement, for me to announce all the implications, but it may be right that there should be discussion on exactly how these should take place. Of course, if you, Mr. Speaker, thought it right that I should answer any question on business thereafter, naturally I should be prepared to do so. But that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning the Rating Bill, yes, certainly, there will be an extra hour.
As for a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the Post Office strike, naturally I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I will convey these views to my right hon. Friend, who I know is most anxious to keep the House as fully informed as possible.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we can expect to have the debate on the

1917
public expenditure White Paper before the Budget?
Mr. Whitelaw: The debate will certainly be before the Budget, but I cannot today say when.
Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt heard a few moments ago the great concern expressed in this House about the Post Office situation. In view of the serious repercussions which are now being felt in industry, as well as elsewhere, may I ask whether he will try to allow time next week for the House to discuss the Post Office strike?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I have gone as far as it is right for me to go in answer to the Leader of the Opposition—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will wish to keep the House as fully informed as possible. I cannot find time for a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the interest which the Government have shown in encouraging the Arts, may I ask whether we can have a debate—[Interruption.] In view of the increased grant which the Government have made available to the Arts Council, may we have an early debate on the Arts?
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's considerable interest in these matters, and, indeed, his considerable greater knowledge than that of some of those who seemed to jeer at him. I cannot, however, offer a debate on that subject next week.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: When may we expect a statement, and preferably a debate, on the Official Secrets Act, which many hon. Members have felt for some time is in need of drastic reform?
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note the importance and, indeed, the topicality of the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. This is an important question which is being urgently considered by the Government. A statement will be made when that consideration is complete.
Mr. Kilfedder: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to Motion No. 391, standing in my name, which concerns criminal intimidation in Belfast?
1918
[That this House takes note of an article by Simon Winchester, in "The Guardian" of Tuesday, 2nd February, describing acts of intimidation and physical violence committed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army upon citizens in the Falls, Anderstown and Ardoyne areas of Belfast; express its horror and disgust at the brutal and revolting nature of the crimes described; declares its unreserved support for the forces of law upon whom falls the duty of bringing those responsible to justice; and urges Her Majesty's Government, through its security forces, to afford the Royal Ulster Constabulary every assistance in this task.]
In view of the grave and sinister situation of criminal intimidation in a part of Belfast to which the Motion refers, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will find time to debate this important matter, not in a few weeks' time, but at the earliest possible opportunity, because of the activities of members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, who are the bully boys in the area, who are attacking our troops going to the assistance of ordinary citizens?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. It would be wrong for me to get involved in the policy matters which my hon. Friend states. However, I realise the extreme importance of the Motion to the part of the world which my hon. Friend represents. I am afraid that I cannot provide time for a debate next week, but certainly the Government note the importance which my hon. Friend rightly attaches to this matter.
Mr. James Johnson: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall debate the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Scheme, 1970? I gather that it has been
held up by the Statutory Instruments Committee. Nevertheless, it was debated two days ago in the other Chamber. I understand that it is in the pipeline. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look down the pipe and tell us what vision he sees?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is always wise for me to confine myself to those areas where I have responsibility, not to another place where I have not. If it is with the Statutory Instruments Committee, that is why it has not come before this House. I will, however, look into

1919
what is happening. I cannot say when it will be posible to have the debate.
Mr. Hastings: Has my right hon. Friend any news about the debate on the Roskill Report? In particular, will it be before or after the debate in another place?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say exactly when it will be, but it will not be next week.
Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the intense interest and speculation by the Press and those interested in race relations on the proposed Immigration Bill which is to be introduced by the Government, may I ask the Leader of the House to use his influence on the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to issue a White Paper before the Bill is published so that full and free discussion may take place on this issue?
Mr. Whitelaw: When the Government are ready they will publish their Bill. I think that that is the right way of proceeding in this matter.
Mr. Robert Cooke: If the postal strike continues next week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider having a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to getting him to make a statement to help pensioners and others to draw their benefits, perhaps by having the warrants negotiable or cashable at branches of his Department?
Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note the importance of what my hon. Friend puts before the House. My hon. Friend will also have heard the statement and the hope expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on this point. However. I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says and, if necessary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will certainly consider the point. I will put it to my right hon. Friend and, without commitment of course, he will make a statement, if necessary.
Mr. Boyden: Did the Leader of the House notice yesterday at Question Time the long-windedness of Scottish Ministers in answering Questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result Question No. 35 to the Minister for the Civil Service was prevented from being
1920
answered? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot prevail upon his colleagues to be shorter in answering Questions there will be no chance of putting questions to the Minister for the Civil Service. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, either bring the Question back to No. 25 or restrain his colleagues?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have grave doubts whether it is fair for the hon. Gentleman to apportion blame to my right hon. and hon. Friends the Scottish Ministers. I suspect that if there was delay it came largely from the long-windedness of Scottish Members on the other side of the House, which is not unknown.
Mr. Bob Brown: As the Northern Group of Labour Members had a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment at which we received a lot of non-answers, may I appeal to the Leader of the House, as a Northern Member, to provide time for a debate on the rapidly worsening and serious economic situation in the North of England?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I would wish to follow the hon. Gentleman in some of his remarks about his interview with my right hon. Friend. I note the importance of the subject he has raised, but I cannot see my way to providing Government time for such a debate next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early Day Motion No. 212 which stands in my name but which has now been signed by 237 hon. Members on both sides of the House, drawing attention to the unhappy plight of Jewish people in the Soviet Union?
[That this House deplores the refusal of the Soviet Government to permit Jews to leave the Soviet Union, in accordance with recognised human rights; its persecution of those Jews who wish to emigrate to Israel; and its refusal to permit Soviet Jews freely to practise their religion and to maintain their culture; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to use its best endeavours and influence to secure and ensure respect for these human rights.]
Bearing in mind the deep concern of hon. Members about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving

1921
time to debate not only this Motion but also the basic human right of people of all religions to leave countries in which they are unhappy and feel themselves to be persecuted?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note the importance of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and also the unexceptionable statement which followed, which I think will be accepted on both sides of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been concerned with this matter, as, indeed, has the whole House. I cannot offer time for a debate, but I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Marten: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the same problem occurs with a very important Minister, namely, the Lord President of the Council, who comes on at Question No. 35? Would it not be sensible—and perhaps my right hon. Friend could make an announcement about this next week—either for him to answer at Question No. 35, or at a quarter-past Three, as the Prime Minister does?
Mr. Whitelaw: I looked at the list of Questions addressed to various Ministers when we had the new roster and, for better or for worse, I found that I came right at the end of the list. I therefore did not feel justified in promoting myself, in view of my low place in the number of Questions addressed to me. It seems to me that I answer most of the Questions that are put to me on most days. If I am not doing so, we can look at the matter again, but I doubt whether the House would wish to promote me at the expense at some of my other colleagues.
Mr. William Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have not had a debate on Welsh affairs during the life of this Parliament? Is he further aware that he has as Secretary of State for Wales a right hon. Gentleman who has understandably expressed a dislike for party politics since he became Chairman of the Tory Party and is unlikely to press for a debate? We have a situation of rising unemployment in Wales, and the Secretary of State has failed to look after
1922
the interests of that country. We want to bring home to the House the fact that there is a major problem in Wales, and we want to do it as soon as possible.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about a debate on Wales. I cannot find the time for it next week or, indeed, in the near future, but I note the importance of the subject.

ROLLS-ROYCE LTD.
3.53 p.m.
The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I have to make a grave statement in regard to Rolls-Royce Ltd.
The Board of Rolls-Royce have today issued a statement, copies of which I have had placed in the Vote Office. They have unanimously decided, for the reasons given in that statement, that it is not possible for them to proceed with the RB211 engine under the present contract with the Lockheed Corporation.
As the Board of Rolls-Royce have stated, the loss of resources already committed to the project combined with the losses which will arise on termination are on such a scale that they are likely to exceed the net tangible assets of the company. In the light of this situation the board have decided that they have no alternative but to ask the trustees of the debenture holders to appoint a Receiver and Manager.
To ensure continuity of those activities of Rolls-Royce which are important to our national defence, to our collaborative programmes with other countries and to many air forces and civil airlines all over the world, the Government have decided to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine—[Interruption.]—and industrial gas turbine engine divisions of the company as may be essential for these purposes. The necessary legislation will be introduced early next week.
The Government have no liability in respect of the contract between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed. The Government will explore, with the Receiver, the future of the RB211. Because of the very grave consequences which must follow from the decision of the Rolls-Royce Board, the Government are also undertaking urgent discussions with the Lockheed Corporation and with the United States Government.

1923
The board have stated that there will inevitably be substantial redundancies within the company. I have been informed
by the Receiver that he will be discussing this urgently with the staff and the unions concerned. The Department of Employment will, of course, provide the maximum help in finding alternative employment in all the areas affected. Interviewing teams will be sent into the factories as necessary. Redundancy payments to employees are guaranteed under the Redundancy Fund arrangements.
It will be for the Receiver to assume responsibility for the protection of the debenture holders. Thereafter any remaining assets will be available to meet the claims of other creditors.
The board of Rolls-Royce intend to call an extraordinary general meeting of the company in order to pass a special resolution requesting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint an inspector to conduct an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the collapse of Rolls-Royce and the statement that he has made constitute a major national tragedy for this country——
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is your fault.
Mr. Benn: —which will have serious consequences.
Mr. Lewis: It is your fault.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not interrupt from a sedentary position.
Mr. Benn: Without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that the House ought to have heard the statement from the Prime Minister personally, or from a Cabinet Minister.
The collapse of Rolls-Royce will be a grave blow to British exports, to the engineering industry and to confidence in this country, and will affect thousands of workers and their families in different parts of the country. May I ask these questions. First, will the nationalised Rolls-Royce Company which the right hon. Gentleman announced today be there simply to wind up the existing business, or is it the intention of the Government that it should continue with the Concorde,
1924
the M.R.C.A., the Jaguar, and other programmes, and actively seek business abroad?
Second, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, with regard to the RB211, why there should not be a provision governing this great engine not dissimilar from that governing the Olympus 593 engine, where there has been even greater escalation but where, under the contract authorised in 1962, the Government have covered the escalation?
May I also ask what the extent of the deficit was, and why no money has been paid since the debate in November? May we have a White Paper giving the facts to the House so that we can understand how two and a half months after a Resolution was promoted why the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend welcoming the Government's handling of the problem, without any Government money or any Government intervention, this transformation of the situation could have occurred?
Mr. Corfield: Of course the Government are aware of the gravity of the situation, and I should like to make it abundantly clear that I am responsible for this Department and that I intend to fulfil those responsibilities.
The nationalised company of Rolls-Royce is not intending to wind up its activities. It will be my intention to ensure that the existing business is carried on and that the collaborative undertakings are fulfilled, and in every possible way to expand the activities and restore the tarnished reputation of the company.
With regard to the RB211, it seems to have escaped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that this contract was a commercial contract between two companies. He will recall that, in the debate of 22nd November, he spent six columns of HANSARD explaining to us how he had encouraged them to undertake that contract. The reasons why the Government considered that it was not right to pour out more money at this stage were that the figures required reached approximately £150 million, that they took into account that the engine would in any case be between six and twelve months late and that we could have no assurance that this would not give rise to very large but unquantifiable claims on the part of Lockheed.
Mr. Whitehead: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the fact that the engine was to be 12 months late—and the company now accept that—should have been a fact which the Government could have been aware of at the time that the announcement was made in November about further financial aid?
Mr. Corfield: No, Sir.
Mr. Ramsden: While one can accept that Government acquisition may be necessary to buy time, and in view of the defence interests concerned, can my hon. Friend tell us a little more about the form of that acquisition and, in particular, about the price contemplated and give us an assurance which will be in such a form as not to exclude the possibility of early disposal to industry?
Mr. Loughlin: Hive it off.
Mr. Corfield: The intention is that this company shall be set up as a limited liability company under the Companies Act, with the whole shareholding owned by Her Majesty's Government. That will, of course, enable what my right hon. Friend has in mind to take place, should this be appropriate in future. As regards the price, I am sure the House will appreciate——
Mr. Heffer: You are not credible any more: pack it in.
Mr. Cortield: I am sure the House will appreciate that the only figures available at the moment are book value figures, which I am advised have very little relationship to what would be a fair price between the Government and the Receiver.
Mr. Benn: While welcoming the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, that the Government intend to run Rolls-Royce, when nationalised, as a going concern, may I ask him whether he can assure us that it will not be sold to foreign interests or, indeed, any others, after Government money and Government management have gone in? Will he answer the question which I put to him, as to why, in respect of the RB211, where the escalation has been substantially less than in the case of the Olympus 593, the Government are not prepared to look at that as a possibility in view of the very substantial export earnings involved in it?
Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman may or may not realise that, at the present latest estimates, the cost of these engines per copy is running at £110.000 more than the price in the contract. Therefore, no amount of launching aid will cover production losses of that level. With regard to the question of sale to foreign interests, I thought that it was agreed, among the right hon. Gentleman, myself and others, that it would be sensible to look towards a European aeroengine industry. If that is the case, it may be desirable for Snecma and Rolls-Royce to get together in such a way that it could be argued that there were foreign interests, so I will not give an assurance of that nature. I can assure the House that we have no intention whatever of handing over this vital defence industry to overseas interests entirely.
Sir A. V. Harvey: How many staff and workers are involved in the assets which the Government propose to acquire? Why have we had to wait until this Government came in to make the investigations of the company's affairs towards the end of last year? What steps did the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) or the I.R.C. take to investigate the financial standing of the company and of the RB211 project?
Mr. Corfield: In regard to the numbers to be employed or to be made redundant, I am sure the House will appreciate that it has not been possible, in the short time available, to obtain any accurate assessment from the company. I should be very loth to state a figure
which might raise false hopes by being too low or create unnecessary despondency by being too high. But these investigations are of course going on most urgently.
In regard to the second part of the question, it is clear, I think, with the advantage of hindsight, that the financial control exercised by this company has been of a very mediocre order for a very long time. It is equally clear that this was apparent to the right hon. Gentleman when he asked the I.R.C. to investigate it. Unfortunately, the situation is such, and the time available to them and the time available since is such, that I am afraid that new discrepancies and problems are revealing themselves almost daily.
Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my right hon. Friend's

1927
request for a White Paper, and, in particular, in the White Paper, will he try to give us some more information about the question of possible redundancies, since there are more than 80,000 men involved, and many of them, particularly in Scotland, are in development areas? We must have very quickly something which will restore a certain amount of confidence to these men, who are shattered by today's events.
Mr. Corfield: I assure the hon. Member and the House that I will be anxious to give the House further information about redundancies as soon as I can with any degree of accuracy. I do not think that we need a White Paper for that. On the overall problem, I have told the House that there will be a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry, which I think is probably the forum in which to discuss the other matters.
Mr. Mather: Is my hon. Friend aware that the original agreement with Lockheed was given the blessing of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 1st April, 1968—a date not without significance? Is he also aware that the British Aircraft Corporation at Weybridge in my constituency is dependent for all current production aircraft on Rolls-Royce engines? Can he give an assurance that this production will continue, so that the necessary reassurance may be given to B.A.C. customers?
Mr. Corfield: One of the principal reasons why the Government have determined to acquire the necessary assets is to ensure continuance of the provision of these engines and the support of them in service.
Mr. Barnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me in the House not long ago that, whatever the accountants reported, the Government would provide £42 million, but that he then reversed that in a private letter, though refused to rectify his incorrect statement to the House? [Interruption.] Will he now make it clear whether or not that money was provided and whether any other money was provided by the Bank of England? Will the Bank of England now rank as an unsecured creditor? Would he say whether, as a matter of principle, the Government have not ruled out the possibility of bringing other interests into public ownership, provided that is in the national interest?
Mr. Corfield: I admit, in answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that my scepticism in regard to the figures that I had been given did not lead me to believe that the figures would be any less when the accountants reported, but I never in my wildest dreams or nightmares imagined that they would be as bad as this, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did either.
The answer to the second part is that the £42 million was, of course, dependent on the accountants' report. It has not been paid. Nor, indeed, has the £18 million promised by the banks for the same purpose. It was attached to the engine and the decision not to continue with the engine automatically cancels that. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no liability in respect of that £42 million towards the company.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: As 50 per cent. of the total productive population of the town of Shrewsbury is employed by Rolls-Royce, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the diesel engine division, which is the direct employer there, will form part of the legislation which is to be introduced next week?
Mr. Corfield: I do not think that that would fall in the national interest on which I am judging this matter, but I have no doubt that this is a profitable division on its own and that there will be bidders for it when the Receiver comes to deal with it.
Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this disgraceful and alarming state of affairs is causing grave anxiety in the country, especially for those who work in this industry, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to it? Does he appreciate that 80,000 jobs are at stake, 30,000 of them in my constituency? Does he realise the massive redundancies that will occur in a constituency such as mine
and the fact that great hardship will be caused in the town of Derby? What steps is he taking to acquaint the workpeople with the facts so that they know precisely where they stand in the matter? Why have the Government decided to abandon this world-famous company—[Interruption.]—which has brought great credit to Britain in both peace and war?
Mr. Corfield: It really is a gross exaggeration to say that 80,000 jobs are at stake. I have made it abundantly clear that the successor company will succeed to the greater part of what are the present Rolls-Royce activities.
As for abandoning Rolls- Royce, here we have a commercial situation in which one disastrous contract has put the company into a position in which the total amount of money needed to put it on its feet as it is now would run not into many millions of £s but several hundred million £s of more money. This is the basic reason why we have decided not to abandon it but to reconstruct it in the way I have indicated.
Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his grave statement, which has been received with such disgraceful hilarity by hon. Gentlemen opposite will cause very serious unemployment in my constituency of South-East Derbyshire? Is he further aware that those who lose their jobs will not hesitate in putting the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs, which is on the previous Administration — [Interruption.] — who underwrote this contract without vetting it and then caused the most serious inflation this country has ever had and thereby caused the company to default?
Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right—[Interruption.]
Mr. Heffer: Grow up.
Mr. Corfield: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman re-reads the speech which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East made on 22nd November.
Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I suggested before Christmas that this concern should be nationalised he poured scorn on the suggestion but that now he has had to do it under the worst possible circumstances? Does not the House deserve an explanation? How much unemployment will be caused in the Bristol area, in which the right hon. Gentleman has a very real personal interest?
Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman really must refresh his memory. The context in which he put that question was of nationalisation in conditions in which those who took it over would have been open to all the unquantifiable penalties
1930
under the contract. I was, therefore, right in saying that that was about the most expensive thing one could do.
Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sympathy which hon. Members on this side of the House have with him in having to make this grave statement today is made all the greater by the knowledge that this disaster is the direct consequence of the suicidal terms of the original RB211 contract, which was so recklessly encouraged by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, whose hon. Friends should not be so hypocritical about this today?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the House and the country want now is for us to be able to get on with debating the matter in detail, to hear how the jobs of the people in aviation and the contracts which Rolls-Royce had with its sub-contractors and customers all over the world can be honoured, how the company can be put back on to a viable basis as soon as possible and how it can then be returned to private enterprise? [Interruption.]
Mr. Corfield: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks and, as I said, it will be my intention to ensure that the new company does exactly what he had in mind in the latter part of his supplementary question.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the intention to nationalise this company was taken simply in order to abandon the RB211, and thus avoid the liability for the contract, or whether there were any other purposes involved? What other parts of the company will be dropped in this way, or is it just the RB211 part that will be so affected?
Mr. Corfield: The situation that faced the Government was that the company had itself decided that it could not go on with the RB211 in the present contract. The Government had to address themselves to the problem of keeping going the essential defence and other interests to which I have referred.
Mr. Sheldon: What else will be dropped?
Mr. Corfield: The question of what assets the Government take over must be

1931
matters for some further consideration, though I have a reasonably broad idea of what they will be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] The question of what other assets are available and what will happen to them must depend on the demand which the Receiver receives, and I am not pessimistic about the sale of most of the other assets.
Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the I.R.C. agreed to advance some £20 million to Rolls-Royce, of which I think about £10 million has already been advanced? How is it that the I.R.C., which was supposed to carry out close and detailed investigations of companies asking for loans, did not discover the true situation of the company? Would it be true to say that Rolls-Royce was trading for a time while insolvent?
Mr. Corfield: It is only fair to say that the I.R.C. was not basically designed for this sort of operation. It did not really have time to go into the matter in that sort of detail necessary. One of the matters which has, of course, caused grave concern to the Government and the company is the fact that it should in no way breach its obligations under Section 332 of the Companies Act. It was that fact—that it would have been doing so had it gone on trading—which made the time factor so very small.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that we are in the presence not of frivolity or hilarity on either side of the House but of stark tragedy, and that to anyone who has spent a lifetime in the engineering industry this is an extraordinarily painful moment? When we are in the presence of something as large as this, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman and the work he has put into this, it is hardly a job for a Minister who is outside the Cabinet. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, responsibility at the end of the day rests squarely with the Prime Minister, a responsibility which he should accept in the House if he is competent to do so.
Mr. Corfield: That question lies with my right hon. Friend, I hope I am right in saying that if he had not confidence in me he would remove me.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Following what my right hon. Friend has just said, will the right hon. Gentleman take it that, in
1932
the words with which he began his statement, the whole country will regard this an as extremely grave tragedy and it is the duty of the House as a whole, never mind charges from one side or the other, so to regard it? Any debating points of the kind which
have been thrown across the Floor of the House can be dealt with in a future debate, but today we are concerned with a company which is one of the leaders in world technology with a name famous for its prestige and excellence. The company has now fallen, let us hope only temporarily, into the dust and, in that situation, everything should be done not only to save that part of a company which has certain
continuing obligations but to maintain everything we have understood by the name "Rolls Royce". There should be no question of splitting up or hiving bits off to other companies? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming and make quite clear—he was rather dubious about this—that despite sales in Wall Street last night, which have been interpreted by our City editors in a certain connection, there will be no question of selling off the know-how, technology and everything which has been built up to any American company or other foreign interest?
Mr. Corfield: Of course, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the prestige of the company, but there are activities which the company has set up which really have no bearing on its present activities and these must be matters for further consideration. But the basic aero-engine capabilities, marine engineering capabilities, and the share in Rolls-Royce associates are matters which we regard as the core of this company and those which we regard as essential for us to acquire. Others must be for further consideration.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully realise the importance of this statement, but we have already had something like half an hour on it. I believe other arrangements can be made for future discussion on it. Mr. Rippon.
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Could I ask for your assistance? I have a Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency of North Down. Is it

1933
possible for extra time to be granted so that I can express my concern and ask my right hon. Friend, who I appreciate is concerned for the future of this company, for an assurance that the jobs of the employees in this factory will not be in jeopardy?
Mr. Speaker: No. I am afraid many other hon. Members in the House are in just the same position. Other ways must be found of carrying the matter further.
Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. In a situation which is generally accepted to be a national disaster, is it not possible to suggest that all parties in this House, albeit if they represent only two million people, might have an opportunity of expressing a view?
Mr. Speaker: I had not seen the right hon. Gentleman rise. I am afraid the moment has gone. I called Mr. Rippon.
Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, you did refer to a coming debate. Have you any certainty about this and any knowledge of the day on which it will fall? Could you give some indication to the House as to when we shall have this debate and under what circumstances in order that we may press further questions on members of the Government?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Whitelaw: In this important matter of the question of the time, I might be able to help the House. As my right hon. Friend has said, we intend to introduce legislation and to bring it before the House as soon as possible. I am hoping that that will be done next week. I do not wish to commit myself finally to that, but certainly the Bill will be introduced next week and, if the arrangements can be made properly, a debate on the Second Reading of that Bill will be held next week. I hope that that will be agreeable, but I cannot commit myself for the simple reason that if I am to do so I would have to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Bill at a much shorter interval than would normally be the case when a Bill is introduced. Before doing so it is only courteous to consult the House and everyone concerned to make sure that that is all right; but if that can be Thursday it will be.
Sir C. Taylor: Further to that point of order. There are many hundreds of sub-contractors to Rolls-Royce throughout the whole country who have had no word of encouragement or comfort about their future. These firms are almost entirely reliant upon their service to Rolls-Royce and I think some answer should be given about these firms that supply Rolls-Royce as sub-contractors.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the statement just made by the Leader of the House, could we have a further statement tomorrow?
Mr. Whitelaw: Of course, if that is possible. I am only anxious to proceed and to help the House as much as I can. I do not wish to make statements unless I am absolutely certain they can be carried out. That is why I want further time to consider this, but if possible tomorrow.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being helpful on the question of a debate, but if there is difficulty in producing legislation early could he consider the proposal I made that there should be a White Paper covering some of the facts to enable us to debate the matter on principle—because the Bill will be a matter of detail—early so that hon. Members having interests involving Rolls-Royce contractors will have a chance of expressing their views?
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that it is my clear belief that it will be possible to introduce the Bill by the beginning of next week.
Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order. In accepting that the Leader of the House will do everything he can to expedite matters in the House, we are in the difficulty that the House wishes to express a view but there are certain procedures under the Companies Act, not least the appointment of a Receiver, and it will be very important that there should not be conflict between the rôle of the law on the one hand and the wishes and views of this House on what is essentially a national matter, on the other hand. Could I therefore suggest that for the good order of this House and for the protection of the rights of hon. Gentlemen it is all the more important that there should be a debate, even if there is no legislation available, before

1935
the Receiver is seized of this matter and before the matter becomes in any shape or form sub judice?
Mr. Burden: There is one point that is really relevant to the whole situation. It is the question of the position of subcontractors. Might I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask my right hon. Friend if, without awaiting the decision and deliberations of the Receiver, some statement can be made as soon as possible; otherwise there could be very widespread economic repercussions in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: All these questions are quite irregular.
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. The Leader of the House seemed to indicate that he would be more than willing to try to get the Bill on this serious matter before the House as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman and the House must be aware that the grave statement made this afternoon destroys the credibility of a great deal of the Government's industrial policy as regards nationalisation and hiving-off——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Ogden: —and that the need is for a debate——
Hon. Member: Sit down!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Ogden: At least some of us in the House think that there should be a debate on industrial policy in general before the Bill is introduced.
Mr. Milan: On a point of order. A moment ago the Leader of the House said that he did not think that a White Paper was necessary because he hoped that the Bill would be available some time next week. Can I put it to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that some of us think that, even if we have the Bill next week, it would be very helpful for the debate if we had a White Paper from the Government setting out as much of the background and the present situation as it is possible for the Government to set out?
Mr. Speaker: That is a point, but I do not think that it is a point of order.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the Ministerial meeting of the Conference with the European Economic Communities on Tuesday of this week.
The meeting recorded a number of agreements.
The Community confirmed that the alternatives in its 1963 Declaration of Intent should be open not only to the nine African Commonwealth countries which I mentioned in my statement to the House on 10th December but to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland as well, subject, in their case, to certain special arrangements which may need to be settled at a later stage.
The Community further confirmed its proposal to include Hong Kong in its scheme of generalised preferences from the date of its implementation. We accepted its proposals as settling the case of Hong Kong as raised by us in the framework of the negotiations for accession.
We agreed upon the way in which the enlarged Community would approach the problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries, countries for which association is not appropriate. The enlarged Community would continue to be inspired in its trade relations with these countries by the wish to extend and reinforce this relationship. It would be ready to examine with these countries, after enlargement, and taking account of the scope of the generalised preference scheme, the problems that might arise in the field of trade with a view to reaching appropriate solutions.
It was agreed that the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides should be associated with the enlarged Community.
I welcomed a statement made by the Community on transitional arrangements in the field of industrial tariffs, which we thought should broadly meet the aim we have had in mind, in making our own proposals, of promoting as rapidly as possible the dynamic effects of industrial integration. But this arrangement,

1937
it was made clear, cannot be regarded as definitive until agreement has also been reached on methods of transition in the agricultural field.
There was an exchange of views on the question of Community finance. I cannot say that any agreement was reached. But I hope that there is now a better understanding of the issues involved in this field, which is, of course, of crucial importance to the success of the negotiations. I left the Community in no doubt of this fact.
Mr. Harold Lever: We welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the progress in relation to Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Hong Kong, and, indeed, the remarkable novelty of Anglo-French agreement on the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides; but on the crucial point of Community finance there is nothing here at all. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to treat the House with as much candour as he treated the Press conference in Brussels. He should tell us what progress he has made and what attitudes were adopted, and give us a little information on this central issue.
Moreover, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman help us also on the financial discussions relating to the sterling area and ancillary matters? I do not want to put him in difficulty on this matter, because I know that some of these matters are at a confidential stage, but can he give us a rather clearer indication of what position in general principle the Government are adopting in relation to these financial sterling area discussion?
Mr. Rippon: I felt it right to report to the House the progress which was made, which was welcomed, I think. It was also very important to the countries which were affected, and I think it will be welcomed by them.
As for Government policy, we had a two-day debate in the House in which I set out the Government's position. What I took the opportunity of doing at Brussels was to reaffirm the basis of the proposals which I laid before the House on 16th December last.
As to sterling, this is not a problem directly related to the negotiations. There
1938
was no discussion about this at the Ministerial Conference in Brussels.
Mr. Turton: On Community finance, my right hon. and learned Friend is reported to have described his proposals as generous. Is not the cause of the present disagreement the fact that his original acceptance of the agricultural policy was premature and over-generous, bearing in mind that it would involve Britain in a gross contribution of over £600 million?
Mr. Rippon: I think that my right hon. Friend is referring to a figure of £670 million in the White Paper of February, 1970. We discussed that in debate. It is the upper theoretical limit, and, I think, not relevant to the figures which I have been laying before the House and which we have been discussing at Brussels. What we have been concerned about are the arrangements to be made in the transitional period where we want a balance of mutual advantage maintained between the applicants and the existing members. There is no doubt that at the end of the period we shall be enjoying very considerable dynamic benefits on the industrial side which
must be offset against our contribution to the Community budget. All these factors must be weighed.
Mr. Jay: On the question of the financial contribution, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what really matters is not these temporary arrangements but the permanent burden falling upon Britain? Is it not true that on the arrangements he has already accepted the gross burden would be about £600 million a year and the net burden about £450 million or £500 million? Will he confirm that?
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the position, as I explained in detail in the debate, and as I think he well understands. He must not always talk about the eventual burden without having given thought to the eventual advantage. If, as I told the House in the debate and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) told the House when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is a result of our joining the Community of just ½per cent. increase in our G.N.P. over five years, that is a

1939
benefit of £1,100 million. It is also important to have regard not just to what is called the gross burden but to the net contribution we make having regard to our net receipts. Therefore, I have been raising in Brussels the question of the size and shape of the budget in the years ahead.
Mr. John Wells: I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about some of the overseas territories, but when can he give us some assurance that the best interests of the Channel Islands will he safeguarded?
Second, my right hon. and learned
Friend touched only momentarily on agricultural matters. Can he give us any early indication of squaring the remarks made by himself and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about cheaper fruit and vegetables when at the same time he assured British producers that their position will be safeguarded?
Mr. Rippon: What my hon. Friend must have in mind as regards the last part of his question is that there will be a very long transitional period up to 1978 in which there will be a great deal of opportunity to discuss how these arrangements will work out in practice.
On the general question of the cost of living, certain items, as we know, are more expensive in the Community and other items, such as fruit and vegetables, are cheaper.
I have been in touch with representatives from the Channel Islands. This matter has not yet been raised in the negotiations, but we shall certainly have to deal with it.
Mr. Mackintosh: In view of the statement of the German Foreign Minister that he expects British membership by 1st January, 1973, and in view of the greater support for our position among many members of the Community, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it helpful to set a date for a summit conference of members at The Hague if by that date progress had not been made, with a view to getting the negotiations pushed through?
Mr. Rippon: I do not think that it would be appropriate to do that. We are making reasonable progress at this moment and there is certainly a greater
1940
understanding in the Community of the British position and the basis of the proposals we have put forward.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: As the figure of £600 million at the end of the transitional period is a correct one based on the continuation of the present workings of the Community budget, will my right hon. and learned Friend say what progress has been made in securing agreement to a substantial modification of the pattern of that budget after 1980 so as to reduce the net sum for which we should be liable?
Mr. Rippon: We have put forward our calculations, as I explained to the House, on the basis of a budget of either 3,000 million units of account a year or 4,500 million units of account, and on the basis of getting 6 per cent. of receipts. In the reply which it put forward, the Commission talked in terms of a budget of a different size and shape, of which our contribution might, at the end of the day, be of the order of 20 to 25 per cent.—it thought that 20 per cent. was more likely to be nearer the mark—with net receipts of 10 or 15 per cent. We cannot go into detail on the figures until we have reached a further stage in the negotiations. The House should bear in mind that there are many factors to be considered.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Chancellor of the Duchy has referred in his statement to agreements reached in connection with 12 African Commonwealth countries and also Asian Commonwealth countries. He has said nothing about Caribbean Commonwealth countries, or about associated territories, which are heavily dependent for trade on this country.
Mr. Rippon: All the other territories which we have referred to at various times are still under consideration. It was agreed that we should consider the position of association for the Caribbean countries in the context of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I am taking the opportunity next week to visit the Caribbean to discuss with the Ministers concerned and the sugar producers the problems raised. As to the territories elsewhere—in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, Mauritius, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga—we have still to settle the position about them. I also took the opportunity, in the course of discussing this

1941
matter, to raise the special position of Papua and New Guinea. They cannot be directly associated with the Community because of their special position. Papua
is directly administered by the Australian Government. New Guinea is a United Nations trust territory. But we have agreed to exchange information about that problem also.
Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the agreement which he has reached about Hong Kong is an important one and will be much welcomed in the Colony? Would he not also agree that this is not the end of the matter? Would he give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend will be pressing to make sure that the widest possible range of products would be accepted by the Six as falling within the U.N.C.T.A.D. agreement scheme?
Mr. Rippon: I cannot say that the agreement we reached with the Community would cover all the requirements which Hong Kong might put forward. But it represents a great step forward. It also gives us an opportunity of trying to persuade the United States and Japan to give similar treatment to Hong Kong, which would be a help.
Mr. Shore: Would the Minister stop playing with the House? On the critical issue of how much we shall be contributing, we have had a hundred times
as much information in every newspaper as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has offered us this afternoon. This is a disgrace. Would he say, first, what the range of argument and disagreement on figures in the transitional period has been, and then would he kindly answer my right hon. Friend's question as to the percentage of how much we are expected to pay at the end of the transitional period? Will the Minister kindly not assert that he does not know, because one of the main arguments in Brussels is the difference between his 13 to 15 per cent. at the end of the transitional period and the jump that that would mean as we move into the post-transitional period?
Mr. Rippon: The size of the jump depends upon the discussions we have on the likely size and shape of the budget. It is important to bear in mind that all these matters are speculative when looking that far ahead. I must pro-
1942
test at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the House has not had information which is available elsewhere. On 16th December I explained the basis of the Government's proposals and the implications, in financial terms, of those proposals as far as one could make an assessment of them. Furthermore, we had a two-day debate in the House on 20th and 21st January, when we went into it in further detail. An inhibiting factor is that there are certain proposals appearing in the newspapers resulting from reports of what the Community is thought to be thinking. Sometimes these are helpful and sometimes they are not entirely accurate. But I can give the House only information about the British Government's position, which I give fully to the House as soon as possible, and I report the Community's reactions to our proposals.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I am prepared to call only one more hon. Member from each side. Mr. Neil Marten.
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Marten: In order to satisfy both sides of the argument, would not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a very suitable occasion for him to confirm that the proposals which he put forward in the negotiations last Tuesday about our opening contributions were put forward in absolute sincerity and were not, as the French tried to imply, a joke? If they were put forward in sincerity, would he not retreat from them in the future?
Mr. Rippon: I do not quite follow the purpose of the questions. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the British proposals were put forward as a fair and reasonable basis of negotiation.
Mr. Milne: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that in future statements he will give the same amount of information to the House about the negotiations as he gives to Press conferences after those negotiations have taken place? Second, does not he realise that associate membership means different things to different countries, and will he give an indication of the effect on the East African States of associate membership compared with Mauritius

1943
and some other countries which are entirely dependent on a single product? To tell the House about associate membership only is to give us no indication about how the negotiations are proceeding.
Mr. Rippon: I assure the House that I answer questions just as freely here as I answer them at Press conferences. I cannot control the quality of the questions. As for associate status, we have negotiated on the same basis as in the period 1961 to 1963, urging the Community to offer to the independent developing Commonwealth countries the same alternatives as they were prepared to offer in the period 1961 to 1963. They are independent Commonwealth territories. We are not negotiating directly on their behalf. In due course, they will make up their own minds which of the alternative courses they would prefer—either associate status or a trade agreement, or some other special trading arrangement. We must leave this to them. Bearing in mind that there are enormous variations in the problems between the various countries, we are trying to see that arrangements are made which will protect the particular member of the Commonwealth concerned.
Mr. Barnett: On a point of order. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that you intended to balance the debate. You appear to have called two anti-marketeers immediately following your last remarks.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is in difficulty in this matter. It does not always know how hon. Gentlemen's minds are working. It tries to obtain a balance. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to look after himself without further assistance.

ROLLS-ROYCE LIMITED
Mr. Thorpe: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the announcement made today about the future of Rolls-Royce, the grave and direct impact which this announcement has already made upon sterling, its general economic significance for Britain as a whole, the uncertainty as to which sections of Rolls-Royce will be taken over by Her Majesty's Govern-
1944
ment and, not least, the employment prospects of many thousands of workers in Rolls-Royce and other companies who will consequently be affected."
On this occasion, it is not necessary to say more than a few words by way of support. I do not think that I need persuade you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone in this House that the matter is specific, important and urgent. Since you may have paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 9 in mind—namely, the possibility that the matter will be brought before the House in time—I am also aware that the Leader of the House has said that he will use his best endeavours to arrange for a debate on this matter next Thursday. I have no reason to doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity or his wish to fulfil that hope, but the fact remains that Rolls-Royce, however disastrous its management may have been, is synonymous in the world with the prestige and quality of British industry, and the gravity of today's statement has already caused sterling to suffer a severe setback in the world's markets. It has also thrown into doubt the economic competence of the country, a matter that every right hon. and hon. Member will deplore, but it is a fact.
To the outside world, all that can be seen is that successive Governments have in one case granted £47 million and in another case promised £42 million as launching costs for a project which is totally uneconomic. This has been done in the first place with the full support of a British Government and in the second place as an expression of intent by a British Government, subject to accountancy reports and figures.
In view of the gravity of the situation, in view of the uncertainty about which sections the Government will take over and in view of the effect this will have upon the employment prospects of many thousands of people, unless this House of Commons is merely a cypher for the Executive I suggest that it will not do to say that the Leader of the House has said that he will try to arrange a debate next week. In my submission, this House should have a full debate at the earliest possible moment, and the only way in which that can be ensured is by seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. I respectfully urge you, Mr. Speaker, to agree to that.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the announcement made today about the future of Rolls-Royce, the grave and direct impact which this announcement has already made upon sterling, its general economic significance for Britain as a whole and the uncertainty as to which sections of Rolls-Royce will be taken over by Her Majesty's Government, and, not least, the employment prospects of many thousands of workers in Rolls-Royce and other companies who will consequently be affected."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business on Monday afternoon, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours under Standing Order No. 9 (2).
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business upon Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY],considered.

  PENSIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Hitchin, (Mrs. Shirley Williams), I inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, in line 2, leave out from 'prices' to end and add:
  'and noting that supplementary benefits and supplementary pensions were increased in November, 1970, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement their election pledge to review retirement pensions this year to restore them at least to their November, 1969 value'.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams (Hitchin): I beg to move,
  That this House, deeply concerned about the plight of many elderly people, widows, the sick and the disabled, because of rapidly rising prices, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward at the earliest possible moment the review of pensions and other social benefits to restore them, at the very least, to their value in November 1969.
  Before turning to the main business of today's Supply debate, perhaps I might bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services a matter which arises from the Post Office strike.
  In the course of Questions on the Statement earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and one or two others referred to the difficulty of some pensioners in getting full payment of their pensions. I would draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that this appears to be so. However, I am informed that in a number of cases volunteers who have offered their services to pay out pensions on Tuesday and Friday mornings, when the main payments are made, have been refused the right to do so.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares my concern that payment shall be made as quickly as possible. Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the

  1947
  Secretary of State for Employment whether any volunteers who offer their services for this purpose are being turned down, and, if so, why that should be so?
  I now turn to the Motion. Earlier, we discussed an immediate and serious crisis which concerns hon. Members in all parts of the House. I refer, of course, to the future of Rolls-Royce. The crisis that we are now discussing concerning old-age pensioners is, in its way, just as serious, immediate and urgent, though perhaps not believed by all to be as dramatic.
  I do not think that I need persuade the right hon. Gentleman of the arguments that he and many other members of the Conservative Party advanced at the time of the General Election about the need to protect pensioners from the effects of inflation and rising prices. However, it is absolutely essential to persuade them that it is time to show a sense of urgency, which has been strangely lacking until now.
  Let me remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite of some of their remarks in those happy days when they had no responsibility for State pensions and social security benefits. On 6th March, 1970, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), told a meeting:
  "The first charge on the State pension scheme should be to protect pensioners from rising prices."
  He said, and he was right,
  "Pensions suffer first and most when incomes are eaten away by the rising cost of living."
  The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) echoed the same thought a few months later, on 1st June, 1970, when he told a meeting:
  "The first victims of rising prices are the elderly, the weak and persons on a fixed income. They are in the front line of inflation. They can't fight back; they are often too proud to protest."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman himself, in an eloquent speech a few days before the General Election, on 4th June, 1970, said:
  "There are tests far more relevant which a society must pass to be civilised."
  1948
  At the time, he was criticising the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). He went on:
  "Are the poor and low paid, the old and the disabled, better or worse off compared with the rest of the population than they were a few years ago?"
  In asking that question, the right hon. Gentleman was giving his definition of a civilised society.
  The very last quotation that I use comes from the Prime Minister himself, who, in a party political broadcast which many
  people believed influenced the outcome of the General Election, said:
  "I promise you that I will do everything in my power to make sure that for all the people in this country tomorrow will be better than today."
  They were brave words, and they probably persuaded some people. But that "tomorrow" is now "today", and for 7 million people, this country's old-age pensioners, "yesterday" was unquestionably better than "today".
  Let us look a little more closely at what has happened. Pensioners today are relatively worse off than the rest of the community than at any time since March, 1965, when the Labour Government introduced the biggest increase ever in pensions and other benefits, an increase that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny brought pensions and benefit increases for the first time into line not just with price rises but, much more important, with increases in average earnings. From then until January, 1970, pensions were broadly kept in line with
  average earnings. Occasionally they dipped a little below and occasionally, at the time of an increase, they went a little above. But there is no doubt that since January, 1970, pensions have been steadily falling behind relatively.
  The right hon. Gentleman will also know that since he and his Government came to office they have consistently said that it would not be reasonable for them to be asked to review pensions more frequently than on a biennial basis, and they have said, as the Under-Secretary did only a few days ago, that they would have a two-yearly review. Therefore, we conclude that the next review is due in November, 1971. But I remind the Government that in a situation of similar

  1949
  crisis for pensioners the Labour Government brought forward the review from May, 1965, to March, 1965. Although that was only a period of two months, the significant thing is that it was done within five months of a Labour Government's being returned to office. What we did so quickly in five months the Government can at least do in 10.
  Let me make one more remark about the value of pensions. By December, according to the Government's own statements, the value of pensions had dropped by more than 12s. for a married couple. If the cost of living continues to rise at the present rate for the rest of the year it is estimated that by November, 1971, when the next up-rating is due, the pension for a married couple will have fallen by about 27s. It will then be worth not £8 2s. but £6 15s.
  Even that is to make an assumption that is highly favourable to the Government, the assumption that the pattern of pensioners' expenditure is the same as that of the rest of the community. All of us who are interested in the subject know that that is not true. Pensioners' budgets concentrate particularly on three items where prices either have increased or are very likely
  to increase faster than the general cost of living—food, fuel and rents. It is those three items of expenditure that have recently shown dramatic price increases.
  It is not my job this afternoon to go through a long list of price increases, but I shall mention a few, because it must be brought home to both sides of the House how acutely the increases hit these 7 million peculiarly vulnerable people. On 1st January it was announced that the gas boards would be increasing their prices by between 6 and 10 per cent., but that the increase for small consumers would be higher. In the past few months different electricity boards have announced increases of between 10 and 15 per cent., increases already in operation or on the way shortly. As I pointed out in the House two days ago, the cheapest alternative fuel for heating, not always a very satisfactory fuel, but one to which many poor people are driven because they cannot afford anything else, is paraffin, and the cost of that is going up by no less than 13 per cent.
  Let me look at some of the foodstuffs that form an important part of the diets
  1950
  of pensioners. Tea has gone up by 10 per cent. this year. Bread rose in 1970 by 15 per cent. in three separate price increases. Eggs and margarine are shortly going up by 20 per cent. Since the General Election there have been no fewer than 5,560 price increases, an average of more than 200 a week.
  What is the Government's response to this kind of case? It is to say, as the Prime Minister did again today, that it is all the fault of the Labour Party. He also said two days ago that he regarded the Labour Party as being the champions of inflation. But the Government have now been in power for eight months, and it is not good enough for them to pretend that they have no power whatsoever to affect the economy, prices and inflation. They try to hide not behind the power they possess but behind excuses that are becoming more threadbare every day. We all know that the rate of inflation has markedly speeded up in the past eight months. When the Labour Government left office it was running at just short of 6 per cent. a year. I am not impressed by that figure, which is much too high. But now, after eight months of Conservative Government, the rate is running at just short of 8 per cent. a year, an increase of one-third.
  The Conservatives say, "Don't blame us. It is nothing to do with us. It is all due to the wage demands." The Prime Minister said only on Tuesday that:
  "There is certainly no encouragement being given by this Government for prices to rise. — As far as the nationalised industries are concerned, we have been constraining prices as a matter of policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1457.]
  What an extraordinary remark from the leader of a Government that deliberately removed the subsidy on fares throughout Greater London, thereby massively increasing prices; are deliberately altering the basis of agricultural policy, thus considerably increasing prices; are deliberately adopting a new housing policy, which is bound to increase rents; and have deliberately cut domestic rating relief, which is bound to increase rates!
  Miss Mervyn Pike (Melton): Was the hon. Lady in the House at Question Time this afternoon? If so, does she agree with her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  1951
  who categorically said that the Government could not accept any credit for any improvement in the economic situation in so short a time, as the present economic situation was the direct result of Labour policy? [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Williams: There appears to be a certain amount of dispute in the House as to what exactly my right hon. Friend said. I did not hear it myself, and must, therefore, ask the hon. Lady not to ask me to comment.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that it is no use the Government's constantly pretending that those forces which are increasing prices are arbitrary acts of God, as if the Government had no policies of their own. They must, as any democratic Government must, face the consequences of their policies. If they believe that those policies will bring greater benefits than costs, they must put their whole confidence on that. What they cannot pretend, as they are pretending, is that their policies bear no costs at all. It is evident to anyone who tries to follow what they are doing that their policies bear very heavy costs indeed.
  As I have already argued, some of the heaviest of those costs are borne by that very vulnerable group to which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite referred at the time of the last General Election. Whatever their arguments about the responsibilities for inflation, or its sources, he Government have a responsibility that no Government can avoid for protecting the most vulnerable people from its effect. Whatever side of the House we are on, we have always accepted this Government responsibility.
  The Government have agreed to that proposition, but what have they done? First, the mountains laboured for a long time and brought out the mouse called the family income supplement scheme. So far only one other thing has been done by the Government, because the supplementary benefit increase for which they so readily take credit was announced long before the General Election.
  An Hon. Member: What about the over-eighties pension Bill?
  Mrs. Williams: Most people thought that that meant what the name said, but it does not. But the Government have done one other thing; they have intro-
  1952
  duced, very generously, a special programme to help those with particular heating needs. That is a reflection of the amount of feeling in the country and the House about deaths from hypothermia.
  Let us look at what this scheme entails. At present, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own departmental figures, 150,000 supplementary benefit pensioners out of 2 million draw special discretionary payments because of their extra heating needs. The amounts vary. These are discretionary payment so that one cannot put precise figures on them.
  Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie): I have gone to the trouble of investigating this matter in my part of the county of Lanark and have had it certified by social security officials that the average payment for the fuel element is working out at 5s. 3d. a week—this at a time when gas, electricity and solid fuel costs are soaring. It is inadequate, and something should be done to raise it.
  Mrs. Williams: That point bears out my case. To be fair, the Government have introduced a fairly minor increased scale for special heating benefits. They have announced that they will extend this benefit to more people. But the Department's own estimate, as the right hon. Gentleman will confirm, is that at the end of this massive review which is to go on until June—taking us into a period when people are hardly in the most desperate need for extra heating—350,000 people will be drawing a few shillings instead of the present 150,000. That still leaves two million people so poor that they will have to draw supplementary benefits to supplement their means. It is not surprising that, on 1st February, The Guardian said
  "The failure to bring forward November's pensions increase in face of the acknowledged runaway price inflation is a disgrace."
  I accept that it is not an easy problem to deal with the rising number of elderly people in our community. It is not an easy problem for any Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, said, rightly, that the problem of how to end poverty in old age was the greatest social problem of our domestic politics in the second half of the twentieth century. I

  1953
  would not dispute that. There are today over 7 million people drawing pensions. There are nearly 9 million people over retirement age. But even more striking than that fact is that in the last five years the number of people over retirement age has increased three times as fast as the population as a whole. In short, every year that passes, partly because of our improved health standards, the problem we have to meet becomes more difficult to solve.
  It is becoming more difficult for another reason as well, that the proportion of men now retiring at the earliest possible age has leaped from 57 per cent. in 1964 to no less than 70 per cent. in 1968, and I believe it is still showing signs of moving upwards. At this point, and because it is the case that more and more elderly people are retiring at the earliest possible age, with all the implications that has for the National Insurance scheme, I want to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. The first will be pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) later in the debate, but I want now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the earnings bar, at the £7 10s. which is allowed, because we begin to feel that It is becoming less and less of an incentive for men to stay on in work after 65.
  The second question is, to be fair, not really one for the right hon. Gentleman's Department but it is one which all hon. Members, regardless of party, recognise as a growingly serious problem. What happens to men and women who are made redundant in their late forties and early fifties? This has become the hard core of a disturbing unemployment problem, and whenever we hear an announcement like that of today and know that it involves thousands of people who have given years of their life to a particular company, we may comfort ourselves that they will get redundancy pay but we are increasingly aware that they may never get another job.
  Because the demand required a still greater shift of resources to end poverty in old age, we in the Labour Government—and I believe that fair-minded hon. Members opposite will recognise this—believed that there had to be a shift of national income into the social services. Undoubtedly, in real terms there was such
  1954
  a shift during our period of office. Sometimes very loose phrases are thrown around in this House by hon. Members opposite and by people outside to the effect that the poor became poorer under the Labour. But the truth of the matter—and it is borne out by the Government's own official document, "Social Trends"—is that there was a greater shift in real terms in favour of those drawing pensions and social benefits between 1965 and 1970 than there has been at any other time before or since. It amounted to about 15 to 18 per cent. in real terms in favour of those drawing social benefits.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich): While I sympathise with the hon. Lady's argument, does she realise that because of this shift there was lack of investment in manufacturing industry, so that the bigger cake there should have been was not there to be shared by everyone in the country?
  Mrs. Williams: We now learn that investment is expected to fall by 2 per cent. next year, despite the fact that there has been a shift back. So that is not too convincing an argument by the hon. Gentleman.
  But even that shift between 1965 and 1970 was, as most of us recognise, inadequate to deal with the problem of poverty in old age because we all know at the end of the day that even a pension of £8 related to an average wage of £24 is a ludicrously poor level of pension for an old person living in a prosperous country like Britain. We simply cannot go on believing that a pension which amounts to between one-third and one-quarter of what people have been earning in work is an adequate return for a lifetime of labour.
  This is why—criticised though they were by hon. Members opposite—the Labour Government tried to come to grips with the main issue. That was the purpose of our new superannuation scheme. It is not part of my job to explain now what that attempted to do, but the rejoicing opposite—and the Under-Secretary of State mentioned it only a few weeks ago to a conference of pension interests—at the death of the Crossman scheme is one of the most short-sighted views that hon. Members opposite could take of how we are to

  1955
  solve the problem in any serious way. We must say to them, "If you do not like that scheme, you have to come forward with something as revolutionary if you are to end once and for all the problem of poverty which cannot go as it is at present."
  Why is it that while the Government claim in field after field to be good Europeans, while they are talking about aligning our tax system and about aligning our agricultural policy to Europe, they have never got to grips with the paradox that they utterly refuse to align this country's pension policy with Europe? Every single country in the Common Market has an earnings-related pension scheme. All these schemes are automatically linked either to the cost of living or in some cases to the wages index and are, therefore, "dynamised" in the sense that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East used the term about the Labour Government's scheme. At the end of the day, these schemes, which are very similar to the Labour Government's superannuation scheme, give pensions which, again on the Government's own admission, amount to as much for an employed worker who has worked for 40 years as £9 in Holland, £11 in Portugal, £19 in Italy and in France, for a man who has worked until he is 70, to 98 per cent. of his average earnings. There is not a country in Europe which does not have a pension level which makes ours look utterly despicable.
  Without introducing such a scheme, there are two things that the Government can do. The first is to move forward, as we are asking them to do, the review of old-age pensions to the earliest possible date. I have noticed that it is not only my hon. Friends who are pressing the Government to do this but that people such as the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) are also pressing their own Government to take more immediate action than they appear to intend. They know from their own constituents that it is not possible to drive 7 million people intro ever-deepening poverty simply because the Government are stuck with
  1956
  the administrative decision of reviewing pensions every two years.
  The other thing that the Government could do, and it is not too late for this, is to reconsider what they ought to do with the surpluses they feel able to give back to the best-off in the country. It was the Lancet of all journals which said:
  "Whichever way one looks at Mr. Barber's Budget it is hard to escape the conclusion that the poor are to be made poorer and the rich richer."
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman these two questions. First, when will he bring forward, and what will he do about, the Government's much-discussed proposals for alternative pension schemes? I believe—and I am chancing my arm here—that the Government have found themselves with a devil of a problem about transferability and cannot easily get out of it. Unless they get out of that problem and deal with the preservation of pensions then all their fine words about occupational pension schemes will mean nothing in terms of this being any kind of real alternative. At present—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he pointed this out—more than half the occupational schemes in this country have no provision for preservation or transferability and nearly two-thirds have no provision for the proper coverage of widows.
  I turn to my other question. On 29th January the Daily Express, which often seems to have its ear to the keyholes of Government Ministers, produced a brave story which said:
  "Big increases in pensions are coming."
  Very cheering news! It went on to estimate that the Government had in mind a very generous increase of 10s. in November for single pensioners and 18s. for married pensioners. The Daily Express went on to say that the new increases were needed to fulfil the Tory election pledge of ensuring that the buying power of pensions was at least maintained. I want to put it on record here and now that if those are the kind of increases the Government have in mind then they will not even retain the purchasing power of pensions let alone take a single step towards doing what the Labour Government did, which was to raise the relative level of pensions compared with average earnings.

  1957
  Because pensioners tend to be rather quiet, because they do not go on strike or have lock-outs, because they do not have access to the mass media in the way that entertainers do, do not make the mistake of believing that there is not a major silent crisis in being. There is, and if the Government are to keep even a shred of their integrity and honesty—and we are beginning to wonder whether they can—they must bring forward the review of pensions to a much earlier date than the one they have in mind at present.
  5.24 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir K. Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "prices" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  and noting that supplementary benefits and supplementary pensions were increased in November, 1970, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement their election pledge to review retirement pensions this year to restore them at least to their November, 1969, value'.
  The House will have listened with respect to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). I shall pick quarrels with some of the things she said but about the unanimous concern of all hon. Members in the House she spoke nothing but the truth. There is a silent nightmare going on among the elderly, the hard-pressed, many of the sick and disabled and the very poor in this country. We would fool ourselves if we thought that by an eexercise in good will, even by an exercise in Government good will, we could automatically protect the poorest in the land from inflation.
  I accept entirely the hon. Lady's assertions that it is the Government's responsibility to do what is practicable to protect those who are least able to look after themselves. It is in the light of that agreement with her that I shall be speaking.
  She asked at the beginning of her speech a question about the Post Office strike which I find difficult to answer. There is no doubt that a large number of people are being caused inconvenience by this strike. What is inconvenient to us is more than inconvenient for many of the elderly. It is a light matter for people in middle life to be turned away
  1958
  from one sub-post office and have to go to another. At worst it is annoying, frustrating or boring, but for the elderly it can be the last strain on their energies.
  Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East): Settle it, then.
  Sir K. Joseph: The Government are in the hands of the volunteers among the Post Office workers and there are upsets such as the hon. Lady referred to, I am told, but they are very much a matter for the Post Office and she cannot expect me to answer about them. The sub-post offices are in action. There are reports in the Press of sub-post offices here and there running out of cash for some hours at a time, but I am sure that those concerned keep those interruptions to the absolute minimum. I would like to pay tribute to the staff of my Department and in the Supplementary Benefit Commission who are tackling an enormous overload of work and whose efforts I believe the public, including the elderly, generally thoroughly appreciate.
  I cannot guarantee that the strike of the Post Office workers is not gravely inconveniencing the elderly. I hope that it is doing no more than that but if any hon. Member has cases within their knowledge where more than inconvenience is being caused I hope that they will let me know at once in case there is anything that I can do.
  Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered asking the banks to pay out money to these people?
  Sir K. Joseph: Certainly, the Government have considered the possibility, but while the sub-post offices are in action——
  Dame Joan Vickers: They are not.
  Sir K. Joseph: If my hon. Friend knows of instances where they are not in action, I hope she will let me know. She will appreciate that the introduction of any new paying agent raises—I am out of my depth here, I have not been shadow Minister of Labour for some years—inter-union possibilities which would have to be borne in mind.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams rose——
  Sir K. Joseph: I do ask the hon. Lady not to press me outside my field of responsibility.
  Mrs. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman do one thing? The information I have is that a number of post offices could be opened if volunteers were accepted. I merely ask him to put that point to his right hon. Friend.
  Sir K. Joseph: Of course, I will gladly do that. I do not think that I need spend much time echoing the fact that inflation has a savage impact on the elderly and poor.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside): I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is making a political point at the moment, but would he accept that many old-age pensioners, certainly in Sheffield, have a great deal of sympathy with the Post Office workers and see the battle that they are waging and their battle as being closely related?
  Sir K. Joseph: I was wrong to give way that time. I would like to echo the hon. Lady's reference to a particularly poignant aspect of modern life, the unemployment that can suddenly strike a middle-aged man or woman. The grave news we heard earlier today is a reminder of that possibility. The hon. Lady asked me whether the Government were willing to touch the earnings rule. The House will know that we are pledged to ease the earnings rule, and that will be in our minds when we come to the up-rating.
  The hon. Lady leant out from a view of our own affairs to look at how Western Europe treats its pensioners. It is almost bewilderingly impressive to note the high figures given by the hon. Lady and which one knows from one's own reading are said to be paid to pensioners in Portugal and Italy, as well as in the more long-standingly developed countries of North-Western Europe. There is a great deal we can learn from some parts of Europe, certainly from Western Germany. A century ago, under Bismarck, the Germans set their hands to a national pensions system. But the House would be wrong to be too depressed. We have probably the most comprehensive coverage of pensioners of any other country—or at least as good as any other country. We have a National Health Service which other countries do not, and an occupational pension movement of unparalleled strength.
  I accept entirely the hon. Lady's point that there is far too much poverty in this
  1960
  country. For all the efforts of Labour and Conservative Administrations, poverty has not been removed, and there is in particular a large pocket of poverty among the elderly, particularly elderly women, both widows and spinsters. There is a clear obligation on the present Government from their manifesto to introduce a new pensions scheme. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall carry out our commitment, but I remind her that our commitments go as far as preservation but not as far as transferability.
  I come to my main point. Although I shall be saying a number of things that are less than specific, there is one specific set of facts which I want to state at once. We are committed to raise the pension this year. We are committed by our manifesto and by the White Paper on Public Expenditure that came out last week. Let there be no doubt about that. The Opposition Motion contains a word that is, I suppose, a term of art but which might be misunderstood outside, and that is the word "review". We intend to review pensions soon, to wake our announcement soon and to carry out the up-rating, that is, the higher payment, later this year. I shall be discussing the timing later, but I want to put that fact on the record now so that there is no doubt.
  The elderly can be divided for analytic purposes into three roughly equal groups. There are, first, those on supplementary benefit who have received an increase to top up their supplementary benefit to the level of a year earlier in November, 1970. I make no party political claim about this. The increase was announced by the previous Labour Administration, it was carried out by us and the finance was borne by us.
  The hon. Lady laid heavy emphasis—I thought it was a little excessive—on the special mix of pensioners' purchases. The Labour Administration introduced a special pensioners' index. We shall watch that index carefully, but it has not so far departed very seriously from the general index.
  The next one-third of the elderly are those who are taxable, that is to say, their income is sufficient, after allowing for the special reliefs for the elderly, to be taxed. I am not saying that they are necessarily well off. The final one-third

  1961
  are neither quite so poor as to be on supplementary benefit nor are they taxable. All these groups must be suffering severely from the rising prices.
  There is much common ground between the two sides of the House. Over virtually the last decade there has been a policy of two-yearly up-ratings. Both parties are pledged to a two-yearly up-rating, and the question now, is how soon and to what extent we should depart from that two-yearly up-rating in the light of the current rate of inflation. The Motion of the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends will strike a very sympathetic chord on this side of the House as well. I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree with the tone of the Motion——
  Hon. Members: Then vote for it.
  Sir K. Joseph: There is only one reason why I shall not recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends to support it, and that is that there is in it, either by art or by chance, I do not know which, an element of ambiguity. The Government are asked:
  "to bring forward at the earliest possible moment the review …"
  I could perfectly well say to the House that it is for the Government to decide what is the earliest possible moment and urge the House to support the Motion. That might represent the spirit of he House, but it might also mislead people outside, and I do not want to give people outside the wrong impression that it is only with the size of the pension in mind, and that only, that we intend to raise the pension. There are other considerations which I shall argue in a moment. So, entirely to avoid misapprehension, the Government have put down the Amendment to make it clear beyond doubt that it is the duty of the Government to decide when the moment has come to announce and, a few months later, to raise the pension.
  In the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill which fell during the election, the previous Government proposed to remove from themselves—of course Parliament can reverse anything that Parliament has done—the apparent power to act before a period of two years had elapsed. Clause 36 of that Bill con-
  1962
  tained an obligation to up-rate in not less than and not more than two-yearly intervals. The Opposition are now asking us to do what as a Government they did not intend to do themselves. If they say, "But inflation is a new factor", I say to them that in 1969, when the Bill was introduced, inflation was running at a rate far from comfortable for the elderly—at 6 per cent. It is running at a higher rate now, but when it was running at 6 per cent. it was very odd that the previous Government tied their policy to uprating in not less than and not more than two years.
  We agree that a fairly firm cycle of up-rating is in general a good idea. People know where they are and know what to expect. The Government in making a decision must retain a certain power of manœuvre. After all, we are thinking in terms of an increase in pension which must, at whatever part of the bracket it finally falls, involve a very large increase in contributions. Those contributions must come from industry. They are paid for in part by employers and in part by employees, and they enter into costs and into prices. It is for the Government to make sure in time that this announcement, and in due course the actual increases in contribution cost and therefore in prices, shall not make inflation worse. Who can tell to what extent in an inflationary period such increases in costs and prices and contribution enter into wage claims?
  Within the narrow period of time which we have at our disposal if, as we intend, we are to up-rate this autumn, we propose to choose the right moment to make our decision and our announcement. We will make this announcement to the House as soon as possible. I must ask the House and the pensioners to trust us to bring forward a review, to make the announcement and, a little later, to make the higher payments, as soon as we think wise, taking all the factors into account, and certainly this autumn.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford): They may be dead by then.
  An Hon. Member: Of hypothermia.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence of any more people dying of hypothermia in this last year than has been the case in

  1963
  any of the previous years under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick (Brecon and Radnor): Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time to do something about the situation would be in April, when taxpawers are to be given relief amounting to £360 million, which is exactly what is required to distribute £1 a week extra to pensioners?
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Secondly, it takes more than that amount of time between now and April to bring about an increase. I shall come to the tax argument a little later. Neither Labour nor Conservative Governments have ever thought that the pension should be entirely financed out of taxation. There has always been a tax contribution which under Administrations of both parties has remained at something under 20 per cent.
  I must ask the House and pensioners to trust us to raise the pensions as soon as we can in the light of all these arguments. I must ask the House to consider whether we on this side are any less to be trusted as the custodians of pensions than are the Labour Government. I ask the House to compare the records of the two parties. In the 13 years of Conservative rule pensions in real terms went up nearly 4 per cent. a year. In the 5½ years of Socialist Government the pension in real terms went up by nearly 2½ per cent. a year. Therefore, in terms of real improvements in pension we are at least as good as, and I would say substantially better than, the Labour Party have been, as custodians of pensioners' interests.
  The hon. Lady laid great emphasis on the shift to social security under the Labour Government. It is true that because of a large rise in unemployment—which, alas, is still with us—and because of the introduction of earnings-related supplements for sickness, and unemployment benefits, there was a large shift towards social security claimants, but not for any underlying reason in which Labour may take particular pride. The hon. Lady took pride in the 1965 increase in pensions. Although the Labour Government inherited problems from the previous Conservative Government, they also inherited an economy strong enough to lead them to raise the pensions straight away by a very large amount. The hon.
  1964
  Lady thinks that it was very virtuous of them.
  Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North): The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I distinctly remember my right hon. Friend when Prime Minister distinctly saying in this House that, despite the enormous burden that we faced economically, the Labour Government would not place that burden unfairly on the shoulders of old age pensioners and that, despite that economic inheritance, we would make it a challenge to raise their pensions.
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not quarrel with the fact that they did it; I quarrel with the hon. Lady's claim that it was particularly virtuous. By the time of the 1964 election some 17 months had passed since the previous uprating and a new uprating was due anyway. All the Labour Government did was to bring that uprating forward a couple of months, and that was all. The hon. Lady made a far larger claim than that. She also claimed that pensions could be based on earnings during the Labour administration. Although that was more than true in 1965, it was barely true of 1967, and not quite true of 1969.
  I repeat that we ask for the trust of the House in bringing forward this decision as soon as practicable. I would ask the House to consider what we have done in the seven months that we have been in office. I shall come also to what we have not done. We have introduced, and there is also in payment, pensions for those people who are over 80 and who were not entitled individually to take advantage of the 1948 National Insurance scheme. For the rest of those over 80, they will draw a pension at the uprating, if Parliament approves the Bill, this year. We have brought in the attendance allowance far the severely disabled and the payment for widows between 40 and 50. This was something we inherited from the Labour Government, since their provisions fell at the election. Those payments will be made in December and April of this year respectively.
  The hon. Lady may mock us about our family incomes supplement, but it will bring more help to the poorest of the poor wage-earning families and was a Measure which they did not introduce. We have found £110 million extra for

  1965
  the hospitals, the community services, the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, and for an increased National Health Service provision which has not been equalled for many years past. We have introduced a heating allowance. This will increase the special heating provision, which will mean an addition of several shillings a week and will be very valuable to some 350,000 recipients of supplementary benefit who, for reasons of ill health or bad housing, are in particular need of extra heating.
  Finally, the White Paper on Public Expenditure shows under this Government a straightforward shift in the share of public expenditure going to the social services and a decline in the share of public expenditure to industry and agriculture. As the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said in a speech to the Fabians, the only way to help the social services is to give less to industry and agriculture and more to the social services. The Conservative Government are carrying out the policy in their White Paper on Public Expenditure.
  These are our credentials. I must now ask whether Labour is entitled, even with the eloquence of the hon. Lady, to lecture us. It was a very good lecture and I have no doubt that she and all he right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely sincere in their concern for the elderly and the poor. But the Motion smacks of humbug in its sanctimonious attitude to inflation. Who caused inflation?
  Mrs. Renée Short: Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us.
  Sir K. Joseph: I will tell hon. Members. In June, 1969 wage claims were settled at an average of 10½ per cent. From then on, through the enormous increase in money supply in the second quarter of 1970—the quartet before the General Election—the momentum of inflation has increased. The date when it began is the time from the day in June 1969 when the Labour Party dropped the industrial relations Bill, which up until then it had declared was essential to our economy and then abdicated in favour of the militants. It is the elderly who are now suffering.
  We warned throughout the election that Labour had unleashed forces which no
  1966
  Government could reverse overnight. Those forces have had a momentum that even we did not appreciate in full. After seven months in office, although we have accepted full responsibility for putting an end to the present rate of inflation, we have not yet succeeded in taming it. We never said we could tame it quickly.
  Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West): Yes, the Prime Minister did!
  Sir K. Joseph: We have said that we shall improve the standards of living of the people, and that is what we shall do.
  Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir K. Joseph: No. I have already taken 25 minutes.
  Mr. Stoddart: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would give way.
  Sir K. Joseph: Very well. Put like that I cannot resist.
  Mr. Stoddart: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the effect of wages on prices. What has hurt pensioners most has been the increases in gas and electricity prices. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that increases in salaries and wages in those industries have affected those price increases by less than 1 per cent.?
  Sir K. Joseph: I accept that it is certainly not as large an element in those industries as in many others.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that there really is no problem; that instead of taking sixpence off income tax the money should be transferred to the elderly and to the poor. But the House ought by now to realise that Conservatives believe that one of the ingredients of a more successful economy out of which more can be done for the elderly, the poor, and the sick, is to allow people to keep more of what they earn at all levels of income—
  [Interruption.] We want to galvanise the economy. Though this is scarcely the day on which to talk about it, we believe that the difference between us and European countries and what they can do for their pensioners is partly that their economies are more dynamic and partly that their workers, while claiming—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will hear me out—while claiming

  1967
  large increases of pay, contribute and cooperate by large increases of productivity and thus keep costs stable.
  I repeat, the pension and related benefits will certainly be increased in the Autumn. We are not mesmerised by the two-year pledge. We shall make our decision in the light of all the circumstances and announce it to Parliament as soon as we judge sensible. In the light of the arguments which I have put forward, we are fit custodians of the interests of the pensioners. I hope that the House will reject the Motion and support the Amendment.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House that between 20 and 30 hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to be brief. Mr. Fred Evans.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Evans (Caerphilly): Last Wednesday the Labour Members of the Parliamentary Welsh Group invited back to this House several of their former distinguished colleagues in order that we might express our gratitude for their services to this House, to the nation, in particular to Wales, and to their party. Among them was a man who, with his fellow Welshman Aneurin Bevan, was entrusted, after 1945, with the responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the Beveridge Report and setting this country on the course to establishing what we have learned to call the Welfare State. He was a marvellous orator, but at 80 years of age—frail, in ill health, and, in order to be with us, leaving his home for the first time in 12 months—he made what I think could well be the greatest speech of the very many which he made in a long and distinguished political career.
  It was a deeply moving expression of the social philosophy for which he had fought all his life and which helped him to carry through the immense task of establishing the Welfare State between 1945 and 1950. At an advanced age he made a speech which showed the burning idealism of a young man. It reflected the freshness and glory of his dream of the good society which had sustained him through his life. He was of course, the former Member for Llanelly, Jim Griffiths.
  1968
  Much of what he said is central to this debate. He reminded us once again that there is no abiding city and that the only real monument to which a man can raise himself is his service to his fellow man.
  The real danger in our society, the danger which could well destroy it, is that material things have come to occupy the centre and that man himself in our thinking has been pushed to the circumference of thought. It is time that man was once again placed at the centre and that material things were made to serve his genuine interests.
  It is a sad commentary on our society that in the Britain of the 1970s many horses, dogs, cats and household pets are better fed, live in warmer conditions, receive greater care, and certainly have greater security, that millions of our fellow human beings.
  It is a sad commentary that of nearly 8½ million old people over retirement age, 1½ million live alone segregated from the community in sad isolation and should, in the view of the organisation Help the Aged, be in sheltered accommodation, and 350,000 are without any of the three basic facilities in a household—a bath, a kitchen or an indoor lavatory.
  It is a sad commentary that every five minutes an old person dies through cold, malnutrition, poverty, or, more often than not, a combination of these three factors.
  The plight of the old, particularly of the old who were once industrial workers, is well expressed in a letter written to Doreen King of the Daily Sketch by a Croydon old age pensioner and his wife who say:
  "Life for us is pretty grim. How any person can imagine that two old people, whose only crime is getting old, can live on £8 2s. a week, I don't know. I think every politician should be made to try it for six months. We don't ask for a lot, just to live and eat decently in the little time we have left. We think not what we can buy but what we can do without. I can still remember what beef tastes like, but, alas. like so many other things, it's a memory. I'd love an orange now and again, but that's too expensive."
  It was my privilege, working for old peoples organisations when I was 18 years of age, to meet many situations of this kind. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have similar experience. I do not doubt that some right

  1969
  hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite equally have this experience, but I know about my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Sir K. Joseph: I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware that no one expects people to live on the old-age pension alone if that is the only resource they have. I hope that that particular couple were put in touch with the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend made the point that many old-age pensioners are ignorant of the benefits for which they are eligible, and there is an inadequate information service to provide them with this information. Part of the difficulty faced by organisations working for old people is that of persuading them that they are entitled to these benefits. As my hon. Friend said, many old people regard these benefits as having the taint of the old public assistance relief and will not, as a matter of human pride, take advantage of them.
  As I was saying, I do not doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had a similar experience to my own in working with old people, and certainly hon. Members on this side of the House could fill volume after volume of case histories infinitely worse than the rather average one set out in the letter that I have read. In my own country of Wales—and I hope that the House will not mind if I become a little parochial over this, because we have a special problem—where coal mining is the primary industry, the problems of the old are overlaid by a high incidence of total or partial disability due to industry injury, lung diseases, and so on.
  The plain fact of the matter is that the old are defenceless. The weapons which those
  who are now old could wield when they were industrial workers are no longer available to them. They have no trade union and, by the very nature of their age, even if they had one, the necessary militancy which
  has to be shown to achieve success would no longer be a part of their make-up. The result is that they are bound to be pushed to the wall.
  I am particularly concerned about those industrial workers who lived through the periods of depression in the 'twenties and 'thirties. All too often we hear from the benches opposite, or if not
  1970
  directly from them, from their representatives in the constituency parties, that many of these old industrial workers were thriftless and did not accumulate any resources for their old age, that they ought to be ashamed of themseves, and, by implication, that even the existing pension is too much for them.
  Anyone who lived through the 'twenties and 'thirties who could accumulate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. 0. Davies)—or he was once honourable, but he is still my friend—knows as well as I do that in our area of Wales there was more than 50 per cent unemployment in the 'twenties and 'thirties. How could people accumulate resources or make provision for their old age during that period? All I can say—and I say this not with any sentimentality, but as a stark fact—is that after the 1926 strike it took my parents—my father was a miner—until 1930 to pay off the back rent on the house, quite apart from other debts.
  Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury): Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that those are the people who are most helped by our decision to give pensions to the over 80s?
  Mr. Evans: I hardly think that that is applicable.
  Mr. Raison: Why not?
  Mr. Evans: Because they are no better off.
  Mrs. Renée Short: They lose their supplementary benefit.
  Mr. Evans: Former industrial workers who are now old-age pensioners are often accused of being thriftless if they have not made provision for their old age, and I have given the House that stark facts from my own history in order to put the matter into perspective, and not for sentimental reasons.
  Without resources of their own, millions of those who were industrial workers are entirely dependent on the pension or the supplementary benefit which they receive from the State. Whatever may be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think that anyone outside this House would deny that over the past six months there has been a rapid escalation of prices. The movement of prices has seriously eroded the pittance which pensioners are

  1971
  getting, and particularly hard to bear have been the increases in the price of food and the cost of heating, because it is well known that pensioners spend a far greater proportion of their total expenditure on food, fuel and lighting than does the ordinary family.
  At a recent Society of Health conference Dr. Arnold Bender, a Reader in Nutrition at London University, said that there was a potential £150 million market for high protein, high nourishment food for the over 65s. In other words, that is the amount of such food that is needed for these old people, and that is a most revealing statement.
  At the heart of the debate there lies a great moral issue. Are we to continue to treat millions of our fellow human beings as though, somehow, they are subhuman in some of their needs? Are we to ignore the fact that pensioners who were industrial workers during their working lifetime and contributed a great deal to building up the general standards of living in the country are entitled, as a matter of right, to share in these increased standards? It will be a matter of shame to our country and to this House if we allow the present situation to continue.
  When I look at the position of these old people, I am reminded sometimes of the words of one of our great English poets who said that to mercy, pity, peace and love all pray in their distress, and at the end of that beautiful lyric he said:
  "For pity has a human face,
  And love a human heart."
  It is only by the decisions that we make here that we can put into motion great streams of social progress.
  I do not want to make too heavy a political point of this, but when the Minister asks us to trust him he should remember that he has made that plea on a day when something has happened which is deeply offensive to the political morality of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches. We have seen the Conservative Party, so bitterly antagonistic to public ownership, today decide to take into public ownership part of the great firm of Rolls-Royce, but it is to remain in public ownership only until enough public money has been put into it to make it once more a financially viable proposition and then, as we were told on at least three occasions today, the question of
  1972
  selling the Government-acquired sections of Rolls-Royce back to private enterprise will be considered seriously.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to take that any further.
  Mr. Evans: I am sorry to have made a political point, which seems to have succeeded.
  I hope that hon. Members will remember those words of William Blake which I quoted. I would ask the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State this final message:
  we cannot wait, old people have no tomorrow. Whatever needs to be done must be done as urgently as possible. I say to him, for God's sake do something, do it quickly and do it on such a basis that old people will have a reasonable chance of living as normal citizens in this country which they can call their own.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown): Mine is a unique division, in that it is the only constituency in the country named directly after a former Member of the House, Mr. Thomas Kemp. He was a Member for the Lewes Division in the early 1800s and his father was also a Member of the House. Neither spoke very frequently. Indeed, his father did not make his maiden speech for nearly ten years. I have been getting a little restless after eight months. I hope that, after the House has heard me, it will not feel that I should have waited ten years. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I hope to take part in debates in future somewhat more frequently than did Mr. Kemp and his father.
  The county borough of Brighton, which I know many hon. Members on both sides know well, because we often welcome them to their party conferences, is a well-balanced, modern, forward-looking town. We combine the best of the old with the determination to progress into the future. We have just seen the beginning of the construction of a new marina in my constituency. When this is completed in eight years, at a cost of about £40 million, it will be probably the finest marina of its type in the world.
  On the historical side, I am sure that most hon. Members will have visited the Royal Pavilion, and I hope that they will do so again. Through you, Mr. Speaker—the invitation extends to you as well,

  1973
  Sir—I would invite hon. Members to Brighton to recharge their batteries and rest. Every hon. Member would be very welcome.
  My predecessor in the House, Mr. Dennis Hobden, was the first member of the party opposite ever to be elected by a Sussex constituency. He was freely acknowledged to be an excellent constituency Member, and devoted himself tirelessly to the welfare of the people of Brighton.
  A high proportion of my constituents are elderly people, and I do not believe that any hon. Member doubts that they are at this time suffering real hardship. Care for the elderly has been too low on the priority lists of all Governments since 1945. We can all trot out facts and figures and political points to score off one another, but I have no doubt that there has been a disproportionate concentration of our resources upon other sections of the community, at the expense of the elderly people.
  It is difficult, if not impossible, for the elderly to demonstrate and protest effectively, to lobby, to get their case over on trendy T.V. programmes. These advantages and openings are available to every other section of our community but are almost entirely denied to the elderly.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked us to trust him. I will trust him, but I would say to him that he and the Government must redress the balance during the life of this Parliament. None of us can feel other than a deep sense of shame when we read the report from the Centre of Environmental Studies, which estimates that nearly 100,000 elderly people die of cold every year. I would go further than a sense of shame; I would call it a sense of real horror.
  Over one and a half million elderly people live entirely alone. In many cases, their friends and relatives are dead. In some cases, and in far too many, those younger members of the family do not seem to care about the more aged members As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) said, another frightening fact is that over 300,000 elderly people live alone with no kitchen, bathroom or indoor lavatory. It is impossible for many of us, including myself to
  1974
  envisage existence without such basic needs.
  I would say to the Secretary of State that the time has come for action not words and that no task in his Department should have greater priority than the review of pensions. When he considers the amendment I ask him to err on the side of generosity and these increases must be implemented well before the autumn. We know that recent price increases have been hitting pensioners disproportionately hard and I am not very convinced by my right hon. Friend's argument about the effect of the retail price index and of the special price index for the elderly and about there not being a great margin between them. When we consider food fuel light and other essentials for the elderly I wonder whether this is true in practice.
  In practice elderly people cannot shop around to the extent that other members of the community can and they are suffering very severely—to such an extent that I would make a sincere and genuine appeal to the Secretary of State. He referred to the "silent nightmare". He could go a long way towards relieving that silent nightmare at this very time by making an interim increase in the pension of 10s. a week with effect from 1st March.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Come over to this side.
  Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, I could never do that. The hon. Member tempts me to be controversial but I will save that for another occasion; I will be very controversial in future.
  I beg the Secretary of State to think of this because I know that many administrative arguments will be placed before him and he will be told that it is impossible to carry out. This is not convincing. If a substantial pension increase is on the way as I believe it is, a measly across-the-board interim increase of 10s. on that £5 a week and £1 on that £8 2s. a week would not be impossible.
  A considerable number of elderly people do not wish to cease working completely. The habits of a long, hard, demanding working life are not easily broken and many wish to continue in employment. I urge my right hon. Friend to examine every method and possibility

  1975
  of ensuring that those who wish to continue to work have the minimum number of difficulties placed in their way.
  The nation's pensioners, who have given a lifetime's work to help create the standards and society we enjoy today, must not be allowed to spend the winter of their lives in poverty and loneliness.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West): I wish, at the outset, to congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) on what was at tunes a most becoming, weighty and confident speech. Indeed, so enticing were his encouragements to us to enjoy with him the delights of the salubrious area from which he comes that I am sure that if he continues to speak with equal warmth about his constituency he will soon earn a place in the annals of that town.
  The hon. Gentleman made a sincere and moving plea for immediate action to increase retirement pensions. I agreed with everything he said, but since my maiden speech has not lain cold on the slab for long, it is probably prudent that I should draw my congratulations to a close, for it might be considered inappropriate for one so new to this place to speak at greater length about a new colleague.
  The case of the Government in this debate for their refusal to bring forward the date of review for retirement pensions and to make an increase commensurate with the accelerating rate of inflation is based partly on the ground that they prefer to concentrate their limited resources on old people in the greatest need. On this basis the Government have, in the preceding months, consistently refused to increase benefits as of right for the elderly and have relied on supplementary benefit entitlement as an index of need in selecting those few who shall be given special assistance.
  This has all been in pursuit of the Government's central philosophy that people should stand on their own two feet and exercise their private, individual choices. However, it is a philosophy the honourable application of which entails certain corollaries, and it is those I wish to examine.
  The first is that if the pension is not more regularly improved to keep pace
  1976
  with the cost of living, then at least any obstacle should be eased which effectively deters a pensioner from improving his standard of living by his own efforts. Yet, despite repeated requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government have repeatedly refused to eliminate or relax the earnings rule.
  Despite the known desire of a very high proportion of newly retired men to return to work, for economic and social reasons, the Government have offered no tax or other allowances to private employers to encourage them to employ elderly workers. Nor at a time when fast rising unemployment is exacting its heaviest toll among the more marginal workers, especially the elderly and the prematurely retired, do the Government show any sign of affording special protection to people who are knocked off their feet, not through any volition on their part but by the national climate.
  Next, the withholding or at least postponement of pension increases might be expected to lead to the development of specific entitlements. One example is concessionary bus fares. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) asked the Secretary of State on 5th November if he would add 10s. per week to the retirement pension to assist pensioners to meet increased transport costs. The Under-Secretary refused. But the Government have not compensated by ensuring that the concessionary bus fare system is comprehensively operated.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in December whether, in view of the delay in the pension increase, he would offer concessionary fuel charges for the use of gas and electricity by retirement pensioners. He replied that to charge especially low rates for this group would be difficult and administratively expensive. He added that the resources which were devoted to social security could be more effectively and efficiently used in the payment of pensions and other direct social security benefits.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the pension is the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources to the elderly, in which case their present refusal to align it more regularly with a skyrocketing increase in the cost of living is uncompromisingly: shabby, or assistance is to be channelled to those

  1977
  old people in particular need, in which case specific rights of significant financial value should be established.
  It is no use the Secretary of State telling us, in the context of allowances, that he announced on 26th November a discretionary addition to persons with special needs for extra heating, not only because the increased payments are a mere pittance, but because they entirely pass by almost 2 million elderly people with incomes of up to only £2 above the supplementary benefit line and who, therefore, cannot claim this fuel concession.
  Next, if reliance is to be placed on selective help rather than on blanket pension increases, even in the face of rip-roaring inflation which threatens this year to reduce pensions to their lowest level relative to earnings since 1946, there is an inescapable responsibility on the Government to ensure that the number of old people in need is fully known, that available benefits are effectively communicated to them and that take-up is duly monitored to detect any obstacle. Yet all the evidence is that these requirements are tragically lacking.
  I asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the estimated cost of installing telephones for people over the age of 70 who did not at present possess them and what was the estimated installation cost for the elderly house-bound alone. He replied that the information on which to base those estimates was not available.
  I am, of course, aware that under the important Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act local authorities will be required, as from next April, to seek out the handicapped, including the handicapped elderly, who need a telephone and to see that they obtain one. However, there are hundreds of thousands of elderly people who, while not being conventionally handicapped, will in ever more frequent emergencies as incapacity rises with age desperately need a telephone immediately to hand. What effort is being made to seek them out?
  On the question of fuel costs for pensioners, to which I attach the greatest importance and value, the Under-Secretary assured me that no extra con-
  1978
  cessions were necessary because the gas boards' all-purpose tariff was specially provided for smaller consumers who used less than 151 therms per year. I then asked how many single or widowed pensioners were actually using the all-purpose tariff, and I was told that the relevant statistics were not checked.
  Had they looked, the Government would have found, as I did in my constituency, that even a single pensioner with a very low fuel consumption living in extremely modest accommodation uses far more than 151 therms per year; so that, as a concession, this is entirely irrelevant to their needs.
  The Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission said in a letter dated 13th November to me, that no record was kept of cases where old people might have extra fuel needs but where, for one reason or another, help could not be given. Again, the Government do not know and are not looking for the evidence. Even the most elementary contours of need in old age seem to be too difficult or complex for constant, regular and up-to-date monitoring.
  On 17th November last the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) asked the Secretary of State what he estimated to be the number of persons over 70 years of age living in their own homes on total incomes of less than £12 a week. Back came the Written Answer:
  "I regret the information is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 373.]
  In the name of honour, how can the Government refuse to bring forward an ample pension increase and at the same time neglect to seek out the number of old people in each special category of need and to meet that need? How many of these old people with incomes below £12 per week could not for financial reasons, for example, obtain chiropody appointments as a result of which they might become prematurely house-bound or might have prematurely to enter an old people's home? How many for financial reasons could not afford a dirty line service without which they might not be able to maintain a precarious independence? Indeed, how many could not obtain such a benefit because local authorities, public or private, were not providing such a service locally? How

  1979
  many could not afford or had not been informed of how to obtain crucial domiciliary services such as the home help, the district nurse and Meals-on-wheels? How many received these services less systematically and less regularly than they really need? Yet it is these services alone, I submit, which enable thousands of old people to stand on their own two feet, literally as well as metaphorically, which I agree they dearly wish to do.
  It is one thing to espouse and advocate a philosophy of personal choice and independence. It is quite another thing to make such an ideal into a practical proposition. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will take refuse in the flexible and selective assistance offered through the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If so, I am sure he will also agree that such a response is thoroughly inadequate. In the first place, it is notorious, as has been said, that very many old people, despite all the recent relaxations in procedure, are unwilling to claim supplementary benefits which are their right and for which they are eligible, either because the image to them is one of demeaning stigma or because of a lack of accurate knowledge about their qualifications. Probably about half a million old people still today are in this situation. Secondly, supplementary benefits offer an utterly arbitrary and inadequate definition of need.
  Sir K. Joseph: I restrain myself from commenting on nearly every one of the hon. Gentleman's points, but on the last one would he agree that very large numbers of those who may be entitled to Supplementary Benefits Commission are either only marginally entitled, because there is very little between their requirements and their resources, or are living with families and are looked after and therefore do not need to turn to the Supplementary Benefits Commission? I am sure there are some of whom those propositions are not true, but would the hon. Gentleman agree that there are large numbers in those two categories?
  Mr. Meacher: I would certainly agree that there are large numbers. I mentioned the figure of 2 million who were living just about the supplementary benefit line, and indeed, to be quite fair, quite above that line who therefore cannot
  1980
  claim the whole range of extra discretionary benefits which are available to people on supplementary benefit; so that it seems to me important to raise the pension, otherwise those just above will not receive the extra assistance they need. I am sure the Secretary of State would not accept the view that a person on £5 a week is in need whereas a person on £6 or £7 is not, and the whole basis of my case is that although they are only just above the line they will not receive any benefits at all until the pension is raised.
  The Government, despite what the Secretary of State has just said, apparently hold firmly to the view that the supplementary benefits definition is an indicator of need. Being aware as we all are of the very widespread vitamin deficiencies among the elderly, I asked the Secretary of State on 17th December last if he would make medically required diet allowances payable as of right to retirement pensioners on production of an appropriate medical certificate from their doctor without the need to undergo a means test. The answer was no. I quote the Answer:
  "A retirement pensioner who does not qualify for supplementary benefit after account is taken of such expenses"—
  such as special diets—
  "is regarded as having a sufficient income to meet them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 419.]
  If the Government take this line, what action are they pursuing in the absence of an early pension increase to meet both recent and forthcoming disturbing increases in food prices, to determine whether really in practice old people just above the supplementary benefit line—and I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that there are many of them—are getting adequate nutrition? If not, what alternative action can be taken if selectivity is to be the approach? I believe similar arguments apply to those on the supplementary benefit line, and I would expect the Government to find out how many elderly people dependent on a supplementary pension actually receive the variety of extra discretionary benefits available, and what proportion this is of the number, in total, who are eligible and then to decide what they propose to do to close the gap.
  What effort have the Government made to discover the reason for such lack of claims, whether it is because a person is elderly or mentally infirm, because they

  1981
  are house-bound or for some other reason, perhaps sheer ignorance of their entitlements? Let us take just one or two examples to illustrate the point. Several of the Members of both sides of the House have asked for telephones for the elderly. To my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) the Minister replied on 13th July last:
  "I do not think it would be desirable to invite the Commission to relax its criteria. Where a person is not dangerously isolated, a telephone, however desirable, is one of a variety of things which a person may choose to have, and in the Government's view the proper course is to pay cash benefits for people to spend as they wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, col. 123.]
  That is a very different view, I submit, from that which is being expressed today; leaving that point aside, the real meaning of this stricture becomes apparent from another Written Answer when the Minister said on the 23rd July:
  "In a recent 12 month period the number of cases where provision was first made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission…for the installation or rental (or both) of a telephone was about 60. Not all of the people helped were retirement pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 804, col. 204.]
  There we have it. In that one-year period precisely 0·02 per cent. of old people who live alone were provided with a telephone. At this rate it would actually take, on my calculations, 5,000 years for all old people living alone—and only in this category—to be equipped with a telephone. Is this Tory progress?
  Let us take another example. The Under-Secretary of State said two days ago that in 1969 the deaths of 155 people of 65 years and over were attributed to excessive cold, hunger, thirst or neglect in which hypothermia was a contributory or underlying cause. Does he know the number of these who were claiming supplementary benefit or the number of these who were or were not receiving special additions for fuel expenses? Furthermore, since the differential mortality rate between deaths during the summer and the winter of all old people is in the region of 90,000, does he know the proportion of those whose morbidity was aggravated by the failure to obtain, or to afford, adequate heating?
  Most significantly of all, does he know the number of elderly persons who,
  1982
  because concessionary gas or electricity charges were not available, resorted to the far more dangerous paraffin heaters or coal fires and as a result of getting too close to these, because the heating was to sparse, in falling on them, died a terrible deaths? Are these figures known? If not, why are they not known? Does not this terrible logic lead inescapably to a demand for heating allowances as of right to enable old people to choose the kind of fuel which they wish for their own safety? Is is not a similar logic, even though a rather less dramatic one, which leads to the demand for old people either to have a better pension or to have sizeable benefits as of right in each category of need?
  Miss Pike: I agree with all the propositions the hon. Gentleman is putting forward and the questions he is asking, but if my right hon. Friend cannot give him the answers to these questions today does not the blame lie with the previous Administration who did not put in train investigations to allow these statistics to come forward? Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that these figures will be higher this year than they were last year?
  Mr. Meacher: My purpose in asking these questions is in no sense to make a political point as such. If reliance is to be placed on selective benefits, as opposed to an increase in the pension as of right, whether through a proper graduated pension scheme such as was tragically lost at the last election or through a straight increase in the flat rate pension or whatever, these questions become much more relevant. I should like to have the information available under any Administration, but is far more relevant where explicitly selectivity is the doctrine which is being pursued, as it is by the Tory Government.
  Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): Is my hon. Friend aware that on the question of the isolation of old people the Post Office Engineering Union put proposals to the Post Office for the provision of telephones? Under the old Postmaster-General a study was commissioned at the University of Essex into the question of the social isolation of old people and the contribution that the Post Office could make. One of the problems at present is that the results of this study,

  1983
  which have been submitted to the Post Office, have not been published.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that, though information may be available, it has not been published. I hope that the Minister will note what my hon. Friend has said and provide at least this information, which apparently is available.
  Finally, I submit that there must either be an early increase in the pension or a development of special benefits as of right for each category of need, that the choice of at least one of these is inescapable, and that unless and until the Government can demonstrate that need is adequately and comprehensively met in old age by other means my colleagues and I will harass the Government until all the facts about need are fully known.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon Thames): I join the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on what I think the House as a whole thought was both a fine, and in parts a very moving, maiden speech. My hon. Friend told us that his division took its name from two somewhat silent and undistinguished predecessors of his by the name of "Kemp". I am sure that if my hon. Friend continues as he has started his progressive borough will soon transform itself into "Bowdenopolis".
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) began by asking my right hon. Friend a question highly relevant to the situation existing today. I shall follow her example. I am concerned about the position of people just coming on to pension at this moment—I speak subject to my right hon. Friend's correction, but they may number up to about 8,000 or 9,000 a week—who have not yet been able, though they have applied for them, to obtain their pension books. I am dealing with a case of precisely this kind in my constituency at the moment. My constituent—there are thousands like him—has not obtained his pension book because of the postal strike.
  About a fortnight ago Mr. Speaker allowed me to ask a Private Notice Question. I asked my right hon. Friend a supplementary question about this. My
  1984
  right hon. Friend did not answer it, and I am sure that must have been due to a misunderstanding, for which, as my right hon. Friend is a Fellow of All Souls and I am not, I must plainly be responsible. So I repeat my question in language I hope suited to my right hon. Friend's high academic standard.
  Will my right hon. Friend say what is being done for those whose pension book is due but who have not got it? Arrangements for opening post offices on Tuesdays and Fridays for the cashing of books are useless to these people. They are in a difficult position. It calls for some action by my right hon. Friend, perhaps for the transmission of books from Newcastle to local offices and then for individual delivery. I should be grateful if we could have an answer to this urgent matter from the Minister who will wind up.
  We heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin, as always, a delightful and civilised speech. It was also, the House will agree, one that seemed quite out of line with the formal position of this debate for which one understands that three-line Whips have been issued. This is supposed to be a formal challenge to the Government. In fact, the hon. Lady's speech revealed, as did most of the subsequent speeches, with the possible exception of that of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), the fact that on most of this matter there is an enormous measure of agreement between the two sides of the House. Every hon. Member agrees—indeed, hon. Members would almost be disqualified for membership of the House on grounds of insanity if they did not—that times of sharp wage-price inflation hit people on fixed incomes, national insurance retirement pensioners and others, brutally hard. It is a waste of time to argue this. It is indisputable.
  No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the real agony of mind of someone whose income at the moment just enables him to manage and who sees one item this week and another item next week rocketing in price and what was a possible level of existence eroded away very quickly. Everyone acepts that, apart from the evil of inflation as it affects the national economy, its worst other feature is just this effect—an effect which cannot be negatived even by the most generous action on the national insurance

  1985
  front, because it also hits the recipients of other benefits, the owners of private and occupational pensions, and that very considerable number of people who depend a good deal in old age on their own savings.
  Everybody accepts, too, that one of the instruments for dealing with it, though only one, is an increase in national insurance benefits, which my right hon. Friend said in terms he intends to bring into effect this year. Everybody accepts—the more knowledge one has of the administrative problems the more one is inclined to accept this—that this operation takes a considerable time to effect. The passing of the necessary legislation and the subsequent administrative work are inevitably time consuming.
  I think that one of the changes in benefits for which I was responsible still holds the record for speed of implementation, though it took a number of months to put through, and after this lapse of time I can tell the House—that it was only effected by a mild degree of cheating behind the scenes in making preparations well in advance of parliamentary approval. I think that the Statute of Limitations now protects me from being brought before the Public Accounts Committee in respect of that action.
  Everybody accepts that this takes time. Therefore, the difference on this issue between the two sides of the House is very narrow. It is, plainly, not practicable now, in February, to operate a change in national insurance benefits—whatever is done about supplementary benefits—before well into the summer. Whether the early summer, as opposed to the more usual time of the late Autumn when prices are rising, is socially a better time for a change is a matter on which there can be honest differences of opinion. That is the only difference between the two sides of the House. It does not seem to justify all the machinery of three-line Whips, Motions and Government Amendments, in which I assume that we shall end the debate.
  I hope that both sides of the House are not accepting that wage/price inflation must simply go on and be met periodically by increases in national insurance benefits, which, in the nature of things, are never a completely adequate answer. The House must recollect what in econ-
  1986
  omic terms one is trying to do when one increases national insurance benefits. It is to transfer a certain amount of wealth and purchasing power from the working generation to the one which has retired. That is the economic justification for the simultaneous increase in the national insurance contributions. It is a deliberate transfer from the working generation.
  But if, at the same time, the working generation frustrates the economic effects of that transfer, by various groups using their bargaining power to increase their money incomes quite out of line with the increases which they are contributing in the shape of increased productivity, the whole purpose is frustrated. It is not a transfer but simply becomes a net addition to purchasing power and, inevitably, a further violent turn is given to the spiral of inflation. The unfortunate pensioner, who always suffers in his situation, finds that what looked like a promising increase in benefits when it was given disappears with alarming rapidity. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not implicitly accepting that this is a situation which we can go on repeating and ending merely by a similar move every time, next year or the year after.
  We all have a responsibility in this matter. All hon. Members have had a very finely worded appeal from the general secretary of one of the major trade unions. It seemed to me that that document expressed an extraordinary incapacity to realise what was one of the major causes of the trouble for which this remedy was proposed. I beg all those in the trade union movement who properly concern themselves with the matter and feel strongly about it to realise their own share of responsibility for avoiding the situation which, when it arises, they so properly condemn.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty): I respect the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on this matter. As a member of the trade union to which he is referring and as a Member of the House, I ask him whether he at any time during his career, or whether his hon. Friend at this time, could give any kind of guarantee to the members of that or other trade unions that if they were to forgo wage increases or relent in the struggle for them the saving involved would definitely be transferred to pensioners in the form of higher incomes? Can he give that undertaking?

  1987
  Can he say anybody else can give it? Can he not appreciate that the justification for wage earners going for what they can get is to transfer wealth to their parents?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The best answer to the hon. Gentleman's question was given by my right hon. Friend who opened the debate on this side. He then told us that during the period of the previous Conservative Administration, when we did not have a wage-price inflation of anything like this degree, the policies of that Government over the 13 years resulted in an annual increase of 4 per cent. in the real value of pensions. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for happened under a Conservative Government. There was a considerable measure of restraint, even if perhaps not as much as some of us wanted at the time. At the same time the real income of pensioners was increased, whereas under the late Administration when there was, as is generally recognised, far less restraint and towards the end none at all, the increase in the value of the pension was only at an annual rate of 2½ per cent.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept as the best possible guarantee the evidence of the historic facts which actually happened when the kind of restraint I am advocating was practised.
  I would like the Under-Secretary of State to pay particular attention to several matters when he replies. If I may begin with a small matter, the Motion refers to all benefits, including war pensions. I know that my right hon. Friend can be trusted not to abandon one jot or tittle of the priority for war pensions which successive Governments have maintained. But a matter which troubles me is the failure, so far, of the Conservative Party to redeem the pledge given to disregard war pensions for the purpose of rate rebates.
  Perfectly clear undertakings were given —some of them are perfectly properly cited in Early Day Motion 395, which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put down —that our party, when in office, would arrange for the disregard of war pensions for purpose of rate rebates in exactly the same way as the Inland Revenue disregards them for the purpose of income tax. My right hon. Friend is not departmentally responsible, and I ask him to
  1988
  speak to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has been approached on this matter, and to appreciate, whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may now feel about the merits of this matter, that though it is a small one, it is a plain moral commitment of the party to which he and my right hon. Friend both belong, and that many of us find it very difficult to sustain a continued refusal to carry out that undertaking. The Secretary of State for Social Services can do this with greater confidence, because my right hon. Friend has himself been most punctilious in carrying out the clear undertakings given on the subjects for which he is responsible.
  I ask my right hon. Friend, when he introduces his new proposals, to do something about increasing the increments which can be earned by someone who postpones retirement. The hon. Lady who opened the debate got the matter slightly wrong. Very pertinently to this, she pointed out that the proportion of people postponing retirement, particularly men at 65, is diminishing. She suggested that that could be remedied by an increase in the limits under the earnings rule. I am all for that. But this would not have that effect. If anything, it would have the contrary effect because it would make retirement at 65 more, rather than less, attractive. What would make postponement of retirement more attractive would be to increase the increments which can be earned, so that when the person who has postponed retirement in fact retires, he would find that he had earned a substantially bigger pension. The present level of increments does not represent anything like the amount of pension forgone. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think it wise to treat this matter generously. I think he can afford to do so. It would cost nothing like what it would appear at first sight to cost. In so far as it induces people to postpone retirement and remain in work and in contribution, the National Insurance Fund and the national economy both benefit.
  I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend will be able and willing to say a little about the shape of his major reforms. When he introduces what no doubt will be no more than another up-rating Bill,

  1989
  I hope that he will be able to indicate in general terms how he proposes to go forward. The Press and right hon. and hon. Members alike in recent years have criticised up-rating Bills, however necessary in themselves, which have simply preserved the pattern of the present system. I leave with my right hon. Friend the hope that he will sedulously preserve the universality of the basic flat-rate provision but, about that, will seek more and more to provide a second tier of occupational provision provided by the private sector.
  Having said that, I must hastily disclose an interest, since I am a director of a life office. But that prompts me also to remind my right hon. Friend that the provision of occupational pensions today is being held up by a lack of knowledge of what his proposals will contain. No one wants that less than my right hon. Friend. It is perhaps a pointer to him that the earlier that he can bring his deliberations to a conclusion and publish even the broad picture of his scheme, the better. If he were prepared to do it, as was done with the 1959 provisions, by prefacing the Bill with an explanatory White Paper some months before its introduction, it would have the double advantage of enabling hon. Members to consider what he has in mind and give an indication to bodies outside which might enable them to get on with the provision on the private side, which is held up at the moment.
  Most hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that my right hon. Friend has deep personal feelings on the subject that we are discussing. One of my hon. Friends said that he felt that he could trust my right hon. Friend. I feel the same. I feel that the interests of our ever-increasing number of pensioners, at what is for pensioners and fixed-income groups one of the most difficult periods in modern history, are in safe hands. For that reason, I shall have no difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan): It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and I hope that he takes it as a compliment when I say
  1990
  that he is one of the shrewdest and toughest of the top tier of Tory politicians. He interlaces his argument with genuine concern for the underdog, but always seems to be on the ball when it comes to £ s. d. His argument in favour of increasing the increments to those who would defer their retirement would save the National Insurance Fund money. Somehow, it is always typical of his argument that, at the end of the day, he has very much in mind the inevitable party policy of reducing taxation and appealing to that section of the community which has sent him here.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the increments point, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amount of money available for social benefits will always be limited in some measure. Is it not better to have an arrangement whereby those who can work are encouraged to work and earn a better pension when they retire, using the money available in the interval for those who cannot work? Is that not good social sense: each according to his need?
  Mr. Brown: There is a slight distortion in that. There is an economic argument that it would save the National Insurance Fund money by increasing the increments as an inducement. But I want people to have genuine freedom of choice, not at the age of 65 but even at 60. It should not always be an economic argument as to what is in the best interests of the National Insurance Fund so that we can save a few shillings in one direction and give a few shillings more in another. The subject needs a more fundamental approach than that.
  However, it would be wrong if I spent time following up too many of the right hon. Gentleman's points. I have been a little shocked not to have had more information from the Secretary of State. If not precise details, I thought that we would have had at least an indication of what the amount of increase might be in the Autumn and whether he was able to bring it forward even two months. I know that it might not be regarded as wise to announce it on an Opposition Supply day, for tactical reasons. I can understand that. However, I do not think that the public would be over much concerned about the piecties of that argument.

  1991
  The point has been made earlier that we are arguing about two months; in other words, the difference between what the Labour Government did and what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to do. But at least in the first days of the Labour Government in 1964 there were angry party meetings in which pressure was put on Ministers to effect an increase by bringing forward the date by two months. I hazard a guess that there has not been a meeting of the 1922 Committee on behalf of pensioners.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have been under considerable pressure from my colleagues in the relevant party meetings to do everything possible for the pensioners as soon as practicable. I think that that needs to be said.
  Mr. Brown: Very well. There are subject groups which take a keener interest in specialised subjects, and the sort of gathering that we see in the Chamber today is an illustration of that. But the meetings of the 1922 Committee are as well reported as our meetings, yet I have seen no evidence in the Press that angry Members have been telling Ministers that they will have to do better than the official brief that they have been given.
  That was the situation in 1964 when we were in Government. I appreciate that there are difficulties, and I would also like to be fair. I am not arguing that everything that the Labour Government did was perfect or that our record was better in all respects. The electors get bored with the argument about whether we did better by 1 per cent. It is so marginal that it is not really relevant.
  I like to think that more pressure is put on Labour Members. The figure of retirement pensioners on supplementary benefit is almost 30 per cent. In a constituency like mine, the figure would probably be nearer 60 per cent. I like to think that they all vote Labour. In that way, there is probably more pressure on Labour Members at that level from the section of the community with the greatest need. To some extent, that is an indictment of the failure of the Labour Government to make substantial increases in the benefits payable to pensioners. We recognise that, and some cynical people might say—hence our de-
  1992
  sire to press for substantial increases sooner than is being proposed.
  Let me remind the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), that following the 27 sittings of the Committee considering the National Superannuation Bill, there is no doubt that there is a moral obligation on the Government to act sooner and with more generosity than apparently they intend. During the long months leading up to the election they left the impression that their first concern, as a matter of great urgency, was for the existing pensioner, not the over-eighties and not the family income supplement. Everyone accepts that they are helping some people in a small way, but the image created by leading spokesmen was that something urgent would be done for existing pensioners. Their main criticism of the Crossman scheme was that it did nothing for existing pensioners. I hope that some hon. Members opposite are now genuinely putting pressure on their right hon. Friends to ensure that something substantial is done.
  The argument then was that there was no point in having a great scheme that would be wonderful 20 years from now, because what was wanted was something to help existing pensioners. We had to listen week after week to that sort of argument from critics. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is laughing about.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South): I am laughing because it is true that there was a very great defect which became obvious as we went through that Committee stage. It was that the Crossman Bill did nothing for the existing pensioner, and now the hon. Gentleman himself is drawing attention to that defect.
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to go back over the argument. There was no defect in the scheme as such.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: Oh!
  Mr. Brown: There are some clever men here, but we do not have time to argue that point now. The scheme never pretended to do anything for existing pensioners. Do the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, with his business

  1993
  interests, think that it follows that when someone takes out an insurance policy another policy-holder receives increasing benefits just because someone has come into a new scheme? That argument was a political tactic intended to convey to the old people that the Labour Government did not care merely because they were trying to do something for the future in a bold and imaginative way. That problem has still to be faced up to by the Government.
  Hon. Members opposite must show a sense of responsibility now by arguing for substantial pension increases for existing pensioners. Hon. Members may be cynical about this, but through the activity of some of the trade unions there is a growing campaign to help pensioners.
  We do not have time to go into all the economic arguments, but there is no doubt that there is a growing need for a substantial change in the level of retirement pensions. Surely we shall not have again just another of the carefully calculated increases that do not make pensioners any better off in relation to average earnings? Surely we shall not get bogged down with that kind of argument? If the Government intend to do something about existing pensioners, let them do it with generosity and face up to their critics outside, even though it means increased taxation and increased contributions. Otherwise, let them come clean and tell us that they will not do anything substantial for existing pensioners but will merely tinker about with the increase in supplementary benefits.
  I have not taken the line of exaggeration. I recognise that it is very easy sometimes to get carried away with the individual cases of hardship or tragedy among old people that every hon. Member comes across. I always think that that is wrong, and that it is wrong for Members of Parliament in particular to give the impression that in some way when a person becomes old he acquires all the virtues that he never had when he was young. I do not know why I get so many votes in Provan, because I keep telling the people there this. I find it offensive to have to go along to gatherings of old people and see them almost begging for hand-out parcels at Christmas. I am not objecting to going, but I try to understand the reasons for this.
  1994
  Let us not argue about whether we on this side have failed in the past. Why do not the Government at least act with generosity, not in a charitable way but in an attempt to give dignity to all our old people?
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson (Enfield, West): I had wondered, as all new Members wonder, I am sure, just what my experiences in my by-election had to do with the very strange life I have found myself leading since my election. Tonight I realise that one of my experiences was very relevant. Night after night in my by-election campaign I listened to the star speaker from London make my speech. All of a sudden, the chairman called on me and with the tatters of my brilliant speech I then had to entertain an audience for 25 minutes. My experience tonight has brought those memories very vividly back to me.
  I entered the House as the representative of Enfield, West after the by-election in November, and I am the newest Member. The constituency of Enfield, West is comprised of the residential part of Enfield, Hadley Wood, which has some very distinguished-looking hon. Members, who I am sorry to say sit on the benches opposite when they are here, the urban district of Potters Bar and South Mimms. It is comprised of beautiful rolling countryside, some of the loveliest parts of what is left of the green belt in the north of London. One of the great ambitions which I as the Member, kin Macleod as my predecessor, and all my constituents have is to make sure, for our sake and the sake of London, that we work very hard to keep that green belt.
  There is very little industry in my constituency, as the officials of Transport House who came down for the by-election found out. They arrived with a plan to have a series of factory gate meetings and found to their horror that it would not work. We have only one factory in the constituency, with a single gate, and they felt that 21 appearances by my opponent might injure rather than help his case.
  In case hon. Members opposite think that this seems to mean that I am not qualified to speak about anything to do with working people, may I add that I was born and bred in the north of Lancashire, in a very tough part of the country, and I am not talking about things

  1995
  that I have read about when I talk about the plight of pensioners and the working man.
  One of Enfield's greatest distinctions is that it was represented in this House
  for 20 years by Iain Macleod, one of the great Parliamentarians of this or any century. He was a great man, a great patriot and a great servant of the people of his constituency. Hon. Members will not be offended if I take this opportunity to pay tribute both to his work and that of his wife Eve. Together they worked for more than 20 years for their constituency. I am very proud to have been chosen to succeed him; I am very sad that the opportunity for me to do so ever arose.
  Iain Macleod had a great interest, which he shared with his wife, in the welfare of the elderly and disabled, and it is partly because of that that I wish to speak in this debate. None of us on either side of the House can fail to be concerned about the plight of the pensioner. I am sure that we all accept that society has a great obligation to do as much as it can for the pensioner.
  This Government, in spite of the rather cavalier way in which the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) dealt with the things they have done already, have, I claim, demonstrated their real concern for the plight of the pensioners through the actions that they have taken already and the assurance we have had from my right hon. Friend—a man who is known to keep his word and who is determined to carry out our pledge. I think we can rest assured that the Government are aware of and are concerned about the plight of the pensioners.
  It is entirely right that we should accept a special responsibility for this generation of pensioners, the vast majority of whose careers suffered the economic consequences of two world wars and the world depressions of the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these people would have been at their optimum age at the time when there was not an opportunity to use their talents, and I have never heard any Conservative worker or hon. Member reproach any pensioner about the fact that he is poor. In fact, to make a party point—although I know that I am not supposed to—Conservative workers are too busy working with the meals-on-wheels service and other social work to
  1996
  bother to recriminate with the people they spend so much time trying to help. I thought that that was an unworthy remark by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), and I am sure that when he thinks about it he will wish to withdraw it.
  Every day I get letters and receive visits from pensioners who seek help. It is important at this time for the House not to appear to be trying to turn the pensioners into a sort of political football, for neither side to be trying to steal a march on the other in terms of talk about concern, in terms of trying to prove that if only they were in Government they would be doing more and more. I was surprised to hear the hon. Lady refer to the claim, which is often pointed out by hon. Members opposite, that the Labour Government's first action when they came to power in 1964 was to increase pensions. One of the shabbiest incidents of those early months was the fact that they promised to increase the pensions but when pressed said that administratively it was not possible. It was Lord George-Brown, at the mini-conference the Labour Party held after the 1964 election, who confessed that it was not administrative problems but financial ones which were delaying the increase and who once again, as so often in his parliamentary career, blew the gaff.
  I share the concern of my hon. Friends about the attempt by certain sectional groups to grab the old-age pensioners, for their own particular ends and who appear to be using them. One man in particular who claims that it is his responsibility to extract the maximum for his workers, seems to spend six days a week—this is the only controversial thing I shall say—stirring up inflation in trying to grab more than his share of what is going and on the seventh day organises rallies for the people who will suffer most from his activities of the previous six days. It is perhaps the eleventh Commandment—"Six days shalt thou labour to stoke inflation and on the seventh thou shalt organise and finance rallies for the victims of inflation and shed crocodile tears at the effect of thy previous six days work." It is neither convincing nor worthy and I hope that it will be dropped. It is worsening a situation for a section of the community who cannot look after themselves, who

  1997
  are defenceless. The last thing they need is to have their hopes falsely raised to be used by people for any ends other than just getting the best deal they can for pensioners.
  Apart from joining hon. Members on both sides of the House in the hope that, when my right hon. Friend says that an announcement will be soon, he means very, very soon, I want to make two specific points. One has been made by a number of hon. Members and concerns the earnings rule. I think that this must be relaxed so that those who can and wish to help themselves may do so without, as so often happens now, having to be party to bending the law. I think it is undignified and unworthy that pensioners should be paid a bit under the table, as is done in many instances, because people realise that to pay them any more would cause them to lose some of the pension they have richly earned. I urge the Government not to be put off by this temporary crisis and to press on with long-term plans to encourage earnings-related occupational pension schemes.
  I cannot share the sorrow of hon. Members opposite that the Crossman plan was abandoned. I do not think that it was a very sound plan. I think that it had the potential of being highly inflationary. We prefer properly funded diverse occupational schemes. We believe in them for two reasons.
  The first is that they are a better
  hedge against inflation than a promise by
  the Government to take inflation into account, because Governments always want to underestimate inflation. Secondly, we believe that, by having this diversity, giving people a choice and having a variety of schemes, we are taking away from the State the ability to interfere with and control a vast number of people's lives. I view with great distaste the fact that at the moment millions of people are forced to rely on the judgments of this House for the amount of their pensions. I look forward to the day when people are members in very large numbers of occupational schemes, properly handled, properly funded and properly resistant to inflation. I look forward to hearing more from the Government about plans for their fall-
  1998
  back scheme, and I hope that it will be treated as a matter of great urgency.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside): I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) on having got through this very trying occasion. Having myself entered the House at a by-election some two and a half years ago, I know what an ordeal one's maiden speech is. I also sympathise with him in his experience of having all these V.I.Ps coming down to help fight his election and pinching most of his material. I got a different set of V.I.Ps They made rather different noises from those who helped him but they still stole my material.
  I am sure that the House was deeply touched by his tribute to his predecessor. Having only been in the House for two and a half years, I cannot claim to have known Iain Macleod with any great familiarity but I will admit that, as a political person outside this House, and looking at the political parties over the last six to eight years, I believe that he was the one Conservative leader whom I feared politically. Having had the privilege of entering this House and watching him when he was on this side of the House, I found that he was waspish and cut like a rapier. I am sure that I speak not only for back benchers but also for the Front Bench in saying that one was glad when an exchange with Iain Macleod was over. The hon. Gentleman has a great tradition to follow in Enfield, West, and I hope that he will keep alive the memory of Iain Macleod. I sincerely hope that the Conservative Party when it comes to make its testimonial to Mrs. Macleod will do it with dignity and honour. I wish the hon. Gentleman a long stay in the House, and success in, I hope, the not-too-distant future on the Opposition benches.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman also that it would be a great pity if the pensioners of Great Britain became a political shuttlecock. I believe that the way that we should treat our pensioners is not as a political argument but as a human story. It is the humanity that a Government, whether Conservative or Labour, show towards the retired person which is a mark of greatness.

  1999
  At some stage today I had great doubts whether I would be supporting the Opposition Motion. I found it conservative to the extreme. The only redeeming feature of the Motion are the words:
  "the review of pensions and other social benefits to restore them, at the very least, to their value in November, 1969."
  I shall be supporting the Motion because of those four words "at the very least". I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I kept thinking that what the argument was about was where do we say to the pensioner, "You can qualify for this concession, or that concession, or get more supplementary benefits". At no stage have we had, from either side of the House, a realistic approach towards giving the pensioner the dignity and prestige that he deserves.
  The social security allowance for rent and rates for a couple in an average flat or council house, such as those in which the pensioners of Sheffield live, is about £11 10s. That is not a generous allowance; it is a subsistence allowance. It is not so that they may surround themselves with all the luxuries in creation, but so that they can just about scrape home and make both ends meet. Yet we had the audacity—I say this to my Front Bench as well as to the Government—to leave the basic pension at £8 10s.
  What we have actually achieved—and successive Governments since the war are equally guilty—is that we have done everything possible to take away the dignity of the pensioner. My plea to the Secretary of State is: let us say to the pensioner "Throw away your begging bowl. We do not want you going to Social Security for your extra £1 or 30 bob, we do not want you traipsing down for rate rebate, rent rebate, concessionary bus fares, concessionary television licences." Let us give them a pension adequate to their needs so that they may live in dignity, retain their self-respect and pay at the counter the same as any working man.
  Let us have an interim award of £1 per pensioner in the next two or three months. Let the Government grasp the nettle which every Government has avoided, certainly in our lifetime. Let us talk in terms of £14 for a couple and £10 for
  2000
  a single pensioner. I am sure that if we calculated the amount that would be saved on staff at Social Security offices, rent tribunal and rating offices and so on it would go some way towards paying for this. I can understand those who do not feel as humanitarian about this issue as I do asking how we are to pay for it. I do not care how we pay for it as long as we provide it, whatever the cost. This is the way we should be going.
  The trade union movement, the Transport and General Workers' Union in particular, has been mentioned. If some of the cost falls on the trade union membership, then let it fall there. What we are doing in some cases is to transfer spending money from the workers to those who are not earners. The reason why I feel so strongly about the dignity of pensioners is that to me a pensioner is something precious. He or she is not a statistical problem, not a shuttlecock for the parties to argue about. We talk about the increases we have given, 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. But 20 per cent. of very little is an insignificant amount.
  Who are these pensioners, these people scattered all over the country? I can imagine a pensioner in Brightside tomorrow night at about 8 o'clock, poking the fire, trying to keep an odd lump of coal going just before he goes to bed, reading an account of the debate, reading about inflation and all these technical arguments, all excuses for not doing what is right by the pensioner. It will be double-Dutch to the pensioners. When I think of a pensioner I think of my mother, who is 80 years of age; when I think of a pensioner, it is of an ex-steel worker who worked endless hours before they had water-cooled furnaces and doors; it is the old coal-miner who lay on his stomach in water, clawing the coal from the unyielding earth. They are the people who have given the trade union movement guts, the guts that we on this side are trying to defend during the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill.
  A pensioner is a man who has worked all of his life and established the rate of pay and the standard of living that is enjoyed in industry today, with all its limitations. The pensioner is an old lady with wrinkles on her face, wrinkles that were caused not by her worrying about

  2001
  whether she should go to Majorca or spend her holidays doing a European tour but through her having to bring up a family of eight or 10 without child allowances. The pensioner is the person who is responsible for me being here—the person who worked through the trade union movement, so that the ordinary man like myself and many of my hon. Friends could take their place in this illustrious House.
  I would like to finish with a short text from the New Testament:
  "Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
  That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."
  I can only honour one parent; my other parent died 15 years ago. This House has the opportunity of honouring, if not our own parents, then their generation.
  7.37 p.m.
  Dr. Anthony Trafford (The Wrekin): It is my pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) on a magnificent speech. He may be, as he claimed, the "baby" of the House, but his contribution was by no means infantile and I sincerely hope that we will hear more from this particular "cot" in the coming months and years. He has a very difficult task in following the late Iain Macleod, but from his contribution tonight it is clear that he has the same ideals at heart and the same fluency of expression. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will indeed need to be careful lest he also acquires the same sharpness and rapier-like skill of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) spoke. I hope that we will hear a lot more from my hon. Friend.
  If I move slightly away from some of the comments that have been made already on the subject of the pensioner, it is not because I have any doubts as to the sincerity of the speeches made outlining the difficulties of the pensioner. It is that I agree with them all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, there is little dispute on either side of the House either about the facts or the needs.
  2002
  I want to draw attention to one or two points which are and always will be of significance in these recurrent debates upon the level of pensions. The first is simply the margins within which we are working. If this debate had been about children, health, child poverty or the chronic disabled, every hon. Member could have made a passionate speech which brought the tears to one's eyes about any one of these problems. The difficulty is how, within the limitations of whichever Government may be in power, to set our priorities and to prevent a recurrence of this situation in the future.
  Unpalatable though this fact may be, approximately 85 per cent. of all the revenue from taxation in this country comes from people who earn less than £35 a week. The rise of 10s. which we have just heard about will not come out of surtax. The whole revenue from surtax would not pay for a 10s. rise in pensions, and if that revenue from surtax were increased 100 per cent. it still could not meet the bill. That is what I mean when I say there is a limitation. We have heard a lot about inflation, but inflation is not caused solely by the cost push of union wage demands. It is caused also by the level of Government expenditure and is contributed to by the form and level of taxation. It is clear, therefore, that the margins within which we operate are somewhat limited.
  We must, therefore, turn to the general level of taxation which provide a contribution to pensions and also to the contributions themselves. The fundamental weakness of any State pension scheme is that it is not properly funded. I accept the criticism made by my hon. Friend in an intervention that the Crossman scheme did not deal with those who are pensioners now. But no scheme which we are producing today should be aimed at pensioners now, because it is actuarily impossible, except perhaps for 0·0001 per cent. of the population, to make a contribution which would be actuarily viable in four or five years' time. We must therefore accept that all increases for existing pensioners and those likely to become pensioners in the next decade must be paid out of general taxation, in the form of income tax, direct taxation or a specific social tax, and not by any earnings-related or other form of funded scheme. It is tragically true that the

  2003
  present pensioners have probably actuarily contributed only about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of their pension which we all agree is inadequate today.
  Had I been privileged to have been in the House at the time, I would have argued vigorously against the scheme presented by the Labour Government, partly because it was unfunded, partly because a rising Exchequer contribution was built in, partly because it was inflationary and partly because it was another form of straightforward—or perhaps not so straightforward—taxation. For those reasons, and most particularly because it was not funded, I would have opposed that scheme.
  I therefore exhort my hon. Friend to produce a national scheme which will be funded, which will have flat rate contributions and a marginally higher contribution from the employer than he could get in the market to encourage him to move into the private market, where I hope in future nearly all workers of all types will be covered. I say marginally higher, because I want this subject to stop being the football which hon. Members on both sides have objected to.
  Secondly, I should like my hon. Friend to remove the element of Exchequer subsidy, not so much because it gives us the right to debate this subject or to kick about this football, but because removal of the Exchequer subsidy would give to the pensioner and to pension schemes a degree of flexibility that does not exist at present.
  Finally, I should like my hon. Friend to oppose any suggestion that present pensioners and those of the next decade should come inside one of these two schemes. I regard this as impracticable in that it is actuarily impossible for them to make a significant contribution during that time. The hon. Member for Brightside referred to the lower-paid workers, those who are on a fixed income and pensioners who are all affected by inflation. I will not make any party point in reply to him except to say that I accept that all earners have a right to a pension, but that does not mean, as my hon. Friend for Enfield, West said, that a man has a right on six days of the week to work for inflation and on the seventh day of the week to argue against inflation, or to organise demonstrations for the benefit of those who are hard hit,
  2004
  when on those six days he is undoubtedly doing more harm to them than any Government or any niggardliness on the part of either party.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty): I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it permits me to answer a point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and also to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), for whom I have a high regard, although I have discovered in the last few minutes that, contrary to my previous assessment of him, he is a real Tory, a definite 100 per cent. real gold brick Tory. I am sure he will be glad to hear that from me. I see the Minister is congratulating the hon. Member for The Wrekin. I hope that means that they will all go down in the same boat together.
  The Secretary of State in opening the debate asked us to trust him as being a "fit custodian of the pensioners' interests". But I must say—I am sure he will not be offended when it is conveyed to him since he is not present in the Chamber—that I do not see any of his right hon. or hon. Friends as the fit custodians of anything at all.
  I trust the right hon. Gentleman's word that at the end of the year there will be a pension rise, but it might be said, "with fit custodians like hon. Members opposite, who needs gaolers?". There is an absolute unanimity about the necessity for pension increases and there is sympathy for the plight of the pensioner but, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, the real difference between us is as to the methods by which they are achieved. The real difference between the parties is the number of social and economic priorities which are to be considered before getting down to the subject of pensions. There are fundamental differences in approach to this question between the two sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin said that if we were to try to finance higher pensions out of taxation increases, then the sums would not be achieved for the simple reason that that kind of taxation could not be collected, even if it were taken from surtax. This is certainly contrary to the figures produced by the Child Poverty Action Group, put forward by the

  2005
  Labour Party, accepted by the Ministry and rarely contested. The figures show that a one or 2 per cent. tax on incomes in excess of £20,000 per annum could produce the £300 million that is needed to give an immediate increase in pensions of £1 a week. The wealth is there and a wealth tax could be introduced. This could solve this problem.
  Dr. Trafford: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a "real Tory". I appreciate the compliment. He is misinterpreting what I said. The point I made was not that there was money to pay an increase of £1 a week or whatever the figure was. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) spoke about £14, which would mean a £6 or £10 increase. The general level of taxation and expenditure, plus the considerable part played by inflation in undermining the value of the pension, would not necessarily be a helpful contribution.
  Mr. Kinnock: That is the very point which I made at the beginning of my speech. Obviously, there are different ways of thinking about these problems on both sides of the House. I obviously accept that taxation makes a definite contribution to inflation and to devaluation of money, but it is a matter of what the State spends the taxation upon after it has been collected. Although it is highly inflationary to spend £2,600 million on defence, it is not as inflationary in my view to spend that sum on welfare benefits or on pensions. This point might be heavily based on philosophical differences, but the fact is that it is easier to quantify the product of money spent on pensioners in the form of benefits flowing to pensioners in, say, more nutritional food than it is to quantify the effects of expenditure on defence. The difference between the two sides is in the priorities interposed before getting down to dealing with pensions.
  The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames made comparisons between the slowness in the decline in the value of pension in the years of Conservative Government as opposed to the years of Labour Government. Secondly, he said that the reason for the fall in the value of pensions being less under a Conserva-
  2006
  tive Government than in the years of Labour Government was the coincidence with relatively successful periods of wage restraint. I was surprised by that
  statement since I expected something a little more direct. He dodged the question. He indulged in the use of percentages concerning the growth or devaluation of pensions rather as though he was kicking around a political football. The fact is that it does not really matter how quickly pensions go up or how slowly they devalue under any Government. It is important that any Government should take the opportunity to establish old-age pensions at a level which will absolutely guarantee a satisfactory standard of living for the pensioner. What should happen is a courageous step towards a system in which the level of pension could be subject to annual or regular review. I do not believe in the idea that was embodied in a proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who put forward a two-year review. I would favour an annual review; this at least would provide for pension retaining its value as the years went by.
  I do not approve of taking the pensions issue out of politics. After all, that is what the House of Commons is for. But if there is a unanimity on both sides of the House about pensions, let us make an agreement that we lift pensions out of squalid political discussion by establishing a level of basic pension which would have a continuous and abiding value as the years go by. Surely both sides of the House could agree to maintain that sort of attitude.
  I wish to declare an interest. I am not a member of a life office or a representative of a life firm, as is the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames: I am a member of the Old Age Pensioners' Association and have been for about six years, long before I came to the House. The reason why I joined probably lay initially with youthful idealism and a sense of social commitment. I thought it necessary to become an ally of people who are not in a position to undertake the kind of strategies to put pressure on the State or any employer in giving them a satisfactory standard of living. I am glad to say that this is a cause being taken up by more and more young people. It has also

  2007
  been taken up by the union to which I am pleased to belong, the Transport and General Workers' Union.
  There is no hypocrisy involved in a trade union whose very reason for existence is to secure more satisfactory conditions and higher wages for its members feeling free to continue its efforts to try to secure higher old-age pensions. There are many thousands of old-age pensioners, and certainly thousands of men in South Wales who at 70 or 75 years of age are still full trade union members. They obviously expect their trade union to fight their cause, as they did when they were on the shop floor. In answer to people who say that it is hypocritical for a union one the one hand, as they put it, to "promote inflation" and then to fight its effects on old-age pensioners, surely it can be agreed that an old-age pensioner who is a member of a union can at least expect his trade union to fight for his pension.
  I turn now to the point which I tried earlier to convey to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. Whatever pious description is given of the pensioner's case, however much people deprecate the effect of inflation on their standard of living, the basic fact is that no Government can give a binding realistic and credible guarantee to the wage earner that in return for wage restraint there will definitely be a rise in the standard of living of his parents and grandparents. It is a matter of communication. Until any Government can illustrate the national interest to wage earners in the form of better schools, roads, hospitals and, most important, higher pensions and real old-age security, we shall continue with the system which we now have.
  The Government have done nothing to indicate to the wage earner that this is what they mean by "national interest". They could buy some credibility by giving the old-age pensioner a substantial increase now. There would then be some reality in the protestations, "We would give more because we are sorry for the old age pensioner, but his situation has been worsened almost entirely because of continued militancy, wage drift and cost inflation." That is not realistic to the wage earner unless the alternative is proved.
  2008
  As I said earlier, I am a member of the Old Age Pensioners' Association and I wish to bring the Old Age Pensioners' Charter to the notice of the House. It might be a title which has become familiar to hon. Members in the last few weeks, thanks in many ways to the Transport and General Workers' Union. However much people may have protested and shed crocodile tears over the pensioner, the Transport and General Workers' Union has got itself involved and has used its facilities and finances to publicise the pensioner's cause in a way which, regrettably, few other organisations have bothered to do.
  The Pensioners' Charter has been in existence for several years. It is not a recent development. It demands certain rights and awards, a certain kind of fundamental and lasting security for pensioners. It states that the Old Age Pensioners' Association should
  "press the Government to grant a basic pension of £8 10s. a week for men and women alike."
  So the figure about which we are thinking is not £14, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside suggested, but £17.
  Secondly, it presses
  "the Government to provide suitable houses for the aged people at rents the Pensioner can afford."
  I realise that this point is covered by rent allowances, but there is a significant minority of cases where, because of alternative but small means of income, people are not covered by the extension to the Welfare State of rent allowances.
  Thirdly,
  "To press the Government to amend the Pensions Act and to review the qualifications and supplementations when necessary."
  I suggest at least an annual review.
  Fourthly,
  "The relative value of the Pension shall not fall by reason of any rise in the cost of living."
  I go along with that, too.
  Finally, the Charter demands to be reviewed annually.
  The Old Age Pensioners' Association presents the case simply in a way which few people can mistake. It is saying, "We want more." Since there is such unanimity on both sides of the House

  2009
  about the desirability of pensioners having more, why do the Government drag their feet? The Government cannot be excused on the ground that there is not enough money available. This is where priorities come in again. A Government taking 6d. off income tax—I am not throwing slogans—cannot shrug their shoulders and say, "This hoary old one again." There is no credibility in throwing away about £350 million and simultaneously saying, "We cannot pay increased pensions until November because it would mean a sever strain on our resources." Whatever the indirect economic growth consequences of the reduction in taxation for the better-off in our society may seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is a roundabout way to go about promoting growth. I am sure that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that. Whatever the reasons, they cannot simultaneously say that they desperately want to increase pensions and at the same time give away the means for increasing them.
  A major ally to the pensioners' cause is the fact that a special price index for one-pensioner and two-pensioner households has been available for two years. The pensioner is now relatively worse off than at any time since 1962. The gap is growing. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir Brandon Rhys Williams) shakes his head. But the latest edition of the Employment and Productivity Gazette on page 1072 shows that the gap between the general index of retail prices and the index drawn up for one-and two-pensioner households is widening as each quarter passes. That is a basic consideration which must be borne in mind.
  In talking about pensions the word "piety" has been mentioned more tonight than in most debates. But the fact is that we do adopt a pious attitude. We talk of an "award" to the generation which has served us. People of my age belong to a nation of inheritors. We have, relatively speaking, been brought up with golden spoons. We are the inheritors. Our elders deserve to be rewarded and our society must provide for them.
  But the old-age pensioner does not want just a reward or a golden handshake. He wants people inside this House to talk about his rights and freedoms
  2010
  and then to act to promote them. It is not stating the matter too dramatically to say that the pensioner does not want gratuitous hand-outs, charity, or sympathy. He wants the right to a comfortable and equal life. He wants freedom from the fear which has beset him since he was very young—the fear of insecurity, poverty and privation.
  8.8 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I do not go into details concerning his speech owing to lack of time.
  I should like to make one or two specific points. First, pension books, a matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I should like to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to put these books on railway trains and send them to his offices in different parts of the country. It is getting very difficult for pensioners who cannot get their books. It would be a simple matter to put the books on trains at Newcastle and despatch them to the various offices where they could
  be collected by pensioners. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider that idea.
  Recently I wrote to my hon. Friend about a petition sent on behalf of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners, and I received this reply:
  "… I am sure all members of the National Federation are aware, no one is expected to meet their requirements out of the retirement pension alone."
  I think that that is realised, but I hope that we shall eventually get to the position where they have enough to live on with their pensions, because what has been brought up time and again in this debate is that people are often too proud to get their supplementary benefits, and it is this which results in malnutrition, the lack of extra heating, and so on.
  People come to my "surgery"—and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House meet the same problem —not to discuss a political matter, but to ask about this issue. I write to the pensions office, and very often it works and they receive what they are entitled. These old people are too proud to be

  2011
  seen going to the office, but they will come to the "surgery" because others think they are going to discuss a political matter. I hope that we shall be able to get away from the situation in which these old people have to apply for exemption from prescription charges, for rent rebates, rate rebates, and so on, and that they can be given enough to live on without having to ask for all these supplementary benefits.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) touched on the question of the Common Market, and it is said in one document dealing with the Common Market:
  "There is a general intention to harmonise social services throughout the Common Market —in an upward direction."
  If we are to have an interchange of workers, we must have similar pension schemes, and this is going to be one of our great difficulties. We spend much less of the gross national income on pensions than even Luxembourg. We are at the bottom, by a long way, in comparison with the Common Market countries.
  My right hon. Friend said that the amount of expenditure on the social services was going up. I should like to know how much of the national expenditure cake he gets because when one looks at the document one gets no idea how much is going to education and other things outside his Department. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies he will give us some idea of what he is getting as his share of the cake.
  Again on the question of the Common Market, it is interesting to note that the employer in this country pays far less towards pensions than is paid by employers in any other country. If one looks at other contributions such as total taxes, taxes on expenditure, taxes on household income, and so on, one sees that they are roughly the same, and so are payments by employees. Employers in this country pay 2·8 per cent. The nearest to that is West Germany, with 6·2 per cent. I think that this matter could be looked into because, if employers were to pay more, I do not think that this need be an inflationary move.
  France has a retirement age of 60 for men and women. Pensions are assessed annually on 1st April as from 1947 at 20
  2012
  per cent. of the average earnings for the last 10 years before reaching the age of 60. If someone has had to retire earlier because of illness his pension is assessed on the basis of his average earnings for the 10 years before he retired.
  The retirement age in Germany is 65 for men and women. A man gets £31 8s. a month and a woman if she retires at 60 years receives £22 2s. a month. In Italy the retirement age is 60 for men and 55 for women, and on retirement they get a maximum of 65 per cent. of the average earnings for the three years before retirement.
  Belgium has the same retirement age as we do, with an automatic adjustment of 2·5 per cent. whenever the consumer price index varies more than 2·12 points. This is a very good test, and if we were to do the same in this country pensioners would be considerably better off.
  The retirement age in the Netherlands is 65 for men and women. An adjustment is made by royal decree whenever the wage index varies more than 3 per cent. in 6 months. In Luxembourg, a very small country, the retirement age for men and women is 65, but there is an automatic adjustment if the cost of living index varies by 2·5 per cent. by reference to the basic index of 100, as from 1st January, 1948, and reintroduced in May 1968 when the basic index had risen to 157, so their living standards for pensioners are considerably higher than ours.
  If we consider a country not in the Common Market, Norway, we find that there is a single pension of £8 10s. and a married pension of £12 15s., but they have other benefits. They have pensions which move with the cost of living index, and they get free medical services, cut prices on tramcars, buses, railways and cheap inland air services, and holidays during off-peak periods.
  I should like now to raise an issue which I have brought to the attention of the House on several occasions, and that is this question of pensioners having to pay for prescriptions and then claim the money back. It is not possible to get agreement with the B.M.A. for the use of a different form, say a pink form? I understand that chemists would be pleased to operate this system. All that would be necessary would be to put the pensioner's number on the corner of the

  2013
  form, they could hand it in, and the money would be collected by the chemist. There would not have to be any question of money going backwards and forwards.
  Because of the things that I have mentioned about the British system I should like to know how many clerks are needed for all the various changes that have to be made. Staff are needed to deal with supplementary pensions, visits, claims, and so on, and it would be interesting to know—I think that I shall put down a Question on this—how many people are employed in the Department making various adjustments in the pensions.
  A point has been put to me about decimalisation. It appears that when pensions are decimalised they are being corrected down rather than up. I hope my hon. Friend will see to it that when the changeover is made the adjustment is made upwards, rather than downwards, as I think it would be unfortunate if there were a down grading.
  The final matter that I wish to raise is that of pensions for the Civil Service. Under Section 110 of the 1965 Act—I believe it was previously Section 69 of the 1946 Act—an entrant to the Civil Service after 1st March, 1948, has his pension reckoned at the sum of £1 14s. for every year that he has worked. This is subject to a maximum deduction of £67 15s. when he gets his retirement pension. This may not be the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department, and if it is not I hope that he will have discussions with the Minister of State for Defence, because the Services have a similar problem.
  I have here the letter which says that when a man reaches the age of 65 and becomes eligible for retirement pension his Service pension will be abated by £32 6s. a year. This seems to be very hard indeed, The man has worked for his pension, and when he gets it he finds it abated by that amount. This might, I suppose, necessitate a change in the Act, but it is an inter-Departmental arrangement at the moment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have discussions with the appropriate Minister about this case—and there may be others—and perhaps get some adjustment to avoid what I consider to be a great hardship.
  There are other points that I should like to make, but in view of the late
  2014
  hour, and as several other hon. Members wish to speak, I conclude by asking my hon. Friend to look into the points that I have made.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South): During the course of this debate I had a lobby from Bristol of two coach-loads of people to see me and other Members representing Bristol, and I was handed a large envelope containing a number of letters, some of which I have read and the others of which I shall study later. But hon. Members will be familiar with their contents, because the plight of the elderly is well known to us all. Familiar, too, will be the questions with which I was bombarded: "What is meant by 'the autumn'?", "How are the poor defined?", "What will happen about possible tax relief?", "What will be the position of ex-Servicemen?", and so on. It is a very sad occasion when we have this universal recognition of the need, yet our society has not solved the problem of giving these people a good standard of life.
  Everyone with whom I have come into contact in the service of paying out pensions and so on has always been motivated by the greatest compassion, but we should beware of what I might call the official mind. I had an instance of this recently when the South-Western Gas Board announced increased prices and said that, although the heaviest increase was on the small domestic user, it amounted to only 1s. 6d. a week. "The small domestic user" is a euphemism usually for an elderly couple or old person living on their own and virtually dependent on gas for cooking and heating.
  Another example about which I wrote to the Secretary of State is the fact that the new pension books are larger than the old ones. A number of pensioners Dave told me that they have a wallet to keep their book clean and tidy but it no longer fits the new book. I had a very full answer from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), which I appreciated. It made the situation clear, although he resisted my invitation to issue a free wallet to all pensioners. It would have helped these people if more explanation of the reason for the change had been given at the time. This is the sort of thing that old people notice.

  2015
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned decimalisation. One lady thought that she had had a gratuitous increase in her pension because the amount in the old book ended with 2s. and that in the new book was decimalised. I had to explain to her that 0.10 was not 10s. but 2s. in a new guise. Here again, possibly, there was an explanation, but it could have been much fuller. It is on these little things that we might concentrate our attention.
  Elderly people in my constituency have told me of the problem of getting to local post offices. It is not the horizontal distances involved but the gradients which make it difficult, together with a deteriorating local transport system. I have pressed for more post office facilities and have been to the managing director of the Post Office with a petition. One of the replies which
  I have received says:
  "I am advised on good authority that should the Post Office make these additional facilities available, an immediate request for similar arrangements will be made by residents in the Filwood, Broadway, Knowle district. There are also many other districts in Bristol"
  which have equally strong claims. This is in an urban area, and I believe that in rural areas the position is much worse. It will continue to get worse as the rationalisation of Post Office outlets proceeds.
  Therefore, is it not possible for some form of mobile paying-out station to be available in a particular area at a set time, so that people can get their allowances? This would also help mothers with young children who have similar problems. I know that there are security problems, but we might consider using a heavily armoured van. I know that the Minister for Transport Industries, in an answer in the House recently, said that he was considering the whole question of the Post Office and local rural transport services. I should like to hear about some official thinking on this.
  In the course of the representations, I came up against the official answer to old people who complain of difficulty in collecting their pension. It is, "You are entitled to appoint an agent to get it for you." But this is very bad psychology, because the drawing of a pension week by week for an old person is much more than just collecting money: it is a symbol
  2016
  of continuing independence. The appointment of an agent has great significance to many people. It is the sort of thing that we want to avoid as much as possible. Old people, and mothers with young children, also have a problem in collecting prescriptions and medicines. This is an allied problem. Some new thinking on this would be helpful.
  These are only small points, but, while we cannot give these people the massive increase we would all like to give them, if they can feel that they are regarded as human beings with feelings, and if these little points which can mean so much to them are being considered, at least we shall be making a contribution in this direction.
  8.26 p.m.
  Miss Mervyn Pike (Melton): Like most hon. Members, I have sat through the debate all the time, with the exception of half an hour when, rather like the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), I had to meet some pensioners from my constituency who unable to get me, as they thought, by post, and not knowing how to reach me in the House by telephone, had come all the way from Melton, at expense which they could ill-afford, to tell me about their pension problems. I was therefore faced with the dilemma of whether to lose my place in the debate, which I nearly did, or go to listen to their difficulties.
  I will not weary the House, particularly at this late hour, with the stories which we all know so well, the hardships and difficulties, of pensioners at present. The debate has been very useful and significant, because although in an hour and a half we shall probably go through the charade of a three-line Whip Division, with us all here, there has been a large measure of agreement all the time in the Chamber.
  All we have been talking about today is inflation. We all want the best possible pension for our old people. We would waste time if we talked about our records —I do not intend to waste time—but we all know, because we are all realistic people, that unlesss we can combat inflation we cannot get any of the things we want. We know that all the hard-luck stories we can all bring up are almost wholly due to our present inflation. This is why all of us want to

  2017
  urge on the Government the necessity to move as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that perhaps we have not had as many debates in our committees on this side as the Opposition had. I have the privilege to be chairman of one of our back-bench committees, and I do not think I am breaking confidentiality when I say that perhaps our committees are less leaky and, therefore, more seaworthy than those of the Opposition.
  There has been continuing pressure, and I believe that it will continue until the Government bring forward the increases in pensions we want to see. Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I do not want to hurry them too much because I shall not be content with a 10s. across-the-board increase. Such a rise might be satisfactory as a stop-gap measure, but we want a good increase, and, frankly, I shall not be content with one that just caters for the rise in the cost of living.
  In the 13 years when we were last in office, the Conservatives had an excellent record—and, to be fair, the Socialists followed with a good record—of doing a bit better with pensions than catching up with the cost of living. We tried, and usually succeeded, to get pensions increased to reflect the increase in the standard of living. I do not want us to fall back on that now.
  We appreciate that inflation does not hit only the elderly and that young people are having to struggle as well. Many of them are making valiant efforts to help elderly parents and relatives. While, therefore, we must be just, I give notice that we shall continue to press the Government for an increase which is large, though realistic in present circumstances, for our pensioners.
  Today pensions are, on the whole, meeting with a degree of adequacy the ordinary, minimal needs of people. However, they still pay no regard to the differentiation of need, particularly as people get older. Much has been said about the newly retired who want to go on working. I represent an East Midlands constituency, and many of my constituents are made redundant at, say, 55 and have no possibility of obtaining another full-
  2018
  time job before reaching pensionable age. Nevertheless, they have their health and strength and their stock of household goods, including linen, furniture and clothes—the items they have amassed during their working lives. When people reach 70, 75 and 80 they have worn out most of the items which they amassed when they had their full earning capacity, and their needs for heat, light and comfort are often much greater.
  I will not concentrate on the bottom one-third of the pyramid of pensioners. We know about the one-third who are on supplementary benefit. It is comparatively simple to meet their needs because we can identify them. I hope that I am not over-simplifying the problem. It is, however, relatively straightforward, because we can identify this group and get money and supporting services to them.
  This is not the case with the next one-third of the pyramid, those who are just above the supplementary benefit level. They do not have enough income to come into the taxation section and they are suffering the most from inflation. The hardest cases are those who are economising too much because of their fear of inflation and their anxiety lest any savings they may have will quickly be diminished. As a result of this they are not getting the heat, light and comfort they can afford. We must seek these people out and help them as much as we can with money and the community services.
  I appreciate that there will never be any substitute for cash. Good pensions we must have. But the community services can help to a great extent to give people a sense of security which they cannot achieve in any other way. Indeed, we have heard little today about the community services, though they are extremely valuable. I accept that we cannot contract out of giving cash. Even so, we cannot contract out of giving care and understanding.
  Many pensioners—this point has been made by a number of hon. Members but I must emphasise it—wish to go on earning. I would like to see the earnings rule abolished, but, being realistic, I trust that something will be done about it. They need to earn more not only to get more money but to give them greater self-respect and more interest in life.

  2019
  I agree with what has been said about the need for bus services for the elderly. This is a problem not just in rural areas—in my part of the world there are about 150 villages, many of them without bus services—but in urban and suburban communities. The community health centre or group practice may be a considerable distance away, and I know of cases where it is almost impossible for people to travel the three miles to the doctor.
  This lack of bus services frequently means people spending 5s., 6s. or more on travelling for perhaps two hours, whereas if adequate bus services were available the journey would take much less. In my constituency this is the case for many pensioners, who must travel from their village of, for example, Thurcaston into Leicester and then on to Anstey.
  These people cannot afford motor cars. If they could have done so at one time, the increased cost of petrol, motor taxes and so on now makes it impossible. Nor can they afford telephones.
  We have to be realistic, and I do not see this coming in the next few months, but I want to see local authorities giving far more attention to subsidising bus services than they are at the present time. They have the power and I believe they have to go forward, looking at this very much as a community supporting service, particularly for the old people and widows and the young people as well but particularly the old people who are finding it so difficult. But then there is the top of the pyramid, people who are not rich. I am concerned not with those who do not need to take the old-age pension but with those who have saved and worked all their lives, saving and building up some kind of nest egg in some pension scheme, many of them with occupational pensions.
  I believe it is a fact that about 40 per cent. of retirement pensioners at the present time receive about an average of £6 per week in occupational pensions, which means that many have a good deal less and some have more. I resent very much this income being called "unearned", and I believe the time has come when we must stop the differentiation between earned and unearned. I do not mind about the man who has £20,000 or
  2020
  £10,000 a year. All right, give him the adequate, proper and just rate of taxation. But there are those who have saved hard all their lives. I know people in my constituency who have been saving hard and paying into pension schemes. This applies particularly to spinsters, women like myself. I speak with some feeling because I put everything I can into pension schemes. I do not want to be dependent on my niece and nephew when I retire. I want to be able to stand on my own two feet; but I should resent very much that income being called unearned income when the time comes.
  I want the Government to look into these things—the differentiation between earned and unearned income, the raising of the earnings rule limit and the differentiation in pension to which I believe we can be looking forward for people as they get to 70, 75 and 80 years and onwards, because people do not need the same amount of pension at every stage in their retirement.
  Also I want to see greater emphasis on community care. We cannot contract out of care and understanding, so we have to look to how we can ensure that people can have the facilities such as buses. Of course, they cannot always afford the bus fare when the bus is there, but it means a tremendous lot to a person living in an urban area to get into, say, Leicester for her shopping. I know that there are Co-operative and other travelling shops which may come round and there may be adequate shops in a village. But when one is 65, 75 or 80 and able and active one wants some life. One wants to see the stores and buses and to visit one's relations as well as having them come to pay visits. It can often be very expensive having young relatives coming to visit, and it is very nice to be able to go to them. I want to see local authorities giving more attention to facilities to enable people living in these areas to get about.
  Equally, at the same time I want to see more luncheon clubs and more meals-on-wheels. The luncheon clubs and day centres are things about which we have to think seriously. We speak a lot about people living alone. They are not always living alone in squalor, but loneliness is one of the greatest difficulties of old

  2021
  age and we have to make it possible for people to go and look after the old.
  The Women's Royal Voluntary Service is doing quite exciting things in this field. It is building purpose-built homes where people, first of all, can have sheltered housing and then can come to look after each other and then go on to extra care houses, not moving too far away all the time, not having to uproot themselves but living within a community of young people who, through their committees, are helping to run these things. At the same time they come to know each other as the kind of people with whom they can be companionable, so that they can get companionship, life and interest within the confines of an area in which it is feasible and reasonable to ask people to move.
  We talk a lot about community care. I am probably as guilty as anyone. I know that I sometimes tend to talk as if it was just a question of people wanting to do these things, of having the will to do them; but at the present time we are putting a tremendous burden on community services and local authorities. We are asking for more home helps, more health visitors, more community supporting domiciliary services of all types— meals-on-wheels, and so on.
  Who are the people who are to man the services? Who and where are these volunteers? We must be careful not to fall into the American trap. The Americans thought that with their vista and poverty programmes, by pouring money into local authorities to help them build up supporting services, they could ensure that these things were done. They paid people to do them, and at the end of the day they drove out the volunteers.
  Those people who are, for instance, delivering meals on wheels and who are not very rich, who are finding it difficult to make ends meet, are given cause to think when in the next street meals are being delivered by someone who is paid a good salary for doing it. Volunteers, who are giving their time a expense and inconvenience to themselves, and who are being co-ordinated by a young person who probably has not much practical experience of voluntary service but who is getting a good salary for doing it, will, being human, ask themselves why they should do it. Their families will certainly
  2022
  ask; they will ask, "Mother"—or "Auntie"—"why are you doing it for nothing when so and so is getting paid for it?"
  When we talk about volunteers let us be careful that we know what we are talking about. When we are talking about the part that community service and community care can play, let us be careful not to make them mere words but to make it a practical scheme so that we make it possible for the voluntary service to be canalised and vitalised to meet the needs of the present day.
  I am glad that the Minister has another £110 million for the community services—to keep people in their homes, to get people out of hospitals, to run hostels, and to see that people can be cared for in the community. However, we must not think that we can do it by £110 million or by talking about it.
  Another thing that the Government must do is to think very hard about the place of voluntary service in society, the rôle it must play, and how the Government can help to sustain and encourage it and ensure that it is enabled to play its full part in our lives. This is not because we want cheap labour, because we do not. We want people to work in and be involved in the community and to understand the problems of the community.
  If we are to get any of the things for which we have asked tonight it will be very expensive. I want to see new occupational pension schemes, and so on. All the things that we have asked for will cost money. If we are to ask people to supply this money, they must understand the needs of the community. This is why I was glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pressed for statistics. For a long time I have said that we should make local authorities statutorily responsible for seeking out need, otherwise we shall never get the statistics of those who are in need. We shall never persuade the ratepayers to bear the necessary rate burden until we are able to draw a profile or map of the needs and resources in a particular area.
  Having done that, we must realise that it will be a patchy picture over the country. Some local authorities are richer in resources than others. We must therefore make sure that the Government have

  2023
  a central unit which ensures there is not only a cross-fertilisation of ideas and leadership, but greater uniformity in the matter of meeting need.
  At the end of the day, as soon as we have got our review, whether it be in July, August, September, October, or November, and when we have succeeded, as I hope we shall, in persuading the Government to do some of the things about which I have talked, the real need is to get a occupational pension policy. Those of us who were members of the Standing Committee which last summer considered the Bill designed to restructure the pension scheme faced the fact that whatever we were going to do we had to have a whole new attack on the whole pension problem. I believe it must be an occupational solution with people able to build up their own scheme.
  Whatever our arguments about what the scheme must be, I urge the Government that one of their first priorities must be to introduce a new pension scheme. In the meantime let us have the cash that people need but let us not think that we can contract out of the care and understanding that people require.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton): I add my congratulations to maiden speakers from the benches opposite. I am sorry that custom forbids us to discuss the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). It was a remarkable speech. I took note of the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) to his predecessor, Iain Macleod. I cannot help wondering whether the Government's economic and social service policies would have been quite the same if Iain Macleod had still been with us.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out the main difference between the two sides in this debate when he said that he thought it would be better socially—I hope that I quote him correctly—to pay the rise in the autumn, when prices are going up, rather than in the early summer. We believe that it is socially right and necessary to give an increase to the pensioners as early as possible, which means the early summer. It can be
  2024
  done in May. There is no Act of Parliament, regulation or order which prevents the Government from making an increase before two years have elapsed. They have a precedent in that the Labour Government came to office in 1964 and did just that. They were elected on 15th October, they brought in a Budget on 11th November, a statement on increased pensions on 20th November, and increased social security benefits, short term, in January and the pensions in March. Some hon. Members opposite thought that that was not quick enough. They have an opportunity tonight to support a move for the Government to do it even more quickly.
  Two years is too long for a review. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I tried to convince my Government that there ought to be annual reviews. I failed in that. But I hope that when he is planning a new Bill he will take note of this. We have now seen the reason why two years is too long. It may not be the fault of one Government or the other but because of international complications that we need to review pensions annually.
  Administratively it can be done. Of course, it would cost £50 million a year—about 1d. on the income tax. The Government ought also, to consider if they cannot increase the pensions quickly, doing what the Labour Government did in 1964 and giving a Christmas bonus to the pensioners. What about an Easter bonus? Many pensioners have large bills to face then, and that would be a good opportunity.
  We are not discussing people on supplementary benefit. They have had an increase, although it was inadequate. We are discussing people like some of my constituents. They are railwaymen and miners whose pensions are in the neighbourhood of 30s., £2 or £2 10s. Many people have been in occupational schemes, but the problem is that most of them have not been in operation for very long. A lot of people find that they have saved up and might as well not have done because they could have obtained the money through supplementary benefit. Some of them might not realise that they have been entitled to claim supplementary benefit since October, when the supplementary pension was increased. More publicity should have been given at the

  2025
  time of the increase. Even now, it would help many of them to realise that they can claim it.
  Recently, the Manchester Evening News ran a series about pensioners. One of the articles concerned their tax problems because, believe it or not, some of them have tax problems. A couple with an income of £14 a week—pension plus some superannuation—pay 12s. 9d. tax a week. I know that the Government intend to cut income tax. I was looking at the figures recently, and I noticed that a bachelor on £15,000 a year will be £6 a week better off, assuming that it is all earned income. The same two pensioners, on the other hand, will be £2 a year better off, or 9d a week.
  There has been a tremendous increase in Government revenue from income tax because of the pay rises to which they object. When a man gets a rise of £3 a week, his take-home pay is up by less than £2. A third goes in income tax. Many people are coming on to income tax who were not on it before and, in addition, they have to pay increased National Insurance contributions. I am sure that there is something like £200 million—more than was anticipated last year—going to the Exchequer as a result of wage rises.
  The Manchester Evening News also gave some advice on food and cooking. I found the article fascinating, especially when it referred to dishes which included liver and said that it could be excluded from the casserole.
  It is not only the cost-of-living index which is affected. I know about the special index for old-age pensioners, but the cost of living thrown up by it is not much different from that of the other index.
  Buying for one person is a problem. Some of us buy for ourselves during the week when we are in London, and probably we have some idea of it. However, when people have brought up families and been used to shopping for four or five, they find it difficult to adjust to buying for one.
  The Manchester Evening News concluded its series by saying that here was a debt of honour. The people whom we are discussing today are those who have lived through two world wars. They have experienced the unemployment and crises
  2026
  of the 1920's and 1940's. We owe them something.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite talk a great deal about inflation. It has been a case of blaming the unions for their inflationary wage demands. However, I remind those who think along those lines that very many of our old-age pensioners are trade unionists. They too have fought these battles, and they have been just as militant as Jack Jones and other present-day trade union leaders. To suggest that it is the demands of the trade union movement which have caused the suffering of old-age pensioners is nonsense. The rise in food prices cannot all be blamed on wage increases. We have been told that there will be more. It is Government policy which will cause increases in food prices in the coming year. Government goading has been one of the causes of these big demands and strikes. When public service employees are told that the Government intend to clobber their wages and that they will keep an eye on prices in the public sector though it has not been a very good eye, naturally they fight. We would all fight if we were told that our group was under attack.
  Tonight's debate is about a demand from this side of the House that the old-age and retirement pension should be increased as soon as possible. The Government's reply is that it will be increased in the autumn. I detected only one hope in the speech of the Secretary of State, and that was when he said that he was not mesmerised by the 2-year pledge. I hope that that proves to be so and, what is more, that he can think six months ahead of that.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe): If I had the time, I should like to speak at some length about the issues that obviously unite both sides of the House. We share a great concern for the desperate plight of elderly people, who are the worst affected in the community by the present rate of inflation.
  Both sides agree that under Governments of both parties we have not yet achieved a level of care and assistance for the elderly adequate to eliminate poverty, or to bring them more into line with what we would like all our people

  2027
  to enjoy. Both sides also accept that the present system of pensions is inadequate as a system, although there is a wide debate between the parties about the system that should follow. I welcome the Government's renewed pledge to get on with introducing an improved pension system at the first possible opportunity, and I look forward to the House debating it when it is presented.
  I turn to the important issue that the Opposition have tried to raise by the Motion. The Motion and the intention to divide the House at ten o'clock
  smack a little of political opportunism by the Opposition, which is unfortunate. I immediately acquit all hon. Members opposite who have spoken on the subject, because all of them have almost avoided making political capital from it. But there is clearly an intention to make such political capital as can be made from the deeply-felt concern outside the House about the plight of the pensioner in trying to raise the issue of accelerating the date when the pension increase is to be made.
  The issue is very narrow. The Government accept that there will be an increase some time this autumn. They are being pressed to accelerate it and abandon the biennial review. If the Government did find it possible to do that, I should be delighted. No hon. Member would begrudge an announcement at any stage from any Government that more was to be given to pensioners. But an Opposition so recently in government, who have wrestled with the same problems, should realise the position. Let us face up to the fact that there are difficulties and not raise false hopes outside by talking so easily about an increase in the near future, abandoning the principle of the biennial review.
  The case against the two-year review is based on inflation's eroding the pension's purchasing power, which has now dropped well below the level of November, 1969. It is inherent in the whole system of a two-year review that there will be a decline in purchasing power, which will be worse with inflation at its present level. It is also inherent in the system, and has been accepted by both parties by convention rather than Statute, that when a review takes place the purchasing power is raised. It then declines
  2028
  over a two-year period until it is raised again to what both parties have repeatedly said they hope will be a higher level than at the start. I am anxious to give time for more hon. Members to speak, but if I had time I would quote a passage from the Crossman White Paper, which set out that very principle in terms. It went beyond the convention and said that it would be made a statutory duty to make the review biennial.
  Let us see why both parties in the past turned to a two-year period, as the Opposition now try to throw the principle lightly overboard as soon as they lose the responsibilities of office. The two-year review has one advantage—certainty. What is proposed is that we should return to a system where the Government have a discretion to choose the time for a review, in relation to inflation and the economic position. Until the two-year review
  became accepted by both sides the average was a 30-month interval between reviews. The Labour Government's record was an increase taking effect in March, 1965, then in October, 1967, and November, 1969. I accept that the one in March, 1965, was early, but thereafter the Labour Government failed to make two years in their reviews.
  The problem always arises after about 18 months, when the purchasing power has declined and the Government come under pressure, as they are now. It is worth looking back, as a point is being made of this and there is to be a Division, to the way in which the Labour Government reacted in 1969 when they came under the same pressure. From October, 1967, to the spring of 1969, the £4 10s. a week single pension had dropped in value by 6s. 2d. The pension for couples had dropped by 10s. The reaction of the Government then was to make a dramatic Budget announcement in April of an increase in pensions to take effect over two years after the last one in November, 1969. They made that announcement so lightheartedly that over a month after the Budget statement the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) was unable to explain how the £420 million of contributions that the increase would cost was going to be raised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having left him with that responsibility.

  2029
  It is being urged upon us today that the present Government should take the same easy way out in responding to these pressures which worry us all, and my right hon. Friend tossing off a random figure about some increase in the autumn and then facing the realistic problem of how the contributions are to be raised and on what the implications of that additional taxation are to be.
  The two-year period has this difficulty —that, after 18 months, we are always going to be faced with deeply held feeling on either side that we would like to bring the purchasing power back to the former level as soon as possible. These
  pressures should be resisted by the Government. The way to deal with the intervening two-year period is to do what has been done in the last two years—to concentrate particularly on supplementary pensions for those in greatest need—I realise that no party point can be made here about increase in supplementary pensions in November, 1970—and also to persevere, as we would like, with the family income supplement, which admittedly does not affect pensioners directly, and that the other innovations by the Government in the areas of greatest need. For the flat-rate pension, the basic National Insurance pension, I believe that a two-year review is defensible, and I would defend the Government if they felt obliged to keep to it.
  But one matter could perhaps be dealt with before the two years is up, and it is not affected by the two-year system. I want to say something on behalf of what has been called the "upper one-third" of people of retirement age—those who fall within the taxable limits and those who are living on savings. These people are also being critically badly affected by the present position. I say that they are not affected by the two-year review because help can be given in the Budget. I know that this is outside the departmental responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but I hope that he will bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he might be able to do in his Budget in March.
  In making this plea, I recognise that it might be said that these are a better-off section of retired people, and in one sense that is so. But it is not the whole
  2030
  story. They are better off because they have been thrifty and have made some provision for themselves. What is important is that on the basis of their hard-earned savings they thought they could have a certain standard of living and way of life. They decided that they could reasonably expect a certain income from their savings. They based their way of life upon that and when rapid inflation comes, as it has now, they suddenly find that they are over-committed and have to cut back drastically. Although in one way they are better off than others, they are still hard done by when the fruits of their life's work in many ways are not producing what they had every justifiable reason to expect that they would produce. They are badly pressed, and some adjustment to the age allowance when taxation is being considered would make at important difference to them.
  I would like the Government to carry on fulfilling the two-year period in that way—concentration on greatest need, on the supplementary pension, and urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind those he can affect in his Budget, but keeping to the two-year review for the National Insurance system, which can be defended. Certainly, I hope that when the two-year period comes to an end and the autumn increases are made they will be generous and will raise standards above the November, 1969, level, taking account of all the pressures about earnings level and everything else which have been brought to bear in the debate.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North): I realise that I have only a very few moments so I will not go too far in answering some of the provocative remarks made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). What I will say is that the chagrin of Members opposite arises because when the Labour Party took office and inherited a £800 million deficit within a few months they gave the pensioners the largest ever pension increase. That is what upsets them. They had the chance to do even better with a "wicked" Socialist surplus of £600 million and have not done it yet. We are waiting, the pensioners are waiting, and it is on this that the Government is being judged.

  2031
  I want to touch on something which has not so far been adumbrated. This whole problem of pensions and old people has come up because we have implemented a welfare state in a half-hearted manner over the past 30-odd years. In my constituency I have many old-age pensioners who, in middle age or in their youth, came from Scotland, Yorkshire or South Wales to London in the '30s looking for work. They were not always successful and they have gone through a very grim period. They put it down to the fact that there was mass unemployment. These people feel that the country is not giving them a fair break. In their twilight years, after they have gone through such a savage middle life, they are still not getting a square deal.
  Hon. Members opposite, in passing remarks, have made scathing references to what has been referred to as the "Cross-man Plan". If we had had something like that 20 years ago we would be having a totally different debate tonight. Some time this has to start. We were prepared to implement it. I know that anything which smacks of a rational approach to a problem is not particularly popular with hon. Members opposite. They talk of the voluntary spirit and the need for the young to help the aged, and so on. What all Governments have failed to do is to copy the example of the National Health Service.
  I can remember the arguments put forward by people of all political complexions when Aneurin Bevan introduced the National Health Service. People said, "Do you really believe you can have a system where any soul in the country can have the attention of a doctor, can go to hospital, have the attention of a surgeon, receive medicaments and not pay anything? It is not possible." All of the experts argued this, but we did it and we introduced the National Health Service, not after 13 years of Tory Government, but something almost as bad, after six years of a terrible war. People hoped that it would collapse but it became a big success, despite the neglect of 13 years of Tory rule. It still makes a substantial contribution to the peace of mind of old people and I hope that it will go on doing so.
  I do not think that there is any such thing as the National Insurance Fund. I have tried to find out where it is and
  2032
  to get statistics about it. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but members of the Government Front Bench are not smiling so much. I shall be challenging them in Questions in the weeks to come. The time has come when everyone ought automatically to be in a national insurance scheme in exactly the same way as we are in the National Health scheme. People would not have to make special contributions, the whole lot would be taken out of taxation in the same way as we take the major part of the National Health Service funds. Until we can adopt that principle we will not be tackling this problem.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby): I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for curtailing his most interesting speech for my benefit. I wish that I had not to make my speech so that I could go on listening to him. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for my unavoidable absence for one hour during the debate. As the House knows, I am Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and it occasionally requires my attention. I am sorry to have missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) and the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), which I understand was very entertaining. From a report I received, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a most interesting speech which contained many suggestions. I also, unhappily, missed part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I did hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson), which conformed to the "trendy" convention that maiden
  speeches should be controversial. He made a few provocative remarks, which I am sure we can all take in a debate of this kind.
  I was very moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), who spoke of the vision which so many of us have of pensioners as being our own parents. We can never escape from that closeness to those who have grown old and who are often ill-provided for in their later years. The

  2033
  hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) made a very pertinent point about the harmonisation of social benefits in the Common Market. We shall certainly have to come to that if we go into the Common Market, and it will make a big difference to the structure and the level of benefits of our own scheme.
  The hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike) gave an interesting survey of community services. Since, with Mr. Speaker and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I have been a trustee of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation for the last three years —a Government-sponsored organisation —I underline what she said about the need for the development of voluntary community service amongst the young. The Government have the opportunity of doing that. The foundation is now well established and doing splendid work. What is more, it is now getting more money from voluntary sources than from the Government, and this is an indication of the confidence which we have built up in that organisation. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will carry this message back to his colleagues.
  This has not been a political debate, despite the Conservative Central Office brief to hon. Members opposite which said that the Motion was playing politics. I have not heard anybody playing politics today. When I read the brief, I wonder whether the Conservative Central Office wrote the Secretary of State's speech or whether he wrote the Conservative Central Office brief because so many phrases, suggestions and points are common to both.
  The Secretary of State said that he found the Motion a little ambiguous. There is more than a difference in terms between the Motion and the Amendment; there is a difference in purpose. There is an urgency in our Motion which we do not see in the Government Amendment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a little touchy about the reference in our Motion to rising prices. We see enough distinction between the Motion and the Government Amendment to divide the House when the time comes.
  I suppose I should declare an interest in this matter since I am a retirement pensioner. As the House knows, when
  2034
  men pass the age of 70 they are deemed to be retired. It is one of the fancies of taxation and social security legislation that persons may be deemed to be in a condition in which they manifestly are not. This is the situation in which I find myself today.
  When Mr. Harold Macmillan was in the House we came very close to having a retirement pensioner for a Prime Minister, but he retired a little prematurely and did not reach the age of 70 while he was still in the House. I remember how entertaining he was when he told the House that he had received a form from the Ministry of National Insurance, as it then was, asking him what were his intentions about retirement. He played about with the form for a little while and said that he thought the attractions of postponed retirement were so strong, especially the increments that he could add to his retirement pension, that he decided to continue full-time work.
  However, the majority of workers have no such option. They are told to go. They are the victims of compulsory retirement. Compulsory retirement is indistinguishable to me from unemployment, except by the intervention of a birthday and the existence of lower benefits for compulsory retirement than for unemployment. Unemployment is supported by an earnings-related benefit, which is usually very much higher than the retirement pension of the same person. I believe the time has now come to look at the limitations imposed by the earnings rule, and I will refer to that matter a little later.
  On the whole we show far too little concern for the spiritual and mental effects of enforced idleness among older people. The truth is that we scarcely known what to do with older workers, except to pension them off. Then we say that we cannot afford to pay them a decent pension, and we stop them from earning a decent supplement to their pension without restriction or deduction.
  The time has come to revise the conditions under which people retire. Generally the so-called burden of providing for the old is made heavier by the rising numbers of old people, longer life and the higher claims justifiably made by retired people on the comforts

  2035
  and amenities of life. Most people live on pension for a longer period than they were at school. The dependence factor as between the old and the young is rising. This means an additional burden for the productive workers of the country—a burden which they must face because it will be their turn next. We must ail realise this since it is a contract between the generations which must be honoured in full. The more the old, the sick and the disabled fall behind rising standards, the more they tend to become a class apart. They are separated from the rest of us by idleness, incapacity and poverty.
  I believe that the old people are far too patient with their condition. They make extremely modest demands on the nation's resources. They have put much more money into other people's pockets than will ever come their way. They have a nobility which puts to shame much of the frivolous extravagance they see going on around them.
  Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs at this moment is that the Government have no forward looking pension policy. We are all eager to see what it will be. We are at this moment back to 1960 when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames introduced the graduated pension scheme, which was once described to me as turning the Ministry into a bucket-shop. There is no doubt that criticisms of that scheme, which took far more away in contributions than it was ever going to pay out in benefits, have persisted over a whole decade until now.
  We had a scheme. Whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it was good or not, it really was forward looking. Apparently it has now been discarded. There is no doubt that had the Labour Government's National Superannuation Bill become law it would have been the biggest thing since Beveridge.
  I am a little pessimistic about the future. If the clock is not now to be put back, I certainly do not think that it will be put forward. The Labour Government's scheme would have seen us through to the next century. At the moment we have nothing.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will back the occupational scheme—a most unreliable foundation for social security as of now. In the foreseeable future it will not really provide an effec-
  2036
  five foundation for social security in old age. We should have had a genuine earnings-related superannuation scheme which, in course of years, would have built up and solved the problem, though it would admittedly have taken a considerable time. For years to come the supplementary benefits scheme will be one of the biggest features of social security, because nearly 28 per cent. of retirement pensioners are having to go for supplementation—probably nothing like the total number that could go.
  What is aggravating the situation at present is the vast redistribution of consumption in real terms which is going on, and the retired and the poor are losing the battle against inflation. No system of taxation can be more unjust and regressive than inflation. The rich get richer; the poor get poorer. The poor pay tribute to those who are better off, those who are better off pay tribute to those who are better off still, and so up the scale.
  Pensioners today are the victims of petty theft. Their purses are being rifled week by week. The purchasing power of their pension is falling; the value of their earnings is being eroded. They are in worse plight, in conditions of rising costs, than ever before.
  It is high time that inflation was stopped. Quite candidly, everybody should unite in trying to stop it. But we on these benches must not be accused of backing inflationary wage claims [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh no. We have stood for relative justice. After all, we cannot stand by and see lower-paid workers and public servants fall behind. Really the motivation of many wage claims at present is the fear of falling behind and losing present standards of living, not to be recovered if people do not take the opportunity of making claims now.
  It ill becomes hon. Members of this House to throw inflation in the face of the old age pensioner. He has not caused it. I think that to try to solve inflation by further deprivations and privations of the poor would be scandalous. So we must protect the pensioner, and the Motion seeks to inject a little urgency into what the Government are doing.
  The Secretary of State says that he is not mesmerised by the two-year interval. He rather chided us for having a

  2037
  two-yearly interval written into the Labour Government's Bill as a statutory requirement, but I see that this brief says on page 5:
  "We propose to establish a two-yearly review on a statutory basis."
  The Secretary of State apparently is to compound the error of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
  Sir K. Joseph: There is time to amend.
  Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is time to amend. I should hope so. If he is not mesmerised by the two-year period, let him make it shorter. That is what the Motion asks him to do. It is time to make a bold move forward, and I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to hasten this review.
  Truly, in the history of this matter in recent years, there is reason for satisfaction on these benches at the bold increase that we made in March, 1965. I was the Minister responsible for the social services at that time, and I know what a drive it needed, through the Treasury and everybody else, to get that done, and yet I read in the brief, and heard the Secretary of State say:
  "The big increase in March 1965 was a remarkable tribute to the prosperity created by the previous Conservative Government."
  Can you beat it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in public that the first run on the pound came when the Labour Government announced these dramatic increases in social security benefits. That is how strong the economic situation was.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that his leader pledged that the first thing the Labour Government would do would be to introduce the minimum income guarantee. Is that not correct? That was on television. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree also that it was the pledge made at that time to increase taxation—capital gains and corporation tax—in order to finance pension increases which brought on the crisis of confidence which started the Labour Party's and this country's troubles?
  Mr. Houghton: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot
  2038
  say that we were able to do it because of the strong economic position that we inherited from our predecessors and then say that we did this out of economic weakness. The brief tells me that it was a remarkable tribute to the prosperity created by the previous Administration. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It was a bold step and, if he likes to say so, a rash step, but it was done, and that was fulfilling a pledge that we had made to increase pensions as almost the first thing that we would do when we came into office.
  We were never able, in the latter part of the Labour Government, to make such a dramatic move again, and as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the minimum income guarantee, and as I was in charge of that at the time, perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that he knows that that was one of the things that did go because of the economic difficulties which we encountered shortly afterwards.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says that during the latter part of the lifetime of the Labour Government he was unable to make the same dramatic move on pensions again. Does not that wholly confirm what is said in his brief, that it was the strength bequeathed by the Conservative Government which alone provided the economic support for the improvements that were made, and that his own Government failed to provide the necessary economic support?
  Mr. Houghton: It confirms nothing of the sort. It confirmed the worsening conditions of the world economy during that period. Anyway, we are not here to bandy words too long on these matters. I have one or two serious suggestions to make.
  I have held the view until recently that an earnings rule was a reasonable condition of a scheme which had a retirement condition. However, I have changed that view, because I think that if a retirement pension is intended to replace loss of earnings on giving up full-time work the pension must be an adequate replacement of the loss of earnings, and, if it is not, it is unreasonable to impose limitations upon a pensioner's opportunity to supplement his pension.

  2039
  Thus, so long as the pension is, by any reasonable standard, far below a replacement of earnings—only about a third of the average earnings at present—it would be justifiable to remove the rule entirely, to suspend it, so long as the retirement pension is less than, say, half the average wage at the time of retirement.
  I am speaking only for myself, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West raised this point, and it is worth serious consideration. Various estimates have been made of the cost of removing the retirement condition, but it would repay by removing many from supplementary benefit, and it would emancipate the pensioner from the restrictions under which he draws his pension at present.
  This has been a good debate. We have not been playing politics. We have not, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) said, been indulging in opportunism. Each side of the House has a very big responsibility for the past and a heavy responsibility for the present, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a responsibility for the future. Those responsibilities weigh heavily upon all of us, and no pensioner will have patience with political by-play here or elsewhere while they are suffering as the victims of inflation.
  What is needed now is a firm and quick resolve that, wherever the blame may lie and however strongly it seems that all economists have lived in vain and that the Government will make the nation learn its economics the hard way, the old and the helpless shall not be cheated out of their meagre savings or forced to subsidise the standard of living of people better off than themselves.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): We have had two outstanding maiden speeches in this debate, from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) whom I heard, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson), whom, unfortunately, I did not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown made a powerful plea for what he called redressing the balance in favour of the pensioner. My
  2040
  hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, represents a constituency which inevitably brings to mind its long association with the late Iain Macleod, whose qualities of mind and gift of language were well known on both sides of the House for many years.
  Both made outstanding speeches on this very important subject, and I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate them and hope that we shall have many further contributions from them on both this and other subjects. I have a fellow feeling with them, because I also made my maiden speech on social service matters.
  Perhaps it is in order for me to congratulate the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who told us that he had reached the age of 70 without any bother from earnings rules or anything of that kind. He is, of course, a very good example of a vigorous pensioner, and, clearly, he is very far from retirement.
  One dominant theme has run throughout this interesting, thoughtful and, on the whole, non-partisan debate, and that is the strong feeling which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides that inflation hits hard, that it is bad for everyone and that it is particularly bad for pensioners, whom it hits hardest and deepest.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, there is a necessary two-pronged solution to this problem. The first is to damp down the fires of inflation which have been burning so strongly in recent years. The second is to improve the pension rates so that pensioners and others on fixed incomes do not suffer as a result of this inflation.
  As my right hon. Friend said, the Government are firmly committed—by our manifesto and by the recent expenditure White Paper—to raise pensions later this year. This is an absolutely firm commitment on the part of the Government. It is a commitment which will be honoured, but, as my right hon. Friend said —I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sowerby will recognise this—it is the duty of the Government to decide precisely when that increase should be brought about, having taken into account and weighed in the balance all the factors which are involved. I was grateful for

  2041
  the powerful support of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) on this point.
  The Opposition are, of course, committed to a two-year review and hon. Gentlemen opposite made it clear earlier last year, when they were in government, that they envisaged the result of that two-year review coming into operation in the autumn. They did not envisage mænœuvring room, as it were, which they now suggest we should have. They were clear then, at a time when prices were rising fast—at a rate of about 6 per cent. per year—and, as I say, they envisaged that the autumn was the right time of year to do it.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite now appear to have slightly altered their position. However, the right hon. Member for Sowerby was frank enough to admit that there was a fine distinction between the Motion which
  they have tabled and the Amendment which stands in the name of the Government. It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that his hon. Friends intended to divide over this issue. In view of the firm commitment which my right hon. Friend has given and the moderate speeches which have come from hon. Gentlemen opposite—in other words, in view of the essential unity that exists on this matter—it is a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite feel obliged to vote on this matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked me about war pensions and whether the review which will be undertaken later in the year will include them. The answer is "Yes". He also asked about rate rebates and reminded the House that when the rate rebate scheme was introduced there was no disregard for the war pensioner. I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that the views which he expressed and which pension organisations have expressed will be taken fully into account in the review of local government finance which is now taking place.
  My right hon. Friend then asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Melton, about the earnings rule and the increments for those who postponed their retirement. Here again, the answer is "Yes". The Government are firmly
  2042
  committed to reviewing both the earnings rule and the level of increments, and those pledges will be carried out.
  I notice that the right hon. Member for Sowerby—speaking, as he said, for himself—has now been converted to the view that the earnings rule should be abolished completely. I am sure that he does not need me to tell him that that would mean additional expenditure of about £100 million. In this harsh world of priorities, in pension matters, too, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that this very substantial sum should be allocated to those who, by definition, are not the most in need among the pensioner group.
  Mr. Molloy: Would the hon. Gentleman not put the other part of the equation that was also suggested from this side of the House, that perhaps to help towards this the Government might reconsider the 6d. off the income tax which is going to meet the well-being of those who are much wealthier?
  Mr. Dean: This is really a hoary old chestnut which has been answered on many occasions in this House this afternoon. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that it is no good talking of paying out pensions until we have produced the wealth on which those pensions can be based.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) also asked me about the Common Market and what arrangements would be required on harmonisation were we to join. The answer is that there is, I understand, very little progress being made amongst the Common Market countries themselves on harmonisation up to now. But one has to be rather careful in the comparisons which are drawn as to rates of pension in different countries. They do not necessarily give the full picture.
  The figures which suggest in some cases that our level of pensions is not as high as in some European countries are certainly true, but one can say, on the other hand, that when one takes into account the much more comprehensive nature, particularly the cover for dependants, which exists in our schemes, and takes into account our Health Service, our rent schemes and things of this kind, it may well be that our country is not so

  2043
  far behind as some of the figures just on pensions may suggest.
  I was asked a number of questions about the effect of the postal strike on the payment of pensions and the arrangements generally. This, of course, is, naturally, causing us concern, and our staff, as indeed the postal staff where it is possible, are doing their utmost to see that pensioners do not suffer. But it is unhappily the case that some pensioners are finding difficulty when they are used to going to one post office if that office is not open at the time they are accustomed to go. It is a type of problem with which it is not so easy to deal when one is getting old and wants to get the pension money before going off to do shopping.
  I was asked a particular question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon Thames: what happens in the case of people coming on to pension who have not got a pension book at all? The answer is that those who have not got a pension book, if they are in pressing need, should go to their local social security office where cash can be made available to them without a pension book. But it is the case, I am sorry to have to tell him, that those who are coming on to pension are not getting their pension books at the present time. This applies equally in the growing number of cases of those whose pension books are due for renewal. The books are ready at the computer centre in Newcastle but are not, under present arrangements, going out to post offices. Here, the arrangement which
  we are operating is to pay the pensions on the counterfoils of the existing books. This, inevitably, is causing some inconvenience and some extra pressure on our own staff, who are already extremely busy. Naturally, we all hope that it will not be long before normal arrangements can be resumed.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, do I understand from his answer to the question that people who have not yet received books to which they are entitled, if they go to the social security office will receive in cash an amount equivalent to the full rate the pension book would have given?
  Mr. Dean: That is the position.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) asked me about the
  2044
  possibility of mobile post offices in country areas, not in particular relation to the present strike. There are considerable difficulties, as he himself recognised, but we are seeing whether we can make arrangements, particularly for pensioners in country areas, which may be more satisfactory for them than the present arrangements.
  One theme which has run throughout
  the debate has been that, in deciding the amount of pension increases and when they should be granted, the cost involved must be weighed against the needs of the pension population. My hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) were so right to remind the House of priorities. My hon. Friends explained that whatever subject we were debating today—whether education, health, welfare or any other spending department—a first-class case could be made for more expenditure and it was therefore the job of the Government of the day to allocate priorities.
  Pensions have to be paid by the present working population out of current production. We pay for our grandfathers' and our fathers' pension, or more likely for our grandmothers' and mothers' pension—because it is the women who live longest—just as they paid for their parents' and their grandparents' pensions. The State scheme is on a pay-as-you-go basis. As the right hon. Member for Sowerby said, it will be our turn next. In that sense, it is not an insurance scheme in the normal sense of the word "insurance". It is a contributory scheme. The number of pensioners rises all the time.
  The last uprating in November, 1969, which was 10s. for a single person and 16s. for a married couple, cost net £235 million, but the total amount which had to be raised on that occasion to put the scheme back into the black and to prevent it from going into deficit was no less a figure than £430 million. The effect of this on individuals ranged from an increase in contribution at the top end of the scale of 7s. 7d. down to 1s. at the bottom end of the scale, and the self-employed paid an additional 2s. 8d. These figures give some indication that the Government must weigh in the balance the danger that increases in contributions may add fuel to the fires of inflation and make still more difficult the

  2045
  problem of trying to damp this down, with which the Government and the country are grappling at present.
  It is also as well to bear in mind the number of pensioners and who they are. They range nowadays from the very richest to the very poorest, from millionaires to bankrupts, Dives and Lazarus. It is not the case that all pensioners are on the breadline. We must weigh the varying needs of these 7 million pensioners against those who must pay the contributions, some of whom will certainly be worse off. Those on low pay will be worse off than some of the pensioners.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the increases in the supplementary benefit which were proposed by the last Administration and introduced by this Administration last November. It is as well to bear in mind that nearly 28 per cent. of pensioners, just over 2 million receive supplementary benefits and therefore, had an increase in the scale rates then. Over and above the scale rates, which are now £5 14s. for a single person and £9 for a married couple, rent and rates are paid, and as they increase so the amount of supplementary benefit increases. Thus those who are most in need are insulated to some degree, against effect of rising prices, rent, and so on, by the increases brought into operation last November.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Melton and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pointed out the need to seek out those who are entitled to help but who are not applying for it at present. My right hon. Friend attaches immense importance to seeking out those who may not be receiving the resources which are available to them as of right at present. There will be a major concentration of effort on take-up campaigns to try to see that these people are brought within the cash and benefit services available to them and theirs as of right.
  I am glad that many of my hon. Friends mentioned the growth of occupational pension schemes and emphasised the importance of the occupational pension playing a growing part in security in old age. The latest position is that no less than two-thirds of men who are now retiring are receiving an occupational pension, and the average is £6 a week. I
  2046
  am not suggesting for one moment that all occupational pensioners receive a pension anything like as high as that but the numbers and the figure involved suggest strongly that those of my hon. Friends who have spoken so powerfully in support of the encouragement of occupational pensions are suggesting a very realistic policy for better provision in old age.
  It is the Government's firm intention to continue encouraging this development because we believe that this is the best way to ensure that a growing number of people have a second pension over and above that provided by the basic State pension.
  The right hon. Gentleman regretted the demise of what became known as the Crossman pension scheme. There are not many people around now who regret the demise of that scheme. I can assure the House that when my right hon. Friend brings forward his proposals, they will not be pie in the sky to mature in 20 years' time if all goes well and if we can stand the major increases in compulsory contributions which would take place in the meantime. They will be realistic. They will be modest in some regard but they will—[interruption.] Modest is the opposite of pie in the sky. They will encourage savings and the development of occupational schemes. We believe that it is through the balance of the State providing the firm basis on which people can then build for themselves that we can achieve security much more effectively for future generations of our old people.
  Mr. Houghton: Will the Secretary of State have his scheme vetted by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) so that it cannot be called a swindle?
  Mr. Dean: We are always delighted to take advice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. However, it was the right hon. Member for Sowerby who said that we should stop all this nonsense about a swindle. I remember distinctly the right hon. Gentleman saying that not very long ago in one of our debates. He said that it was very irresponsible for politicians to be bandying about the word "swindle". We all cheered at the time and thought that the right hon. Gentleman had turned over

  2047
  a new leaf, that we had a new spokesman on pensions on the Front Bench opposite who was conscious of his responsibility. It is disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman has resorted to the temptation to use that word again.
  The right hon. Gentleman found some satisfaction in the record of the previous Administration. He made the point that the first increase in pensions which
  they introduced came in March, 1965. He was entitled to feel some satisfaction about that increase. However, he did not go on to say that every increase after that was much more modest and less effective——
  Mr. Molloy: It was the largest ever.
  Mr. Dean: The increase in October, 1967, was slightly more than the increase in prices, but only slightly more, whereas the increase in November, 1969, was slightly less than was required by prices.
  When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the record of his Government, he ought to have gone on to say that it amounted to a great flush of enthusiasm to begin with which faded away year by year. We are determined to avoid that situation. It would have been relatively simple for my right hon. Friend to have won a few easy cheers by saying that the Government intended to advance the date
  of the increase. However, he knows that very substantial sums are involved and that it is necessary to have assessed carefully and as near due dates as possible the best way to ensure a real improvement of the position of pensioners without putting too big a burden on the present working population.
  We are entitled to ask the House to support the Amendment, if there is a vote. This Administration have already shown their desire and their action to help pensioners and other needy people. The first acts of this Parliament were to provide pensions for people over 80 and for younger widows, the new attendance allowance for the very severely disabled, the improved heating allowances for those on supplementary benefit which came along fairly soon afterwards, the family income supplement and the substantial increase in the expenditure on health and welfare services. All are examples of concentrating resources on those whose need is greatest.
  On that record, we are entitled to ask for the support of the House for our Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 270.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dean, Paul

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bryan, Paul

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

  Dixon, Piers

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Buck, Antony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Astor, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Drayson, G. B.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Burden, F. A.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Awdry, Daniel

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

  Eden, Sir John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Balniel, Lord

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Channon, Paul

  Emery, Peter

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Chapman, Sydney

  Farr, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fell, Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fidler, Michael

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Biffen, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fortescue, Tim

  Blaker, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Fowler, Norman

  Body, Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fox, Marcus

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cordle, John

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

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Andrew

  Costain, A. P.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Crouch, David

  Gardner, Edward

  Brained, Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bray, Ronald

  Curran, Charles

  Gibson, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Brewis, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gilmore, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Goodhart, Philip

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Gower, Raymond

  McLaren, Martin

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Gray, Hamish

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Green, Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rost, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Royle, Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Grylis, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maddan, Martin

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Gurden, Harold

  Madel, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sharples, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marten, Neil

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mather, Carol

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maude, Angus

  Simeons, Charles

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mawby, Ray

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soref, Harold

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Speed, Keith

  Havers, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Spence, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Hay, John

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Money, Ernie

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Higgins, Terrence L.

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stokes, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Monro, Hector

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hornby, Richard

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Neave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hunt, John

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nott, John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Iremonger, T. L

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tilney, John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  James, David

  Osborn, John

  Trew, Peter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Peel, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jopling, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wall, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Pounder, Rafton

  Kimball, Marcus

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Walters, Dennis

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kirk, Peter

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Knight, Mrs, Jill

  Raison, Timothy

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Knox, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lambton, Antony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Lane, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Younger, Hn. George

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Loveridge, John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Mr. Jasper More.

  MacArthur, Ian

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Albu, Austen

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Barnes, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Barnett, Joel

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Berney, Alan

  Booth, Albert

  Ashley, Jack

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  2050

  2051

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bradley, Tom

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Padley, Walter

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cant, R. B.

  Hunter, Adam

  Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Carber, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Janner, Greville

  Pentland, Norman

  Carber-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prescott, John

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cohen, Stanley

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Rankin, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richard, Ivor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitchaven)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Judd, Frank

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lawson, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Sillars, James

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silverman, Julius

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Small, William

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Steel, David

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackie, John

  Swain, Thomas

  English, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Taverne, Dick

  Evans, Fred

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, Frank

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Torney, Tom

  Foot, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Forrester, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wallace, George

  Ginsburg, David

  Mendelson, John

  Watkins, David

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Weitzman, David

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Wellbeloved, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Molloy, William

  Whitehead, Philip

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whitlock, William

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Malley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

  Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oram, Bert

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, deeply concerned about the plight of many elderly people, widows, the sick and the disabled, because of rapidly ris-
  2054
  ing prices, and noting that supplementary benefits and supplementary pensions were increased in November, 1970, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement their election pledge to review retirement pensions this year to restore them at least to their November, 1969 value.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [LORDS]

  HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [LORDS]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PACKAGE TOUR HOLIDAYS (INFORMATION)
10.14 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
Mr. William Whitlock (Nottingham, North): The Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, contains a number of provisions designed to protect tourists by discouraging certain types of false statements as to the provision of holiday services. Since the passing of the Act a number of prosecutions have taken place for offences under the Act. No doubt the Act has done much to inhibit misleading information in tour brochures, but it is apparent that some tour operators have, to put it euphemistically, shown a marked lack of zeal in ensuring that people who go on holiday have accurate information about the arrangements that have been made for them.
At this time of the year when many people are making arrangements for their summer holidays, stirred by those tempting television shots of foreign holiday resorts, I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing ways in which tourists can be and are being misled.
Recently a constituent of mine expressed great anger and disappointment at the way in which his holiday last year fell so far short of what he was led to expect by the well-known firm of tour operators which regularly advertises on television. He
was sent a brochure of over 200 pages by Clarksons and, attracted by the photographs and descriptions of accommodation on Ibiza, he booked a holiday there for his family. Although the firm's brochure advertised the accommodation at which my constituent spent his holiday as hotel accommodation, the sign outside the so-called hotel described it as a hostel, and the
2056
notepaper available at the establishment clearly proclaimed it as a hostel.
My constituent told me that almost 100 per cent. of the guests at the hotel complained bitterly about the conditions there, and eventually the Clarksons representative in Ibiza was induced to meet the complainants. The guests therefore had the opportunity of letting off steam, but the meeting served very little other useful purpose. The complaints put to the representative were as follows: that the accommodation was poor and dirty, the food was poor, the staff was untrained and badly and uncleanly dressed, and, in general, everything was well below the standard to be expected from a hotel, especially from one which was so glowingly described in Clarksons' brochure.
My constituent paid extra for a room with a balcony, but he could not use the balcony, or even open the windows of his room, so bad were the fumes, smoke and smells arising from a stackpipe from the hotel kitchen.
Having been unable to obtain satisfaction in Ibiza, my constituent, on his return to this country, went to Clarksons and asked for a refund of the cost of his holiday. That request was rejected. He was referred by Clarksons to page 210 of the brochure and was told—although this statement is not true, as I shall later show—that as he had been accommodated in the hotel of his choice and in accordance with the booking confirmation sent to him, the terms of the guarantee did not apply.
I find that statement amazing. Here is a large firm which sends out to its potential customers glossy brochures designed to persuade people to choose accommodation which it arranges, yet if a customer is accommodated in the place of his choice, no matter how misleading and false are the eulogies which have led to his selection of that accommodation, the much-advertised guarantee is invalidated. The word "guarantee" which the firm plasters so prominently over its brochures means precisely the opposite from what it seems to imply. Therefore it is misleading and false.
Clarksons pointed out to my constituent that accommodation is variously described in foreign countries because of the tax peculiarities of those countries. I

2057
cannot see that that is any excuse. If accommodation abroad is described by the owners as "a hostel", and if what we consider to be hostel service and not hotel service is available there, it is wrong for a British travel concern to describe the establishment as "a hotel". It is especially wrong for that firm to continue to describe the hostel as a "a hotel" when so many complaints have been made about the standard of accommodation there. In this year's brochure Clarksons continues to describe the establishment to which my constituent went last year as "a hotel".
Earlier I said that Clarksons had contended that my constituent had stayed at the hotel of his choice. But, in fact, he had wished to go to another hotel in Ibiza. But he was told that the hotel of his choice had no vacancies and was recommended to stay at an establishment which he later found was most unsuitable. Although he was given the assurance that the recommended accommodation was of the same standard as that which he had wished to have, he found that it fell well below the standard of all the hotels in the neighbourhood whose charges were similar to those he paid. In spite of all this he obtained no refund.
Let us consider the experience of another of my constituents. He booked his holiday through a Nottingham agency with Sunair and wanted to go to Benidorm. Just before he was due to go there a friend returned from Benidorm and said that the hotel of his choice not only did not exist, but had not even been begun in the process of construction. My constituent telephoned the Sunair London office and was blandly informed that, instead of going to Benidorm, he would go to Teneriffe and that written instructions about this change would be sent to him in the following week. When he did not receive the promised information within the week he telephoned the Nottingham agents and found they knew nothing about the difficulties in Benidorm or about the proposed change to Teneriffe. When he later telephoned Sunair he was given the name of a hotel in Teneriffe where he was assured he would be more than satisfied. A few days before he was due to go on holiday, he received a letter from the agents
2058
to say that his holiday destination had been changed again, this time to Ibiza.
Badly needing a holiday, and at this late stage unable to make other arrangements, he agreed to go to Ibiza. There he encountered conditions even worse than those I have described for my other constituent. There was a continuous and unpleasant smell from drains throughout the holiday, very poor food which was sometimes uneatable, the service was so bad that five hours a day were wasted in waiting for food; the charges for drinks were higher than anywhere else on the island. Taps sometimes yielded only hot water, sometimes only cold, and at other times neither, although at intervals water came through the ceiling of his bedroom. There were vermin in the beds and a rat that ran around the hotel upsetting the guests until finally it was run to ground on the third floor. Again the local representative of this concern was persuaded to come and see the people who complained but he said he could do nothing and that complainants should refer the matter to the London office.
The liaison office of Sunair Holidays wrote to my constituent after he had complained on his return from holiday. This man's letter just brushed aside the complaints and studiously avoided comment or apology about the cavalier manner in which my constituent had been bounced from one booking of a hotel to another before he went on holiday. The experiences of my two constituents can be corroborated by other people who were there with them.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles): I served on the Committee stage of the Trade Descriptions Bill in 1968. We thought that we had this matter completely buttoned up. We thought that this type of claim could no longer be made. The Clarksons' claim literally has no meaning at all. No one disputes that Clarksons from time to time gives good value for money. The problem is that when it receives a complaint it will not handle it, so the guarantee has no meaning. This is particularly true of at least 100 people who spent a holiday in Benidorm at the Hotel Costa Blanca last year. Clarksons has done nothing about their complaints.
Mr. Whitlock: This is the point I was making. Literally thousands of people

2059
can tell similar stories to the two which I have just related to the House. Certainly the family of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was caught in this way by some other concern.
I am sure that large numbers of people, who have travelled abroad and been taken in by false and misleading statements such as I have outlined this evening, have given up attempts to obtain refunds on the cost of their holidays when they have had pointed out to them by these tour operators the small print in the brochures which completely nullifies the alleged guarantee.
I have advised my constituents to report these matters for investigation to their local weights and measures inspectors. The local weights and measures authorities have a statutory duty to enforce the Act and they have the necessary powers of inquiry. I have no doubt that those very hard working local officials are valiantly coping with whatever additional burdens have been placed on their shoulders by the Act.
When a large concern handling the travel arrangements of many thousands of people behaves as though the Trade Descriptions Act had never been passed, then I believe that the racket—because it is a racket—should be tackled at national level. I understand that the Board of Trade is free to take proceedings. I hope that the Minister will tell me that he will now instruct his officials to investigate complaints like these and to take all necessary action. Certainly action is necessary to curb the activities of those who are so heartlessly wrecking the dreams of so many people who have spent hard-earned cash on what they imagined and hoped would be the holiday of a lifetime. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that his Department will tackle the problem vigorously.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South): I am sure that the whole House is greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) for raising the question of tour operators who flout the Trade Descriptions Act.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the largest tour operator of all—British Rail. I have many complaints from constituents—I
2060
wish that I could mention them all in a couple of minutes—who habitually travel to places between Waterloo, Weymouth and Bournemouth on Friday evenings. Many of them buy first-class tickets. All that they receive for that first-class ticket is permission to stand in a corridor with those who buy second-class tickets. I suggest that under Section 13 of the Act, which refers to the provision of services as well as goods, it is a misrepresentation and something of a racket for British Rail to charge about £1 for no service at all.
It is also true that under another Section of the Act any person who does misrepresent what he sells in that way, whether he be a director of the company or an official of the company, is equally liable to prosecution with that company. It is a racket to sell and to describe as first-class accommodation which is in no sense first-class and which constitutes nothing other than permission to stand, and which is no more than exactly what——
Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that this evening we were supposed to be discussing the failure of tour operators to comply with the Trade Descriptions Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Railways does tours, but the hon. Member is referring not to British Railways' tour activities but to its travel activities, which is completely different from the subject matter of my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think the hon. Gentleman knows that technically we are on the Adjournment, and that is the position for the Chair, but I understand that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House is coming to the end of his remarks.
Mr. King: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has wasted the time of the House. He knows that on the Adjournment one can raise any subject that one chooses. I have chosen travel, which comes within the title of this Adjournment debate. However, I have made my point, and I hope it will reach those who control British Railways that this is a form of misrepresentation and deceit which ought to stop.
10.31 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) has raised the subject of the package tour, and I have great sympathy with the point of view that he has been putting forward. There is no doubt that the package tour has brought within the reach of millions of people the Mediterranean or even further afield holidays which they might otherwise never have been able to afford, and as this is often the first holiday in, and first experience of, far-away places it is very important that the holiday brochures which people receive should give them a fair chance of deciding which places they wish to go to, because such people have little or no knowledge from their own experience of what they might expect. As the hon. Gentleman said, it may involve the savings of a year, on a holiday which has been dreamed of and saved for for a much longer period even than that, and it is therefore essential that people should be able to rely on the information which they get from holiday brochures.
The consequences of a failure of the sort the hon. Gentleman has been describing is not only a ruined holiday but disillusionment with the function of travel and the part which package tour operators play in it, which, I am sure, is no good for the holiday business, or for the resorts concerned, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has done a service in raising this matter.
Section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and for which the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) claimed to have some paternity, is a powerful weapon and, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, is, I believe, entirely appropriate for dealing with this matter: It is a section which uses relatively few words, but the scope of the words is very wide, indeed. It deals with statements about services, accommodation or facilities, and the definition certainly covers travel facilities of the sort that have been discussed tonight.
Mr. Carter-Jones: We thought that this was buttoned up, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Weights and Measures Inspectorate is having great
2062
difficulty in this matter, and would like guidance from him.
Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall come to that.
The provision of services, accommodation or facilities, statements about the nature of services, accommodation or facilities, statements about the time at which, the manner in which, or the persons by whom they are provided, are all covered by the Act, and there is no doubt that the location of amenities or accommodation and details of them in the brochure can be covered by this Section. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any statement which could be made about a package holiday which could influence the customer in his choice and would not be covered by the Act. This applies not only to direct and express statements; anything likely to be taken as a statement as to one or other of these matters is deemed to be such a statement. If the statement is made in this country it makes no difference whether the service or the accommodation is provided in a different country. If the statement is false to a material degree, the Section can bite upon it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who raised a different form of travel, in my opinion quite properly, will be able from what I have said to gauge whether the offence which he alleges is committed by British Rail is covered or not. The weights and measures inspectors can initiate prosecutions if they think that the Act has been contravened.
The Board of Trade has ceased to exist and the Department of Trade and Industry, its successor, has no power to prosecute under Section 14; only the weights and measures authorities can, and they have shown themselves ready and willing to act where their inquiries show this to be justified. We have been informed that there have been 20 prosecutions relating to overseas holiday information and in 14 there were convictions, with fines ranging up to as much as £600—convictions to which the Press has given due publicity. We have been notified of a further 12 cases in which local authorities are intending to prosecute. Indeed, according to the papers yesterday, which the hon. Gentleman may have seen, one prosecution was heard last Tuesday and

2063
resulted in three convictions of associated companies, each of which was fined £2,000, a total of £6,000.
These figures prove that Section 14
can and does work in relation to statements about package holidays, not only about their basic features, but about ancillary facilities. The lifts, sandy beaches, the nearness to the beach, telephones in bedrooms, swimming pools, night clubs—all these things, where promised but not provided, have featured in these prosecutions.
These prosecution figures are very small indeed, in relation to the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people who go on package tours and the thousands of brochures in travel agents' offices. This is not surprising, because, apart from the action of the law, it is not in the interests of the tour operator to supply defective information and disenchant his potential clients. The idea that one can build up a great business founded on a myth, on deception, is not true, because one's customers will leave one. The package operator who finds a new customer wants to keep him for the next year and the year after that. He would not be able to do so if the customer suffered the sort of experiences which the hon. Gentleman's constituents have.
That is not to say that there will never be disappointments—one must see the other side of this argument as well—nor that every disappointment can or should result in a prosecution under Section 14. An advertisement for a holiday next summer can at best reflect a well-organised plan, and all the diligence in the world cannot guarantee that nothing will go wrong with it. The aircraft may not be able to start or may be delayed by fog, causing one to arrive very late at one's destination. The previous occupant of a room may feel sick and be unable to vacate the room, and one may not, therefore, be able to get it. The hotel keeper may have trouble with the heating system which, with the best will in the world, he cannot put right. The chef may walk out. It may be hell for the holidaymaker, and it is understandable that he should be cross about it, but one cannot in all honesty make a criminal of the tour operator who, in good faith, believes that the chef is in the kitchen but, on the day the holidaymaker arrives, walks out.
2064
Thus, although the tour operator, before publishing his brochure, must have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that what he offers will be provided, if something nevertheless goes wrong the operator's conduct cannot simply be regarded as having been criminal conduct. For this reason the offence in Section 14 of the Act is rightly confined to false statements made knowingly to be false or made recklessly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to exclusion clauses. These are, of course, matters for the civil law as opposed to the criminal law. As I have said in reply to previous Adjournment debates, the Law Commission has studied this matter very carefully in relation to goods, and it has been decided that it would be possible to stop such exclusion clauses only by taking fresh legislation to amend the Sale of Goods Act. The Government are hoping to do this. It is a question of whether it can be fitted into this or a later Session. There is no other way of eliminating exclusion clauses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter
which is for the civil law as between the person who complains of his holiday package and the tour operator. Nevertheless, the Government wish to put this right, and this will certainly be done when the opportunity occurs.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman can feel assured that the Trade Descriptions Act is competent to deal with the holiday
brochure which blatantly fails in what it offers. Holidaymakers cannot always expect that everything that they hope for will be there. With the best of intentions, plans sometimes go wrong. However, they have remedies at civil law if a contract is breached, and I hope that what I have said will encourage tour operators not to include exclusion clauses in their brochures because, in due course, we hope to make that illegal.
Mr. Whitlock: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman's Department is not prevented by Statute from taking proceedings? Could he not under the existing common law arrangements take action —perhaps under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1908—because the failure to honour this statement mentioned in this brochure which I am holding up—that everything is guaranteed—should be tackled quickly? I believe that it could be tackled by the Department now.
Mr. Ridley: I have said that my Department is not entitled to prosecute anybody under the Trade Descriptions Act. The responsibility for bringing prosecutions rests with the weights and measures inspectors. If it is a breach of the civil law, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, then the responsibility for taking action rests with the individual citizen who is aggrieved. The hon. Gentleman must know that what I am saying is correct and that it would be wrong for Gov-
2066
ernment Departments to engage in the wholesale prosecution of people. We certainly do not have the powers to do so.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Buckhurst Hill, Essex (Primary Schools)
  Buckhurst Hill, Essex (Primary Schools)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Birmingham (Primary School Classes)
  Birmingham (Primary School Classes)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Covent Garden Area (Development)
  Covent Garden Area (Development)
  Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company
  Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Youth Clubs
  Youth Clubs
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Primary School Places
  Primary School Places
  University Students
  University Students
  School Buildings Replacement
  School Buildings Replacement
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Rochdale (School Building Programme)
  Rochdale (School Building Programme)
  Special Education Treatment
  Special Education Treatment
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
  Polytechnics (Building Programme)
  Polytechnics (Building Programme)
  Czechoslovak Student Scholarship Fund
  Czechoslovak Student Scholarship Fund
  Teacher Training (James Inquiry)
  Teacher Training (James Inquiry)
  Teesside (School Buildings Replacement)
  Teesside (School Buildings Replacement)
  Student Union Subscriptions
  Student Union Subscriptions
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Nature Reserves and Wildlife Conservation
  Nature Reserves and Wildlife Conservation
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Cranfield Institute of Technology
  Cranfield Institute of Technology
  Northumberland (Primary School Classes)
  Northumberland (Primary School Classes)
  Northumberland (Maintained School Classes)
  Northumberland (Maintained School Classes)
  Adult Education (Course Fees)
  Adult Education (Course Fees)
  Teachers' Council
  Teachers' Council
  Remedial Classes
  Remedial Classes
  Dentists, Doctors and Nurses (Cost of Training)
  Dentists, Doctors and Nurses (Cost of Training)
  Bradford (Medical School)
  Bradford (Medical School)
  Rural Schools (Sanitation)
  Rural Schools (Sanitation)
  Mexborough and Staincross (Primary Schools)
  Mexborough and Staincross (Primary Schools)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Gypsy Children
  Gypsy Children
  International Understanding and Peace (Report)
  International Understanding and Peace (Report)
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Alexander Pope (Proof Sheets of Work)
  Alexander Pope (Proof Sheets of Work)
  Charitable Bodies
  Charitable Bodies
  Schools (Direct Grant Status)
  Schools (Direct Grant Status)
  New Primary School, Islington
  New Primary School, Islington
  New Primary School, London (Siting)
  New Primary School, London (Siting)
  Qualified Teachers
  Qualified Teachers
  Teachers' Aides
  Teachers' Aides
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Architectural Students
  Architectural Students
DEFENCE
  Royal Naval Armament Depôot, Antrim (Working Week)
  Royal Naval Armament Depôot, Antrim (Working Week)
  Frigate "Foudroyant"
  Frigate "Foudroyant"
  Northern Ireland Security Forces (Prosecution)
  Northern Ireland Security Forces (Prosecution)
  R.A.F. Red Arrows Team
  R.A.F. Red Arrows Team
  R.A.F. Marine Craft Unit, Falmouth
  R.A.F. Marine Craft Unit, Falmouth
  R.A.F. Auxiliaries and Reserves (Aircraft)
  R.A.F. Auxiliaries and Reserves (Aircraft)
  Polish ex-Servicemen
  Polish ex-Servicemen
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Policing of Cities
  Policing of Cities
  Political Marches
  Political Marches
  Sports Grounds (Crowd Safety)
  Sports Grounds (Crowd Safety)
  Parliamentary Elections (Candidates Deposits)
  Parliamentary Elections (Candidates Deposits)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Entry)
  Commonwealth Citizens (Entry)
  Shotgun Certificates
  Shotgun Certificates
  Firearms (Indictable Offences)
  Firearms (Indictable Offences)
  Government by Referendum and Proportional Representation
  Government by Referendum and Proportional Representation
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Immigration
  Immigration
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Workers (Unemployment)
  Building Workers (Unemployment)
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Trades Union Congress Wage Proposals
  Trades Union Congress Wage Proposals
  Unemployment, Wales
  Unemployment, Wales
  Armaments Manufacture (Work Permits)
  Armaments Manufacture (Work Permits)
  Blackpool
  Blackpool
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Professions (Registration)
  Professions (Registration)
  Rother Valley
  Rother Valley
  Electrical Trades Union (Officials' Pay)
  Electrical Trades Union (Officials' Pay)
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Consett and Stanley (Disabled Persons)
  Consett and Stanley (Disabled Persons)
  Whitehaven and West Cumberland
  Whitehaven and West Cumberland
  Arbitration Tribunals (Appointments)
  Arbitration Tribunals (Appointments)
  Cornwall (Wages)
  Cornwall (Wages)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Industrial Relations (T.U.C. Conference)
  Industrial Relations (T.U.C. Conference)
  Ex-Minister's Memoirs (Fees)
  Ex-Minister's Memoirs (Fees)
  Procedure Agreements
  Procedure Agreements
  Post Office Workers
  Post Office Workers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Economy (Growth Rate and Investment)
  Economy (Growth Rate and Investment)
  Public Service Pensions (Payment)
  Public Service Pensions (Payment)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Offensive Literature (Seizure)
  Offensive Literature (Seizure)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Ronald Biggs
  Ronald Biggs
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Membership)
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board (Membership)
  Hospitals, Plymouth
  Hospitals, Plymouth
  Greve Report
  Greve Report
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
WALES
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Manufacturing Industry, Cardiganshire
  Manufacturing Industry, Cardiganshire
  Certificate in Social Work
  Certificate in Social Work
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Borth (Sea Defence Scheme)
  Borth (Sea Defence Scheme)
  Welsh Council
  Welsh Council
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  U.S.S.R. (VISIT)
  U.S.S.R. (VISIT)
  PUBLIC BOARDS (CHAIRMAN)
  PUBLIC BOARDS (CHAIRMAN)
  MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SPEECH)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REVIEW BODY)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REVIEW BODY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Wey (Flooding Alleviation)
  River Wey (Flooding Alleviation)
  Drugs and Food Additives
  Drugs and Food Additives
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
ENVIRONMENT
  Advance Factories, Peterlee
  Advance Factories, Peterlee
  Housing, Oldham and Chadderton
  Housing, Oldham and Chadderton
  Construction Industry Contracts
  Construction Industry Contracts
  Council Houses, Lancashire (Sale)
  Council Houses, Lancashire (Sale)
  Vehicle and Driving Licences (Postal Strike)
  Vehicle and Driving Licences (Postal Strike)
  Unremunerative Railway Services, Scotland (Grant)
  Unremunerative Railway Services, Scotland (Grant)
  Swansea—Llanelli—Shrewsbury Railway Line (Grant)
  Swansea—Llanelli—Shrewsbury Railway Line (Grant)
  Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limits)
  Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limits)
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Highway Maintenance
  Highway Maintenance
  M2 (Carriageway Closure)
  M2 (Carriageway Closure)
  New Town, Central Lancashire
  New Town, Central Lancashire
  Conservation Areas, Lancashire
  Conservation Areas, Lancashire
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Developing Countries (Educational Aid)
  Developing Countries (Educational Aid)
  Diego Garcia (Base)
  Diego Garcia (Base)
  Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony (U.S. Facility)
  Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony (U.S. Facility)
  IBROX FOOTBALL GROUND ACCIDENT (COURT OF INQUIRY)
  IBROX FOOTBALL GROUND ACCIDENT (COURT OF INQUIRY)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
SCOTLAND
  Part-time Primary and Secondary Education
  Part-time Primary and Secondary Education
  Disabled Persons (Edinburgh)
  Disabled Persons (Edinburgh)
  Police Forces
  Police Forces
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Primary School Classes
  Primary School Classes
  Lands Tribunal
  Lands Tribunal
  Primary School Teachers
  Primary School Teachers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Cardiff Machine Tools Limited
  Cardiff Machine Tools Limited

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Burgh—Took the Oath.

ROAD DEVELOPMENTS IN EPPING FOREST AREA
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is now certain that road reconstruction and development proceeding in the vicinity of the Waterworks, Walthamstow, will be completed by spring of this year; and what is the estimated volume of traffic that will then flow unimpeded both in East—West directions and through Epping Forest.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the present roadworks are expected to be completed in April. The new East—West road across forest land was fully opened to traffic in November last and is currently carrying an average two-way of about 1,500 vehicles per hour. The two-way flow on Wood-ford New Road near the junction is about 1,200 vehicles per hour.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I did not quite hear whether he stated the date of the completion of the road construction. May I ask the noble Lord whether cattle grids and other means of impeding cattle from getting on the roads and diverting towards Whipps Cross are expected to be effective?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I said that the first stage of the road construction will be completed in April. I take the point about the cattle, and I will see that the Department have a look at it.

FAWLEY POWER STATION
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) when the Fawley power station will be in full operation;

(2) what was the original estimated cost of building the station;

(3) what will be the final cost.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since this Question was put on the Order Paper I have been informed that this is not a matter for a Parliamentary Question, but one which is within the day-to-day responsibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board. In view of the fact that over £100 million of taxpayers' money is involved here, I will ask the question in the right quarter and hope that I shall get the right answer.

EXCISE DUTY ON HOME-PRODUCED WINES
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider it fair and equitable that excise duty levied on wine produced from grapes grown in the British Isles should be the same as that levied on fortified wine made from imported must.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the present duty structure does not discriminate against British wine made from British grapes; and, further, comparison has to be made not only with other British light wine, whether fortified or not, but also with imported light wine.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the wine producers who grow grapes in this country feel very hard done by, and consider that they have a good case in trying to make what is not a very viable business in this country a little more viable?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords. I am aware that they feel hard done by, although the fact that they pay less duty than Commonwealth or foreign wine imported seems to me to be to their advantage. However, I know that the English Vineyards Association have brought their case to the notice of Treasury Ministers, and it will be considered. But, of course, that is a matter for the Budget.

NORTHERN IRELAND
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 to state what measures, other than those in use before the recent visit of the Secretary of State for Defence, will be available to our military forces to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland.]
The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there is a continuous process of reviewing tactics and developing new equipment, and improved measures will flow from these. Additionally, recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment will now be directed to the quickest possible build-up to a force of 6.000 men; and arrangements for consultation and coordination between the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be further developed to the fullest extent that manpower permits.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not obvious by this time that, despite the fortitude and bravery of our troops in Ulster, the Army have only been able partially to contain the situation? Why should our troops be continuously subjected to the kind of pressure which has resulted in violence and disorder? May I further ask the noble Lord whether the time has not arrived when Her Majesty's Government should convene a conference representative of all the interests in Ulster, including the clergy, members of the Government and other interests, in order to consider whether some solution can be found other than the use of force on either side?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the last question put by the noble Lord, I will of course pass on his observations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary whose concern the subject is. With regard to what the noble Lord said about the Army, I think that your Lordships on all sides of the House will agree with what he said. I had the opportunity of going last week to Northern Ireland, and I can tell your Lordships that I was amazed at the forbearance and restraint which the Army shows in Northern Ireland. I, like the noble Lord, feel that it is a terrible thing that the Army should be asked to do this sort of work in this country.
The fact is that until last night the situation in Northern Ireland had greatly improved, and there was, I think, a hope that we might be able to rout out the wrongdoers and troublemakers; and I still hope that this is true. But I think I must tell your Lordships that last night in Belfast was very bad, and as a result I have authorised the "spearhead" battalion and an armoured car squadron to go there this evening.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is effective collaboration between our troops in Ulster and the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if the collaboration is satisfactory, what is the effect?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this of course is one of the aspects of the situation that we are always trying to improve. When I was there last week, I thought that the collaboration between the Army and the police was very good. It is not easy in the circumstances, because sometimes the police are there and sometimes the Army are there. But I think the liaison is pretty good. The difficulty is the general situation, in which you have troublemakers and people intent on subversion: it is often very difficult to find them.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, much of the trouble last night arose, I think, as a result of the searching of homes for arms in a certain district. That is a difficulty that is quite familiar to anyone who was in Cyprus during the troubles there. When homes are searched for arms, are only those homes searched which give the authorities reason to believe that they contain arms, or is

1357
there a sort of spot check down the street, including all homes?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: there is nothing that causes more ill-feeling than these house-to-house searches; and one understands it perfectly well in the case of innocent people who have their houses searched. The General Officer Commanding has authority only to search houses in which he has reason to believe that arms can be found. If any wider searches are necessary, he has to get the authority from London.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, they would not go down the street necessarily searching every house?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side of the House wish to be associated with the tribute the noble Lord has paid to our troops in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider, recognising that the task of the soldiers is always difficult in a civilian role, whether in carrying out searches of this sort it would be possible to have a small contingent of civil police from this country who would undertake that form of work in co-operation with the British Forces, and, if possible, relieve the British Forces from the vary difficult task of going into private homes.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I absolutely accept what the noble Lord says. Of course, as Secretary of State for Defence I should be only too glad if the troops were relieved of this unpleasant function. But the fact remains that if you are seeking arms in the houses of people who might be armed, you have to be careful not to send in unarmed police. There is also the fact—which is not a good thing either—that when you search for arms you inevitably have to root up floor boards, wainscoting and so on; otherwise you will not find the arms.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make was of course that the police are particularly trained in this type of work, whereas often the British Tommy is not.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there may be something in that point, but I do not think that policemen in this
1358
country are, on the whole, trained for that work.
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask the noble Lord, arising out of my proposition about convening a conference under the auspices of Her Majesty's Government, whether, after he has consulted his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, he will advise your Lordships' House of the result?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I shall be very happy, if the noble Lord will put down a Question, to tell him what has happened.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I always try to be helpful on occasions like this. Might it not have been unwise to stimulate and speed up recruiting to the Ulster Regiment to a total of 6,000? Many of the people likely to join that force will be inflamed partisans. The better type of patriot there will have joined when the original recruiting started.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that is right. I do not think that the Ulster Defence Regiment consists of inflamed partisans. I am glad to say that about 15 per cent. of those who joined are Roman Catholics, so that the Regiment is not by any means confined to the Protestants. As the noble Lord will also know, the Ulster Defence Regiment does not deal with any civil peacekeeping in the streets. It guards important places and vital points.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, can my noble friend tell your Lordships which is the armoured car squadron that is authorised to depart this evening? Is it from the Royal Scots Greys?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what has been the result of the closing of pubs on Saturday nights—a practice which seemed to have been resorted to at one time but has now apparently been dropped?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will put down a Question on that point.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not, when troops are obliged to tear up floorboards, and so on, the places are reinstated when they discover that there is nothing hidden?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, one hopes that they do as little damage as possible. But the point is not so much the damage that is done as the fact that people, quite understandably, do not like their belongings messed around. The last thing the troops want to do is to go and do that sort of job. But if there is information that arms are there, it is their duty to carry out a search. Stringent precautions are taken about the searches: officers are present and close watch is kept.

PEERS' MAIL ARRANGEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three—and I should perhaps warn your Lordships that it may be considerably after half past three—my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on the Rolls-Royce Company. This will be followed by a Statement, to be made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, on the meeting of the E.E.C. Ministers held last Tuesday.
Many of your Lordships will have already discovered that arrangements have been made for placing incoming mail under alphabetical letter signs in the Moses Room. This is because a large number of letters which are delivered to this House cannot at the moment be redirected. It has been necessary to find adequate space to display these letters, which will accumulate until it is possible to forward them. A notice is displayed in the Prince's Chamber setting out the details, and I would urge your Lordships to collect your mail as frequently as possible.
Perhaps I should also inform your Lordships that dinner will be available tonight between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether those
1360
mail arrangements can be continued on days when the House is not sitting? Many of us try to work on such non-sitting days and find it very difficult to collect our mail.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, when the House is sitting the Moses Room will be open from 10 o'clock in the morning until the time that the Houses rises, and on non-sitting days from 10 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Chief Whip tell us whether any conversations are going on through the usual channels with a view to having a Sitting on Monday to which we can refer all the business on to-day's Order Paper with the exception of the two Statements and the Committee stage of the Drugs Bill? If we do not do that, we shall be here very late indeed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, through the usual channels we shall watch the progress of business this afternoon, and if it is obviously in the interests of the House that certain business should be postponed, no doubt that will be arranged.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on the matter of business, in view of the reply that the noble Earl has just given may I ask him whether a Statement can be made at a fairly early hour, because, as the noble Earl is aware, there is a postal strike and noble Lords will wish to know whether they should attend the House on Monday. I hope that the noble Earl will not leave it too late.

METEORITES BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords I beg leave to introduce a Bill to vest meteorites falling in Great Britain in the Crown. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS Bill
3.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS SEROTA: On Clause 1, the Committee may remember that I expressed concern on Second Reading about the heavy general responsibilities and the specific day-to-day duties of the new Advisory Council which it establishes, especially in the light of the fact that there is no longer to be an expert Committee. I also drew attention to the need to provide sufficient practical support to the members of this new body and to consider the payment of at least an attendance fee to those who will be undertaking these important public duties if there are to be no full-time or part-time paid members appointed.
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, informed me that it was not the intention of his right honourable friend to appoint any full-time or part-time paid members, and he also informed the House then that no decisions had been reached about the secretariat. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would expand a little to the Committee to-day on the reasons for these decisions of his right honourable friend, and especially let us know what arrangements are being made to serve this important Advisory Council. I have not put down an Amendment at this stage to delete the words "if any" from the Schedule and thus bring it in line with Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, which makes provision for the appointment and payment of members of the Parole Board, as I hope for a further explanation from
1362
the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is a matter which many of us in our own experience know to be important. I do not believe that we can continue to rely indefinitely on a public-spirited and leisured class to perform important public duties of this kind, especially when we know from our own experience that one is inevitably out of pocket as a result of such work. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us where his Department stands on this matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention again to this matter. I cannot go very much further than I went on Second Reading in assuring her that we will watch very carefully to see whether there are any difficulties with regard to the Advisory Council, but at the present moment we do not anticipate that there will be difficulties. We are confident that, with the help of the Department concerned, who will provide the secretariat for the Council, it will be able to function perfectly satisfactorily. I have noted the remarks of the noble Baroness. I will go into the matter in more detail if she would like me to do so and will get in touch with her about it.
BARONESS SEROTA: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I cannot pretend that I am fully satisfied with it. Of course, we know that it will be possible to find distinguished men and women of great public experience who will be prepared to serve on this body because they are prepared to give public service in this way. My concern is that they should be properly assisted in their duties and that they themselves should not be out of pocket as a result, if the Home Secretary has decided that it is not to have a full-time or even a part-time paid chairman.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Controlled drugs and their classification for purposes of this Act]:
3.20 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("or III") and insert (", III or IV").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move the first three Amendments which stand in my name, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (and I hope that it will be convenient to take them together), I should like to say that when

1363
I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill I confined myself almost entirely to one subject, which was the question of whether cannabis and cannabis resin ought to be treated in a classification of their own. The Amendments which I am now moving are designed to create that new classification of drugs—a fourth classification which will include cannabis and cannabis resin. Before I embark upon the arguments in support of that proposition, may I explain to the Committee the mechanics of the matter, because many of the subsequent Amendments standing in my name proceed and follow from the Amendments on Clause 2?
Clause 2 is of course the clause that classifies controlled drugs according to their comparative supposed harmfulness. Under the Bill as it stands there are three classifications: A, B and C. What I am proposing is that cannabis and cannabis resin, now in Class B, should be taken out of that class and put into a new class of their own called Class D. That is what the Amendments to Clause 2 substantially do. But if your Lordships will look on to the Amendments that I am proposing under Clause 25, you will see that that clause deals with the matter of prosecutions and penalties and is linked up with Schedules 2 and 4. Clause 25 prescribes the different penalties for the different kinds of offences in relation to different classes of drugs. The purpose of my Amendments there is to provide that there shall be in Schedule 4 a new column of Class D drugs with separate penalties for the offences in relation to cannabis and cannabis resin. If your Lordships will look on to Amendment No. 21 you will see that that again is merely in pursuance of my original objective. It takes cannabis and cannabis resin out of Class B. Amendment No. 24 creates my new Class D; and the Amendments to Schedule 4, of which I am afraid there are quite a number, contain my proposals for the new penalties to be attached to the various offences in connection with cannabis.
I hope that it will be convenient and acceptable to the Committee if at this stage we discuss simply the question of whether it is right to put cannabis and cannabis resin in a class of their own, and leave for further consideration (because,
1364
of course, if I do not get home on that, the question of the new Class D drugs and of the penalties that I prescribe in respect of them will not arise) the question of penalties. Whatever your Lordships may feel about the penalties I have suggested for cannabis offences, may we at this stage discuss simply the general principle of whether it is right to make this new class?—because it may be that some of your Lordships who are in general sympathy with my object in creating a new class have reservations and differences with me about the penalties I have suggested. If these Amendments of mine are accepted in principle, then we can at a later stage in this debate consider whether I have the penalties right. I am not being in any way dogmatic about that, and I shall not be. I am just as much liable to error on matters of that kind as anybody else is. So I would invite your Lordships to consider now the general principle of whether we should create this separate class of its own.
May I add just one word before I come to the merits of the matter? If my first three Amendments are accepted, it will involve, as I see it, quite a number of consequential Amendments later in the Bill. I have not overloaded the List of Amendments with all those consequential Amendments because I understand that, according to the practice of this House, it is perfectly in order for me to move the substantial Amendments and then, if they are accepted, at the Report stage to move the necessary consequential Amendments to put the whole matter in proper order.
As I say, on the Second Reading of the Bill I confined myself almost entirely to the matter of cannabis and creating a separate class, and therefore I hope that I can introduce some brevity into this part of the debate by simply summarising the arguments which I saw fit to address to your Lordships on that occasion, because there may well be many of your Lordships here to-day who were not present at the Second Reading. The points which I tried to make were these. Clause 2 of the Bill, as I pointed out just now, deals with the classification of drugs according to their supposed harmfulness. I fully accept and recognise that, with the great majority of controlled or dangerous drugs, the question of which class a drug should belong to is necessarily and primarily a

1365
matter for expert opinion. Many of these drugs whose names appear in these various classes—A, B and C—mean nothing whatever to me. I am quite content that for the most part the classification of drugs according to harmfulness should necessarily be a matter in which we are guided by the experts and by medical authority.
However, as I pointed out on Second Reading, one of these drugs stands all by itself, because when one is considering the classification of this drug one is called upon to make social, political and indeed ethical judgments as well as a medical and expert judgment; and that drug is of course cannabis and cannabis resin. I do not want to-day, in this Committee in discussing the question of cannabis, to say anything about the great cannabis debate which has been going on in this country now for some three or four years. I do not want to become controversial. I do not want to rest my case upon anything which may be in dispute. Of course, whenever one speaks about cannabis, whenever one discusses it at all, one finds that the whole question is in dispute. The problem of cannabis was sought to be considered by the Sub-Committee presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. It would be fair to say (I do not think anybody would dispute this) that the conclusions they came to were tentative to the utmost degree, tentative in the highest degree.
What I want to rest my case on in the Committee to-day in discussing this separate classification of cannabis is what I regard as indisputable propositions. The first of these propositions is that, after all the debate which has been going on, not only in this country but in America and elsewhere throughout the world, there is still no general consensus of responsible opinion as to whether this drug is harmful, to what degree it is harmful, in what circumstances it is harmful, whether it has any short-term effects, or whether any long-term effects. Throughout the world there is no general agreement about this matter. That is the first proposition.
The second proposition I would make is this: that, whether we like it or not, both here and in America there is a substantial body of opinion, and particularly among the younger generation—although it is not confined to them—
1366
which is utterly unpersuaded that this drug is harmful, or that the taking and using of it carries with it any moral taint or any moral guilt. That is one of the facts of life, whether we like it or not. The third fact which I suggest is indisputable is that, so far as the actual users of cannabis are concerned, the problem of cannabis is the most important and most significant aspect of the whole drug problem in this country.
Bearing those three considerations in mind, and if your Lordships accept that they are really beyond dispute, is it not an astonishing thing to think of the penalties which under this Bill are being attached to the various offences in connection with cannabis? As I reminded the House on Second Reading, for possession only in any quantity of cannabis or cannabis resin, under this Bill the penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400, or both; and on indictment it is five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
When we come to the other offences in connection with cannabis—the supplying, production, being in management of premises where it is being consumed, and the like—we find that the penalties are these: for summary conviction 12 months' imprisonment or £400 fine, or both; and on indictment, 14 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. These are the penalties which are prescribed in this Bill for an offence which a large number of people regard as being without any moral taint whatever.
It has been said so often that I hesitate to say it again, but is it not an appalling anomaly that we should prescribe a maximum penalty of 14 years for supplying a small quantity of cannabis and that the people who openly advertise the sale of cigarettes and liquor, which are known killers, should be allowed to do so without any penalty whatever? It is this contradiction and conflict in the law as it stands which, I suggest, brings the law into such great disrepute. It is this that causes the cynicism among such a large proportion of our population. They say that the law is hypocritical and that the Establishment in this country are making one law for their habits and another law for the habits of the younger generation.
I suggest that it is always a dangerous thing to legislate against something when a substantial number of people regard the legislation as having no moral foundation, and I suggest that it is particularly dangerous in the case of drugs. What can happen? It may produce a result which is the very opposite to what is desired. If you make a law which a great number of people regard as being manifestly unfair and unjust, you may very well be met with a response of defiance and disregard of the law; and you may in fact create the very thing that you want to try to suppress. I am not going to refer to the experience in America, but there is a large body of evidence, as the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill will know, which shows that Draconian penalties in America directed at the cannabis users not only have been ineffective to deal with cannabis, but have in fact had the opposite result of driving a great number of people on to the hard drugs.
Throughout the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House, as indeed it was when this matter was debated in the other place, it was generally agreed—it was agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he opened the Second Reading debate and by the noble Baroness who replied on behalf of the Opposition that what can be achieved in the problem of the misuse of drugs by legislation and by the criminal law is necessarily limited; and that if you are going to enforce this law and deal effectively with this problem you have to enlist the assistance of all kinds of other agencies.
What I suggest is that if you get the law wrong, if you pass a law which does not command general respect among the public, it will have two results. First, you will make the work of the other agencies—the educational agencies, the advisory agencies, the investigational agencies and the rest—much more difficult, because such a large proportion of the population rejects the whole legal framework of the Bill. The second result is that you will make the enforcement of the law more difficult than it otherwise would be. The enforcement of the law in regard to drugs is one of the most difficult practical propositions with which we are confronted, if only because of the
1368
ease of importation, the ease of distribution, the ease of concealing these things.
I suggest that if the law enforcement agencies are to be enabled to do their job, it will be possible only if you can carry public opinion with you and if the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied that this is a fair and just law. If the great majority of people are not satisfied that that is the case, then the work of all the other agencies engaged in this problem will be made that much more difficult, because they will be regarded as being on the side of the unjust law and the unjust law enforcement officers.
Later we shall be discussing, on an Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the difficult matter of "stop and search" which was introduced in 1967 and is repeated in this Bill. I am not saying anything about the substance of that Amendment—indeed, I have my reservations as to the position of the noble Baroness about this, but maybe she will be able to persuade me that she is right and I am wrong. I mention the point now because if we are going to have these powers of search, if we are going to enable police officers to stop people in the street, and search them there and then—things which are extremely offensive, of course, to anybody who is at all concerned with civil liberties—I believe that they will be acceptable as being necessary for the enforcement of the law only if public opinion generally considers that the law which is being enforced is a just and fair one.
I realise that my solution, if I may call it that—the solution of creating a separate class for cannabis and cannabis resin—is a compromise. In this matter the people of this country are split down the middle; or perhaps I should say they are split horizontally, very largely according to their age. I want to close that gap. I want to have a law passed which will have general acceptance. Logically the way to close the gap between the generations would be to legalise cannabis. That would be the better way of closing the gap.
I realise, therefore, that my solution is something of a compromise. Nevertheless, if we can in this Bill quite clearly and demonstrably draw a distinction between the other drugs, where the harmfulness has been demonstrated, and the drugs cannabis and cannabis resin,

1369
so that it will be seen by all the world that we take quite a different attitude and view of the use of cannabis and the offences connected with cannabis, I believe that we shall have gone a long way to make this law acceptable to the majority of people.
I would conclude with this. There is nothing new or novel in what I am proposing to the House on this occasion. Indeed, I am accepting all the authoritative opinion upon the matter, and the authoritiative opinion upon the matter is being rejected by the Government. When Lady Wootton's sub-committee considered this matter and made their recommendations, at paragraph 81 they said:
"We believe that the association of cannabis in legislation with heroin and other opiates is entirely inappropriate and that new and quite separate legislation to deal specially and separately with cannabis and with its synethic derivatives should be introduced as soon as possible. We are also convinced that the present penalties for possession and supply are altogether too high."
Not only was that the unanimous recommendation of the sub-committee but it was completely endorsed by the whole of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. So the only full-scale inquiry that has been conducted into this matter by experts in this country came unanimously to the conclusion that cannabis and cannabis resin ought to be treated on their own.
I do not go so far as that. I am not suggesting that we should leave cannabis out altogether and have another Act of Parliament to deal with it. I am merely suggesting there should be a separate classification of cannabis which would go some way to implement that position. When the previous Government decided to reject that advice, and when this Government adopted the former Government's attitude in the matter, they were rejecting the unanimous advice of their own Committee, the Committee which had investigated this matter more thoroughly than anybody in this country ever before. Therefore I am not coming with a novel proposition but merely retailing what was proposed by that subcommittee and Committee.
May I say one final word about the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, because it is possibly relevant to what I am trying to do? Lord Gifford is proposing an
1370
Amendment by which cannabis and cannabis resin would be taken out of Class B and put into Class C. I am not without sympathy with that, but I do not think it goes far enough. I think we need to draw a clear distinction between cannabis and cannabis resin and all other drugs. But if my Amendments are rejected by the Committee—I dearly hope they will not be—I shall, of course, join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when we come to his Amendment, because that is better than nothing. But I still hope that I may be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—maybe he is with me already—that my solution is preferable. When we come to divide the Committee, and it is my present intention to do so, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will be able to support me, and I will give him an undertaking, not necessarily as a bargain, that if I go down I will come to his support when we reach his Amendment.
Therefore, I would conclude by saying this. I do not apologise for taking up so much time, because I think we are engaged here upon a very speculative and dangerous enterprise. I do not think anybody who has studied this question would be so foolish as to pretend that he is necessarily right and that he knows what the solution is. This question of cannabis I believe is the ground on which we are most likely to make a mistake, and I beg of the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the possibility of accepting Amendments of this kind. It does not go to the root of their Bill; it does not in any way upset the principle of their Bill. In a sense, it is carrying out the very principles of their Bill, because the whole of their Bill is based upon the idea of categorising drugs according to harmfulness. That is precisely what I am asking the Committee to do in connection with cannabis. I beg to move.
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I hope the Committee will not lend an ear to the eloquent appeal which we have just listened to from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is asking us to regard cannabis, the taking of cannabis, in a lenient way. He condemned his own argument in the last few sentences, when he said, "I have to admit that nobody really

1371
knows anything about this subject". That is a fact. If nobody knows the last word about taking cannabis, then at this stage of our civilisation we must beware. He said that so far as he knows there is no authoritative voice which warns the country of the serious nature of cannabis. Has he not heard of all the medical authorities who deal with the addicts, those poor creatures who, as they say to-day, are "hooked" on heroin and hard drugs? Time after time, in articles in our medical papers and in speeches, the doctors who have treated these people month after month and who have questioned them very frequently have said that they started generally on the soft drugs, on cannabis. The noble Lord is asking us to open the door a bit wider to these weak young men and women who are thirsting for a new experience and who, if this Amendment goes through, will regard this House as taking a lenient view and as telling them that, whereas other drugs may be harmful, the use of cannabis will not be subject to such severe punishment.
At this stage in our knowledge I ask your Lordships to protect our young people by making it quite clear to the country that by taking cannabis they are embarking on a most serious path which may end in degradation. The noble Lord may say that I am making these statements without any sound support to-day. I ask him to go to the Library and look at to-day's Times and he will see:
"One third at American universities found to have tried marijuana.
"The largest Federal survey of marijuana smoking in American universities shows that almost one third of students have tried marijuana and that one seventh use it regularly.
"The survey was conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health, whose director, Dr. Bertram Brown, made the findings public.… Speaking at a news conference. Dr. Brown emphasised that many, if not most, of the facts dealing with marijuana and its use were still unclear, especially the effects of long-term use."
That is a most important fact. The noble Lord was so dogmatic that he seemed to know, yet here are the experts saying that they do not know what the future has in store and that it is quite unclear what the detrimental effects of this drug may be.
Dr. Brown said:
"For the bulk (of smokers) marijuana does not seem harmful, but it may be to some.
1372
While there is some proven negative effect, should we encourage the use of this escape from reality?"
That is what youth uses it for, to escape from the real facts of life. He continued:
"Chemical analyses conducted by the institute had shown an enormous fluctuation in the composition of the material claimed to be marijuana. The amount of tetrahydrocannabinols, the chemicals in marijuana that give the weed its effects, was found to be 100 times as great in varieties coming from South-East Asia as in types found growing naturally in the Americal Middle West."
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foot, when he is asking for these penalties, whether they are to be applied to the potent marijuana which comes from South-East Asia and probably from the Middle East which reaches our country, or to the American type? Is he also putting an Amendment down on that matter, in order to tell people just what is the strength of the drug they are taking? The article continues:
"Studies carried out in several American and Canadian cities had found that one-third of marijuana sold was not marijuana at all; in some cases dried hay and even grass cuttings were discovered. As a result of this wide variation in content, there also was a wide variation in the effects."
The noble Lord may well be, and no doubt is, talking about effects. According to this report, some of these effects may have come from grass cuttings and dried hay. I appeal to the Committee. We are still as ignorant on this subject as we were in the past of the effect of a lot of drugs. It took us centuries to understand the effect of treatment that certain drugs involved. I ask the Committee at this stage not for one moment to be diverted, but to be strong minded and to recognise that this is a drug which may lead young people to take even stronger drugs from which there can be no return.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to associate myself with the views that have just been expressed by the noble Baroness. I spent many years in the East, in a country where hashish was well known and its dangers were well known. It might be well to recall—I do not think I have seen it mentioned on the Record that our word "assassin" stems from the word "hashish". Therefore, it is not of this day and age that the dangers of the drug are known. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was in error when he said that the country

1373
was split down the middle. It may be split—but not down the middle. I believe that although a considerable proportion of the population think of cannabis as something which we have got to learn to live with, a much larger proportion feel that it is something that we must learn to live without, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, whether in fact the things that she has been saying on the use of cannabis do not apply also a great deal more forcefully to the use of alcohol and nicotine. She has said that we know nothing about the long-term effects of this drug. I am not quite sure what drugs or indeed what foodstuffs we do know much about in regard to their long-term effects. Aspirin has only come into use since the early 1930s. Nobody is too sure about the long term effects of that drug. What we do know the long-term effects of is alcohol and tobacco. Are we therefore going to ban them? If not, why not? That is the first question I should like to put.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I answer the noble Viscount? How curiously illogical he is! Often I have great admiration for the noble Viscount when he supports me. But he is quite illogical when he says, "Now there are two bad things, alcohol and smoking. You let young people have those two. Why not let them have another bad thing." What an extraordinary argument!
VISCOUNT NORWICH: If I may reply to the noble Baroness, I certainly did not say that alcohol was a bad thing; I do not believe it is. What I do believe is that it is probably a more dangerous thing, which is not the same as being a bad thing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Why add another one?
VISCOUNT NORWICH: It is a more dangerous thing than cannabis resin. That is no reason why it should be banned. I should be the last person in the world to suggest that it should be. By the same token, I am suggesting that to ban cannabis resin is illogical. Not only is it illogical, but it is extremely dangerous, because if we are going to not
1374
escape from reality, as I am sure the noble Baroness is most anxious that we should not do, we should not fool ourselves that we should never be able to stop the use of a very popular drug which can be grown in everybody's back garden, and is increasing in popularity from day to day. Any law which cannot conceivably be observed is by definition a bad law. It brings the whole law into disrepute. By bringing a law into disrepute, for reasons which are unknown and uncertain, are we doing a service to this country? I very much doubt whether we are.
May I take one more point? By keeping cannabis resin in the same class as the hard drugs, does the noble Baroness fully realise that she is thereby forcing young people, or indeed old people or any others who want cannabis, and see no reason why they should not have it in moderation, any more than they should have a drink or a smoke and are going to get it anyway, into the hands of the pushers? The reason why so many people on the hard stuff say, or have it said for them, that they began with cannabis, is because by beginning with cannabis they have been forced into the hands of the pushers who, when they are selling them their next lot of cannabis, give them a free bonus, and say, "Why do you not try some of this? It is twice as good".
If cannabis could be bought at a legalised, licensed store in the same way as tobacco or alcohol, there would be no danger of this happening. The other, harder drugs would be more safely removed from the reach of innocent people. This, incidentally, would be a way of standardising the stuff and making sure that it was not mixed with dried grass or tea leaves, or, much worse, with little bits of the hard stuff which once again will prove the thin edge of the wedge to the consumers: in other words, by legalising it we can control its quality and its sale. We can keep the very dangerous stuff, the long-term effects of which we do know, out of the hands of young and old alike far more comfortably than probably we can already.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I must apologise to the Committee because I know that there are several noble Lords who wish to take part in this interesting and important discussion. But I think it

1375
might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to have the Statement at this point. I therefore beg to move that the House be resumed.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

ROLLS ROYCE DIFFICULTIES: GOVERNMENT ACTION
3.58 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply. The Statement reads as follows:
"The Board of Rolls Royce have to-day issued a statement, copies of which I have had placed in the Vote Office."—
in our case, my Lords, in the Printed Paper Office—
"They have unanimously decided, for the reasons given in the statement, that it is not possible for them to proceed with the RB.211 engine under the present contract with the Lockheed Corporation.
"As the Board of Rolls Royce have stated, the loss of resources already committed to the project combined with the losses which will arise on termination are on such a scale that they are likely to exceed the net tangible assets of the company. In the light of this situation the Board have decided that they have no alternative but to ask the trustees of the debenture holders to appoint a Receiver and Manager.
"To ensure continuity of those activities of Rolls Royce which are important to our national defence, to our collaborative programmes with other countries and to many air forces and civil airlines all over the world, the Government has decided to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine engine divisions of the company as may be essential for these purposes. The necessary legislation will be introduced early next week.
"The Government has no liability in respect of the contract between Rolls Royce and Lockheed. The Government will explore, with the Receiver,
1376
the future of the RB.211. Because of the very grave consequences which must follow from the decision of the Rolls Royce Board, the Government is also undertaking urgent discussions with the Lockheed Corporation and with the United States Government.
"The Board have stated that there will inevitably be substantial redundancies within the company. I have been informed by the Receiver that he will be discussing this urgently with the staff and the unions concerned. The Department of Employment will, of course, provide the maximum help in finding alternative employment in all the areas affected. Interviewing teams will be sent into the factories as necessary. Redundancy payments to employees are guaranteed under the Redundancy Fund arrangements.
"It will be for the Receiver to assume responsibility for the protection of the debenture holders. Thereafter any remaining assets will be available to meet the claims of other creditors.
The Board of Rolls Royce intend to call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the company in order to pass a special resolution requesting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint an Inspector to conduct an inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948."
4.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is a Statement of such an appalling nature that it is almost impossible to find appropriate words with which to discuss it. The implications must be apparent to every Member of your Lordships' House. It does not require me to indicate the great blow, the great national blow, this represents. The repercussions, which are intensely serious so far as Rolls Royce are concerned, go much wider, to the large number of contractors and, indeed, to the confidence of investors in British industry generally. I think the Government have taken the only step—though I shall want to ask a few questions—in proceeding (and we may as well call it this) to nationalise certain sections of Rolls Royce.
There are a few questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. As I understand it, it has been decided,
"to acquire such assets of the aero-engine and marine and industrial gas turbine engine

1377
divisions of the company as may be essential…"
Are the Government in a position to give information about some of the other divisions—for instance, the motor car division, in which a great deal of British prestige is also involved? I would also ask the noble Lord whether he can throw more light on any discussions which took place between the Government and Rolls Royce on any request for further financial help? I take it that the degree of financial vulnerability ran into vast sums, and it would be useful for us to know about this.
One is very tempted at a moment of this kind to refer to the Government's philosophy in regard to industry, but I think it is apparent to everybody, on both sides, how, when confronted with the realities of a hard situation, the Government have to intervene. It is appalling that it should be in a matter of such desperate seriousness. I understand from the noble Lord that we shall be having legislation very shortly. We have been considering, and the whole House no doubt is considering, how soon we can debate this matter, and a point for consideration is whether, before the legislation arrives here, we should have a full discussion. On the other hard, if legislation is arriving very soon—and I imagine the Government are hoping to pass it under co-operative emergency arrangements—I must make clear to the noble Lord that at the very least we shall want a full discussion on Second Reading, however far we facilitate the other stages. My noble friend Lord Beswick may also have some questions on this Statement, but I think one can only repeat again—and I know the noble Lord must feel it himself—the sense of intense shock that this brings to all of us, and indeed to Britain.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he says. I do not think that anybody in the House could dissent from him when he says that it is indeed a grave situation and one which has come as a great shock to all of us. He asked me a number of questions. With regard to the divisions of Rolls Royce which it is not Her Majesty's Government's intention to acquire, it will be for the Receiver to decide what to do with them. The noble Lord also asked me whether there would
1378
have been a vast sum of money involved in the Government's stepping in. As soon as the Government stepped in with any more money for Rolls Royce they would themselves have been liable for all the contractual obligations and debts of Rolls Royce. As he himself has said, this would have run into a vast sum of money. He is perfectly right when he says that whatever our own particular political philosophy may be, when it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of our defence—which it most definitely is in this case—it is essential for the Government to intervene and to ensure the continuity of our defence programme.
As regards a debate, or a debate on the Bill which I hope will be coming to your Lordships very shortly, I shall be very happy to meet whichever is convenient to noble Lords opposite. Perhaps we might discuss that matter when we know when the Bill is coming up, and what the timetable will be.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. This is indeed a very had blow to British prestige at home and abroad, quite part front the human considerations which will affect so many people. I merely want to put two points to the noble Lord. Will an effort be made now to renegotiate the contract with Lockheed, and possibly with some, or all, of the customers? And in the meantime will efforts be made to preserve intact, so far as possible, the technical and research teams of Rolls Royce, so that they will not be dissipated, in case there is an opportunity of refinancing the company?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Statement I made, I think he will find that, though not explicitly, both those points are covered. It certainly will be the intention of the Government to discuss with the Receiver the future of the RB.211, and we shall be having discussions with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and with the United States Government. It would be right to say to your Lordships that I think there are formidable difficulties in the way of the continuation of this project, and I do not think too much hope should be based upon it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask one or two more specific questions? First, may I ask the noble Lord what steps he is taking to assure, or reassure, our German and Italian partners in the enormously important M.R.C.A. project, about the viability of the RB.199 engine? Secondly, when he talks in the Statement about the continuity of activities, can he say that this does not mean just maintaining a repair and servicing organisation, but that it means continuing research and development in such important projects as, for example, the RB.410?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it does, of course, mean much more than just continuing the repair facilities of Rolls Royce, and it is the Government's intention to continue with the engines for the aircraft that the noble Lord opposite knows about, such as the M.R.C.A. and the Jaguar. With regard to his first question, I would make it abundantly clear that we do intend to continue with the M.R.C.A. and the RB.199 engine. I have personally written to the German Minister of Defence and I have asked the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff to go over and talk to the Germans and assure them of this.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, as one who, for 25 years, was the elected representative of a vast number of the people who work on this project, and as one who, as a Minister, committed this country to a course of action which enabled us to have the contract for the RB.211, may I say to the Minister of Defence, with your Lordships' permission, how shocked I am. It is not just the misery for 27,000 families; it is the dreadful acknowledgement that an Englishman's word—and the intertwining of the two "Rs" was in fact the visible sign of that—is perhaps no longer his bond. Is the Minister aware that to let the board of Rolls Royce—ex-margarine manufacturers, failed chemists—announce in our name that we can no longer honour our contract is the blackness of the announcement this day? Will the Minister please tell your Lordships why no part of the £60 million-odd has been made available, so that a discussion can take place about the consequences of telling Europe, Asia and America that we can no longer honour our contract?
1380
Why was no move made before this very short-lived Board made the announcement? Who will believe us in regard to the engines, about which my noble friend Lord Beswick asked? Who will believe us about the Concorde? I ask the Minister of Defence to tell us. I remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may remember, the great and the late Sir Winston Churchill once saying—and I did not agree with him—that he was not elected First Lord of the Treasury to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. Is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, not coming to the conclusion that Mr. Heath and Mr. Davies seem to think that they were elected to preside over the dissolution of Britain's most famous and most basic industries?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me one question, and otherwise made a series of comments. I think we all share the shock that he has expressed about what has happened to Rolls Royce. He asked me why the Government had not given any of the £60 million which they had promised to Rolls Royce for the further development of the engine. The reason is—if the noble Lord will recollect the events of, I think, last November—that the £60 million was contingent upon the report of Cooper Brothers & Company as to the finances of Rolls Royce, and that report has not been received. If money had been paid when we knew the situation of Rolls Royce, as we did last week, the Government would have been responsible—it is no good the noble Lord shaking his head it is true—for all Rolls Royce's debts. The Government came to the conclusion that the amount of money which it would be necessary to inject into Rolls Royce in order to save the company and the RB.211 contract was such that the taxpayer should not be asked for it, and that the right course was the course that I have announced to your Lordships.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I follow that up for one second, with apologies to my colleagues? I shall not thereafter pre-empt others of your Lordships. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that true? Surely, part of that money could have been advanced on the clear understanding, clearly written, that it did not commit the Government to taking over Rolls Royce's

1381
debts, involvements and commitments. I ask the noble Lord—he must have been advised about this; at least, I should like to think he had been advised about it—why was that interim course not taken, so that we should not find ourselves as a nation faced with a decision made by a handful of men who have no responsibilities whatever to the people of this country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the Government had advanced any more money to Rolls Royce, knowing that Rolls Royce was insolvent, they would, I am advised, have become liable. In any event, I wonder whether it would have been very honest of the Government to do that, knowing that by so doing Rolls Royce would continue trading when they were insolvent.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, it was said that the Government intend to take over certain assets of Rolls Royce. What criteria have been used in the selection of the assets concerned? Are they assets particularly connected with the defence interests of this country, or with the international obligations of Rolls Royce, or with the technical complexity of the company. What are the criteria which the Government are using in relation to this decision?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I made clear in the Statement, the assets will be those which are important to our national defence, to the collaborative programmes with other countries, and to the many air forces and civil airlines all over the world who use Rolls Royce engines.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the acquisition of certain shares in connection with the engine division, has he in mind legislation to provide for the nationalisation of that section; or has he in mind—which I think many of my noble friends would not find satisfactory—some sort of shareholding comparable to the British Government's shareholding in the petrol companies? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that when I was chairman of the Commonwealth Airline Operators' Conference in 1968, the announcement by Sir David Hubbie of the development of the RB.211 was acclaimed on the grounds that at least
1382
it would give some assurance and insurance that we could retain a share of the Commonwealth market for aircraft? This goes far beyond the immediate economic problems of to-day. The whole of our technological reputation in the world is at stake here.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is perfectly true. But there is no suggestion that the technicians at Rolls Royce could not have made the engine—I do not think there is any doubt whatever that they could. There are the financial difficulties and the question of the delay, which would have enabled Lockheed and the airlines who were proposing to buy the aircraft to sue Rolls Royce for late delivery of the engine. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, it is the intention of the Government to acquire the assets.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is the noble Lord not placing too much stress on the one point which he has made about the unlimited liability of the Government if they had assisted with part of the finance which was conditionally promised? Is he aware that this is admittedly a difficult field for the lawyers to advise us about? But is it not absolutely clear that if the Government had allowed themselves an instrument by which, at arms length, money could have been advanced, the position would then have been very similar indeed to money being advanced by a bank? In those circumstances, a bank advancing money does not get itself involved, albeit that the directors of the board have their responsibilities under the Companies Act.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am advised that that is not so, but I should not like to quarrel with the noble Lord. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would like to intervene; I am not a lawyer. But of course this is not the only issue. I do not want to play up this one, but I think your Lordships should be aware of what sort of money was involved. The £60 million was promised by the Government and the banks four or five months ago. The Rolls Royce board now say that it will cost, in addition to that, anything between £60 million, £70 million or £80 million more to go on with the engine. In addition to that, the 550 engines were going to

1383
be sold under the contract which Rolls Royce had entered into, at a loss of £110,000 for each engine. There were also the claims against Rolls Royce from the airlines and from Lockheed, which might well have amounted to another £40 million or £50 million. In the context of what we had to decide, these were very large figures indeed and the Government had to make up their mind what was the right thing to do in the national interest.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while expressing my sympathy with my noble friend and the Government at having to face this traumatic decision, may I ask whether the Lockheed Company was consulted before this decision was taken; and, indeed, whether it refused to renegotiate the contract before the decision was taken?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, whether or not Lockheed were consulted was, of course, a matter for Rolls Royce, and I think the noble Earl must ask Rolls Royce.
4.20 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is this not getting absurd? The Government appear to acquiesce in a decision which must be absolutely epoch-making and catastrophic. Did they not ask whether this new board of Rolls Royce had approached Lockheed? Have they not asked themselves whether, as my noble friend put it, the I.R.C., which the Government so hurriedly got rid of as an agency that was not part of Government, might not have been a useful instrument?
My Lords, I have been looking at the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, which I think is probably right for a fledgling Member of the House. In the place I know rather better there is something called Standing Order 9, which we should no doubt have tried to use today, and which I suspect one of my former colleagues has tried to use. But under your Lordships' Standing Order 32 (I am quoting from page 15 of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords) I find that no statement or question of which notice has not been given shall be made the occasion for an immediate debate "unless the House so order". In view of what I regard as the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Statement made
1384
and the answers given to questions, may I test the feeling of the House as to whether your Lordships might be willing to order that an immediate debate should now take place?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was once upon a time Leader of this House, and I was also for a number of years Leader of the Opposition. If I may very respectfully say so to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, I think he ought to come here a little more often, and listen a little more often to what goes on in your Lordships' House, before he makes the sort of suggestion that he has made this afternoon. Of course any of your Lordships can get up and pray in aid any Standing Order. Indeed, if any of your Lordships care to look at the Standing Order Book and to follow the rules, they can make your Lordships' House totally and absolutely impossible, because your Lordships' House operates only by custom and restraint. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, will follow the conventions which we have followed in this House for very many years—ever since I have sat in it—and not try to do something which may have been done in another place but which I think would probably not go down very well here.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene at this point. I think it is perhaps a little unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, used the expression he did about my noble friend. I myself had in mind the possibility of Standing Order 32, but the Government have already agreed that if we wish for an early debate they will facilitate this. I think the purpose (and I do not doubt the noble Earl the Leader of the House is bearing this in mind) in allowing this discussion to go as widely as it is now going is to enable us to establish certain facts. Though I cannot recollect an occasion on which it has been done, if the Government were refusing facilities for a debate then I think that it might be right to test the opinion of the House. But I am not sure that it would lead to a particularly useful or orderly discussion at this moment. Therefore my own view is that we ought not this afternoon to take advantage of Standing Order 32, although I must admit the thought had occurred to me.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I wonder whether I might apologise for anything I said about the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, which was in any sense offensive. I had not realised I had said anything at all.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether we could try to get this matter into a rather different perspective. Whilst deploring the debacle of the RB.211 engine—this ill-fated engine which has brought nothing but trouble since the contract to which my noble friend Lord George-Brown referred was entered into—can the noble Lord give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government that this company, with a fresh start, under public ownership, shall be a dynamic and expanding enterprise?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have already given the noble Lord that assurance.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said about the Government's intention to acquire some of the assets particularly because of their relation to defence requirements, would the Government consider, after an examination of the Rolls Royce accounts, of all their financial transactions in recent years and of the contracts entered into, quite legitimately, by the company, acquiring all the assets because of the importance of the company to the national interest in relation to technology and the future of the aero industry?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think I could give that undertaking. The Government have examined the situation very carefully and believe that they should acquire the assets which are necessary to them for the continuing use of those assets in the interests of defence and of civil airlines and the air forces of the world. It will be for the Receiver to dispose of the other assets and I have no doubt that he will be able to do so.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am willing to be rebuked all the time and at any time, and I accept it very happily, but if I am not to pursue the temptation (as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition says I should not) of Standing Order 32, may I ask how soon
1386
the usual channels can arrange to let us know how early the debate will be? Because I honestly regard this matter, as I am sure all your Lordships do, of such critical importance to the nation that I do not think it can hang around for weeks. How soon can we know?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will, of course, pay great attention to what the noble Lord says, but it does depend a little on how long, for example, the Bill would take to get through another place. If it took a long time, then obviously it would be necessary to have a debate here first. If it were going to be a very short time, noble Lords opposite might feel that it would be sufficient to have a debate on the Bill here. But I am entirely in the hands of noble Lords opposite, and with the agreement of both sides of the House we shall do what is necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Lord put this question to me, may I say that I think it is quite clear that on this side of the House (and I suspect tacitly, if over-discreetly, on that side of the House) there is a strong desire to debate this subject at the earliest opportunity. Unless, therefore, there is a prospect that the Bill will come to us within, say, a week, then I think we must have a debate. This is a matter of much too great seriousness. It was against this background that I was also considering Standing Order 32, but I am sure we should do better to deal with this matter in a regular way and perhaps have a debate early next week.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just said is perfectly agreeable to us.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, there are many other aspects of Rolls Royce which are reciprocal to the aero-industry part of Rolls Royce, and which are profitable. I gather from the Statement that these are to be hived off. Would it not be desirable that we should have a debate before the Bill, in order that some decisions may be taken in the light of the discussions?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think, my Lords, generally speaking, the divisions of Rolls Royce which the Government would not acquire would be the motor car division and the oil engine division.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one short and simple question? The noble Lord says that he and his colleagues are not willing to acquire the other assets of Rolls Royce and are willing to let them go into the hands of the Receiver, to be disposed of. Would he be happy if the Receiver disposed of them to foreigners?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the parts of the Rolls Royce company which are essential to the national interest are going to be acquired by the nation.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he could enlighten us on one point? He referred in his first Statement to the acquisition by Her Majesty's Government of certain assets. I do not think that anything in the Statement indicates how the valuation is to be made. Am I right in assuming that that will be dealt with in the legislation?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not quite sure about that, my Lords, but certainly I think there would have to be negotiations with the Receiver, as I understand it. Whether these will include the valuation, I am not quite sure.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it may or may not be proper or desirable for my noble friend Lord George-Brown to invoke Standing Order 32, but I should have thought it was definitely improper that, in the absence of testing the opinion of the House on Standing Order 32, we should have an immediate debate, which seems to be what is happening.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I ask the Government one further question? Will they, in considering what to do about the Rolls Royce situation, take account of the position of the aircraft industry as a whole and the place it holds in regard to our balance of payments? This is a very important question, my Lords, it is not just a defence question. We have gravely disappointed the airframe industry on the grounds that we were to reap various advantages by selling Rolls Royce engines abroad. Will that still be the position? Ought we, perhaps, to consider revising some of the previous decisions? Will the Government consider
1388
this matter on the broadest scale; not just on financial grounds but on the broadest engineering, balance-of-payments and industrial grounds?
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, my Lords, the Government have already considered it on the widest possible grounds. I think it would be a very good thing if we debated this point when we have the debate next week, or whenever it is.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, earlier on, the question was raised whether we could curtail the business for to-day and take some of it next week. It has now been agreed through the usual channels that we will continue with the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill until 6 o'clock and then proceed with the rest of the business on the Order Paper for to-day; and continue on Tuesday next with the rest of the Committee stage of the Drugs Bill.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, in the light of the debate we have just concluded on the Statement about Rolls Royce, may I ask the noble Earl whether that is not going to affect the business for next week? Does what he has announced still stand in the light of it?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, obviously there may have to be adjustments, but I should think that the possibilities are that we shall not have the debate before Tuesday. We may need to have it later in the week, if we are not going to get the Bill as early as my noble friend thought that we might.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, that is my point. Does the noble Earl say that the House will not sit on Monday?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the House will not sit on Monday.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Misuse of Drugs Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before this Question is put, may I ask if we are not to have the second Statement?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I will put the Question, and then the noble Lord can ask his question.

1389
The Question is that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to speak on this Question because there has been no consultation about the second Statement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I also may be permitted to speak on my own Motion and to apologise to the noble Lord. The second Statement was not ready; it had not been completed in the House of Commons at the time when I moved my Motion. Since I rose to move it, however my noble friend Lord Lothian has received word that he is free to repeat it, and he will now make the second Statement. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: MINISTERS' MEETING
4.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, just in time! May I repeat a Statement which is being made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place at this very moment? The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a Statement on the Ministerial meeting of the Conference with the European Economic Communities on Tuesday of this week.
"The meeting recorded a number of agreements.
"The Community confirmed that the alternatives in their 1963 Declaration of Intent should be open not only to the nine African Commonwealth countries which I mentioned in my Statement to the House on the 10th of December but to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland as well, subject, in their case, to certain special arrangements which may need to be settled at a later stage.
"The Community further confirmed their proposal to include Hong Kong in their scheme of generalised preferences from the date of its implementation. We accepted their proposals as settling the case of Hong Kong as raised by us in the framework of the negotiations for accession.
"We agreed upon the way in which the enlarged Community would approach the problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries, countries for whom association is not appropriate. The enlarged Community would continue to be inspired in its trade relations with these countries by the wish to extend and reinforce this relationship. It would be ready to examine with these countries, after enlargement, and taking account of the scope of the generalised preference scheme, the problems that might arise in the field of trade with a view to reaching appropriate solutions.
"It was agreed that the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides should be associated with the enlarged Community.
"I welcomed a statement made by the Community on transitional arrangements in the field of industrial tariffs, which we thought should broadly meet the aim we have had in mind, in making our own proposals, of promoting as rapidly as possible the dynamic effects of industrial integration. But this arrangement, it was made clear, cannot be regarded as definitive until agreement has also been reached on methods of transition in the agricultural field.
"There was an exchange of views on the question of Community finance. I cannot say any agreement was reached. But I hope that there is now a better understanding of the issues involved in this field, which is of course of crucial importance to the success of the negotiations. I left the Community in no doubt of this fact."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement, although perhaps it is somewhat anti-climatic after the exciting result of the last Statement. Nevertheless, it is a Statement of very considerable importance. I have one or two

1391
questions about it that I should like to ask the noble Marquess, but before doing so may I say that I welcome the news that the Declaration of Intent open to the nine African Commonwealth countries has now been extended to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the "certain special arrangements", to which he referred, that "may need to be settled at a later stage" will be the subject of consultation with those three territories before any final arrangements are concluded.
A similar question applies to the Statement in respect of Hong Kong. May I ask the noble Marquess whether, in arriving at this arrangement with the Community, Her Majesty's Government in fact consulted the Hong Kong Government; and whether they are content with the arrangement that has now been arrived at? I must confess to some feeling of confusion about the passage in the Statement which refers—if I heard the noble Marquess aright—to the enlarged Community being "inspired in its trade relations" with the Asian Commonwealth countries by "the wish to extend and reinforce this relationship". I must ask the noble Marquess exactly what that means, because at the moment it means very little to me. What is the relationship between the Community and the Asian Commonwealth countries; or what do they understand that relationship to be? It has always been my understanding that the common external tariff of the Community would supersede any Commonwealth preferential arrangements and agreements. Perhaps the noble Marquess could enlighten me on that point.
I welcome the news that the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides is to be associated with the enlarged Community, and I note also the statement about the industrial tariff. There remains the most important issue of the exchange of views on the question of Community finance, the new financial structure of the Community. The Minister says in the Statement:
"I cannot say any agreement was reached."
This, of course, is not a very satisfactory situation. The noble Marquess will know that there are certain requirements which we on this side of the House would certainly
1392
regard as being crucial to the success of the negotiations; in the sense that any concession from them would be regarded by many of us as unacceptable. May I ask, therefore, for his assurance that Her Majesty's Government will remain firm, generally speaking, on the proposals put forward by his right honourable friend when he stated the British negotiating position?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while welcoming this Statement, which obviously is good so far as it goes, may I just say that we on these Benches feel that nothing we say at this moment in time is likely to be of very great assistance to the excellent Mr. Rippon in what are clearly becoming the critical phases of these highly important negotiations? May I ask the noble Marquess whether Mr. Rippon has made it quite clear to the Six in the course of negotiation that almost everything we may contribute to the Central Agricultural Fund, over and above the very small amount that we should recover, would be pure gain for the French farmer, who, if agreement is not reached, will just be so much the poorer.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Gladwyn, for their remarks in welcoming this Statement? The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me quite a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer. The first was whether there would be consultation with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. I can give an assurance that these countries will be consulted. The problems arise because of the fact that they have a Customs union with South Africa and that will have to be sorted out. I can also confirm that the Government of Hong Kong were very fully consulted in detail throughout the negotiations. They had certain reservations, I must tell the noble Lord, but they have accepted the situation as it stands. The noble Lord also raised a question about the Asian Commonwealth. I should like not to mislead him on this; and if I may I will let him know the precise meaning of this wording. I think that he is right in what he says about extending the preferences.
On the question of Community finance which, as both noble Lords have said, is really the crucial point, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are

1393
quite firm about their initial bid. This was a perfectly sincere and genuine bid. There were, in fact, this week no real negotiations: two statements were made; but the real negotiations will come, we hope, at the next meeting in March. I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether my right honourable friend has made his point about the gains to French agriculture; but knowing him, I suspect that he has done so.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask whether the question of fishery limits was raised at the Brussels Conference?—because it is very important.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite realise that it is a question of great importance, but I am afraid that I do not know whether it was raised on Tuesday. I rather think it was not, but I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask two questions? First, can we have an assurance that the Government will refuse to yield to the fantastic and extravagant demands made in the discussions that have recently taken place?—and this despite the blandishments of the pro-Common Marketeers who are trying to drive the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster into the Common Market whether he wants to go there or not. That is the first question. My second question is this. Can we have an assurance on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Boothby, who has been an ardent advocate of entry into the Common Market for a quarter of a century, over whether we can have an assurance that his apprehensions about the effects on the fishing industry will be taken note of by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on both those points.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one question? Will the horticultural, fruit-growing and vegetable-growing farmers in this country be able to set off against their contributions to the Central Agricultural Fund, as compensation, the cost of any damage that they may suffer through our entry into E.E.C.?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said. I should not like to mislead noble Lords about something on which I am not quite sure. I will take note of what he has said and I will keep in touch.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I follow up the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shinwell and the answer given by the noble Marquess? Is the noble Marquess aware that the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community as a whole is now to be automatic after 1978, according to an agreement made among the Six? Is he therefore aware that what we are negotiating now are transitional arrangements? Will he repeat the assurance that I understood him to give to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that we shall remain firm on our present proposals which, in the view of many of us on this side of the House, are the least that we can accept in the form of arrangements that will not damage the economy of this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that this is precisely the point that my right honourable friend the Chancellor was making in his statement in Brussels on Tuesday, when he said that he was going to remain firm on these matters. The Government have always taken the view that we are applying to join E.E.C. if the price is right.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
4.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD GIFFORD: May I resume the discussion in the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Bill, and perhaps in a more calm and reasonable tone than when we left off, by reminding the Committee that we are not, on these Amendments, discussing whether cannabis should be legalised? I am on record as having said that I am opposed to the prohibition of cannabis, but I do not intend to burden your Lordships this afternoon with Amendments or arguments in support of that view. I recognise, as I am sure Lord Foot recognises, that there is a very substantial body of opinion, in this House and outside, to whom that prospect would be quite abhorrent. So I am now going to speak on Lord Foot's Amendment

1395
which concerns the classification of cannabis and whether that classification is properly made.
The Amendments in my name and in the name of Lord Foot were made possible because of an innovation made in the Bill which I wholeheartedly support; that is to say, that dangerous drugs are being classified according to the degree of harm which they are thought to generate. With the 120-odd drugs in the three Schedules, many of them with wholly foreign and unpronouncable names, one can reasonably assume that the allocation to particular categories has been made in the light of current medical knowledge; but, so far as cannabis is concerned, if one looks at the current medical knowledge one is driven to the conclusion that the allocation to Class B has been made in the light of popular prejudice rather than of scientific opinion.
May I now respond to the invitation extended by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, by saying that I wholeheartedly support his Amendment—though I have a feeling that what he is putting forward may be too radical for the Committee to accept. I hope that I am wrong. But what can be accepted, and indeed demonstrated, is that the present allocation of cannabis to Class B is wholly misplaced. If that is accepted, then I am glad to leave it to the Committee to decide whether they accept (as I would in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot) the creation of a new class, Class D, or whether they consider it simpler to down-grade cannabis from Class B to Class C. Those are Amendments in my names at a later stage on the Order Paper—because, either way, it is a compromise with the view certainly held by me. But it would be a major step forward toward a more sane and reasonable attitude to, this problem.
There is one point on which I disagreed with Lord Foot. That was when he said that there was no consensus among experts about cannabis. Our basic case for not placing cannabis along with amphetamines in a category where the penalties for trafficking and possession are are almost as high as those for heroin and other harmful drugs is that when we study the reports and scientific papers we find that there is a consensus. I accept at
1396
once that at present too little is being done, and that much more needs to be done. But there is a consensus that there is not yet any proper evidence that harm is done by the consumption of cannabis in moderate doses over a long period. There is a consensus that it is rare for cannabis to be taken in large and excessive doses. There is a consensus that the moderate use of cannabis does not in many cases lead to chronic use or to the use of other drugs. And there is even a consensus that even with chronic use the harm is of a wholly different order from that arising from the chronic use of heroin or the other really horrifying drugs.
At the risk of wearying the Committee, I feel it is necessary, when we are considering how to classify a particular drug, to study some of the research that has been done. I hope that both the Committee and the Government will recognise that this is a decision which should not be made on the basis of anybody's views or prejudices, or preconceived opinions, but in the light of what the experts have to say. In my analysis of the vast body of literature which is available on cannabis there are four outstanding officially commissioned Reports of high importance. The first goes back a long way. It is the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894. This was a monumental Report, covering seven volumes and 3,281 pages. When it was unearthed from oblivion in the United States in 1968 by a number of scientists studying the problem of drugs, it was stated by one member:
"This investigation is by far the most complete and systematic study of marijuana undertaken to date. It is both surprising and gratifying to note the timeless and lucid quality of the writings of these British colonial bureaucrats."
The 1894 Commission concluded:
"Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill-effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature of this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation."

1397
That is a condensation of the findings of an inquiry which came to the same conclusion as the inquiry under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger.
The next major milestone in official inquiries into the effects of cannabis use was the inquiry of the Mayor of the City of New York, Mayor La Guardia, into marijuana use in the City of New York in 1944. Again the inquiry was made by a highly authoritative body set up to inquire into the various aspects of marijuana use. They also did research on the basis of experimental tests on subjects smoking marijuana. Their conclusion was:
"There is definite evidence in this study … that marijuana users … had suffered no mental or physical deterioration as a result of their use of the drug.
"From the study as a whole it is concluded that marijuana is not a drug of addiction comparable to morphine, and that if tolerance is acquired, this is of a very limited degree."
I stress that I am not citing these Reports in an attempt to obtain the legalisation of cannabis. It is an attempt to demonstrate that the more one reads these Reports, the more one believes that cannabis should be regarded as in a class by itself among the drugs that we are considering in this Bill.
The third inquiry, which has been frequently referred to, was that made by the Sub-Committee of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. That Sub-Committee, in turn, endorsed the conclusions of the two Reports I have just cited. Their conclusion, written 24 years after the Mayor of New York's Committee report, was:
"Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached—
by the two Commissions I have mentioned—
"that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects."
Again last year, in Canada, another memorable and authoritative inquiry was carried out by the Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. They again reviewed all the evidence available and again came to the conclusion that, so far as the short-term effects were concerned, these were negligible. So far as the long-term effects
1398
were concerned, they urged caution. They urged continued prohibition, but they were unable to produce hard evidence to rebut the conclusions that I have already referred to. So much for the officially commissioned research and inquiry.
If one goes to the individual scientific experiments—and of course there are not enough of them—one sees the same pattern. One authoritative and most meticulous experiment was conducted in 1968 by Weil, Zinberg and Nelsen with controlled tests on marijuana smoking subjects. Their conclusion was:
"The near-absence of significant physiological effects makes it unlikely that marijuana has any seriously detrimental physical effects in either a short-term or a long-term usage."
Although, as I said, there have been regrettably few similar experiments, there has been no evidence forthcoming, either in the United States or here, to rebut that conclusion.
The last piece of research to which I wish to refer, and perhaps the most surprising, is that done by Crancer in 1969. That was a study of the effects of marijuana on driving skills. Some subjects were given no drug at all, some had a high dose of marijuana given to them and others were given a high dose of alcohol. Astonishingly, it was found that those with alcohol had a very high degree of error but that the errors committed by those with marijuana and those who had nothing were almost exactly the same. They do not suggest that it is safe to drive on marijuana, and they emphasise that this conclusion should be regarded with caution and that more research needs to be done. But (and I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who raised this point) it is perhaps remarkable to note that initial tests carried on in this field show that there does not appear to be a pronounced danger even if someone is foolish enough to drive with cannabis inside him.
The sum total of these reports might lead some people to say what a remarkable pastime this is; how much more desirable than alcohol or tobacco, and at what little social cost it appears to be generally used. But that is not the issue in this debate on this Amendment. The issue is whether we have correctly classified cannabis along with amphetamines in Class B. One cannot ignore the remark

1399
able conclusions that expert after expert has come to.
But when one compares those conclusions with the conclusions reached on the use of amphetamines, then we are talking about proven harm of a wholly different magnitude, because, of course, the category of drugs in Class B are amphetamines. The non-injectable amphetamines are the drugs we, and the young people, are asked to regard as being on the same level as cannabis. On the use of amphetamines, there is no need to say much. It is, first of all, clear and proven that there is a marked tendency for people who start taking amphetamine pills to take more amphetamine pills and to go on from there to take amphetamine intravenously.
The Le Dain Committee studied amphetamines also and concluded that, particularly when amphetamines are taken, as it were, for "kicks", there may be shown
"a considerable sensitivity to tolerance, and individuals who either began using the drug to obtain these effects, or who acquired the taste for them after initially using amphetamines for other purposes, generally show a marked tendency to increased dose over time."
What is the result of increasing a dose over a time? It is frightening indeed. I quote again from the Le Dain Report:
"The clinical picture of the chronic 'speed freak' is a distressing one indeed. Continued use leads to a considerable weight loss, sores and use of massive doses of amphetamines often non-healing ulcers, brittle finger nails, tooth grinding, chronic chest disorders, liver disease, a variety of hypertensive disorders, and in some cases, cerebral haemorrhage."
I hope I need say no more to show the Committee that with amphetamines one is talking about an horrific danger; and yet we are asked to accept that amphetamines should be classed along with cannabis as a Class B drug, carrying the penalties which have been referred to.
I apologise to your Lordships if I have gone on too long in quoting what is to me irrefutable evidence, not of the harmlessness of cannabis but of our blindness and our wilful rejection of medical knowledge in categorising it as it is proposed to do in this Bill. I do not ask your Lordships to pay heed to my opinions as a champion of the younger generation, which I self-confessedly am; but I do ask your Lordships to consider whether
1400
in the light of all the evidence (and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham must tell me if I have distorted it, but I do not believe that I have) one can maintain this classification. I would ask the noble Lord when he replies, both to Lord Foot's Amendment, and next week to mine, to carefully consider whether he is able to justify the present categorisation by any medical reasons. I would ask him, perhaps next week, having taken time for reflection, whether I have fairly summarised the available scientific knowledge in respect of cannabis. I would ask the Committee to look at these Amendments not in an emotional way, but in the light of reason, and to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or, at least, if that is going too far, to pay the greatest care to the Amendment that appears later in my name on the Marshalled List.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to express a sense of real shock at the suggestion which is now being made to your Lordships, that we should go soft on this question of cannabis. Along with others who have been in the Middle East, where I spent some years of my life, I know that it is common knowledge that this is really a disastrous drug. Its misuse (and who can be sure that anybody who uses it will not subsequently misuse it?) leads to the most extraordinary delusions. It is not for nothing that the word "assassin" is derived from the word "hashish". It is common knowledge in the Middle East that people who get too much of this stuff inside them go absolutely berserk.
That is not the only objection to it. You can say the same about alcohol. The real objection to cannabis was made, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill: it is that this drug is a pathway along which people fall into the stronger drugs. It is not only a danger that people who take this drug get in the habit of taking a "trip". That is the first point I want to make. It is quite true that some of the physiological effects are not necessarily so demonstrably bad as with some other drugs, but there is with this drug a psychological addiction to the habit of taking a "trip". Once people get that habit they very easily take to other drugs in order to take "trips": and, anyhow, the taking of

1401
"trips" gets more frequent and somewhat worse.
It is not only the point about taking a "trip". Because if you go soft about the selling of this drug, you will find that many of the most immoral commercial pushers of it mix other drugs in with it which are much more addictive, being confident thereby that the hapless victims will have to come back to them, whether they like it or not, to get more and more of the stuff and pay more and more exorbitant prices. This commercialisation of drug pushing is something that we must stop in our community, and I think that this Bill tends to do it very well. But I do not think it will be done effectively if we "go soft" about the categorisation of cannabis. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we should reject this Amendment and keep cannabis in the category where it is now.
I do not want to prolong this debate, but we have heard a good deal about scientific research. It so happens that I have a close relation who leads a team of researchers into the drugs problem at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. The advice that I have given to your Lordships would certainly be in accordance with what the leading Swedish researchers would say on this subject. Although I cannot give it its proper scientific terminology in every respect, I know enough about science to assure your Lordships that I am not talking through my hat.
I want to say one other thing. The experience of Sweden, and for that matter the West Coast of America, ought to cause great hesitation to anybody who thinks about going soft on the question of cannabis. They have the most appalling problem. A year ago, when I was in Stockholm on a previous occasion, the town was covered with notices. They were huge white notices with a black cross in the middle, and underneath there was a series of names like "Iren" or "Jan", or some such name, horn so and so 1952, died so and so in 1968, and underneath: "Narcotics took her (or his) life". These were all young people of less than 20, and often down to 14 years of age. This is a terrible problem, and I think it is high time that we took it seriously. I recommend that we should not be less severe than the provisions of this Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BROCK: I had not intended to intervene in this debate on the misuse of drugs because I felt that interventions would better come from my physician colleagues. Like other speakers, I am disturbed by the proposed Amendments to the Bill which are directed towards the liberalisation (or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, states, "going soft" on it), by several methods, of the use of cannabis. We have already had mention of growing it in one's garden, and I notice that a following Amendment relates to the cultivation of cannabis and suggests that it should be allowed to be grown in the garden or on the farm. I find it difficult to decide on which particular Amendment I should speak. However, I felt it was best to come in fairly soon in the proceedings, although there are later Amendments which I find even more disturbing.
I associate myself strongly with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. It is implied that cannabis is not a harmful drug and that it is so benign that its use should not be restricted. We have heard a lot of pseudo-scientific evidence put forward to that effect.
LORD FOOT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BROCK: It is suggested that the present robe of permissiveness should cover its use. The whole of this drug taking business is bad and miserable. We are dealing with evil things; let us have no doubt about that. There was a time when it did not constitute a problem in this country; the number of addicts were few and not increasing, but that is no longer so. This pernicious and foul disease has attacked this country and is spreading. Make no mistake about it, it is firmly here. It is as if plague, cholera or rabies had secured a firm footing, were endemic and about to become epidemic. Drug-taking is now endemic and in danger of becoming epidemic. We succeed in keeping out rabies, cholera and other such diseases, and we should be alarmed if they became established in this country; but drug-taking is no less dangerous a disease.
Few addicts start on hard drugs. The commoner process is to begin on the less

1403
maligned ones, usually as a result of being introduced to them as "a lark", as a thing to do, often at a "pop" festival or some other occasion. Now it is suggested that the House of Lords should make it easier for that to be done. If the young person continues on soft drugs there is a strong chance that he or she will progress to hard drugs, and he or she is then lost. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has emphasised. I know of virtually no cure. Some individuals—perhaps 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.—may escape the disaster that embraces them, but those are occasional exceptions. The majority just remain addicts, with all the miseries that that entails, until they die, and that can happen swiftly in the young.
We have, again, had examples that this drug-taking affects very young people. My hearts bleeds for the parents of a young man or a young woman who has been caught by this foul business. Their despair and unhappiness must be very great. I am sure that there are many parents who are sadly afflicted in this way. This desperate and disastrous sequence from soft to hard drugs ought to be avoided at all costs. Nothing should be done to aid these young people to start their career of disaster and to encourage or make the initial step easier. We all know the great problems that exist in the case of tobacco smoking and how difficult it is to give up the habit. With a world picture of drug-taking before us it is being suggested that we should liberalise, go "soft" on this access to cannabis. This is pure folly. We should be careful not to encourage our young people to set their feet on the slope that leads to so much sorrow for so many people. We should reject this Amendment and others like it which possess the same dangers.
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I rise to ask some questions which I hope some noble Lords who are doctors, and also the Minister, may be able to answer. Some of the speeches I have listened to seem to have gone rather far from the original Amendment. As I understood it, it was not to liberalise the taking of cannabis to the point of legalisation, although one or two people have said and implied that. As I understand this Amendment, it is
1404
that cannabis should still be treated as an illegal drug; it should still be subject to penalties, but it should be put in a special class. This is my dilemma: I can see the arguments of both sides, but it is rather odd (and perhaps I may have some elucidation on this) that cannabis should be put in with the other drugs. I confess that I do not know what many of them are, or what they do, nor why cannabis is particularly a bed-fellow in one category rather than in another.
Information on this point would assist many of us so far as concerns both this particular Amendment and also the later one which wants to put cannabis in Class C. I feel—and I hope I am right—that other noble Lords, like myself, are certainly not in favour of the legalisation of cannabis, but are concerned about the way in which it is dealt with and the penalties its use receives. We are also concerned about the category into which it should be put. It is true that the recommendation by my noble friend Lady Wootton in the Report of her sub-committee was that there should be special legislation on cannabis. That has not happened and, presumably, that is why this matter has arisen on this Bill. But I wonder why it is not possible to make that compromise and have a special category for cannabis, but with penalties. That, again, is very far from making cannabis legal.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps I might explain to the noble Baroness that the reason for the recommendations from the Cannabis Committee to which she has referred was that only this drug was referred to the committee for consideration. This was at a time when the then Government had not indicated any intention to produce a comprehensive Drugs Bill. Had that intention been known, I am sure that my Committee would merely have asked that cannabis should find its appropriate place in such a Bill.
LORD PLATT: I had not intended to speak at this time in the debate, because I shall be speaking to certain other Amendments later, but as my noble friend Lord Brock has pointed out that his physician colleagues do not seem to be giving him full support, although I am, as my noble friend Lord Brock has said, a physician, and a Member of your

1405
Lordships' House, nevertheless I want the House to understand that I do not have any special experience in dealing with drug addiction, for that experience does not come very much the way of a professor in internal medicine in a University Department. So I should not want your Lordships to look upon me as a great authority who knows more about this subject than the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who has been most careful in his study of the reports on cannabis, or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
I should go a very long way with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in saying. "Why do we not say, 'cannabis is a different drug' although for the moment we may hold varying views on its seriousness?". In this I am all with those who do not want to make it easier for the cannabis pushers. Why do we not say that it is a different drug, that it is not of the same kind of class as those to which it is being classified? Why do we not give it a classification of its own? I would possibly agree with this course were it not for the fact that we are classifying drugs according to what is considered to be their dangers.
Nowhere in this Bill, so far as I can see (I have just been looking through it again), does it say that drugs are being so classified. The only reference is in the Explanatory Memorandum, which is not part of the Bill. Nevertheless, this is of course implicit if in fact the penalties for the mishandling of a certain class of drugs are very much greater than the penalties in respect of another. Therefore the objection to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is suggesting at the moment seems to be that if you put cannabis into a separate class—Class D—and then make the penalties very much less than for Class B, you are in fact saying that this is not such a dangerous drug.
I wonder whether it is too late in the course of this Bill to take a compromise view. I should not like your Lordships to think that in any way I am compromising by saying, "Cannabis is harmless; I do not mind if we legalise it", and so on. I do not take that view at all. I go all the way in trying to prevent the use of cannabis from spreading. But I wonder whether we could not put it into a different category because it really belongs
1406
to a different category. If you like, I would agree to making the penalties for possessing cannabis less than those for the possession of certain other drugs. But we should have a very stiff penalty for the offence—it is set out in line 20, on page 38:
"Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another."
This should bear a heavy penalty. If that were so, I think I would probably support the idea that we should put cannabis in a separate category.
LORD ST. JUST: As my name is on the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I would just say that I think the question of putting cannabis into a separate category is an essential factor. I will not go over what has already been said. We have heard a great deal on the scientific angle, and everything else. But in the horrific world of drug taking, if we get cannabis into a separate category there is a possibility that the people who, for instance, are smoking cannabis will not then come into contact, through the pushers and other channels, with the hard drugs. This is an important factor, and for this reason (the others having already been stated) I support the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I have not any great knowledge of this subject—either of the use or of the misuse of drugs. I am very much in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said: that cannabis should be in a different category; but I am also very frightened when I remember a conversation that I had with a member—a medical member—of the Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. He told me that there was no question that in the case of patients he had had to look after who were addicted to drugs, all those on hard drugs had started on such things as cannabis.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lady, but there was no other female member of my Committee, and I think this cannot have been a member of my Committee.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I did not say female.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I beg the noble Lady's pardon: I understood her to say "she".
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: I said "a medical man". I beg your pardon. That is my only reason for feeling that cannabis should be put on a lower level than it has been put. But I feel that to put it in a class by itself makes it seem as if it is not nearly so important as it really is.
5.25 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at this stage, as it has been arranged that the Committee stage shall conclude at six o'clock. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, will no doubt wish to come in again at the end of the debate on his Amendment and advise your Lordships on whether or not he intends to press his Amendment. I should like to begin with some general considerations, before going on to the particular reasons why the Government do not think it would be right to put cannabis in a special category.
There is a tendency to consider this whole question in terms of our own society, but the problems raised by cannabis are of concern to many other societies as well. We can all take our own examples from the scientific literature in this country and the reports made elsewhere. But they must, by that act, be selective. There are parts of the reports which back up whatever point of view we wish to put forward. But there are other expressions of opinion that should, perhaps, be given particular attention; namely, international opinions which have been codified in the form of conventions.
The United Kingdom Government are a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and this requires control to be maintained over the distribution of cannabis. Moreover, we are a member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs which continues to urge Governments to increase their efforts to eradicate the abuse and illicit traffic in cannabis; to promote research and advance additional medical and sociological information regarding cannabis; and effectively to counter any publicity which advocates legalisation or tolerance of the non-medical use of cannabis as a harmless drug. I refer to the resolution of the 22nd Session of the
1408
Commission in 1968. The World Health Organisation has assessed the harm to society derived from the abuse of cannabis as resting in the economic consequence of the impairment of the individual's social functions and his enhanced proneness to forms of anti-social behaviour.
In this country, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence set up a Sub-Committee in 1967 to examine the whole question of the misuse of cannabis. I referred on Second Reading to the Report of the Sub-Committee, presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. It was, as noble Lords know, a very controversial Report. It was also, I am inclined to think, one that has been misunderstood more than a large number of other specialist reports of the kind. It did not say that the use of cannabis was without danger to health. It did not recommend that cannabis should be legalised. On the contrary, the Sub-Committee recommended that restrictions should be maintained. They felt that the penalties were too high; and that is a point to which I shall return in a few moments.
Two extracts from the Report, both short, are particularly to the point at this stage. On the impairment of the cannabis user's social function—that was the assessment of the World Health Organisation to which I have just referred—the noble Baroness's Sub-Committee commented:
"Accurate scientific knowledge is lacking of the personality of those who habitually use cannabis, of the significance of the circumstances in which it is used, and of the psychological, physiological and social consequence of long-term use".
That is in Paragraph 73. The second extract (in Paragraph 62) concerns the risk to health:
"It is not possible to say that long continued consumption, medically or for pleasure, of cannabis, or indeed of any other substance of which we have not yet had long experience, is free from possible danger."
The analogy of tobacco and alcohol was mentioned, earlier in the discussion on this Amendment, by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich; and this is often said. But it seems to me that the really significant difference is that the use of cannabis is not socialised; that it is not accepted by law or convention as a normal part of social life. Alcohol is so accepted, and experience shows that once a habit has become socialised it is

1409
extremely difficult to eradicate. For support of that proposition, we can look to what happened in the United States of America in the case of Prohibition. Even when it is proved that a substance is harmful to health, if its use has become socialised it is very much harder to stop. If what we know to-day about tobacco and the proven causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been known in the early years of this century, when cigarette smoking became common, the habit might not have spread and much suffering might have been avoided.
My second comment would be that if the use of cannabis is accepted as not being a matter as serious as the use of other drugs which do not have a therapeutic application, cannabis use will become "the done thing" for a much wider section of society. It is not only young children who imitate their elders: many others imitate the behaviour of those whom they admire, and we already know only too well the dangers of the weak personality and the emotionally deprived person who drift into using drugs because they see others, who may have the strength not to be harmed, doing so. The weak personalities and the emotionally deprived may not have the strength to limit their use of drugs to moderate amounts.
My third comment on this aspect of our debate is on the very great difficulty of distinguishing between the use of cannabis and other drugs. I see, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, used to see when he was at the Home Office, cases of people who have got into trouble for a number of reasons. In some of these cases drugs are involved, and over and over again one sees that the drugs involved are multiple. There is some cannabis, there is some LSD, there is another drug. It is very seldom that it is only one drug. Once the habit is there, the desire to experiment, which is very strong, particularly with LSD, has to be borne in mind.
Let me move on now to the question of penalties and to the points raised in debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland. It is not possible to distinguish between and to discuss the principle behind these Amendments without considering their
1410
effect, and their effect is on the level of penalty that offences are to attract. The is the significance of the three categories that Class A, Class B and Class C attract penalties of a different level.
Let us consider for a moment the present position. I am afraid it is somewhat complicated, but a knowledge of it is essential for an understanding of the problem. The present position is that cannabis, together with a certain number of other drugs, is controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The maximum penalties for any offence relating to cannabis are, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £250 or imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or both; and, on indictment, a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence concluded that these penalties were too high and should be reduced. The previous Administration did not accept the levels proposed by the Sub-Committee, but the effect of scheduling cannabis as a category B drug in the present Bill is that the various offences involving cannabis are distinguished.
Where the offence is under subsections (2) or (3) of Clause 4, or subsection (3) of Clause 5—and these are the clauses of the Bill which establish offences that amount to trafficking—the penalties are still very heavy, and indeed in some cases have been increased to as high as 14 years. The later Amendments that have been set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will give us an opportunity to debate these, and it will certainly be an important part of the Committee's deliberation to discuss the whole level of penalties, including the ones with which she is particularly concerned at the upper end of the scale.
Where, however, the offence is having possession of a controlled drug, which is covered by Clause 5(2), the penalties involving imprisonment will be less than they are today. On summary conviction, the maximum penalty will be a fine not exceeding £400 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both; and on indictment, a fine of an unspecified amount or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. It will be seen that in the case of imprisonment—and this is probably what is worrying most noble Lords—the maximum terms of

1411
imprisonment available to the courts under this Bill for offences involving simple possession of cannabis have been halved, as regards both the magistrates' courts and the higher courts.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is right, is it not, that in regard to the supply and production of cannabis the penalty in fact goes up from 10 years to 14 years?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes; the noble Lord may not have quite followed what I was saying. I hope I made it clear, and it will be in Hansard tomorrow. The Bill distinguishes—as the present law does not—between conduct which amounts to trafficking in drugs and possession of drugs—and by "possession" we often mean the use of a drug. There are three offences which amount to trafficking which we will come to later in the Bill, and, as I have said, the penalties for trafficking are high and in some cases, as I mentioned just now, will increase from 10 years to 14 years. But in the case of simple possession of cannabis—that is the individual user who is in possession of the drug—what I have said holds good. As regards imprisonment, the penalties on indictment and on summary conviction have been halved. There has therefore been a reduction in penalty, but we do not think it is right to go any further than that. That is the reason why I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is it not a fact that cannabis smoking is almost always a communal activity in which the joint is passed from one person to another, and that this in fact amounts to having possession and control of the drug with intent to supply it to another, so that in virtually every case the "pot" smoker would be liable to the maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years?
LORD WINDLESHAM: This debate is a wide-ranging one and we are drawing towards the end of it. We are going to discuss each of these offences when we come to the various clauses of the Bill. We are in Committee, and let us debate the offences amounting to trafficking when we come to them. For the time being, let us stay with Lord Foot's point. I am making the point that the consequence of accepting his Amendment
1412
would be to reduce still further the penalties for the possession of cannabis, and we do not think it would be right to go as far as that.
I must remind your Lordships again that the Bill has been the subject of very careful study by two Governments of opposing Parties. It has received two Second Readings in the House of Commons; it has had an extensive examination in Committee in the House of Commons, although the proceedings in the Committee were not concluded before the General Election, and it had a second examination in Committee there before it came to your Lordships' House. At no point in those discussions was there a Division on penalties. Differing opinions were expressed, as one would expect, but at no stage did anyone feel that public opinion was so strong or that the merits of the case were such that they required the penalties for possession of cannabis to be reduced.
I should point out, finally (because I am anxious to leave the noble Lord with enough time to say what he wants to say before we come to a decision), that the allocation of cannabis in the Bill to Class B is not permanent. Many noble Lords have said that we need to know more about cannabis, to find out more about its effects on personality and on health; and this is undoubtedly so. Once this Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary will be able, on the advice of his Advisory Council that will be set up under Clause 1, to move any drug up or down in the existing three classes, or indeed out of the Schedules altogether. There is power under the legislation to do that. I think I have said enough to explain that in the Government's view it is not possible to advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It had not been my intention to speak on this Amendment at all but rather on that which seeks to eliminate Clause 6, which I equally hope will be rejected by your Lordships most emphatically. Although I, mercifully, have no experience of the effect of cannabis in this country, I know something about its use and abuse in one of the countries where it is produced and which is one of the main sources of supply for the trade over here; that is to say, Jamaica, an island I know very well indeed. In the local Press there, hardly a

1413
week passes without one seeing an account of some crime being committed—murder, culpable homicide, rape or violent assault—by someone under the influence of cannabis, there known as ganja. That happens the whole time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, there are various ways of administering it. Over there it is usually smoked, and there unscrupulous dealers, as here, sometimes cut the drug by mixing grass or some other innocuous herb with it. It is also chewed in the way plug tobacco used to be, and still is to some extent, in this country. It is sometimes inhaled in the form of snuff and also, I think, taken in the form of injections. The fact remains that the use of cannabis in Jamaica is a most deleterious thing and is something which, if it spreads in this country, will lead to even more suffering than has been the case up to now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has, I think, completely demolished the arguments in favour of it. I must say I am surprised that the whole attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and his supporters seems to be, "When you see evil, do not resist." Surely, they must read the papers and the many accounts, well authenticated, of the appalling suffering inflicted, particularly on young people and their families, in this country. In my opinion there is no reason for any relaxation in the regulations, and I hope that the Government will push through this Bill and your Lordships will reject with contumely all Amendments which seek to modify it.
5.45 p.m.
LORD FOOT: May I begin, in reply to this debate, with the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, alluded at the end of what he had to say, when he remarked that we need not worry very much about putting this drug cannabis in Class D because it is always open to the Secretary of State at some future date to put it up or down in the categorism. I think that argument is a misleading one, though not intentionally so, for this reason. If you put the penalty for the drug too high in the first place, it becomes almost impossible at any future date to get it reduced, because as soon as you try to do so you get people like the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, getting up and saying, "You are going soft on cannabis". It is an argument that is
1414
constantly used. If you put the penalties too high in the first place, it is almost impossible in the future to get them reduced; but if you put them low in the scale, and if it turns out, as a result of future research, that cannabis has some harmful quality, some possible long-term quality and effect, which we have not yet discovered, it will always be possible to raise cannabis in the level of offences.
I do not want to attempt to reply in any sort of detail to all that has been said in this debate, but it would be fair to say that, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, the two arguments that have been raised against my proposal are these. The first is, as she put it, that we must beware of what we do because we do not know what the effects of cannabis are. And the second one was the assertion—and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the noble Lord, Lord Brock—that use of cannabis leads on to the use of hard drugs, and in particular heroin. I think I could most usefully apply myself to those two matters. With regard to the first, that we should beware of what we do about cannabis because we do not know what the effects are, we have not yet had sufficient research, and so on—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I interrupt? I think the noble Lord is a little confused. I was quoting him when I used that argument. Those were the last words he used, and I quoted him.
LORD FOOT: That is precisely my point, because I was just going to say that I agree with the noble Baroness. I do not dissent from that expression. Indeed', that is what I have said from the beginning. I hope we can consider this matter unemotionally. The basic principle of the Bill is to try to put drugs in three or more categories according to their known harmfulness. Suppose that you have a drug which is separate from every other drug in this way, that you do not know whether it is harmful or in what circumstances it is harmful, is there not an overwhelming argument for creating a separate classification for that drug, because it has that particular property? It is a property which, so far as I know, is not shared by any of the drugs in Categories A, B or C. Therefore, when I propose that there should

1415
be a separate classification for cannabis, I am not departing from the principle upon which the Bill is constructed. Indeed, I am going along with it.
In that matter of principle I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. He said that he thought there was something to be said for the principle, but that he certainly would not agree with some of the penalties that I was prescribing in my later Amendments, particularly for production and supply. As I said at the beginning, I am not dogmatic about these penalties and I hope that at this stage we shall not be drawn into a discussion about the penalties that I propose; but I shall be quite willing to listen if the noble Lord will go along with me in carrying the principle which I advocate. I shall be only too pleased to discuss later on whether I have the penalties right or whether the penalty for some particular kind of offence in connection with cannabis may be too low.
To me it seems logical from the principles of this Bill that on the Government's own argument there ought to be a separate classification for cannabis. It is not going "soft" on cannabis, because if the House accepts the general principle it will be perfectly possible in due course, when they come to consider cannabis, for us to resolve what are the appropriate penalties for the various kinds of offences in connection with it.
Before I leave this matter, perhaps I should say one word about an argument which was addressed to us by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He was talking about different people who are led into the use of drugs and things of that kind, and he spoke particularly of the weak character who engages in the use of cannabis because he is an inadequate person and is unable to resist the temptation which may be put before him. I would ask the noble Lord this question: Does he really believe that that weak, inadequate character will be prevented from starting on the use of cannabis because this Bill says that he might go to prison for five years? Does he really believe that that sanction in the background really operates upon characters of that kind?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That was not my point. My argument was that if we
1416
encourage the more widespread use of cannabis, if we start on a process of socialisation, it is the weak and the inadequate who suffer most.
LORD FOOT: The noble Lord's premise is that if we start upon a process of making cannabis acceptable, or of socialisation, then we are in danger of bringing these weak characters into contact with it. I am not recommending that. I am not recommending legalisation. I am recommending that this should remain a crime, that it should remain an offence. I am not advocating the wider use of cannabis. Far from it. What I am advocating is that when we are dealing with cannabis where no harmfulness has been demonstrated, we ought not to attach to it penalties which are entirely inappropriate to the crime in question.
May I turn to the other argument which has been raised by a number of your Lordships, that the use of cannabis and the introduction to cannabis leads on to the use of hard drugs, in particular heroin. This was asserted by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Brock. But in each case it was an assertion, and you can find many quotations to the contrary if you look through the records—some of them have been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. If I may quote from the report to which I think the noble Baroness was referring when she spoke on this subject, the report of the United States Health Education and Welfare Department, published only a couple of days ago—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My quotation was taken from the report of the Mental Health Committee.
LORD FOOT: This is the report compiled by the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States Health Education and Welfare Department. I do not know whether it is the same report from which the noble Baroness quoted an extract. But let me quote from it on this matter of whether cannabis leads on to heroin. Concerning drug dependency the report says this:
"It is generally conceded that marijuana use does not necessarily lead directly to the use of other drugs."
We can all produce quotations about that.
Perhaps I may in passing quote what was said by the Wootton Sub-Committee

1417
on this same subject. This is the result of the investigation and the research which they carried out. These are not assertions; this is their summary of the evidence, and in paragraph 51 they say:
"It can clearly be argued on the world picture that cannabis use does not lead to heroin addiction. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned no comprehensive survey has yet been made, and a number of isolated studies have been published, none of which demonstrate significant lines of progression. Our witnesses had nothing to add to the information already available, and we have concluded that a risk of progression to heroin from cannabis is not a reason for retaining the control over the drug."
That is the conclusion of this Sub-Committee which, after all, went into the matter in great detail.
I would ask the Committee to do two things. I would ask them to put into one scale the unsupported assertions that we have had from the noble Baroness and noble Lords, to the effect that cannabis leads on to the harder drugs, and the conclusion arrived at by the committee in America and that which was arrived at by the informed Sub-Committee headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. This matter has been debated over and over again. There are, of course, strong arguments both ways. It is partly a matter of instinct whether you think that the use of cannabis in fact leads on to the use of the harder drugs.
But I suggest that we are in danger of falling into an error of principle.
As I said at the beginning, the whole of this Bill is based upon the principle that you should try to categorise drugs according to their level of harmlessness. Surely it would be a complete break from that principle if you were to put cannabis, which is not demonstrably harmful, into a higher category, not because it is harmful in itself but because somebody asserts that it leads on to heroin. If you were Ito do that, then there might be an argument for putting some amphetamines into a higher level because they, too, may lead on to the use of heroin. If we are going to work upon the principle of categorising drugs according to their level of harmlessness, let us stick by the principle and not try to avoid the issue by saying that one drug is to be condemned, not on its own account, not for its own sake, not for what it does, but because it might, in the belief of some people, lead on to something else. I see that our time is coming to an end. I feel that the principle of this matter ought to be tested, and I would therefore carry the matter to a Division.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-contents, 116.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Burgh, L.

Henley, L.

Amherst, E.

Burntwood, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amulree, L.

Byers, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Harrington, V.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

St. Just, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Gifford, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Eccles, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Clwyd, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Amory, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Falkland, V.

Ardwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland, L.

Cromartie, E.

Fortescue, E.

Audley, B.

Daventry, V.

Gage, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Berkeley, B.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Brock, L.

Derwent, L.

Gray, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Diamond, L.

Greenway, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carrington, L.

Dudley, E.

Gridley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sherfield, L.

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

Milverton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Molson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hankey, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stocks, B.

Hawke, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonham, L.

Hives, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Hood, V.

Northchurch, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strang, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Ilford, L.

Phillips, B.

Sudeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Summerskill, B.

Janner, L.

Rhyl, L.

Swanborough, B.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rockley, L.

Tenby, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teynham, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Longford, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

Lothian, M.

Salisbury, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Serota, B.

Wise, L.

Mansfield, E.

Shannon, E.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (FINANCE &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
6.14 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD STONHAM in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Abolition of prerogative of the Crown as to wild creatures, and franchises derived therefrom]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("royal fish") and insert ("sturgeons").
The noble Earl said: Since my Amendment affects the prerogative, I am authorised to say that if this Amendment were proposed excluding not only swans but royal fish this would not be of any embarrassment to the Crown, provided that the Amendment made it clear beyond peradventure that it was being proposed by interests other than the Sovereign, as Her consent to the proposals has already been signified, and there must be no suggestion that such consent had been modified on Her Majesty's behalf (and that of

1421
course I can say quite definitely) and provided also that an appropriate assurance could be given by the Department of Trade and Industry that the Department would be fully responsible for any liability arising in connection with royal fish. That assurance I cannot give, but I imagine that the present position would be maintained and perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say so. If your Lordships agreed to my Amendment I have no doubt that the Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, would accept the responsibility which they do at present.
This Bill was drafted by the Law Commission, which has as its duty,
"the promotion of the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments".
For those reasons it included a clause abolishing the Royal prerogative right to the bodies of whales, dolphins and porpoises cast up on the shores of this country, giving as an additional reason the possible delay involved in seeking the Royal approval when one of those bodies had to be dealt with.
This clause vitally affects the Natural History Museum, of which I happen to be one of the Trustees. I should perhaps explain to your Lordships that the Trustees are responsible for much more than the exhibition galleries to which you may take your children or your grandchildren. These form but a small part of the responsibilities of the Trustees, taking about one-eighth of the total money expended. Behind the galleries, unseen by the general public, there is one of the largest and famous research institutes in the world. One of the branches of science for which that institute is most famous is the study of whales, dolphins and porpoises. And there is in the museum an unrivalled collection of material, of skulls and skeletons, of soft parts and dissections, available for study not only by our own scientists, but also by scientists who come from all over the world to work there.
It has been possible to collect much of this material only because the Board of Trade are responsible for dealing, on behalf of the Crown, with stranded whales and dolphins, and since 1914—that is, nearly 60 years—the carcases of all whales and dolphins cast up on the shores of this country have been offered to the Museum as potentially useful scientific material. As it has been suggested
1422
that this arrangement might cause delay and problems of public health, I should perhaps explain the procedure followed. The coastguard who finds the body sends a telegram to the Museum informing it of what he has found. The Museum sends one back saying whether or not it wants the body. If it does need it, somebody from the Museum goes down to deal with the carcase: if it is not needed, the coastguard arranges for its disposal.
In most cases to-day the communication comes by telephone, which is much quicker; but in order to see that the machinery was working satisfactorily I took a file out of the Museum's files at random and picked out of it the first five telegrams, in sequence, dealing with royal fish. I noted in each case the time when the coastguard sent the telegram off and the time when the reply was sent. They were: 10.40, 14.00 hours; 06.06, 10.15; 10.42, 14.30; 16.30, 09.15 the following morning; 12.00, 14.00. That is an interval of between two and four hours, save for the overnight case, and for such cases, as for carcases which arrive at weekends and on bank holidays, special arrangements are made.
On these occasions the officer responsible is contacted at his home, and if he is not obtainable a special "wire" is sent saying, "Destroy immediately", so that no public health difficulties can arise. If the telegram arrives after dark and the officer is not obtainable—he may be at the cinema, for instance—he is informed first thing the following morning, when work can once more start. And in the case I have quoted the telegram went off at 9 o'clock in the morning. In all cases the coastguards send by post a standard form giving the length, the colour and the like, so that the creature can be identified by the description.
Your Lordships will see that the Museum gets a record of every stranding, which adds to our knowledge of the geographical and seasonal distributions of these creatures. But what is just as important is the right to have the body itself, or part of it, for study in a laboratory; and over the years, 1948 to 1966 (the last one for which returns were made), out of 501 carcases no fewer than 121 were needed, either the whole body or part of the body, for research purposes—very nearly one-quarter of the

1423
total. What makes this machinery so effective is that the man who sends the message is in many cases the man who makes the arrangements for the disposal of the carcase if it is not required. He knows that the Museum has the right to the body, and can act accordingly, and both operations are centrally controlled by a Government Department.
I hope your Lordships will see that the proposal to abolish this machinery is not just "the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments", because what is at stake is the destruction of a unique and efficient piece of machinery by means of which the Museum has been able to add enormously to scientific knowledge and to the scientific reputation of this country throughout the whole world. What the Board of Trade and the Museum between them have been able to do is to adapt a mediæval Statute to modern needs. A Statute which was originally intended to meet the perhaps rather selfish demands of the Crown now provides for the scientific needs of one of the largest and more important of our scientific research institutes.
The Trustees of that institute, the Trustees of the Natural History Museum, are satisfied that the maintenance of existing machinery is essential if cetacean research is to continue as satisfactorily as it has in the past. I would qualify that by saying that if it is not exactly the existing machinery then at least it should be machinery which gives a single central body a right to the carcase, and the duty of disposing of it if it is not required, and of reporting to the Museum and sending the carcases there if required.
So far as the Museum is concerned, it is of little moment whether that body is the Crown, the Central Government of the Museum itself, so long as the Museum can have the assistance of the Board of Trade, such as has been offered to the Crown. We are informed, however, that legally it must be the Crown; and your Lordships may remember that I reminded the House on Second Reading of the analogy of treasure trove, through which valuable antiquities can be retained for national collections by right of the Crown. I have to-day presented for First Reading a Bill to vest all meteorites in the Crown in order that these, too, can be retained in the national collections for
1424
scientific purposes. I am obviously not capable of arguing between prerogative rights and vesting in the Crown, but one or the other seems to us to be essential if we are to keep up with the scientific research for which we are responsible: and if, having abolished the prerogative right the noble and learned Lord could move an Amendment vesting in the Crown or in some Government Department the bodies which were previously the right of the Crown, the trustees will be very content.
Now since the existing machinery works well it seems a pity to alter it, and the real point at issue between the Trustees and Her Majesty's Government is surely this. The Government wish to repeal a medieval Statute because the reasons which originally led to its being passed no longer obtain. The Trustees wish to keep the Statute because it is still useful—indeed, the Trustees would say that it is still essential to meet the needs of modern scientists; and, so far, no alternative has been suggested.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord was twice good enough to suggest that the Museum could be helped—and I quote his words:
"to make an important compilation of information about ceLcca".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/1/71, col. 715.]
if the coastguard were to continue to make reports of strandings. Unfortunately, the Museum was not consulted in any way, either by the Law Commission or by the noble and learned Lord's Department, about the Bill, so naturally he could not be fully informed about the effect of it upon the scientific research carried on at the Museum. But I hone I have now made it clear to your Lordships that the compilation of records to which he referred is but a small part of the work done at the Museum, and that the major advances in scientific knowledge have been made by a study of the skulls, skeletons and soft Harts of whales, porpoises and dolphins, for which, of course, control over the bodies of the whales which are cast ashore is essential.
None of us, of course, knows how research is going to develop, but the great wreck of seabirds and the death of sea animals which took place last year, not to mention the recent discovery of heavy metals in fishes' bodies, suggest that research into fish-eating mammals is very

1425
likely to be necessary; and, here again, the present machinery, or something of the same nature, will I think be essential. The effect of what the noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading was, I think, "Let us first repeal the Statute and then find out some other machinery to take its place". Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. I think it must be up to him to prove that the Statute that he wishes to destroy is working badly and to prove that that which he proposes to put in its place will work better; because I must confess that it seems to me clear silliness to destroy something which is working well just for the sake of destroying it, with no clear knowledge of what is to be put in its place and against the advice of those responsible for the research institute concerned.
I hope that most noble Lords will think likewise and I shall ask them to support my Amendment. There is one last point. This is not, I think, a political matter, but there seems to be some doubt whether the Government look upon it as a matter of confidence or not. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us whether we are to have a free vote on this matter or not. I beg to move.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I replied to the noble Earl, because it seems to me that the whole of this Amendment is based upon a complete misconception. I am sure that the Committee was entranced by his description, both of the work which the Natural History Museum does in respect of the skulls and tissues of the various cetacea which are stranded on our coasts and upon the valuable collection of information which the Museum has acquired and is acquiring over a period of years. And if there were the smallest grounds for the belief that this would be brought to an end by what is now proposed in this modest law reform Bill, I suppose that there is hardly a Member of your Lordships' House, and certainly not a member of Her Majesty's Government, who would not wish to exclude "whales"—whatever that word may mean, and I shall come to that later—from the purview of the Bill. But that is not the case.
1426
My noble friend keeps on referring to the "machinery" and suggests that it is a pity to abolish it, and that to abolish it without putting anything in its place is, as he described it, putting the cart before the horse. But this Bill does not touch the machinery. It has nothing to do with it except in an historical sense which I will explain; it has nothing to do with the machinery at all. The assurance that I sought to give to my noble friend on Second Reading and which I do not think he can have fully assimilated is that the machinery will go on, whether his Amendment is accepted or rejected. It has no logical relationship to what happens.
Having said that, may I now seek to justify what I have said by what I hope will be a logical argument. This Bill is concerned solely with the abolition of a wholly useless piece of legal lumber from our Statute Book, and it will have no effect at all on the existing machinery. There can be no doubt whatever in law that the existing machinery—although historically no doubt it arose out of the fact that the Queen in a personal capacity had the right to the carcases of whales and sturgeons—is not in any way based on that. It is a purely administrative arrangement. It has no legal basis in the Prerogative or in the Statute. It could be stopped to-morrow by the Government (I hasten to say that it will not in fact be stopped) if the Government so decided, without altering the Prerogative in the least. It could be stopped by a mere administrative order, whether the Amendment is carried or rejected, and it could, if the Government so decided—and again let me hasten to add that the Government have no such thought in mind—be handed over to each of the local authorities to carry out. It could be given to any individual private citizen, if the Government so wanted, whether the Amendment is carried or not.
There is no legal basis in the Prerogative for what is now being done It is an administrative arrangement which my noble friend is utterly mistaken in thinking could be affected either in one way or another by what is proposed in this law reform Bill. Conversely, I must say, having given the assurance which the Government have given that it will go

1427
on happening under the existing arrangements until another set of arrangements is made, satisfactory to the Natural History Museum, I wholly fail to understand how my noble friend thinks that by preserving a pure piece of archæological lumber on the Statute Book he can possibly serve the interests of science, either now or in the future.
May I go a little further to explain the situation? The Queen has the prerogative of what are called Royal fish. She has over the centuries given away that prerogative already in respect of 7½ per cent. of the coastline of England and Wales. In other words, the prerogative does not exist on 7½ per cent. of the coastline of England and Wales—the notable example, apart from the Duchy of Cornwall, which I do not think I have included in the 7½ per cent., being to the Warden of the Cinque Ports. There are various stretches of the sea coast where the prerogative is already given away, but the machinery operates there just the same. It is a purely administrative arrangement. The reason is that in the ordinary course of events nobody but the Natural History Museum wants whales. On the contrary, they are only too glad to get rid of them. The problem is not keeping them but getting rid of them; and when the Natural History Museum want them they get them pretty quickly. The fact is that my noble friend gets his information and gets his carcases whether they belong to the Queen or not.
If one then turns to Scotland—because owing to its situation (it is rather North of the benighted part of the United Kingdom in which we live) it gets more than its share of whales, whatever whales may be (and I will come to that)—one discovers that very few of the whales are Royal fish at all. As I explained on Second Reading, I thought clearly, the criterion of a Royal fish in Scotland is not the same as a Royal fish in England. In Scotland, so the Scots lawyers tell me—and there is a great encyclopædia of Scottish law by an author known as Erskine which is generally treated as authoritative—in order to be a Royal fish the object has to be of such a size that it can only be moved by a wain drawn by six oxen. I do not know whether my noble friend wants to keep in Scottish law an absurd provision of that kind.
1428
But I should like him to explain to the Committee, if he is really serious, why he thinks he gets all the information relating to porpoises—because porpoises do not require a wain with six oxen to take them away. For this purpose a porpoise is a whale; just as for the purposes of common law a whale is a fish.
This is an Amendment about porpoises, largely. If one takes the strandings—and I am now quoting from the strandings over the last 50 years given in The Times the other day—631 out of 1,547 were common porpoises. The bottle-nosed dolphin, which equally does not require a wain with six oxen to draw it away, was the next largest, with 185. The common dolphin is about the same, 135, and the lesser rorqual 106, out of the 1,547 strandings over the 50 years. I could give the figures for Scotland.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks that the lesser rorqual is the same size as the porpoise?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords, I do not. I was about to say, if the noble Lord had given me a chance, that I doubt whether it would take a wain with six oxen to take it away. I do not honestly know—otherwise I would tell the Committee—exactly how big an object has to be before it requires six oxen and a wain to take it away. All I can say is that I do not know for certain whether or not the lesser rorqual is such a size. I rather fancy it is not, but I never intended to suggest, and do not suggest, that it is the size of the common porpoise. All I am saying (this is the argument I am presenting to the Committee; I do hope that they are following me) is that unless my noble friend can seriously suggest that it is necessary to the Natural History Museum that there should be a provision in our extraordinary legal system whereby the carcases of whales if of more than the requisite size should remain in the property of Her Majesty, but lesser whales should not; and why should the law of Scotland be completely different from the law of England? I am quite unable to accept that these administrative arrangements which cover the whole shooting match do not operate quite well without this mediaeval lumber.
One could carry this much further, of course. The fact of the matter is that

1429
the prerogative, as it exists, has nothing to do with the administrative arrangement, except a purely historic connection. Let me add that nobody knows what the prerogative is; nobody has bothered to find out, because for very many centuries nobody wanted these carcases except the Natural History Museum. We cannot, of course, guard each one; but fortunately no one takes them away, and no one will take them away. We only tell the Natural History Museum where they can get them if they want. Nobody knows the extent of the Royal Prerogative. I should have thought that the probability is that most of the things treated as Royal fish for the purposes probably are not. My noble friend spoke as if we were repealing a Statute. Well, we are repealing a Statute, of course—the Statute, or bits of it, De Prerogativo Regis of Edward II, which contains the mysterious words "wallenas et sturgiones".
Even if we did not repeal the Statute, the Common Law gives Royal fish, whatever they may be, to the Queen; and nobody knows what Royal fish are. It is said by Sir Matthew Hale in his treatise De Jure Maris that when he examined the extent of this prerogative he came to the conclusion that it had been extended to creatures other than whales and sturgeon; for instance, to porpoise, and to grampise, or great fish. What grampise are, again I do not know, although I think I detect the Norman French grand poisson meaning a big fish. I cannot tell the Committee what is contained in this legal rubbish—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I help the noble and learned Lord by telling him that a grampus is an orca-gladiator and I hope that he does not meet one?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The trouble is that the noble Lord is confusing a grampise with a grampus—you see what sort of a muddle we get into if we try to preserve this nonsense. It is nothing to do with a grampus; it is a grampise. From Moore's History of the Foreshore it is, I think, considered that a grampise means nothing more than a grandis piscis, or a big fish.
In mediaeval language dolphins and porpoises were not distinguished, any more than whales were distinguished from fish. It is, therefore, totally uncertain
1430
whether, if the Loch Ness monster or its maritime equivalent were suddenly washed up on the coast of Scotland or England, my noble friend would be entitled. The kind of muddle we are in when we are talking about this nonsense can well be seen by a series of events in the reign of Henry III when there was a tremendous controversy between the King's bailiff and the Prior of St. Swithen's de quodam pisce regio claimed by each without any distinct name. The upshot was that the Prior procured the King's bailiff to be excommunicated and the King commanded his absolution. This is the kind of thing we have to continue, if my noble friend is serious, in order to preserve the legitimate machinery of the Natural History Museum. I wish to be excessively polite, but I remain sceptical on this point. I do not believe it is so necessary. All I have said is that we will keep the present machinery on until anybody can think of anything better; and it has to be satisfactory to the Natural History Museum.
I sincerely put to the Committee one rather serious point of principle. If we are going to be serious about law reform—and I am extremely serious about law reform—we really must not go delving about in an amateur kind of way in the muddy waters of mediaeval law to try to find a conceivably relevant purpose for it. If we want to preserve rights by legal Statutes, let us not put Latin Amendments down on the Order Paper but let us initiate a modern up-to-date piece of legislation. In the meantime, let me say at once that my noble friend can rest entirely reassured. We do not intend to destroy the existing machinery, and we do intend to consult the Natural History Museum about any changes in it; and not substitute another scheme until we are all satisfied that it is a better one. But please do not let us confuse this with medieval legal lumber, because it really has no basis in truth at all.
VISCOUNT TENBY: Is it not true that none of these animals mentioned is a fish at all, and that they are all mammals?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is perfectly right. I endeavoured to deal with this point on Second Reading. But if I may elaborate for a moment, if the Committee will forgive me, the reason that whales are Royal

1431
fish is not simply the fact that in St. Matthew's Gospel it is there impliedly stated, but because the law grew up before Linnaeus. Now Linnaeus categorised animals or living things by their structure and their nature. The medieval people who founded the law did it by where they live; and as the whale and the porpoise live in the sea they were counted as fish, and you might eat them on Fridays. There was the great argument about ducks and geese for the very same reason. You might eat ducks on a Friday. Mediæval theologians maintained that it was right to eat ducks and geese on Friday because they were aquatic creatures and therefore fish, and therefore not meat. My noble friend is perfectly right in saying that all this is nonsense. We all know now that the whale is a mammal and we had better get down to the 20th century and not go thrashing about in the 14th century.
VISCOUNT TENBY: I thank the noble and learned Lord very much.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: The noble and learned Lord has used the well-known legal technique of working us up into a terrific confusion and then saying how confused we are. The problem is really extremely simple for laymen like us. I have no more knowledge of the importance of this particular issue scientifically than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. We neither of us claim knowledge on this. But we have a very simple situation. We have a great research institute which contains among its managing directors no fewer than five members of the Royal Society. On the other hand, we have the Law Commission, admirable body as it is; we have the Lord Chancellor's Department, which has many of my friends in it, and we have the Lord Chancellor himself. One side is perfectly certain that it is going to lose something very important; the other side says it is not. That is the issue. Nothing else that your Lordships have heard has any connection with the problem. I am very surprised at the position which the noble and learned Lord has taken up because it is a position which shows for me, who have known him for a very long time, that he has an unexpected passion for tidiness.
This is simply a lawyer's desire to do the thing as a whole instead of making a small exception. There is no reason in
1432
logic for this. There is, however, a sort of holist reason of tidiness. This is not a quality I have ever associated with the noble and learned Lord, and it puzzles me. It also puzzles me to find that here he is acting as a cog in the machine. This is a most unexpected position in which to find him. The Law Commission have started something, the Lord Chancellor's Department have worked it out and he comes here as a cog. We have often heard him described as a March wind, as a tornado, as a dark cloud no bigger than a man's hand at the edge of the horizon, but I never thought he could be described as a sort of nut and bolt in a vast legal Hoover. Somehow I cannot see this as being relevant.
My last complaint is that he has wantonly neglected the "old boy" net and the glorious country houses. They could hardly be introduced to-day, but as they are here it is absurd not to live in them or to use the "old boy" net. The noble and learned Lord and I were privileged to grow up and be educated under a very distinguished natural historian who, until last year, was curator of the Natural History Museum. One would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would at least have rung up his old friend and asked, "Does this really matter?" I did so this morning, but unfortunately he was taking the dog for a walk so I have not the answer. But I am assured that he takes a very serious view.
My Lords, do not be blinded by the confusion into which the noble and learned Lord has got us. There is no confusion. It is a perfectly straight issue. Five Fellows of the Royal Society, backed up by the whole background of the Natural History Museum, including Fraser, who actually does the work, think it would be a very serious thing if this were altered. A lot of lawyers do not. Which side are your Lordships on? I know which side I am on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take my science from the Royal Society but not my law.
LORD HURCOMB: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would have patience with me for a moment to put the real point of the Museum's anxiety in this matter. I agree, of course, that we do not want the Statute Book

1433
cluttered up with mediæval acts about cetacea and I entirely agree that the machinery for reporting to the Museum, which has worked perfectly smoothly and satisfactorily, could well be continued, and from what the noble and learned Lord has said, so far as the Government is concerned it may well be continued. But that is not the real point.
What the Museum is afraid of is that if there is no property in the case of washed-up cetacea, the Museum will not receive the same amount of material as they did in the past. The ordinary man and woman on the beach probably labours under the same delusion as the Norman and Angevin Sovereigns, and apparently also the common lawyers, that these creatures are fish. It is not realised that they are a very important, indeed the largest group, of British mammals. Their scientific importance is not diminished because, so far as the Museum's collection is concerned, it may be thought that there is not much more to discover, largely due to the machinery which has prevailed over the last sixty years and partly also because the Museum has been fortunate in having a number of distinguished zoologists successively interested in this group. The Museum has an unrivalled collection of specimens and dissections. But looking to the future, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, we still need to know what is happening to the inhabitants of the sea and to creatures living on fish and on plankton and every month nowadays some new problems arise as to the poisoning or killing of some particular creature.
I suggest that the protection of these washed-up cetacea and the Museum's right to have a specimen or part of a creature—and often they are content with only a part which they want to dissect—is something of real importance. They are not going to want whales which need to be drawn by six wains or a whole lorry, but they do want to know before one is destroyed just what its interest may be. They are afraid, and I think rightly afraid, that if these creatures do not belong to anyone, when they are washed up they will get stolen or mutilated in some way. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that in most cases the real problem is how to get rid of the beastly thing, but a scientist ought to be sure
1434
that he is having reported to him all the possible material; because it is important from the purely scientific point of view and also from the current research point of view, to which the noble Earl referred, to be able to know what has been happening to these creatures before they are washed up dead.
It seems to me that the simple thing to do is to keep this obsolete machinery on the Statute Book for a little longer, until some satisfactory answer to the main problem—in whom should the property of washed-up cetacea vest—has been satisfactorily solved. Until that has been done, why not leave well alone? I am sure that the ingenuity of the lawyers and scientists, and of the constitutional people who control the functions of departments, can solve this problem if they are given a little time to do so, but we do not want a lacuna in the protection of this carefully protected and preserved species, as these important mammals can still teach us a great deal, not of merely theoretical scientific interest but also of how to protect human life and the lives of other creatures which live in the ocean.
We have enjoyed two not altogether serious speeches and perhaps I should suggest that this subject should be taken more seriously. This is a very real problem, and perhaps if the Museum had been consulted earlier much of the argument which has now arisen would have been unnecessary. I suggest that until a solution is found to the problem of not allowing these creatures, when they are washed up, to be left abandoned with no one having any rights in them, we should continue the excellent machinery, which, as the noble and learned Lord has said, has nothing to do with the Royal Prerogative, and which may cover the majority of cases but will not protect absolutely and successfully the whole of the available material, which I venture to think may become more and more important.
7.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Lord has diverted your Lordships with a speech of his usual brilliance, but I am afraid that so far as casting a proper light on what is going to happen to these Royal whales in future, his speech was rather less of a searchlight than a brutum fulmen.

1435
For, to change the metaphor, the various amusing arguments he has used are really rather like the
"Flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la-la":
they have nothing to do with the case. What we really want to know is in whom will the possession of these royal fish, thrown up on the coast or caught in nets, really vest. Up to date the coastguards have been reporting on them because it is their duty to report on royal fish. But now to whom does a dolphin floating in the sea belong? Is it flotsam? And when it is cast up on the beach is it jetsom? If it is caught in a salmon net or in a trawl does it belong to the trawl owner or the salmon-net owner, or to whom does it belong? It seems to me that there is a considerable danger that a great many of these valuable specimens will no longer be available for use by the museums. Anybody can take them for their own purposes and cut them up for manure or what they like.
I would add that it is particularly important at the present time that a study should be made of the skull of the dolphin, because, as some of your Lordships will know, over the last few years it has been discovered, rather to the surprise of many zoologists, that the dolphin has probably the best brain of any living creature after man. It is far more intelligent than the dog, the elephant or even the primate. It is obvious that raw material in the shape of the skulls and other organs of these dolphins is urgently necessary in order to enable our scientists to continue their investigations, which may eventually lead to a breakthrough in the study of evolution. For that reason, I feel that the noble and learned Lord, for all his brilliance, has not really left the position quite as clear as we should desire.
LORD CONESFORD: I shall detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. I should not like it to be thought that there was no lawyer supporting this Amendment. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the case for law reform and treating it seriously, and I enjoyed as much as the rest of the Committee his brilliant and amusing speech. But there are two points that strike me emphatically. The first is the question of consultation. I have
1436
a great respect for the Law Commission, but on this particular point I cannot imagine why they did not consult the Natural History Museum. As we know from every speech that has been made, the Natural History Museum, rightly or wrongly, are very much interested in this subject, and I know of no reason why they should not have been consulted.
The second point, which was well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is the question of protection, and the possible relevance of ownership to that protection. I should very much like some of these creatures to have the protection that is involved in being the property of Her Majesty. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned in passing the Loch Ness Monster. If the Loch Ness Monster either is or arguably is within the protection afforded by the prerogative, I am strongly in favour of the Loch Ness Monster's continuing to enjoy that protection. I cannot imagine a more obvious disaster than the Loch Ness Monster's being subjected to some outrage by some silly person who had not hitherto believed in its existence and, when he found it, thought it was a good thing to hurt it.
For those reasons—because there has been admittedly no consultation with the Natural History Museum, the distinguished Trustees of which are admittedly very much concerned, and because the existing law provides protection for valuable species and that protection can be valuable for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—I hope that this Amendment will be considered most seriously; and if the matter cannot be settled amicably but has to go to a Division, I propose to support those who favour the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: What a pleasure it is to have the noble and learned Lord back among us! In his speech he swam vigorously, thrashed around, spouted like a good whale but not like a grampus—I am sorry that I missed that joke, but the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, intercepted me just when the noble and learned Lord was making his main point. But I am bound to say that on two or three aspects of his speech I am not satisfied. First of all, I think his little lecture on taxonomy, and the particular role of Lineas in deciding when a fish was a fish, was somewhat

1437
oversimplified, and I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord does know what a rorqual is. He will not be eaten by a rorqual: its teeth are very small.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never said that I knew what a rorqual was. All I said was that I doubted whether it took a wain and six oxen to carry it away when it was dead.
LORD SHACKLETON: This just shows how wrong the noble and learned Lord is. I am not sure which kind of rorqual he was talking about, but it would take a large number of oxen to pull a rorqual away.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was only talking about the lesser rorqual.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord is still not sure of his ground. Having revealed some uncertainty in this matter, it gives us slight ground to doubt the legal expertise, which he rightly says does not necessarily exist among Fellows of the Royal Society. I am not sure whether there has been a proper biological mating between the two branches of these professions.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that we should get rid of what he several times delighted to call mediæval legal lumber. I do not know why swans are not mediæval legal lumber while whales continue to be, but there is no doubt a good reason. But my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, who is also a lawyer (he apologises for not being here, but he had to go: I offered to take his place with eagerness, because the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I have been allies for a long while) told me that he was not yet satisfied by the noble and learned Lord, and I think that many other noble Lords are not satisfied.
The point at issue really is, if this particular right—which the noble and learned Lord says has nothing to do with the question of whether the British Museum get their whales—is removed, by what particular administrative authority will it be possible for the British Museum to get their cetacae, which is what I think the noble and learned Lord prefers to call them? Is this an undertaking that the Minister will continue to order coast-guards to fulfil this role? I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised
1438
some difficult questions of ownership. Therefore, unless we get a more satisfactory reply I am inclined to leave this bit of law in existence. Indeed, I think it may be rather satisfactory to find something as useful as this in a measure as ancient as the one that we are talking about. Therefore, I would certainly be willing to support the noble Earl.
It may well be that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us slightly more effective assurances as to how the administrative machinery will work, and under what authority it will work. Unless he can do so, I suggest to the noble Earl that he takes the matter to a Division; or, at any rate, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will go away and think again and produce an explanation which is less littered with extremely interesting mediaeval Latin, though perhaps lacking in biological Latin. It may well be that the matter will have to be pursued on the Report stage. I am certainly prepared to recommend to any noble Lord who thinks like me to support the noble Earl.
7.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never like to be unreasonable, but I must frankly reply to this debate that I am a little disappointed in the speeches to which have listened. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, began by saying that it was unlike me to be tidy. I think there was truth in that criticism. But here I am not being tidy; I am trying to be rational. I believe that I am allergic to nonsense when I see it. What is manifest nonsense to me is to believe that the interests of the Natural History Museum are impaired, when the existing machinery bears no foundation on this curious morass into which noble Lords have shown themselves only too eager to plunge, but is wholly independent of it, and will continue whatever the fate of the noble Lord's Amendment. If anybody thinks that the mere dubbed property in the Crown (not in porpoises in Scotland, but in larger whales in Scotland; but none, I think, in the Isle of Man or Guernsey or Jersey, to some of which I think the machinery applies) is of any practical value in salving these unwanted carcases—
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? He

1439
says that he "thinks" it applies. It would be helpful to know where this machinery applies where this particular prerogative is not operating.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I am right, but this is wholly outside my own Department. I think it applies to the British Isles; but there are so many islands in the British Isles that I am not sure that the watchful eyes of the Coastguard Service apply to them all. The only point I am seeking to make to the Committee—which is, after all, dealing with a law reform Bill—is that the mere property, if there is a property which is highly doubtful and which varies according to the part of the British Isles in which the thing is, has any kind of protection from the Natural History Museum, all I can say is that he is suffering from an illusion. The real trouble—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: May I—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; allow me to proceed, and I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment. The real truth is that there is no relationship between this prerogative which noble Lords wish to preserve and the machinery which will be preserved, whatever comes of this Amendment. There is no relationship at all. I tried to illustrate it by a number of absurd anomalies. If I had carried out more research I could have given as many more. For instance, even in England, where the prerogative is at its widest, I think that 7½ per cent. of the coastline has been given to somebody else—and nobody knows quite whom—yet the machinery, which is relatively modern, operates just as well.
I have not forgotten my promise to the noble Lord, but it is a little difficult to find a commercial test, which I will do in a moment. May I just pursue this question, for instance, of consultation? The basic reason for the failure of the Law Commission to consult is that they have not the remotest idea that anybody would think this had the faintest bearing on what they were proposing. They did it out of sheer innocence, innocence which until a fortnight ago I myself shared. But what I am seeking to assure the Committee is that they were dead right.
1440
The Natural History Museum depends for its continued information and carcases upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who operates quite independently of the prerogative on all porpoises, whether in England or Scotland, or rorquals in either place, and wherever the Coastguard Service can inform the authorities of the existence of a stranded carcase, alive or dead. If the noble Lord thinks that a better set of machinery can be found, all I say is that I have given the assurance, on behalf of the Government, that the present machinery will be kept in being because it does not depend on the prerogative and my right honourable friend (though not the Lord Chancellor's Department, please) will be happy to discuss it with the Natural History Museum.
The Natural History Museum and I have been perfectly alerted to this problem for the past fortnight, and I have not been the least encouraged by what the Trustees have done. Instead of co-operating in a simple method of law reform and accepting a Government promise, which is given in good faith, they have continued to pursue what I can only describe as a purely obscurantist series of assertions which have no relation to fact at all. Although I am still going to co-operate with them so far as I can—and so will my right honourable friend—I am not encouraged by their attempts constantly to teach me a little more instead of my learning innocently at their hands all the science that they care to impart.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I accept the point of the noble and learned Lord that the machinery does not depend on the prerogative. It is quite clear to me that what he is saying, that the law is a nonsense as it stands, is true. But is it not also true that the machinery depends on the belief of a great many people around Britain that it does depend on the prerogative, and that the belief that whales belong to the Queen helps to protect them and induce people to report them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all. It depends upon the instructions which are given to the Coastguard and the Receiver of Wrecks, which is the authority that co-ordinates the information about whales. I have no reason whatever

1441
to think that the inhabitants of Scotland believe that the porpoises belong to the Queen. They do not in fact do so and so far as I know they never have done so. What kind of protection is provided on the Strands of Kent, where all the carcases belong to the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the noble Lord must ask the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, who is also a Member of your Lordships' House. But the machinery works there perfectly well, not because people think the carcases belong to the Queen—because I have no doubt that the lieges of the Cinque Ports know only too well that they must look to the noble Lord, Lord Menzies, or whoever it is.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Is there any right that matters of the Queen in regard to swans? What is the distinction if we must hereby abolish all Her Majesty's rights to royal fish, including these curious kinds of non-fish? Why do we have to keep her prerogative right for swans?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained this point to the House, at considerable length, on the Second Reading, and if my noble friend would like to refer to my speech on that occasion he will see it. There are two simple reasons. The first is that swans, curiously enough—although again I did not know it before—are often given as presents to foreigners by the Queen as one of her own swans, and therefore the right has a contemporary use. The second reason is that on the River Thames the swan-upping ceremony involves the rights of at least two City Companies, and therefore cannot be dealt with simply by abolishing the Royal prerogative. All three bodies value their current use of swans. Therefore, the prerogative in regard to swans cannot be said to be wholly obsolete, as the prerogative in relation to fish can be said to be.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I have much enjoyed this debate this evening not least in the closing stages when the noble and learned Lord suggested that I was even more obscurantist than he is himself, something which I should have thought was utterly impossible, and I am going to tell my wife that she is probably more correct than I had ever thought her in the past. The noble and learned Lord has quite consistently evaded the main point at issue throughout. I
1442
may have defined or used the word "machinery" to include more than perhaps he thinks it includes. But the machinery to which I was referring was the right of the Crown to be in possession of the whales when they come ashore. That, I believe all the noble Lords who have spoken think, with the Natural History Museum, is essential; and the noble and learned Lord has never once answered that point all the way through. But he has gone off on to one or two tangents, including pointing out, very rightly, that the law as it is applied to Scotland is not the same as the law as it is applied to England. He uses the old-fashioned term of the oxen and the wain; the modern one, which is used by the coastguards and others up there, is exceeding 26 feet from the tail to the snout.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does that not show my noble friend, if anything would, that that particular machinery has nothing whatever to do with the law? The law says "a wain with six oxen", not "26 feet from the snout to the tail".
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I am afraid that, whatever the law says, that is the machinery which is now used in Scotland. And the remarkably interesting thing about Scotland is that the number of royal fish reported was 31, as opposed to 23 in England and Wales, over the years 1958 to 1966—that is to say, a larger number of royal fish in Scotland than in England, as one would expect, since the coastline of Scotland is about twice as long as is that of England and Wales.
When we get back to the non-royal fish who will get on the wain, the numbers are almost exactly reversed. We have 132 from Scotland; 232 from England—almost double the number from half the coastline. It is quite clear that the right in royal fish makes a tremendous difference in the numbers which are reported to the Museum and which enable us to do work that we could not otherwise do. He referred also to the fact, which is correct, that there is a large number of individuals and statutory bodies and others—the Prince of Wales in the right of the Duchy of Cornwall; the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; the City of Rochester; and there is somebody who lives at the Wapentake of Holderness in Yorkshire—all of whom

1443
have the same rights in these fish. But it is the mere fact that they have the rights of possession of them, of which they are exceedingly jealous, that the Museum has to take into account every time. They hang on to these fish tenaciously, and enable us to get them, when otherwise they might be taken away on a wain or what-not by some other person who had no right in them.
This is an important thing in that part—I cannot recollect whether the noble and learned Lord said it was 20 per cent.—of the coastline in England. It is exceedingly
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("including") insert ("whales or")—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD INGLEWOOD: There is one point which has troubled me and which
useful that these people use their right which they derive from the prerogative, and the prerogative I think is as useful to us. The noble and learned Lord has not attempted to meet the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, or any of the rest of us, and I hope that in the Division your Lordships will support me.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 53, Not-Contents 30.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Phillips, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Rockley, L.

Auckland, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Audley, Bs.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Beswick, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Birk, Bs.

Hood, V.

Shackleton, L.

Boothby, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sherfied, L.

Collison, L.

Inglewood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Janner, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Teviot, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Diamond, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Amory, V.

Ferriers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strange of Knockin, Bs.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (Lord Chancellor.)

Tenby, V.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

Waldergrave, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

I should like to have cleared up. We see in Clause 1:
"The forest law is hereby abrogated, except in so far as it relates to the appointment and functions of verderers."
There are then other references to the forest law, and a Schedule of enactments to be repealed, starting with the year 1297. What worries me is whether any part of Magna Charta is being swept away, together with the mediæval "legal lumber" to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred It may well be that there are parts of Magna Charta which deserve to be swept

1445
away, but if that is so I thank it is right and proper that it should be made clear to the people of this country what in fact we are doing.
Admittedly Magna Charta was dated 1215 (I think) but so far as I can find out from quickly consulting a work of reference, the Charter of King Edward I, dated 1297, referred to at the beginning of the Schedule of enactments to be repealed, included a reprint of Magna Charta. Therefore, I feel that my question is pertinent and I should like an answer to it, not only for my own curiosity but because I think we should give information on this point to a wider circle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do my best. Magna Charta, by which I mean the original Charter of John, has not been on the Statute Book for the last 700 years. What is on the Statute Book are the various reaffirmations of it by subsequent Sovereigns, and so far as I know the answer to my noble friend's question is to be seen in the second item on the Schedule. The relevant Statute is 25 Edward I (Confirmation of the Charters) Act, where the words "Charter of the Forest" are repealed and no other part is repealed—the Charter of the Forest representing what I sought to describe in Second Reading. So far as I know there is nothing else of the surviving clauses of Magna Charta which would be affected by this particular Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? My noble friend Lord Stow Hill had intended to query some of the wording in subsection (3). I do not ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to construe it, because my complaint is that although no doubt it is susceptible of construction it might be drafted a little more intelligently. I am not querying the use of the words "fence month" or "winter heyning", which have meanings to those who live in such parts of the world as the New Forest, but the wording does seem to be a little like modern "legal lumber".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I will look at it again if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wants me to do so, but I think this is just clearing the ground, and clearing the ground with the appropriate
1446
words. I do not think we shall ever read it again if we pass it. We shall read it several times if we do not.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, column 3, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert ("In chapter 13 the words 'et sturgiones.'")—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, leave out lines 37 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In a Bill such as this which deals with forest laws, it is not unnatural that there will be laws in the Schedule which concern the New Forest, legislation which is complex and multitudinous, and I welcome the fact that so many of the Acts are being taken out. I raised one point on the Second Reading on the urging of our New Forest Rural District and Ringwood and Fordingbridge Councils, who expressed concern that public works of importance to the Forest, such as sewage works and so on, would be unreasonably delayed owing to the fact that they will no longer have powers to get land without common rights. I believe that one of the problems is that when the land was vested in the Forestry Commission they could not exercise their powers, owing to the fact that the ownership is still under the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to repeat everything I said on Second Reading, and my main object in putting down this Amendment to-day is to give the noble and learned Lord the opportunity to explain a little more the point that is causing concern to the Rural District Councils.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I endeavoured to help my noble friend on the Second Reading, and I am not sure I can say a great deal more than I said then. The position is that this Act of 1902 which is being repealed by the Schedule is completely inoperative at the present time and has been incapable of being operated since 1945. The Act of

1447
1902 gave the Commissioners of Woods, as I think they were called at that time, certain powers to acquire land. In 1923 those powers were transferred to the Forestry Commissioners. Under Section 4(5) of the Forestry Act 1945 the New Forest was vested in the Minister of Agriculture, but, unfortunately or fortunately, intentionally or unintentionally—and all my researches fail to reveal which of those alternatives is correct—the powers given by the 1902 Act, which were visibly extant in 1945, were not transferred with the New Forest to the Minister of Agriculture. So he has not got them now, and even if the Amendment were passed, like the last Amendment, he would not have them then. He has not got the powers because it would have required a different provision in the Forestry Act 1945 to give him them. So the Act of 1902 is now left in the legal attic without any operation or capability of being operated.
It may or may not be desirable—I really do not know, because it is well outside any Department I have ever operated—that the Minister of Agriculture or his successor should have the power to own land (I forget whether it is for sewerage or graveyard, but for some limited purpose) in the New Forest; but, if he ought to have that power, it will have to be given to him by a new Statute initiated by himself. It cannot be given to him by retaining this spent Statute on the Statute Book. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will go back to his local authority and explain to them what I have said, and say that he has done a great service to them and to the New Forest by airing the point that the Labour Government of 1945 failed to transfer the powers which previously resided in the Commissioners to their Minister of Agriculture, and that it would require fresh legislation to invest him with such powers. I hope that will satisfy my noble friend. This is yet another illustration to the Committee of the kind of rubbish that exists on the Statute Book and which I am diligently attempting to remove.
LORD SHACKLETON: I take it that the noble and learned Lord, having noted the failure of the Labour Government in 1945, is now giving virtually an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu
1448
of Beaulieu, to facilitate a Bill to restore those powers, or the appropriate powers. Clearly, the noble and learned Lord and his friends missed their opportunity during the 13 years when they were in office. But since, on the whole, we have enough politics, not of a party kind, in the New Forest, I would hesitate to carry this point too far. None the less, these are matters on which there are very strong feelings and are not to be dealt with lightly.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, who obviously is anxious to do a service to the New Forest and these particular councils, has succeeded so well as perhaps the noble and learned Lord thinks, because what he really wants to do is to get the matter put right. It seems to me that leaving this provision in the Bill does not achieve very much, but I take it that we shall see the appropriate legislation at an early stage. I am not sure whether it will be Private Bill legislation or Public Bill legislation, but it would be useful to know if the Government would facilitate this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of my right honourable friend. I do not know on what grounds or for what purpose these powers are required. This is a question of policy. I am concerned only with the Bill, which deals with so many spent Statutes and is getting rid of them because they are spent. If my noble friend would like to get in touch with my right honourable friend, I will use whatever good offices I possess to assist him. I am not able to say now whether the Minister of Agriculture should have the powers or not. It may have been an act of statesmanship on the part of the Labour Government in 1945 to refuse to transfer them. Perhaps it was a part of the business of receding from areas of Government. All I am saying is that it cannot be effected this way, and all I am concerned with now is this Bill and this Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I would take the opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Lord for his advice and his statement on this matter. I think it has been useful to raise this anomaly. So far as I know, the reason why the district councils are concerned is that when they wish, for instance, to extend a sewage works they encounter great

1449
delay. Last time it took two years to negotiate with the Forestry Commission, and what was desired could only be done by an exchange of land. Obviously it causes concern that vital public works are delayed. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice, and hope that it will be looked at by the appropriate authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
7.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 18 agreed to.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Duties of Board and Secretary of State as to radiation hazards and safety precautions
".—(1) Nothwithstanding anything contained in section 1 of the Radiological Protection Act 1970, it shall be the duty of the Board therein referred to, in addition to carrying out the functions and exercising the powers referred to in that section, to carry out the following additional functions:—

(a) from time to time as and when necessary to inquire into and examine the proceedings and undertakings of the Nuclear Fuels Company and the Radio-Chemical Company (in this section referred to as the said companies) and all premises in and plant and equipment by the use of which
1450
such proceedings and undertakings are carried out by the said companies and for that purpose as and when necessary to require the said companies to afford the Board all proper facilities for inspection including inspection of any documents and records in the possession or control of such companies, and

(b) to provide information and advice to the said companies and make any recommendations that the Board thinks desirable as to the steps to be taken by the said companies for the protection of the community as a whole or the protection of any particular sections of the community (including particular individuals whether or not in the employment of or likely to be employed by the said companies) against radiation hazards, and

(c) the said companies shall afford all such facilities of inspection to the Board and shall have regard to all such information and advice provided by the Board and shall comply with all said recommendations made by the Board.

(2) The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (herein referred to as the said Secretary of State) shall as soon as may be after the transfers of the undertakings of the Authority referred to in sections 1 and 2 of this Act and thereafter from time to time as and when necessary give directions to the said companies requiring them to take such safety precautions as seem to the said Secretary of State to be appropriate in the conduct of the said undertakings in order to prevent risk of injury or harm to the community as a whole or any particular sections of the community (including particular individuals whether or not in the employment of or likely to be employed by the said companies) or of damage to property as the result of the conduct by the said companies of the said undertakings and the said companies shall comply with any said directions.
(3) The said companies shall afford to any person duly authorised in writing in that behalf by the said Secretary of State all facilities for inspection, including inspection of any documents and records in their possession or control, as may be required of the said companies by notice in writing by such duly authorised person."
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the length of this Amendment. Its purpose is quite simple, but when put into what appears to be appropriate language it seems rather long. The first subsection of this new clause is concerned with the function of the body set up last year under the Radiological Protection Act. The National Radiological Protection Board was set up to deal with all dangers which arise from radiation. This first subsection makes it clear, I hope, that that Board should at all times be brought in in connection with the work of Nuclear Fuels Limited and of the Radiochemical Company, so as to advise

1451
them and to ensure that all their work is done with the minimum danger from radiation.
I should perhaps explain that the Radiological Protection Act, under which was set up the National Radiological Protection Board, removed from the Atomic Energy Authority and from the Medical Research Company the work concerned with radiological protection and transferred it to this new Board. Thus, this particular subsection proposes that the work of guarding against radiation should be handed over to this body, which should be able to intervene at any stage in the proceedings and undertakings of Nuclear Fuels Limited and of the Radiochemical Company.
The second subsection deals with an allied matter, but one that has not been dealt with by legislation. After the well-known Windscale accident, and after the Report of the Fleck Committee, there was set up within the Atomic Energy Authority a body called the Health and Safety Branch. This branch was in part responsible for dealing with risks from radiation. It was also responsible for design and safety in design of reactors. The first part of its work has been hived off to the National Radiological Protection Board, but the second part of its work remains under the Atomic Energy Authority, as the Health and Safety Branch of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Under the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, by which Nuclear Fuels Limited is set up and will concern itself with installation, there is no longer any provision for direct contact between the Health and Safety Branch of the Atomic Energy Authority and this new body, Nuclear Fuels Limited. This House agreed with the general principles of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, and there is no question of raising the general matters with which the Bill is now concerned. But this particular point is the crucial one of safety in design. It is not a matter of protection against radiation, which is covered by the bringing into being of the National Radiological Protection Board.
The second subsection deals entirely with the question of design. In the past, when reactors have been designed the Health and Safety Branch has been brought in order to help in the design,
1452
and to advise on details with regard to the design. These details may not be matters directly concerned with the radial elements that are being used in the nuclear reactor, but they are concerned with those factors of safety which are essential to guarantee that the working of the reactor shall be as nearly as is humanly possible free from the danger of accident. Unless we ensure that this is done, I submit that we take the risk of an accident occurring: we are failing to take all reasonable precautions.
This is a reasonable precaution; it is one which has been taken in the past, and it is one which can be controlled by means of a body such as the Health and Safety Branch, which will now be an independent body. It will no longer be an actual part of the company which is dealing with installations, nor indeed with any private contractors; it will be directly under the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Therefore, the second subsection proposes that the services of this body should be utilised. That is the purpose of subsections (2) and (3) of this proposed new clause.
If I am asked whether it is necessary to have any provision like this, I submit that in the past it has proved extremely useful and that the evidence at the present time is that, however carefully reactors are designed, something may go wrong. It may be said that this is unlikely; but, on the other hand, in the last year two things have gone wrong. In one case some bolts corroded. I cannot speak with absolute certainty, but I guess that these were mild steel bolts and that they were corroded because of carbon dioxide, which will attack iron if the temperature is high enough.
More recently, with regard to the Hartlepool reactor, it has been found that the caps for the pressure chambers have to be replaced—this is after design. I believe I am right in saying that the Health and Safety Branch suggested in the early stages of the design that the caps ought to be differently constructed. Their advice was not taken and the construction went ahead. The Inspectorate have now condemned the caps, and I am told that the Inspectorate have made certain suggestions which involve even more radical changes. It is not cheap to alter construction after you have commenced it. It is surely more reasonable to have

1453
the best advice at the earliest possible stage. You may still make mistakes, but at least you minimise the possibility of making mistakes. Therefore I believe it to be important to ensure that what we have already built up should not fail to operate in the best possible and the most intimate way at the earliest stage. I beg to move.
LORD SHERFIELD: I yield to no one in my desire that nuclear installations should be entirely secure, and I sympathise with the general position of the noble Lord on this matter. However, I seriously doubt whether these Amendments are necessary. It seems to me that the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 sets up fully adequate machinery for licensing, inspection and the protection of the public, and that includes the matter of design of reactors, to which the noble Lord particularly referred.
Therefore, it is, as I think, undesirable to set up parallel machinery, with all the proliferation of reports, inspections, and bureaucratic procedures, which would, if I am not mistaken, involve reporting to a different Minister. The nuclear fuel companies have a very heavy job to do, and I do not think that they should be subjected to more red tape than is absolutely necessary. I raise this doubt because I think that one does not want two separate lines of authority, advice, report, and so on, when the Nuclear Installations Act, as it appears to me, fully safeguards the position.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: May I ask the noble Lord where, in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, these safeguards were introduced? I failed to find them.
LORD SHERFIELD: Under Section 4(1)(b), the licence may in particular include provision:
"with respect to the design, siting, construction, installation, operation, modification and maintenance of any plant or other installation on, or to be installed on, the site."
I do not want to go into details on this. I merely raise this doubt in my mind as to whether these Amendments are really necessary. If they are not really necessary, then I do not think that they should be included in the legislation.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I may, I should like very briefly to support the Amendment which has been put
1454
forward by my noble friend, and to express at any rate the hope that the Government will give some further consideration to it, if they do not at this stage feel able to accept it. It appears to me that it is in line with the Amendment which the Government themselves are proposing to Clause 19. In the light of that. I hope that the Government can look favourably upon this Amendment.
8.4 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for raising this very important question of safety, and for taking the immense amount of trouble that he obviously has taken in inquiring into this, and drafting the Amendment that he has put down. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the Government entirely accept the purpose of the Amendment; but I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that all the necessary machinery already exists to achieve that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was quite right in saying that the Nuclear Installations Act really governs this matter. Before anyone other than the Atomic Energy Authority can construct, or operate, a nuclear installation, a licence is needed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. This applies to all installations with potential radiation hazards, including plants for processing nuclear fuel and irradiated matter. Thus, all the plants to be transferred will need to be licensed before the new companies can lawfully operate them. Such licences are not transferable; only the licensee can operate such plants.
Under Section 4 of the Act the Secretary of State is obliged to attach such conditions as he considers necessary, or desirable, in the interests of safety. He may at any time thereafter attach such further conditions as he considers necessary, or desirable, in the interests of safety. He may also vary or revoke those conditions at any time. He may at any time attach to a nuclear site conditions with regard to the handling, treatment and disposal of nuclear matter.
The mandatory conditions attached to a site licence, as my noble friend Lord Sherfield said, cover the design, siting, construction, installation, operation, modification and maintenance of any plant or

1455
other installation installed, or to be installed, on the site as well as to emergency measures. The hazards of radiation are recognised as being so important, and so serious, that nothing can be done on a nuclear site except either by the Atomic Energy Authority, or with the express permission of the Secretary of State, and subject to the conditions he prescribes in writing. There are specified penalties under the Act for any contravention.
The question is how this works in practice. It may be that it does not work perfectly, and that improvements are taking place all the time; but it does mean that licences are granted, and the conditions may be imposed in relation to each separate stage. The conditions are not granted once and for all. Such conditions as are necessary, and that need to be imposed, can be imposed by the inspectorate, in the name of the Secretary of State, at any time during the course of the construction of a nuclear plant of any kind. The Inspectorate has to be satisfied that before any plant starts to be constructed the design is safe. All the relevant details, with supporting calculations, have to be submitted, and designs are stringently checked by the Inspectorate in independent safety assessments before construction is allowed to proceed.
The licensee has to meet all the conditions in the licence which may relate to, among other things, approvals at various stages. Apart from that, it is for him to decide at what stages the design should be submitted for safety approval. The licensee has every interest in ensuring the safety of the equipment and the plant he operates, and has every interest in getting the best possible advice for that purpose. On him is placed an absolute liability for any damage from radiation resulting from the operation of any plant of his. Moreover, any modification or alteration required by the Inspectorate, as the noble Lord himself said, can be very expensive, and this again is a consideration that the licensee is bound to have in mind. He will certainly want to have the best advice at all stages, and to have the continuing approval of the Inspectorate.
It has also to be remembered that the design of nuclear plant owes a very great deal to the research and development carried
1456
out by the A.E.A. itself at its various plants. I pointed out on a previous occasion that within these plants—quite a number of them, Windscale and Spring-fields, for example—there will be enclaves of Atomic Energy Authority personnel and they, in turn, will be working on the advice of the Health and Safety Branch.
There is one point I should like to make in passing. The noble Lord said that the Health and Safety Branch, as I understood him, will, for the first time, be independent. This is not so. The Health and Safety Branch has always been independent. It has always had direct access to the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority himself, and it is upon this independence that its value very largely depended.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: If the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, I was aware of that point. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean that it would be independent of the Authority, or not independent, in the sense of having access to the Minister, but rather that for the first time it would be separated from the constructional side. In the past, when any construction was carried out, it was necessarily carried out in conjunction with the Health and Safety Branch, whereas with the setting up of the new Nuclear Fuels Company that is not inevitable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not quite understand the argument that it is not necessarily independent vis-à-vis whoever it is advising. It seems to me that the whole essence of an adviser in these matters is that he should be independent, and the Health and Safety Branch is independent in this respect. It is independent in advising the A.E.A. and it will be equally independent in advising anybody else.
I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that the appropriate advisory and controlling body is the Inspectorate. He has put forward an Amendment which places upon the Radiological Protection Board an obligation to do certain things. He is quite right in saying that that Board was set up for research, to give advice and as a source of information. But it was not set up to inspect, and it does not have the machinery to inspect. It is not the Board's function to do so, and I do not think it would be effective if it

1457
did. In any event, it would be anomalous for such duties to be exercised only in respect of these two companies.
There are other kinds of inspection involved besides the Nuclear Installations Act. The Factories Acts and the various orders made under them provide for the protection of employees in the atomic field, and under these Acts there will be appropriate inspection. There are other provisions controlling the discharge of radioactive effluents and the transport of radioactive materials. As regards reactors and nuclear plant safety, I should make it plain that the Bill does not affect the reactor design and construction companies, or the Generating Boards. The effect here is upon the companies to which the undertakings are being transferred. Nor does it affect the way in which they get the best advice they can in order to satisfy the rigorous standards of the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations. The nuclear safety record in this country gives no grounds at all for apprehension. It is a fact that no new technology has ever been introduced with the attention that has been given to safety in the nuclear industry. Of course the potential hazards justify this attention, but the successful efforts of those responsible in all sections of the industry are attested by the excellent safety record.
There are 16 power reactors operated by the Generating Boards, and 11 operated by the A.E.A at the present time; and altogether, I am told, they have accumulated over 200 reactor years of operational experience. A further 10 reactors are under construction for the Generating Boards. All that the noble Lord's Amendment would do is first, to place on the Radiological Protection Board an obligation which it is not in a position to carry out; and, secondly, to place on the Secretary of State an obligation to do something which he is already doing. The Amendment does not mention the Health and Safety Branch, but the Secretary of State can get such advice as he requires from a number of sources. He can get it not only from the Safeguards Division, but from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, which is able to advise him on all aspects of nuclear safety.
In these circumstances, I do not think that the noble Lord can argue, from the
1458
fact that there have been some technical failures through corrosion which was not foreseen—or even that there has perhaps been a hold-up in the construction of the Hartlepool generating station—that the present safety provisions are in any way defective. Nor, I suggest, has he established that they are likely to be any more ineffective when the Nuclear Fuels Company and the Radiochemical Company are set up: because in each of them there will be very close control of what may be done at each stage. As regards the handling of radioactive materials, there are conditions attached to this, and if the method of handling is modified or altered in any way it will have to be approved by the Inspectorate. I hope that I have succeeded in convincing the noble Lord, first, that the safety precautions will be adequate; and, secondly, that in any case his Amendment would not do what he thinks it would do.
8.18 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I must thank both the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for taking the trouble to deal with this matter seriously and in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has asked me whether I am satisfied, and the answer is, not completely. He has certainly reassured me that it is the Government's intention to take all precautions. I have been trying to suggest that one important precaution is to make use of the existing Health and Safety Branch at the design stage, which is a very important matter, and I am still not happy that that will be effectively done. I used the word "independent", and may I explain once more, since I failed to do so earlier, that what I meant was that so long as one had one body, the Atomic Energy Authority, which included within itself the Health and Safety Branch with an independent right of appeal to the Minister and direct access to him, that Branch was still within the Atomic Energy Authority and was therefore necessarily brought in on all matters of design carried out by the Authority. With the hiving off of the commercial side of the Authority's work, there is now a break for the Health and Safety Branch, and that was the sense in which I used the word.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In so far as there is a break, that has already taken place because of the setting up of the nuclear construction companies, and to a large extent it was for the purpose of regulating the commercial industry that the Nuclear Installations Act was enacted.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Yes, but I think one does not improve matters by having a further divorce. I should have preferred to see a still closer link brought in, and to have this health and safety branch brought in also with the commercially constructed reactors. But that, unfortunately, is not within the Bill which we are discussing to-day. It would not, I think, be possible for me to raise it in a wider way at the present time; I am doing the best I can. Obviously, if the Government are not prepared to do this, I shall have to be content with whatever the Government are prepared to do. I do not propose to force the matter further, but I suggest to the Government that it is highly important that all precautions are taken, and are seen to be taken, because we are going to be faced (and I suspect that the oil position to-day is going to make it pretty rapid) with a considerable development of nuclear energy stations. I should like to see our production of electricity going over as rapidly as possible to nuclear stations. I am very much in favour of them, just as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is; and it is precisely because I am enthusiastic about them that I want to be certain that there will not be any accident and that all precautions are taken.
I would urge the Government to pay some attention to this matter, because although I am not involved in it and am really ignorant about it, I can say that I am informed by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that they have been worried about it and that they have been pressing this very same point. They are people who are engaged, or some of them are, in this very work: I am not. They know much more about it than I do. I consulted them only to-day, so I raised the matter quite independently, without having consulted them in the first place. But, having started the thing going, I felt I must pursue it as much as I could, and the more I have pursued it the more satisfied I have been that every precaution should be taken and that there is still some unease that precautions
1460
which could be taken may in future lapse. Therefore, while appreciating that the Government are unlikely to accept all that is in this new clause, I would urge the noble Lord to do all that he can to make certain that these precautions are taken. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Application of security provisions to companies established in connection with agreement on gas centrifuge process]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 17, line 13, leave out ("5 and") and insert ("and 4 to").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to improve security arrangements under the Bill in one particular aspect. Under this clause, the Secretary of State is empowered to make an order designating any company registered in the United Kingdom which appears to him to have been formed in pursuance of the Tripartite Gas Centrifuge Agreement between this country, the Netherlands and West Germany. As sub-section (1) of the clause is at present drafted, the effect of designating such a company will be to apply to it the security provisions at paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the Schedule. The purpose of this Amendment is to apply paragraph 4, also, and the reason for it is this.
Under the centrifuge agreement, two international companies will be formed. The prime contractor, whose headquarters will be in Germany, will co-ordinate research and development and will design and install enrichment plant. The enrichment organisation, whose headquarters will be in this country, will operate centrifuge plants and sell an enrichment service to customers. The enrichment organisation will require a permit under the Amendment in Clause 17 to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and, once a permit has been granted, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to direct that the security provisions in the Schedule shall apply. But it is expected that it will not be until a year to 18 months after the enrichment organisation has been established that the stage will be reached at which it could apply for and receive a permit. During this interim period the organisation will be receiving classified

1461
information from its shareholders under the centrifuge agreement. Thus, to enable the Government to fulfil their obligations, an additional provision is required in the Bill to enable the appropriate security paragraphs of the Schedule to be applied to the enrichment organisation during this period.
The Government now believe that the present wording of the clause does not go quite far enough, in that it fails to provide for special constables of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary to guard the premises of the enrichment organisation during the interim period to which I have referred. This, therefore, is the purpose of the Amendment, and I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given of this modest but useful and necessary Amendment, and we are of course glad to see it incorporated in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Pension schemes]:
8.27 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert ("as well as to
(c) officers and other persons taken into the employment of the Science Research Council subsequent to 31st March 1969 to work on research in astro-physics at the Authority's Laboratory at Culham or at any Science Research Council establishment (whether or not while in the employment of the Science Research Council they cease to be engaged in those activities).")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond. The clause before us deals with the superannuation provisions for astrophysics staff employed by the Science Research Council, and this modest Amendment widens to a limited degree the discretion which the Council will have in dealing with the superannuation of this group of staff. Until April, 1969, work on astrophysics was the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority and was done at their Culham establishment in Oxfordshire. As from that month the responsibility for the work was transferred to the Science Research
1462
Council which also took over the astro-physics staff. But both the work and the staff remained, and remain, at Culham, forming, in effect, a small S.R.C. enclave within the establishment there.
Clause 20(6) as written at present allows for the S.R.C. astrophysics staff who were employed by the Authority prior to March 31, 1969, to remain in the Authority's pension scheme. There has been, I am informed, one person recruited since March 31, bringing the total staff engaged on this work up to 35; but he, and of course future recruits, would be given Civil Service pension conditions. The case which I wish to put forward is that all the Science Research Council staff employed on this work should be covered, or there should be scope for them to be covered, by the Atomic Energy Authority's superannuation scheme, including those recruited after March 31, 1969.
Now the Science Research Council employs some 2,000 staff. Approximately half of them, I understand, are currently in the Atomic Energy Authority's scheme; half are covered by Civil Service terms. There exists a very clear precedent for what I am seeking to establish by this Amendment. That precedent was established when the Science Research Council itself was established in 1965 and took over, among other staff, 1,200 who were employed in the Rutherford Laboratory and the Daresbury Laboratory, which until then had been part of the National Institute for Research into Nuclear Science. In 1965, the Government accepted that it was reasonable for Science Research Council staff to retain A.E.A. superannuation terms both in the case of existing staff and—this is the vital point—in the case of new entrants.
This was effected by the terms of a clause in the Science and Technology Act 1965. What I am in effect urging is that the Science Research Council should be allowed the same powers to extend the Atomic Energy Authority Superannuation scheme to recruits after March 31, 1969, in the Astrophysics Group at Culham as they already have in relation to the staff at the Rutherford and Daresbury laboratories. Indeed, the working of this Amendment is closely modelled on the comparable provision in the Science and Technology Act. It resembles the provisions of that Act on this point in being permissive and not mandatory. The

1463
grounds for applying the authority pension scheme to all the staff employed in the Rutherford laboratory are equally applicable, indeed, more applicable, in the case of the staff who are the subject of this Amendment. In the case of the Rutherford laboratory it was an important factor that they were working very close to the staff at Harwell; in the present case the new staff concerned will actually be an enclave in the establishment at Culham.
I have been putting this, in a sense, on the grounds of substance. I want to underline the fact that the Amendment proposed is permissive and not mandatory. Indeed, its purpose and effect is to leave the door open for this matter to be determined by the Science Research Council in consultation with the appropriate trade unions. If the Amendment is not included, then the door is closed to the consideration of entrants after March 31, 1969.
Two arguments appear to have been used in resisting this proposal. The first has been that on the previous occasion in 1965 the predominant consideration in the mind of the then Government in making the provision to which I have referred was that this gave a recruitment advantage. Without going into this in detail, I think that if one looks at the record it will be clear that the recruitment argument, although one of those which carried weight with the then Government, was not the sole consideration in their mind. The second argument has been that it is not normal practice for the staff of one employer to be covered for superannuation purposes by the scheme of another employer. Again, I think one could deploy arguments at considerable length on this subject. In fact, there have been a number of cases where this has happened in the case of staff who were formerly with the Atomic Energy Authority; and in several cases when the staff have been put into other organisations the principle has been accepted of allowing them to continue to be embraced within the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. I can give examples of that if necessary.
If you look at Clause 20(3) of the present Bill you see that it permits those companies to establish superannuation
1464
schemes, separate from the scheme of the Atomic Energy Authority, but it does not compel them so to do. This is a modest Amendment. It is one on which there is feeling by the staff organisations concerned, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the lucid way in which he has moved this particular Amendment. I think that he has summed up the arguments on both sides. I have read the arguments put forward in another place on this question, and I have also had the benefit of a discussion with representatives of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. I am not persuaded by all the arguments which have been advanced in favour of allowing future recruits to the Science Research Council unit at Culham to enter the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme. It seems to me that the arguments which the noble Lord put forward apply very much to the staff formerly with the A.E.A. but that the extension to other staff is another matter. It is also a fact that people who are not employed by A.E.A. can enter A.E.A. pension schemes only if there is statutory permission for them to do so.
I can see the force of the argument that the Bill should leave this question open, in the same way that it is still left open at the Science Research Council establishment at Daresbury, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Science and Technology Act 1965. For that reason the Government are preparing an Amendment for tabling at the Report stage. The reasons for not accepting the Amendment put down are, first, that it is rather widely drawn by its reference to any Science Research Council establishment and, second, that the wording and structure of the Amendment do not fit very easily into the present wording of subsection (6). The purpose of the Government Amendment will be to provide an enabling power and it will not itself imply any judgment on the merits of the question whether recruits to the Science Research Council unit at Culham after March 31, 1969, should be able to join the A.E.A. pension scheme. With this assurance of a Government Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, it appears that the Amendment that is being prepared will completely meet the substance of the case that I was seeking to put forward. That being so, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord for his consideration of the matter and the action he proposes to take, and to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 25 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

  IMMIGRATION LAWS AND U.K. CITIZENS OVERSEAS
  IMMIGRATION LAWS AND U.K. CITIZENS OVERSEAS